A homosexual person cannot be Christian.

"I thought we were all sinners? We were born sinners? Like I said before, being homosexual is not always a choice. In order to be religious all you have to do is believe in a organized belief structurer and believe in god(s). Based on the definition of religion at least." "I assume you believe god created us all? Well, as studies show, (I stated them in my previous round) gay people don't always chose to be gay. Why did god create gay people like that? Why did god create mankind to be gay? Its not always because they chose to be gay. They had no choice of their sexual orientation in the first place." I am going to attempt to refute that statement - you saying that homosexuality is a choice, since it has become so prevalent in this debate. #1. Just because an argument is politically strategic, does not make it true. The fact that the "born this way" hypothesis has resulted in greater political returns for gay and lesbian people doesn"t have anything to do with whether it is true. Maybe, as gay people, we want to get together and pretend it is true because it is politically strategic. That would be interesting. But still, it wouldn"t make the idea true. #2. The science is wrong. Though many people--like my opponent--seem persistent in saying 'the evidence and observations all proves that being gay is not a choice...' etc., show me a study that claims to have proven this, and I will show you a flawed research design. Let"s take one example: In 2000, a team of researchers at UC Berkeley conducted a study in which they found that lesbians were more likely than heterosexual women to have a "masculine" hand structure. Presumably, most men have a longer ring finger than index finger, whereas most women have the opposite (or they have index and ring fingers of the same length). Lesbians, according to this study, are more likely than straight women to have what we might call "male-pattern hands." The researchers concluded that this finding supports their theory that lesbianism might be caused by a "fetal androgyn wash" in the womb"that is, when female fetuses are exposed to greater levels of a masculinizing hormone, it shows up later in the form of female masculinity: male-pattern hands and" attraction to women. But this study makes the same error that countless others have made: it does not properly distinguish between gender (whether one is masculine or feminine) and sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality). Simply put, the fact that a woman is "masculine" (itself a social construction) or has been introduced to greater levels of a male hormone need not have anything to do with whether she is attracted to women. http://socialinqueery.files.wordpress.com... The bottom line is that ideas about sexual desire are so bound up with misconceptions about gender and with the presumption that heterosexuality is nature"s default, that science has yet to approach this subject in an objective way. #3. Science is wrong (again). First, to say that "being gay" is genetic is to engage in science that hinges on a very historically recent and specifically European-American understanding of what being gay means. In Ancient Greece, sex between elite men and adolescent boys was a common and normative cultural practice. If men having frequent and sincere sex with one another is what we mean by "gay," then do we really believe that something so fundamentally different was happening in the Ancient Athenian gene pool? Did some evolutionary occurrence enable Plato"s ancestors to get rid of all of those heterosexual genes? And what about native cultures in which all boys engage in homosexual rites of passage? Just 150 years ago, scientists went searching for the physiological evidence that women were hysterical. Hysteria, by Victorian medical definition, meant that a woman"s uterus had become dislodged from its proper location and was floating around her body causing all sorts of trouble"like feminism, and other matters of grave concern. And guess what, they found the evidence, and they published books and articles to prove it. Many books were published dedicated to establishing these obviously absurd and violent beliefs as legitimate and indisputable scientific facts. Similarly, the science of sexual orientation has a long and disturbing history. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, it was believed that homosexuals had beady eyes, particularly angular facial structures, and "bad blood." Today, we apparently have gender variant fingers and gay brains. Is it possible that people who identify themselves as "gay" in the United States (again, keep in mind that "gay" is a culturally and historically specific concept), share some common physiology? Perhaps. But even if this is so, do we really know why? And, of course, there is the time-eternal question: why aren"t scientists looking for the genetic causes of heterosexuality? Or masturbation? The reason is that none of these sex acts currently violate social norms, at least not strongly enough to be perceived as sexual aberrations. But this was not always true. So, at the end of the day, what we can count on is that the science of sexual orientation will produce data that simply mirror the most crass and sexist gender binarisms circulating in the popular imagination. #4. Just because you have had homosexual or heterosexual feelings for as long as you can remember, does not mean you were born a homosexual or heterosexual. There are many things I have felt or done for as long as I can remember. I have always loved drawing feet and shoes. I have always craved cheddar cheese. Etc. etc., but was I born with a desire to eat cheddar cheese or make drawings of feet? Are these desires that can be identified somewhere in my body, like on one of my genes? It would be hard to make these claims, because I could have been born and raised in China, let"s say, where cheddar cheese is basically non-existent and would not have been part of my life. And while I may have been born with some general artistic potential, surely our genetic material is not so specific as to determine that I would love to draw platform shoes. The point here is that what we desire in childhood is far more complex and multifaceted than the biological sciences can account for, and this goes for our sexual desires as well. #5. Last but not least: Secretly, you already know that people"s sexual desires are shaped by their social and cultural context. Lots of adults worry that if we allow little boys to wear princess dresses and paint their nails with polish, they might later be more inclined to be gay. Similarly, many people worry that if young women are introduced to feminism in college, and if they become too angry or independent, they may just decide to be lesbians. But if we all really believed that sexual orientation was congenital"or present at birth"then no one would ever worry that social influences could have an effect on our sexual orientation. But I think that in reality, we all know that sexual desire is deeply subject to social, cultural, and historical forces. http://socialinqueery.com... "Well, there are many things that are immoral in god's eyes, yet they are still considered Christian." Give me an example and show me how they are Christian. If you are considered Christian it doesn't mean you're truly Christian. "No one in human history has never told a lie. It is a child's motivation to lie, to escape punishment. A study asked two people to talk to each other for ten minutes. ...They were surprised how many little lies came out." Lying is a sin and it is part of our nature. It is something that Jesus forgives and paid the price for. Homosexuality is a lifestyle PLUS a sin PLUS immoral according to our Creator, and we must try our best to respect God's laws and be moral. Thus a gay Christian is a contradiction. I am finished! Thankyou for the good debate.