Every human has the ability to choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing in every situation.

Where's that in the Bible?

Alex,

I think you will find this teaching throughout Scripture. You find it when God tells Cain "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it" Gen 4:6-7

You find it in the account of Noah where God instructs him to build the ark and what to do with it after it was built and "Noah did everything just as God commanded him" Gen 6:22

You find it with Abram (Abraham), Issac, Jacob (Israel), the 11 sons of Israel and Joseph, Moses, King Saul, David, Peter, Stephen, Saul.

All of these people had the ability to choose the right or wrong action. Even Pharaoh, whom God hardened his heart made the choice first to harden his heart against God. Every person has the ability to choose to obey God's rules. It's just that our sin nature usually leads us toward sin. Some deeper than others e.g. Rom 1-3.

I think what you were speaking of earlier is that part of Paul's teaching in Romans is that no matter how many times we choose the right thing it is never enough to reconcile us to God. Only faith in Christ accomplishes that.

I hope my understanding of Scripture is clearer to you after this.

Every human has the ability to choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing in every situation.

Where's that in the Bible?

Romans is where Paul does most of his writing regarding the nature of sin and salvation, and it is impossible to read him without avoiding the implication that human beings do not have free will as a consequence of Original Sin, save for the one choice to either embrace Christ or not.

I think I can see where I wasn't clear.

It is true that Paul taught that because of Adam's fall all humans are born with original sin, also called a sin nature. He taught that a consequence of this sin nature is the inability to choose a life that pleases God (Rom 3:23) and a propensity to choose sin, that the result of this sin nature is spiritual death(Rom 6:23), And that the only choice we humans have as far as salvation is faith in Christ's death on the cross as a substitution for our own(Rom 10:9-10). This is also taught elsewhere (Eph 2:1-10) But this does not negate the teaching that every human also has the free will to choose between right and wrong on an individual action basis. Every human has the ability to choose to do the right thing or the wrong thing in every situation. If a person goes into the bank and thinks, "I need more money. Why don't I tell the teller to give me all the cash in her drawer?" But then chooses not to do so because it is the wrong thing to do he has exercised his free will. When a person is angry and chooses to hit some other person, he has exercised his free will. A person who sees another in trouble and chooses to help that person exercises his free will.

The nature of these choices is that with every choice it becomes easier to chose that way the next time and harder to chose the opposite. King Saul is a perfect example of a life of choices that got worse with each choice. This is why Paul uses homosexuality as one example of a person who has chosen over and over to rebel against God. It is the epitome of rejecting God and his sovereignty.

We don't know the details of someone else's brains, and the attraction the study cites is not related in any way to the "attractor's" brain.

Boyd,

The study may not be but the conclusions drawn from it certainly are. Just reread James' article.

My point was, according to the conclusion drawn form the study, if man A has Equal Brain Halves (EBH) then it is biologically natural for him to be attracted to another male. An Unequal Brain Halves (UBH) man B would not be attracted to him though so his only choice is to be attracted to another EBH male. But why is that the only choice? What is preventing him from being attracted to a female especially a UBH one?
Because it's a choice.

*If* one could change sexual orientation through hormonal influence (which is just a theory) I'd have a problem with the female role. It makes the women responsible (and thus blame-able) for the sexual orientation, so a lot of the debate would be about wether *that* is justifiable and if so, under which circumstances. It reminds me of the 'frigidaire mothers' who were supposedly the cause of autism.

*If* one could determine in a very early stage of the pregnancy wether a child would become homosexual (another theory), would it be justifiable to abort or even to not allow implantation?
In the Netherlands we currently have a discussion because our left-wing christian party (part of the coalition government) wants to prohibit IVF and PGD (pre-implantation genetical diagnostics) to select embryo's who might carry a gene for inherited breastcancer. Women who carry the gene have 36-85% chance to get breastcancer and many decide to preventively amputate their breasts at a very young age. They feel it is justified for genetic illnesses like Cistic Fybrosis and Duchenne but not for breastcancer since things might chance, cures might be found and life should be protected. Of course the alternative for gene-carrying parents is to abort all female embryo's in an early stage, comparable with the abortion of all male embryo's in Duchenne families. All those diseases... eh... birthdefects... are life threatening. Homosexuality isn't. The main problem so far seems to be that it lowers the chance of parents to have grandchildren. So how far can we go?

*If* at a certain time we could tinker with things during the pregnancy to determine and chance the sexual orientation, wouldn't we run the risc of getting something 'worse' in return? Like the introduction of rabbits in Australia? Or tinkering with the gene that makes some black people more susceptible to sikkel cell disease but also protects them from malaria?

And: In a country that doesn't have a nice pension system it might actually be rather handy to have a son who is married to another guy with a job instead of a daughter without a job and with 4 kids... Homosexual couples usually have more money to spend, so economically it might be nice to have at least one homosexual son ;)

@ c.wagener: what would those advantages be? Growing up in a non-controversial household with enough income and two loving parents is definately nicest for kids, but studies so far have shown that it doesn't matter wether the parents have the same gender.

I'll never have to make that decision, and I've got no clue how I'd actually decide if I were put in that position. But I'm a debater from way, way back, so I'm just arguing a position. In academic debates, one must be prepared to argue from either position, so I'm not necessarily saying this is what I personally believe (because I'm not sure what I believe), but declaring that it's a reasonable and supportable position to take.

A longer version of my original response is, "It's much more likely that my heterosexual child will give me grandchildren than my homosexual child."

At risk of creating a major freak-out, I would add "and my grandchildren would have considerable advantages being raised by heterosexuals". I really don't think you can beat the differential skill set that a man and a woman bring to raising children. I realize there are tons of counterexamples.

On a more primitive level, having your genes passed on is important to most people (in addition to all other living things).

...why would it matter to YOU with whom your child wants to have sex once they are old enough to take their own decisions?

A longer version of my original response is, "It's much more likely that my heterosexual child will give me grandchildren than my homosexual child."

Do you see my point now?

A homosexual couple will face more difficulties, it will be harder. But in my experience the wish to become a parent is not depending on sexual orientation.

DM, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with empirical proof, or even evidence, that homosexual couples have more children than heterosexual couples, regardless of the venue.

But where I live gay couples have children and lots of heterosexual couples don't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF9amNcwk4Y