(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.

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?

“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.

(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.