A simple test of immutability

gaybishops

Gays claim that homosexuality is innate, genetic and immutable, just like being a woman or an person of color. They have used that [mis]information to deceive quite a few people and even rail against people who have changed. Such characteristics, they say are God-given and cannot and shouldn’t be changed. Like their political counterparts, the gay christian movement claims that there is no need to repent or change from something which God created. But the critical aspect of the question isnt really change, it is origin. Determining origin determines legitimacy. Immutability is defined as “the quality of being unchangeable; having a marked tendency to remain unchanged.” Thus, one’s race and gender are understood to be unalterable based on predetermined factors which contribute significantly to one’s identity. Of course because of sin, there exists the possibility that all things contain some malfunction. With gender, based on the disposition of X or Y chromosomes one receives their gender assignment. In some rare cases, issues go awry and people are born with a gender abnormality. We addressed that here.

A simple test
With the Episcopal church moving at breakneck speed to get more gay bishops in position, we thought it made for a good teaching moment. The Episcopal diocese of Los Angeles recently announced six candidates (pictured) for bishop. Two of them are homosexual.

Here’s a simple test.

(1) Without doing any research or googling, which two of the six can you identify just by sight as being genetically homosexual?

(2) Which two of the six genetically are people of color?

(3) Which three of the six are genetically female?

Based on the common definition of immutability, could you easily identify the females and people of color? Based on the same criteria could you easily identify the homosexuals? Why or why not?

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “A simple test of immutability

  1. 1- I don’t know if I can tell who’s genetically homosexual. That’s just like asking to choose which are genetically double-jointed. Some things you just can’t see.
    But if I were to take a stab at it, I’d say #2 & #4 are homosexual.

    2 – Actually, there are a possible 3 that are people of color, not just 2. (#s 3-5-6)

    3 – numbers 1 – 3 are female.

    But i’ve seen women that looked so much like men, i couldn’t tell the difference.

    GCMW: behold, word to the wise: you are on probation and a very shaky one at that. Just to be upfront with you. Having said that, the critieria for determination is based on the definition of immutability, not experiential supposition. Maybe you missed that.

  2. Honestly Pastor Foster they all look homosexual I cannot identify a straight person in those pictures.

    Question—> As a man of God I don’t get this, why would a straight man or woman of God submit themselves to sexually perverted leadership if there wasn’t something in their closet?

  3. first comment is pretty funny, so double jointed people are trying to prove genetically that thats how thy were born?

    Your point is on Point Pastor.

    My question is why is it genetics is only linked to homosexuality? Are there any other abnormal behaviors as far as morality that we can excuse with genetics.

  4. Robert you are better than me, I cant tell which one of them is.

    Why do you say that, what look do they have?

    You have some thug homosexuals nowadays and also some women who dont “look” at all gay are.

    curious?

  5. Robert, so youre saying based on the definition of immutability and simple sight test, you could easily identify the people of color and the females in the pictures, but you could not identify any homosexuals in the pictures?

  6. Okay, fun first:

    1. All of them.

    2. All of them (white is a color too)

    3. Thou Shalt Not Judge !!!!!

    Okay, okay, okay…..

    1. 0

    2. 2

    3. 3

    Pastor, I thought I was the only one who thought about doing a “test” like that!!! Here is the test I thought about:

    A boss equally hates black people, women, and homosexuals. A black heterosexual, a hispanic woman, and a white homosexual (who isn’t flaming) are the remaining applicants:

    1. Which one gets hired?

    2. Why does that one get the job?

    This is one of the subjects where the activists should just “keep it simple”. But doing so would certainly blow all of their supposed dialogue out of the water. As a matter of fact… God’s people should remember to keep it simple also !!!!!!!

  7. The definition of “immutable” is about whether or not the quality can be changed.

    The word “immutable,” as defined above and in common use, has nothing to do with whether a trait is visible on sight.

    Some immutable characteristics that you cannot see in a picture–

    Nation of origin
    Left or right-handedness
    Native language
    Ability / Disability

    No, you cannot recognize gay people exclusively by pictures of them. Point taken. But you also cannot always accurately judge male or female, or even race by appearance. On a genetic level, there is no such thing as race; the genes look exactly the same. Further, your sex is changeable in the modern world. While I am sure Paster Foster does not approve of sex changes, the fact remains that any person you see could, theoretically, have once been another sex, meaning you cannot always prove a person is female because they look female.

    At the end of the day, this question of whether or not a person looks gay has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not homosexuality is immutable or innate. Further, immutability is a much more important question in this debate than origin. The bible does not promise Christians that everything they were born with is ok, I freely grant. If homosexuality were proven to be genetic tomorrow, the debate would not end, because Christians would continue to argue that alcoholism is genetic but not acceptable. The Bible DOES however, promise that for every sin and temptation, God has provided a way out. If people are homosexuality is a definitive, immutable identity in which a person has no choice, then there is a direct conflict with the promise of Scripture–unless man has misinterpreted what God views to be sin.

  8. cyrano, all of the examples you listed can be changed, so Im not sure why youre defining them as immutable. You agreed that such things cannot be changed. To further clarify the even the possibility of change does not exist.

    Nation of origin – can be changed. Dont like Ireland, move to Japan
    Left or right-handedness – people learn to use both or the other
    Native language – a native language cant be changed?
    Ability / Disability – people overcome disabilities all the time

    But to be blunt, youre arguing a point that I havent made. I asked you to take a simple test and then respond accordingly. I think that you probably didnt want to do that because the simple answer would prove something you dont want to acknowledge.

  9. (1) Without doing any research or googling, which two of the six can you identify just by sight as being genetically homosexual?

    Just by looks, I’d say 2 & 4. And for obvious reasons to me Because she seems short on the feminine attributes, that women ought to have. The guy just has that, how you doing look about him.

    (2) Which two of the six genetically are people of color?

    3 & 5- Black & Latino

    (3) Which three of the six are genetically female?

    1, 2 & 3
    The look that #2 is sporting is quite over the top for someone that is suppose to be representing The Lord! Our looks ought to define our gender-translation men look like men, and women look like women

  10. Vaughn what exactly is the difference between 2 and 3 apart from skin colour and earrings?

    They both have a collar and actually number 2 is sporting a floral jacket which by standards of dress is much more feminine that a white coat.

    curious.

    How do we then describe the tatood black man with baggy jeans, dread locks,and grill that listen to gangsta rap music?

    Its an impossible task, if you guess right it is simply a guess.

  11. 1) Without doing any research or googling, which two of the six can you identify just by sight as being genetically homosexual?

    No.

    (2) Which two of the six genetically are people of color?

    3 and 5.

    (3) Which three of the six are genetically female?

    1, 2, and 3 – without pullin’ any pants down etc.. 🙂

    Based on the common definition of immutability, could you easily identify the females and people of color?

    Yes.

    Based on the same criteria could you easily identify the homosexuals? Why or why not?

    No, because homosexuality is certainly not immutable.

    🙂 Good stuff bro!

  12. here’s a nother thing that came to mind. All behavior is biological, so to say homosexuality is biological (innate, genetic and immutable), makes it no more morally correct than murder would be.

  13. Good grief it’s just a guess,

    lets not over-analyze our analysis. That is what a personal opinion is (my personal opinion)

    Survey says? Unless the survey is still saying

    Carry on

  14. #
    Paul N said:

    Robert you are better than me, I cant tell which one of them is.

    Why do you say that, what look do they have?

    You have some thug homosexuals nowadays and also some women who dont “look” at all gay are.

    Its more God given Discernment than anything, they all look spiritually afflicted in one way or another. Its not to bash them at all just an observation.

    curious?
    # 12 August 2009 at 4:09 pm
    #
    gcmwatch (author) said:

    Robert, so youre saying based on the definition of immutability and simple sight test, you could easily identify the people of color and the females in the pictures, but you could not identify any homosexuals in the pictures?

    Yes that is correct Pastor with the naked eye and no divine revelation I can easily tell with my 20/15 who is of color and the women. I’m not trying to make fun of them or insult them but to me any of the 6 could be homosexual, they all look spiritually afflicted.

  15. okay Robert, I gotcha. Thanks, thats all I was asking. I dont know about anyone else. I just wanted to see if the so called immutable sexual orientation hypothesis of the homosexual movement could pass a simple, human test.

    God is no fool and he confounds the “wisdom” of the world with simple things and simple wisdom, because it is divine.

    For the record 2 and 4 are homosexual. It struck me that the LA Times had to IDENTIFY the homosexuals in the picture because otherwise you really wouldnt know unless something out of the ordinary about their appearance gave it away.

    This is not the case with gender and race. If such things cannot pass a simple test of what is being told to us as “science”, this it is a base lie.

    We dont need studies and surveys and graphs and charts to know God’s truth. He has made it so plain only a fool would err.

  16. Thanks Robert!

    I have gotten confused over being born gay, is that because an individual feels that way or does it mean that it is genetic.

    I say that because many people who I talk to keep telling me about feelings and then others say it has been proven genetically, which is a lie obviously.

    I guess I really dont understand the mindset or justification fully.

  17. Cyrano…you are absolutely right.

    Origin…ancestry; parentage; extraction: to be of Scottish origin.

    Native language…of or pertaining to a language acquired by a person before or to the exclusion of any other language: Her native language is Greek.

    These are indeed things you cannot see in the pictures and cannot be changed. They are immutable.

  18. Again, the issue I raised was based on what is seen, not what is unseen. Cyrano juxtaposed that as a rebuttal but that was never the premise. I think that’s called a strawman. Interestingly, cyrano didnt answer the simple questions of the test.

    Maybe some folks dont get the concept of “simple”.

    Origin is the determinant in this case because God is originator/creator. Did God create or originate homosexuality? Not according to the scriptures. How then is it a legitimate “orientation”? on par with the color of one’s skin or one’s gender?

  19. Last I checked, genetics play a role in things that are not immediately apparent. For example, some people are genetically predisposed to certain diseases, like cancer.

    GCMW: So being gay is like having cancer? That’s an interesting comparison. Maybe we should have a race to raise money to cure homosexuality. This was a simple field test to see if so called unchangeable sexual orientation is comparable to gender and race. Why didnt you attempt to answer the questions?

    What you’re doing is more or less the same as asking me to find out which of the people pictured are allergic to cats. It’s not something you can know just from looking at a person.

    GCMW: So being gay is like being allergic to cats? Most folks hate being allergic. Another interesting parallel.

    That said, most of the scientific community has rejected the notion that there is a gay gene. However, there is still a staggering amount of evidence that suggests it’s the result of biological processes outside of one’s control.

    GCMW: You are wrong. Name one “scientific community” member which has openly and definitively disputed the gay gene theory. So called sexual orientation is just a renaming of the same.

  20. Amen to that Pastor its pretty bad when the LA Times has to identify for the reader who the homosexuals are, that says a lot for itself. The Truth of God will always outshine a lie and the gays who like to call themselves Christians don’t ever like Biblical truth when their sin is called into question.

    I’ve witnessed to a few homosexuals and every single time God either reveals to me the pain this person is suffering or the Christian friend who I am witnessing with. There is always some form of sexual abuse, molestation, abandonment, or lack of a Godly father in the home in the past.

    If your witnessing to a homosexual one of the best things to do is not even bring up their homosexual behavior instead use the 10 Commandments by WOTM route to show them they are breaking God’s Law.

  21. I actually thought that they all were gay, so my bad. But seriously, wasn’t the human genome project completed in 2000? I didn’t here anything about a homosexual gene, or any DNA base pair that ultimately expresses the “trait” of homosexuality.

  22. Heavy W Guy states However, there is still a staggering amount of evidence that suggests it’s the result of biological processes outside of one’s control.

    Everything man does is a “biological process.” What does that have to do with morality, good and evil?

  23. Interesting “test”…

    (1) Without doing any research or googling, which two of the six can you identify just by sight as being genetically homosexual?
    “Genetically homosexual” means these folks are naturally inclined to same-sex attraction/ acts, right? Well, your question is difficult to answer considering that there’s no such thing. But if you want me to reveal my prejudices and ignorance, I’ll say no. 2 b/c her jacket is ugly; and no. 4 because he’s staring into the camera way too hard. (And yes, that’s humor).

    (2) Which two of the six genetically are people of color?
    This, too, is a difficult one to answer because people “pass” all the time (and some just don’t know their roots). But since this is a perception test, I’ll say no. 3, 5 and 6 appear to be folks of color. However, based on my experiences in Miami, they could all very well be Hispanic.

    (3) Which three of the six are genetically female?
    Numbers 1-3 appear to be genetically female.

    Based on the common definition of immutability, (a)could you easily identify the females and people of color? (b)Based on the same criteria could you easily identify the homosexuals? Why or why not?
    Based on what dictionary.com tells me is apparently the common definition for immutability (“not mutable; unchangeable; changeless”), here are my responses:
    (a)My being able to identify who are the females in the photos doesn’t have much to do with immutability. These women very well may have been born women, but how do I know factually that none of them were born males and underwent sex change operations? People change their “gender” all the time and I’ve seen some really shocking and believable results. I’ve probably passed a couple transsexuals today and didn’t even know it. So we live in a world where gender (determined genetically based on our chromosomes) is indeed mutable (dictionary.com – “liable or subject to change or alteration”) to a certain extent. That is, a man can lob off his penis, take hormones, get breast implants, etc. to affect his outward change (which is what your test appears to be about), but he can’t actually conceive and nurture a child in a womb his body wasn’t born to develop.

    The same thing goes for those who appear to be people of color in the picture above. The most popular example is Michael Jackson. If the world didn’t know he was born a black to two black parents, would all of us really know we were looking at a black man based on his most recent physical appearance? So, race, too, is mutable — again, outwardly/physically. (I mean, didn’t you ever see “Soul Man” … yes, more poor humor).

    (b)The final part of your question I can’t answer. Perhaps if you could Photoshop a prettier jacket onto no. 2 and make no. 4’s eyes look “cold” …

    I guess your whole test is about genetic immutability, but can what my eyes (never naked and sometimes tinted by some prejudice or pre-conceived notion or previous experience) be trusted enough to be my sole provider of information and discernment?

    You’re saying people are born a certain race (which I guess is what you’re inferring when you use people of color) and gender that cannot be genetically changed. Although there is no black, white, Chinese, Mexican “gene” — or can we look at DNA and say a particular sample belongs to a black, white, Chinese, Mexican, etc. person? We can’t. GOD indeed did make one race genetically.

    It’s not so much about people saying we’re all born certain ways — we’re eternal spiritual beings currently cloaked in human frailty. This is not a biological argument it is a spiritual one. Adam was apparently created with all the necessary equipment to procreate, but he was going to be hanging out alone until GOD decided to make him a “comparable” partner. And GOD apparently made her so that she was equipped with the other necessary parts to make obedience to HIS command possible – to be fruitful and multiply.

    But with Adam and Eve came sex and sexuality…? No, for some of the “sons of GOD” apparently have such equipment, too, because the Bible tells us they left their abode and came to earth and impregnated some “daughters of men”. The LORD certainly didn’t create angels to procreate (as the Bible shows there are only male angels, there’s no evidence of female angels; and GOD has made it clear that there have to be two comparable partners for procreation to come about).

    GOD obviously made heterosexuality in marriage (between humans) the norm, the natural order of things (any thing else from this displeases HIM as the Holy Bible shows throughout). And HE obviously designed our inward and outward bodies for sex which leads to reproduction for most of us (some women’s wombs HE has apparently closed).

    So, I guess, to keep this response from getting any longer — people can’t say they are genetically wired to be homosexual. There is no biological or Biblical/spiritual evidence for that. Our bodies are evidence of what GOD shows in HIS Holy Word.

    I really want to know what you say you’re actual purpose is with this test…

    GCMW: Lavrai, Ive explained the intent in the comments.

  24. Oh, a quote war, I love these.

    “So being gay is like having cancer? That’s an interesting comparison. Maybe we should have a race to raise money to cure homosexuality. This was a simple field test to see if so called unchangeable sexual orientation is comparable to gender and race. Why didnt you attempt to answer the questions?”

    I’m not saying that being gay is analoguous to having cancer, and I think you know that. I’m saying that there are many genetic traits which have nothing to do with appearance, and therefore, can’t be seen just by looking at a picture of a person. Do I know which of the males are genetically predisposed to a receding hairline? No. Does that mean that a receding hairling isn’t the result of (unfortunate) genetics? No. Do you see what I’m getting at?

    “So being gay is like being allergic to cats? Most folks hate being allergic. Another interesting parallel.”

    See above.

    “You are wrong. Name one “scientific community” member which has openly and definitively disputed the gay gene theory. So called sexual orientation is just a renaming of the same.”

    If memory serves, the APA released a statement a couple of months ago saying that homosexuality is, in all likelihood, not the result of genes. I remember you making an entry on that at the time, as a matter of fact.

    Moving on to something Robert said:

    “There is always some form of sexual abuse, molestation, abandonment, or lack of a Godly father in the home in the past.”

    I know a number of gay people, all of whom have loving families and have never been forced to endure some kind of terrible childhood trauma. That homosexuality is the result of sexual abuse at an early age is an old, old theory, and one that has been debunked countless times over the past few decades.

    I’m not answering your questions, Pastor, because the basis for them is flawed. In order for me to guess which of them are gay, I’d have to base my opinion on stereotypes, which makes me uncomfortable, and in my opinion, is a very un-Christian thing to do.

  25. Heavy D, thanks its clear you avoided the questions not because it was “unchristian” (whatever you liberals mean by that) but because you knew that the answers provide a simple bridge to the wisdom of God. That’s why you typed out all that gibberish to get around what is truly simple. Another point proven.

  26. Gibberish? Did I not demonstrate that certain genetic or otherwise immutable factors may not be visible to the naked eye, but are present nonetheless? I’m curious as to why you think you’ve proven me wrong, as you haven’t offered any kind of rebuttal to my statements.

  27. Yes sir gibberish. I didnt prove you wrong, you proved yourself wrong by avoiding answering the questions. You dont lose your house and pension for answering them, so Im not sure what youre afraid of.

    Nevertheless if you havent offered a rebuttal, it really does prove your prior comments comparable to gibberish. Why waste good white space to say…nothing?

  28. I’d like to think what I’ve said here has given you the ability to extrapolate as to how I’d answer your questions, but that does not appear to be the case. You want my answers? Fine.

    (1) Without doing any research or googling, which two of the six can you identify just by sight as being genetically homosexual?

    I can’t, and I’m not going to try to.

    (2) Which two of the six genetically are people of color?

    If by “people of of color” you mean “not white,” then there appear to be two.

    (3) Which three of the six are genetically female?

    Three, by the looks of it.

    Based on the common definition of immutability, could you easily identify the females and people of color? Based on the same criteria could you easily identify the homosexuals? Why or why not?

    I’ve answered this in my previous posts.

Comments are closed.