Opposition #4:
Here it comes. The scientific evidence supporting the fact that Homosexuality is not a choice. There was a blind study done which involved the brain of a deceased straight man and the brain of a deceased gay man. The cell cluster was much larger in gay men than in straight men. There were huge differences in the structure of a gay brain versus a straight brain. To put it simply, the gay man's brain was shaped the way a straight woman's brain is, whereas a gay woman's brain was shaped the way a straight man's is. It was, no disrespect intended, almost as if the wrong brain had been dropped into the body.
not sure if we are talking of the same study here, because i've read in my psychology book a case similar to this. apparently, the homosexual man's hypothalamus was three times smaller than that of his heterosexual counterpart. surprisingly, a woman's hypothalamus is also three times smaller than that of a man's!
in any case, i personally don't think that this study in itself is enough to prove sexual orientation to be biological. after all, the brains compared were those of deceased persons. who's to say that it isn't the decay of cells that caused the homosexual man's brain to look different from the heterosexual man's?
but over-all, i do agree with most of your points.
i'm perhaps one of the very few christians who believe that, although the Bible is the "doorway to salvation" (or something like that), it was also used as a cultural tool (particularly, the Old Testament) by the jews thousands of years ago to probably "distinguish" themselves as a group. hence, why the Old Testament forbids people from wearing clothing made from certain threads, and eating certain kinds of seafoods.
that passage from leviticus, in particular, the one about forbidding man to lie with another man "as he would a woman" only forbids one side of homosexuality! it doesn't say anything about lesbianism
at all!
jokes aside, we should look at the context of when the Bible was written. thousands of years ago, women were only "second class" compared to men, and were thus inferior. therefore, it would be rather understandable to see why men wouldn't want to be treated like women, like second class citizens (there are actually more stuff dealing with the sexual nature of the act, like how much of a "disgrace" it would be if a man were to submit himself to another man, but i digress)!
there is this wonderful article i found on the internet a long time ago. it was written by a gay priest to his friend. if i recall correctly, it was entitled, "a letter to louise." i would really suggest for everyone to read it. it really stresses the important fact that, although the Bible contains many truths (at least, for catholics, christians, and jews), it is also prone to bias as it was written by men who, while writing it, had lived in varying cultures and time periods. :-)
