NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm curious as to what other people think about homosexuality being a choice as opposed to it being an ingrained part of their nature. Before I say anything, I'm going to explain my viewpoint so that we can keep the confusion to a minimum.

1. Yes, I am a conservative Christian
2. Yes, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong
3. No, I am not a homophobe
4. Yes, I believe that people have the right to choose how they want to live, providing that it doesn't harm other people (including homosexuality)
5. No, I don't think homosexuals should be denied the right to marry (or at least have civil unions)

That said, here is the issue that I'm bringing up:
While I believe that homosexuality is a choice that people should be allowed to make without interference, I still believe that it is just that... a choice. I think that people who say that they are homosexual by nature are trying to excuse their actions (I don't know whether it is to themselves or society). I also think that heterosexuals who believe the same are trying to take the easy way out in their arguements as to why homosexuals should be allowed to do what they do. While I think there is nothing wrong with them trying to help others keep their rights, that is not the way to do it. They should attack the core issue... let people live the way they want to if it doesn't affect others.

Hasn't this poll been done already?

Hard as it might be for you to believe, it really is not a choice. It's like preferring the colour blue over yellow. People are just wired that way.

It's also a minor relief to see what seems to be a fundamental Christian who doesn't want to put me on the back of the bus.

one's sexual attractions are almost entirely determined by biology and early environmental impacts; by puberty, these attractions are pretty solidly chrystalized. one may choose not to ACT upon the attractions, but it is not possible to simply stop feeling what one's biology drives towards.

I wasn't talking about what people feel like doing. All of us feel like doing things that we choose not to do. I'm not arguing the idea that some people have homosexual desires (otherwise they would have no reason to be homosexual), I'm arguing the idea that it is an inherent part of their personality, something beyond their control.

And to be honest, I don't think this idea applies solely to homosexuality. I think our society has a problem in general about accountability, but that's another issue.

I wasn't talking about what people feel like doing. All of us feel like doing things that we choose not to do. I'm not arguing the idea that some people have homosexual desires (otherwise they would have no reason to be homosexual), I'm arguing the idea that it is an inherent part of their personality, something beyond their control.

And to be honest, I don't think this idea applies solely to homosexuality. I think our society has a problem in general about accountability, but that's another issue.
as i said, all current evidence indicates that homosexual attractions are innate, and are not under the control of the individual any more than heterosexual attractions are....you can choose not to hit on that cute girl over there, but you still think she's cute.

to try to seperate the desires from the sexuality is impossible. a heterosexual who is not currently involved in a sexual relationship is still heterosexual, just as a homosexual who is not acting upon their attractions is still a homosexual.

as for accountability, i fully support holding people accountable for any and all actions that harm others. homosexuality is not harmful, and therefore there is no need to hold anybody accountable for choosing a partner of the same sex; if all parties are consenting, there is no victim.

I would prefer a combination of the environment theory and genetical thory of homosexuality... some are born, most become based on their environment and how they grew up (i'm not specifying certain areas, but there was that one guy in Greece in a monastary (sp?) who never saw a woman his whole life)...

agh, former debate flashbacks!

The easiest rebuttal to the "choice" theory is this:

Could YOU choose to be gay?

Didn't think so.

I choose to boink who I feel like boinking. And who my wife tells me I can boink.

It's nobody's business who I choose to boink. Except my wife.

That said, here is the issue that I'm bringing up:
While I believe that homosexuality is a choice that people should be allowed to make without interference, I still believe that it is just that... a choice. I think that people who say that they are homosexual by nature are trying to excuse their actions (I don't know whether it is to themselves or society). I also think that heterosexuals who believe the same are trying to take the easy way out in their arguements as to why homosexuals should be allowed to do what they do. While I think there is nothing wrong with them trying to help others keep their rights, that is not the way to do it. They should attack the core issue... let people live the way they want to if it doesn't affect others.

I respect the way you've made your point, and I hope you can excuse the rather crude way in which I attempt to refute your views.

I would like you to imagine giving a man a blow job, please.

Do you have an erection? No? You say you aren't aroused at all? Hmm, that's strange...

The easiest rebuttal to the "choice" theory is this:

Could YOU choose to be gay?

Didn't think so.
what they don't seem to realize is that if homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality :).

what they don't seem to realize is that if homosexuality is a choice then so is heterosexuality :).

Blast! You beat me to it. ;)

Blast! You beat me to it. ;)
zounds, can this really be Anbar? there's a name i haven't seen in a while :)

and of course in the Christian prespective it dosn't matter whether or not its a choice, the act itself is still a sin

and of course in the Christian prespective it dosn't matter whether or not its a choice, the act itself is still a sin
yup, that's your all-good all-powerful loving God for you: create humans with innate attractions and desires, then send them to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity if they obey the desires you implanted in them.

yup, that's your all-good all-powerful loving God for you: create humans with innate attractions and desires, then send them to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity if they obey the desires you implanted in them.

without temptation how do you truly know your faithful?

zounds, can this really be Anbar? there's a name i haven't seen in a while :)

Heh, yeah, I actually got deleted for inactivity for the first time. It's nice to have the internet again (services in LA take forever), and to see that some good people haven't left these boards. Seems like the same topics, though, too.

I guess some people still just can't forget about other peoples' sex lives...

without temptation how do you truly know your faithful?
why would you want to be faithful?

without temptation how do you truly know your faithful?

So God makes temptation?

Let me get this straight: God sets it up so the cards are stacked against a person from the start, then punishes them?

Sounds abusive to me. Really, someone aughta take that to court. I think God's gonna lose all His children mighty fast. Maybe back when that was fine, but we're civilized now, and we don't let bad parents get away with that bunk.

without temptation how do you truly know your faithful?

Um, because he's God. Remember the whole infallibility thing? God doesn't need to find out anything.

Funny, I was tempted to wear a 50% Polyester/50% Rayon shirt today (and I did just that), yet according to modern Christian theology, I'm not going to Hell for it, though the condemnation for it comes from the same section of the Bible as that against homosexuality. Hmm...

So God makes temptation?

Let me get this straight: God sets it up so the cards are stacked against a person from the start, then punishes them?

Sounds abusive to me. Really, someone aughta take that to court. I think God's gonna lose all His children mighty fast. Maybe back when that was fine, but we're civilized now, and we don't let bad parents get away with that bunk.

the cards are by no means stacked against you

they're if anything stacked in your favor

but that dosn't mean that you still can't loose

Um, because he's God. Remember the whole infallibility thing? God doesn't need to find out anything.

Funny, I was tempted to wear a 50% Polyester/50% Rayon shirt today (and I did just that), yet according to modern Christian theology, I'm not going to Hell for it, though the condemnation for it comes from the same section of the Bible as that against homosexuality. Hmm...

um, no

just because some parts of the torah were let go dosn't mean that the whole thing was invalidated

and of course in the Christian prespective it dosn't matter whether or not its a choice, the act itself is still a sin

There is no action involved in being homosexual.

There is an action you *could* take, but taking it is not what determines sexuality.

There is no action involved in being homosexual.

There is an action you *could* take, but taking it is not what determines sexuality.

good call

um, no

just because some parts of the torah were let go dosn't mean that the whole thing was invalidated

So, much like all Christians (myself included), you pick which parts of the Bible you think are valid. My question to you is, how do you do so? Do you just listen to whatever your preacher tells you? Or do you listen to God?

In answer to the topic:Probably sometimes is, sometimes isn't. How is that relevant?

So, much like all Christians (myself included), you pick which parts of the Bible you think are valid. My question to you is, how do you do so? Do you just listen to whatever your preacher tells you? Or do you listen to God?
if you are just going to pick the bits you like, then why do you need the Bible in the first place? why not just believe in the things you think are valid, and cut out the middle-man?

the cards are by no means stacked against you

they're if anything stacked in your favor

but that dosn't mean that you still can't loose

Really?

I'm thrown into an imperfect body, attacked by temptations left and right, and if I don't believe an unbelievably stupid and illogical religion I go to hell.

That sounds pretty damn stacked against me.

if you are just going to pick the bits you like, then why do you need the Bible in the first place? why not just believe in the things you think are valid, and cut out the middle-man?

Why do I need to read papers to find out about Biology? Everything in every paper isn't right. Hell, sometimes the scientists seriously screw up in their interpretations. But I still find usefulness in reading them.

I'm a very conservative Republican, but I have a lot of gay friends too. Some of them are even married! Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic abberation. I'm not saying that it's normal, because statistically it's not. But being natural as it's been proven to be, makes them people on the same order than a black man is the same as me despite a minor genetic difference governing melanin.

It's not a choice, they're people like me and you with an abnormality that doesn't affect how they live their lives outside the bedroom.

However, that doesn't excuse the culture that most of them live in. I still believe that monogamy is the best way to be in a relationship and those who live in a monogomous relationship should be admired the same as anyone else. But culture can be affected just like minds can.

End of story, gay people are different, but not worse than the 92% of heterosexual population.

Cow People, I agree with you completely but i support civil unions not marriage since marriage is the binding of a man and a woman or at least that's what my church believes

So, much like all Christians (myself included), you pick which parts of the Bible you think are valid. My question to you is, how do you do so? Do you just listen to whatever your preacher tells you? Or do you listen to God?

Jesus Christ and the Church he ordained to lead the faithful in issues like this

um, no

just because some parts of the torah were let go dosn't mean that the whole thing was invalidated

Really, then why don't you show me where the lines were drawn? I've heard this line a few times, but I've yet to see a manuscript where Jesus went through with a red marker and crossed things out. What he did seem to do, however, was to set an example and hit the important points. Guess what? Homosexuality wasn't one of them. How, pray tell, does homosexual activity differ from the other laws that are viewed as archaic today which are condemned alongside it?

yup, that's your all-good all-powerful loving God for you: create humans with innate attractions and desires, then send them to a torture dimension for the rest of eternity if they obey the desires you implanted in them.

Thank you, thank you, thank you...

Jesus Christ and the Church he ordained to lead the faithful in issues like this

To use the buzzwords of the day, the Church (I assume you mean the Catholic church, not that there is only one, mind you) is a flip-flopper with skeletons under the altar. I frankly don't see how it gets any respect these days, save by blind faith.

Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how you reconcile the idea of a perfect and divinely-inspired Church with it's dark history, because I don't understand it in terms of rational thought.

Jesus Christ and the Church he ordained to lead the faithful in issues like this

Right. So you listen to flawed human beings instead of God.

Are you Catholic, by chance? Or by church do you mean all Christain churches, or some particular denomination?

if you are just going to pick the bits you like, then why do you need the Bible in the first place? why not just believe in the things you think are valid, and cut out the middle-man?

And here is my view on the matter...why, indeed.

So you listen to flawed human beings instead of God.

as an agnostic i am forced to say:

better a flawed reality than a perfect fiction. ;)

as an agnostic i am forced to say:

better a flawed reality than a perfect fiction. ;)

And on some things we must agree to disagree. Like many, you do not feel God in your life. I, however, do. So I do not believe God to be a fiction.

So, much like all Christians (myself included), you pick which parts of the Bible you think are valid. My question to you is, how do you do so? Do you just listen to whatever your preacher tells you? Or do you listen to God?

I really don't appreciate stereotypes like this about Christians. What a lot of people don't seem to be aware of is that there are many ways of being Christian besides the ways that most of Western society is familiar with. I am a liberal Christian, and I'm really bothered when people make assumptions about my beliefs, or worse, my ability to reason, because of the presuppositions they have about what constitutes being Christian. As for what sort of process goes into deciding which parts of the Bible to follow, you need to realize that the Bible is not all one book, but a collection of writings that were put together over a long period of time (many Fundamentalists, as well as many atheists who like to set up straw-man arguments against theism, disagree with or ignore this point, but I do not). The part of the Bible that was referred to earlier in this thread was Leviticus, which contains the only biblical law against homosexuality, as well as laws about things like cutting your hair, planting fields, attire, and so on. The reason that these laws are not practiced by Pauline Christians is that Paul preached that Jesus' messianic purpose was to replace the laws that constitued Judaism. Paul's views differed from those of the other main branch of early Christianity, which was Jewish Christianity. Jewish Christians believed that to serve God, one still had to follow all the Jewish laws, but that Jesus did, in fact, fulfill the messianic prophecy. So to address the point that discrediting some parts of the Torah has no effect on the validity of other parts, I would have to say that what we are talking about in the case of homosexuality is not the Torah as a whole, but Leviticus, and since Paul rejected Leviticus, and conservative Western Christians are Pauline, it can be interpreted as inconsistent for a conservative Christian to be against homosexuality.

Anyway, since there ARE such things as biblical scholars, MIGHTN'T you suppose that some actual reasoning goes into these things? It is intolerant and irrational to assume that ALL Christians are easily led sheep, and it offends me deeply. ESPECIALLY coming from those who reject religion as a whole because they think religion causes bigotry!

Edit: whoops I just noticed you said you were Christian...so anything here that suggests that you are trying to attack theism is not directed at you or anyone personally. Still nice to get it off my chest though :P

However, that doesn't excuse the culture that most of them live in. I still believe that monogamy is the best way to be in a relationship and those who live in a monogomous relationship should be admired the same as anyone else. But culture can be affected just like minds can.




If you think most gay people aren't monogamous, then how do you explain their wish for the legal right to marry? (or did I misinterpret your point here?)

I'm curious as to what other people think about homosexuality being a choice as opposed to it being an ingrained part of their nature. Before I say anything, I'm going to explain my viewpoint so that we can keep the confusion to a minimum.

1. Yes, I am a conservative Christian

- snip -
That is apparent because you are trying to resurrect something that has been asked, answered and beaten to death.

Edit: whoops I just noticed you said you were Christian...so anything here that suggests that you are trying to attack theism is not directed at you or anyone personally. Still nice to get it off my chest though :P

No problem, I almost started to reply that you were preaching to the choir, but then saw your edit =)

Stating that one can choose one's sexuality only works if you can indeed make that statement apply to everyone.

If you say that a gay male (me, for example) can choose to have sex with a woman, then it equally applies that you could have sex with someone of the same sex.

Think to yourself. Would you ever choose to have sex with someone of your own sex?

Your reaction is probably one of revulsion and a pronounced "no way, it's inconceivable."

Now, ask yourself - why is that?

Answer: Cause you're programmed to want to have sex with the opposite sex. Just like I'm programmed to want to have sex with the same sex.

:)

Homosexuality isn't a choice, it's a genetic abberation."abberation" has some nasty connotations. As do most of it's synonyms; our culture would appear to have a bias towards normality. Perhaps "anomaly", though homosexuality isn't all that anomalous. As for genetic, the jury's still out on that one. It's almost undoubtedly partly genetic and partly environmental, such things tend to be.

However, that doesn't excuse the culture that most of them live in. I still believe that monogamy is the best way to be in a relationship and those who live in a monogomous relationship should be admired the same as anyone else. But culture can be affected just like minds can.

End of story, gay people are different, but not worse than the 92% of heterosexual population.You probably wouldn't think much of my culture either. But yes, that issue is fairly orthogonal to homosexuality.

I would say it's mainly biological: many people are naturally attracted to people of the opposite sex and some are naturally attracted to people of the same sex.
But there is a social factor too, because quite a few people (both gay and hetero) have bisexual tendencies. For these people, the social part is quite important. If you are raised in an environment where homosexuality unspeakable and bad you unconsiously block that part of you because you've learnt that it's intolerable. However, if you are raised in an open-minded environment, you get the chance to discover for yourself how "gay" you are.
So the people you're talking of, who at least have some kind of a choice, are not homosexual, they're bisexual. Some choose to live a heterosexual life and some choose a homosexual life and some just don't settle for only half the possibilities.

If you think you're heterosexual and want to find out if have any tendencies towards bisexuality, here's a small test:
Imagine yourself kissing a person of the same sex or (which is actually less repulsive to most people) imagine yourself touching his/her genitalia. Does it feel at least a little exciting?
Don't worry, it doesn't automatically mean that you're gay, it just shows that you maybe aren't so sure after all. However, if you've lately found yourself not being turned on by people of the opposite sex, then maybe you should try the alternative.

The most important thing is knowing yourself and your sexuality. What you choose to show other people is up to you. Because most "heterosexual" people's fear for homosexuals come from not being entirely sure about their own sexuality, afraid that they could be "turned into" homosexuals by the sinful gay people.

I am a heterosexual, but I do have some homo- and bisexual friends and that has helped me see and understand a lot of things. I've discovered that I am attracted to guys too in a way, and I've had the possibilities to explore those feelings and get a better understanding of what they mean. Now I'm sure about my sexuality, and not at all afraid of or suspicious about gay people.

My only comment on the religion part is "Don't know, don't care"

4. Yes, I believe that people have the right to choose how they want to live, providing that it doesn't harm other people (including homosexuality)

That's me.

If you think most gay people aren't monogamous, then how do you explain their wish for the legal right to marry? (or did I misinterpret your point here?)

To be honest I'm undecided on the issue of gay marriage because to be perfectly honest I really just don't care. I mean, I'll watch the fray unfold, but I don't paticularly care how it turns out. In Oregon where I vote it's on the ballot, but I'm not going to vote because I .. don't care.

I don't know if that'll make you feel any better. I dislike how it was done here in back door political affairs that didn't involve the people. When it's put to a vote, I'll accept the choice of the people either way. But like abortion, I support what Dick Cheney does, restoring it to a democratic state vote. I don't think the federal government has any legal say in it. Same reason I'm pissed that Ashcroft is trying to get rid of our legal right to die here, and our medical marijuana. That's another topic, but seriously, stay the hell out of my state's politics.

I choose to boink who I feel like boinking. And who my wife tells me I can boink.

It's nobody's business who I choose to boink. Except my wife.

And whomever you choose to boink. ;)


Anyway, what does it matter whether it is a choice or not? Who cares?

Homosexuality a choice .... I think yes and no depending on the homosexual in question.

I believe that some people are born with a sexual desire for their same gender.

I also believe that sexual abuse of children can result in transforming a persons original heterosexual throughts to homosexual thoughts. Not sure if you want to call that a "choise" or not.

I have also personally met people that where not homosexual but would engage in homosexual sexual activities for attention (normally these were females, but not exclusively). Some of these eventually gave up on trying to get along romantically with the opposite gender and just decided to be "gay".

I also believe that sexual abuse of children can result in transforming a persons original heterosexual throughts to homosexual thoughts. Not sure if you want to call that a "choise" or not.

And what do you think would do that? It's all well and good to say it, but when creating a valid psychological theory, you have to be able to explain why such a thing may happen. Unless you have some research that already backs it up, this neurochemical transmogrification you propose occurs during or after molestation would seem to be as unsubstantiated as a number of other theories on this thread.

And no "persons sexually abused as a child are more likely to sexually abuse children later in life." A desire to molest children is vastly different from desiring a meaningful spiritual and sexual relationship with a member of the same sex. Yes, a once-molested person may experiment more later in life, as they would be slightly more confused about their orientation than a regular youth, but experimenting does not mean you're gay. There's nothing to say that their true orientation actually changes.

But you are right about it being a choice for some and not others. However, such people as the chicks at a party would be engaging in homosexual activity only. There is (hypothetically) no homosexual drive to back it up.

Wow! Another thread that won't go anywhere.

Wow! Another thread that won't go anywhere.

Yeah, and we have three on the same subject!

BTW, if I had any money whatsoever, I'd give it to you. Ninjaustralia really needs to exist somewhere.

Browsing through this thread I noticed some bullshit.

Gays do not make up 8 or 10% of the population, they make up 2 or 3% at most and that's only in the Western world.

Just because of some biological accident during your early development makes you feel like you need a cock in your mouth doesn't mean you can't choose not to do it.

Men can rump jump eachother all they want but everyone shouldn't have to accept it.

Also the Sodom thing is bullshit. God blasted that place because they were ghey and they did find ruins that they think might have been those two towns. Only Liberal Christians (idiots) who interperete the Bible in a politcally correct manner come to those shitty conclusions.

Lesson Over

From what I have read there appears to be some nature and some nurture.
Some appear to be born with genetic traits that would predispose 'gayness'.
However as there is a difference between the number of first and second sons that are gay it would indicate that there are a number of enviromental factors.
There are also times when one monozygotic twin is gay and one is not, which raises all sorts of issues.
And there is also an argument to say that some people do make an active choice.
So I would say all things are a factor.

Lesson Over

*places a clozapine laced apple on "Teacher's" desk*

2. Yes, I personally believe that homosexuality is wrong
3. No, I am not a homophobe



LOL

Browsing through this thread I noticed some bullshit.

Gays do not make up 8 or 10% of the population, they make up 2 or 3% at most and that's only in the Western world.

Just because of some biological accident during your early development makes you feel like you need a cock in your mouth doesn't mean you can't choose not to do it.

Men can rump jump eachother all they want but everyone shouldn't have to accept it.

Also the Sodom thing is bullshit. God blasted that place because they were ghey and they did find ruins that they think might have been those two towns. Only Liberal Christians (idiots) who interperete the Bible in a politcally correct manner come to those shitty conclusions.

Lesson Over



Pretty funny you call just liberal christains idiots, but you are just spouting spoon-fed "lollerfacts" that you were given as a young kid. Makes me laugh to see a fundamentalist like yourself who believes his every action is orchestrated by an imaginary friend call someone else an idiot.

Browsing through this thread I noticed some bullshit.

Me too. :rolleyes:

Pretty funny you call just liberal christains idiots, but you are just spouting spoon-fed "lollerfacts" that you were given as a young kid. Makes me laugh to see a fundamentalist like yourself who believes his every action is orchestrated by an imaginary friend call someone else an idiot.


HAHAHHAAHAAAAAA This guy thinks I'm a fundamentalist. My facts aren't spoon fed or false, ass. The 10% gay figure is a big fat popular lie by Alfred Kinsey who wrote a book full of false facts on many sexual perversions. Look it up, even the gay rights activists have admitted it.

"Some appear to be born with genetic traits that would predispose 'gayness'."

NianNorth, do you want to supply the proof that backs this up?

The whole idea of biological homosexuality is fairly ridiculous. Consider societies such as Ancient Greece where men were used for pleasure, and women were merely there to get pregnant. There are modern equivalences of this (I'm thinking of an article I read about distraught US soldiers who went to occupy some small area and were besieged by effeminite men making kissing noises). If you want to continue to allege that homosexuality is something you're born with, you're forced to say that the men in these other societies are fundamentally genetically different to us. I'm not willing to make that assumption, and so far science has been unable to locate any such phenomena.

Having said that, I do not think gays have a choice, any more than I think people who had screwed up childhoods can just 'snap out of it' and be like everyone else (It is not my intention to compare homosexuality with a mental disorder here). Certainly gay people have a choice to stop acting gay, but they can't stop how they feel. I can't look at Mandy Moore and just decide "No, I'm not going to find her attractive any more", and nobody would expect me to. So why gays should suddenly be expected to make the same decision, I don't know.

I would like you to imagine giving a man a blow job, please.

Do you have an erection? No? You say you aren't aroused at all? Hmm, that's strange...

This question is loaded, I'm not attracted to males at all, but I've never given anyone a blowjob, and I never will :p

"Some appear to be born with genetic traits that would predispose 'gayness'."

NianNorth, do you want to supply the proof that backs this up?

The whole idea of biological homosexuality is fairly ridiculous. Consider societies such as Ancient Greece where men were used for pleasure, and women were merely there to get pregnant. There are modern equivalences of this (I'm thinking of an article I read about distraught US soldiers who went to occupy some small area and were besieged by effeminite men making kissing noises). If you want to continue to allege that homosexuality is something you're born with, you're forced to say that the men in these other societies are fundamentally genetically different to us. I'm not willing to make that assumption, and so far science has been unable to locate any such phenomena.

Having said that, I do not think gays have a choice, any more than I think people who had screwed up childhoods can just 'snap out of it' and be like everyone else (It is not my intention to compare homosexuality with a mental disorder here). Certainly gay people have a choice to stop acting gay, but they can't stop how they feel. I can't look at Mandy Moore and just decide "No, I'm not going to find her attractive any more", and nobody would expect me to. So why gays should suddenly be expected to make the same decision, I don't know.
I can't find the article online, but it was in New Scientist about two weeks ago. It stated that research had shown that a gene carried on the x chrom was found in women who averaged more children and in a larger proportion of gay men than straight men. It was postulated that this gene could control how attractive the individual found men. As women with this gene tended to have more children it kept the gene alive even though males with the gene had fewer children.
The finding did not show this was the only factor involved and did not account for the % of gay men there actualy were. It suggested that this could be a factor but that other factors such as nurture and choice could also be present.

You know that's really interesting, all the gay men I know came from families with 4+ children.

This question is loaded, I'm not attracted to males at all, but I've never given anyone a blowjob, and I never will :p
exactly...so, since you cannot choose to be gay, why would anybody else be able to? you cannot choose to be attracted to men or aroused by sexual activity with me, so you therefore cannot believe that somebody else will be able to force those feelings.

Since this thread has gone to mixing the two most popular topics here on General, let me just say that I am a moderate Methodist.

Now that we have that out of the way, I believe that sexual preferance is natural, i.e., not a choice. I am heterosexual (though I haven't been with anybody since 9th grade :( ) and never regarded that as a choice so why would homosexuality be any different?

Hmmmm, well first things first.

For those of you complaining about this thread being too familiar, I didn't know there were others like it, so my apologies. I'm glad I made it anyways, because I found it quite interesting and thought provoking.

Here's the next thing. Everyone who's replied, please replace the term "homosexual" (or associated term) with the term "pedophile". Before I go any further, let me put down needlessly angry posts by saying that I do not equate homosexuals with pedophiles, and I understand the differences between the two, etc. I am just comparing them on the topic of nature vs. choice. Is it a part of a pedophile's nature to want to have sex with children? Some of you might think so, but I think there are some who would have their doubts about that.

Keep the posts coming. I'm not 100% decided on this issue, and I see good points on both sides of it. :confused:

Sure, but pedophilia is a different kettle of fish. Like Bush said, what goes on in the home of consenting adults is no one's business but there own. The problem with pedophiles is that they involve minors which are incapable legally, or I think mentally of offering propor consent. So they're harmful to society because they hurt people which gay people don't do aside from Lesbians moving in after 2 days and breaking up a week later (it happens a lot around these parts, crazy stuff)

Since homosexuals aren't hurting anyone else and involve only themselves I'm content to let them be. Pedophiles involve people unable to consent, and that's a problem. Genetic though it may be. Unless they're engineered or sterilized I don't see much way of fixing them.

Probe on, it wasn't a bad point I just don't think it would apply here.

"Some appear to be born with genetic traits that would predispose 'gayness'."

NianNorth, do you want to supply the proof that backs this up?

The whole idea of biological homosexuality is fairly ridiculous. Consider societies such as Ancient Greece where men were used for pleasure, and women were merely there to get pregnant. There are modern equivalences of this (I'm thinking of an article I read about distraught US soldiers who went to occupy some small area and were besieged by effeminite men making kissing noises). If you want to continue to allege that homosexuality is something you're born with, you're forced to say that the men in these other societies are fundamentally genetically different to us. I'm not willing to make that assumption, and so far science has been unable to locate any such phenomena.

Having said that, I do not think gays have a choice, any more than I think people who had screwed up childhoods can just 'snap out of it' and be like everyone else (It is not my intention to compare homosexuality with a mental disorder here). Certainly gay people have a choice to stop acting gay, but they can't stop how they feel. I can't look at Mandy Moore and just decide "No, I'm not going to find her attractive any more", and nobody would expect me to. So why gays should suddenly be expected to make the same decision, I don't know.

Oh for Christ's sake , go through the other 5 pages of this thread or find one of the dozens of other threads on this topic! No, wait, I'll spoonfeed yet another of the uninformed and be done with it:

http://www.xq28.net/article/answer.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1887219

And that's not even mentioning the countless twin and family studies done, not to mention the observations that many, many species of animals engage in homosexual behavior. Hell, I didn't even mine all my bookmarks to dig those up.

This is not a new or unsubstantiated idea. Read. Learn.

if you are just going to pick the bits you like, then why do you need the Bible in the first place? why not just believe in the things you think are valid, and cut out the middle-man?

Because it can give you things to think about. Think of it this way: You hold certain political views. You find that of the candidates you know about, one fits your bill well. But if you read the voter's pamphlet, you may find that there are other candidates you didn't know about that you also agree with, and as such the voting process is enriched for you.

I believe it was CNN.com that just posted an article last week about how the homosexual "gene" is traced on only the mother's side, according to some new studies.

Also, homosexual behavior has been documented in dolphins. Last time I checked they don't make concious decisions like humans do.

When I am angry, the genetic predisposition of my body and brain is to either attack the cause of my anger or to flee from it in fear. As a conscious, thinking human being, I am able to choose to do otherwise. My body has, in fact, at various times, told me that certain male friends of mine are rather attractive and I have been aroused by the thought of intimate contact with them. I have chosen not to follow these urges, in the same way I choose not to follow the urge every time I look at a sexy woman, and in the same way I choose not to physically attack (and try to avoid verbally or otherwise symbolicaly attacking, though I admit I'm not perfect in my self-control) people who anger me.

For this reason, I assert that sexuality is a choice. Preferences, perhaps not. Actions based on those preferences are what determine sexuality, though. I've had an erection because of seeing other guys naked before, but I do not consider myself bisexual, because I only pursue romantic relationships with women. Specifically, at this time in my life, with my fiancee only.

All this being said, I am a Christian who believes the same way as The Cow People articulated in the first post of this thread. I believe it's more important for me to remove the huge sins in my own life before worrying about whether or not someone else is a sinner, and since I'll never be perfect in this life, that means that other people's sins really aren't my business. Unless I happen to know the person, and see them engaging in actively dangerous, self-destructive or other-people-destructive things, in which case I tend to try to help. That's what I'm doing here; trying to help by offering my perspective to this community here at NationStates, since I am now a member.

And why should one man not have sex with another?

And why should one man not have sex with another?

Because it is not in accordance with the heterosexist ideal (aka projection & ego defense mechanisms).

Yeppers, gender specific traits, incl. behavior patterns in humans run a cut and dried line that is absolutely binary. :rolleyes:

To quote the great George W. Bush: "I don't know"

To quote the great George W. Bush: "I don't know"
If Bush believed it was NOT a choice, would he still try to ban gay marriage?

You know that's really interesting, all the gay men I know came from families with 4+ children.

How very odd...definately not like that for me, I have only one brother.

And, by the way, homosexuality is not a choice, people only realise it during puberty. Though this isn't always the case, others may realise it years after puberty, some may realize before puberty.