Choices

Remove all ads!

Say, can I join in on the against Abomination's statement?

Actually, my (gay) uncle has a biological son from his marriage before he found his true SO. I'll also echo the comments on recessive genes, as well as HB's comment on Nakia. She da woman.

 

/me gets out the pom-pioms.

Whatevr Nakia says.

 

*Saber creeps into the AoDA for the first time in a few weeks*

Heya! Nakia's right!

*Creeps out, never to be seen again*

 

Erm. So Abdul Rahman didn't choose to become Christian? It's true in the "you did not choose me but I chose you" sense but this is not likely what you mean. People have adopted unpopular viewpoints for millennia with full knowledge of bad consequences lying ahead.

Next, in some circles, it's fashionable to be gay or at least bisexual. If nothing else, it gives publicity. Or enables one to hide behind special protections not available to the majority of the population.

Were they raised by a single homosexual parent or by a homosexual couple? Did they have contact with the other parent? Did the homosexual parents try to raise their kids homosexual, heterosexual, or did they just leave them alone?

Also, didn't the heterosexual children of homosexual parents have any gay sex experience at all?

Without intentional conditioning, I would still expect most children of homosexuals to stay hetero, if often equipped with some experience of gay experiments.

Maybe the families were well-off and the males effeminated? Maybe contact with the other gender was religiously avoided by the parents of those children? Perhaps a more cultivated girl was seeing all available males as crude brutes (always fighting and always stinking, you get the idea), whereas females were at least normally conversable?

Initial desire maybe and I believe that desire is heterosexual, so all people are born with a heterosexual desire, without excluding the marginal possibility of mutation. By choosing to play, one casts root, develops habits, customs and routines, acquires a certain taste.

The existence of that evidence eludes me.

The fact that God could make people gay at birth if He wanted doesn't mean that people who are gay are normally born that. There is actually a belief in the Catholic Church that homosexuality is not a choice but an unchosen circumstance and a challenge to overcome and a special calling (to be chaste, that is, which means not having sex).

However, there is no gay gene and no backing for the idea that homosexuality is in-born, while one can easily see the turning gay scenarios. By claiming that homosexuality is always inborn, harm is done to those people who acquire it because of their experience and could be helped rather than deemed incurable and given the unbased and wishful assertion that everything is okay and they are normal.

Those two are related and what you mention is important. I fear that while most children brought up by homosexual couples would still stay heterosexual, but many wouldn't escape at least some homosexual experience, causing complications.

 

/me takes a seat with Nakia, HB, Ara, and Saber

It's been a long and busy weekend, and I'm tired. What my older twin sister and our long-lost brother said.

 

I agree with you, but only in half of what I was discussing. I believe people can be born with homosexual (or asexual or bisexual) preferences instead of heterosexual. Choices may show something different (like the homo who conforms or the hetero who rebels), but the base desire does not change. As well, I have heard that 80% of the population is just bisexual with a general preference pushed upon them by the black-and-white concept of only gay or straight. Makes sense (at least to me), but it was only something I heard from a (conservative) teacher, so I can't back it up. I'm sure you'd disagree with most of what I said, but let's just leave it at that; we'll never agree.

Oh boy, I think this needs a little short-handing before it takes over yet another thread.

Pro-gay: Exactly what I was talking about! You refuse to acknowledge the evidence right beneath your noses.
Anti-gay: I repeat, I have never seen any evidence. If you'd like your claims to bear any weight, please cite sources.
Pro-gay: *cites several sources and is undeservedly smug about it*
Anti-gay: Bah, those were all done/funded by liberal pro-gay activists.
Pro-gay: What are you talking about? Those studies were performed by objective institutions of learning! You're just being obtuse.
Anti-gay: They may have been done by institutions of learning, but they could hardly be objective when their funding was on the line. Now look at these studies. *cites relatively fewer sources both in the hope that they will seem more definitive and because fewer can be found*
Pro-gay: Ah ha! Now those were biased! They were looking to discredit gays from the start; their entire premise was faulty.

And so on. Groundless dismissal of sources on both sides and nothing new gets said. *Yawn* So, is the thread done yet?

EDIT: Maybe we should just have a poll where noone is allowed to post and leave it up to a vote. That's more than ever comes of these threads anyway.

[ April 03, 2006, 04:55: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Just for the record, I'm waving a 'Go Nakia' banner here. The more and more we tear apart our genes, looking at them in more and more detail, the more and more humans are coming to realise how much is instinct instead of learning. Of course, these can be directed and changed based on experiences, but the base for most things do come from your genes.

 

All of the above except I don't personally know anyone who tried to raise their children homosexual .

I am NOT talking about statistics here and have no interest in statistics. I'm talking about human beings, friends and relatives and acquaintances I have known, liked, loved and even disliked. They loved, they cried, they suffered. I heard what they had to say. At 3AM one morning I received a phone call from a New York City policeman needing information regarding someone I knew. The man was in his early sixties and had been in a relationship with the same person since a teenager. His partner died and he had a nervous breakdown. My phone number was the only one they had. My friend is good looking, not effiminent in any way, always seemed the assured, in control type. He was a successful business man. He lived near his family. Then why was my number the only one in his wallet? Simple, he knew his family's numbers but didn't have mine memorized.

I could list example after example of people who only wanted to be allowed to get on with their lives without fear of violence or economic repercussions. People who loved their partners. Who cared for them in good times and bad, in sickness and in health.

Please try to remember that the person you are condemning is a human being. You do not have to approve but be careful how you judge and what you say. Driving people back into a closet will only create greater problems.

Obviously I feel strongly about this. I have known too many people unfairly and unnecessarily hurt because of homophobic attitudes.

 

You're right, being gay is not normal, in that the majority of the world is not gay. But why is it something that must be "cured"? If being gay is who you are, and if you are happy with who you are, why should it matter to anyone else? Why should it matter if its a choice or not? It shouldn't, but it does, and the only reason that it does is because if it is gentic then gays cannot change, and those who hate gays cannot justify their hatred because the homosexuality becomes the fault of genetics, not the homosexual. whereas if it is a choice, then it can be alikened to choosing to steal or murder, and the blame becomes shifted to the homosexual. Now, IMHO, the hatred towards gays is unfounded, since there is no logical reson to hate them.

 

Exactly.

 

Bloody hell, there's bigger things to worry about than homosexuals.
Leave them with it, it's their choice, they're not hurting anybody.

 

/me shifts her seat to make room for Rotku and deepfae and BA (who seems to have brought a tray of beers from the concession stand!)

It's getting happily crowded over here.

 

Exactly, desire is temptation. You will not have a choice regarding temptation, but you do have the choice to act upon it or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the mechanics of orgasm haven't changed over the last few millenia. Since homosexual acts can trigger this, it becomes a temptation, stronger for some than for other, but a temptation none the less.

Since you've made that distinction, my issues are with those who choose to engage in homosexual acts. That is the grevious sin, not being tempted.

That's right. Sexuality is learned.

It's the slippery slope of temptation. First the idea comes to mind and is not banished. Then they experiment with it, from there, they continue to sin. For some they prefer their sins to what would be appropriate. It doesn't only apply to homosexuality, but pre-marital sex, addiction to pornography, substance abuse...

What they do in private is none of my business, and I'd like to keep it that way. But when they make it known and try to tell my my opinion of their decision is wrong, that's where I get offended.

Differing tastes, I can understand that, but you still have to eat your broccoli or other food that you think tastes like crap because it's good for you. Likewise, even those who find themselves more strongly tempted by those of the same gender must put those temptations aside and find a way to enjoy heterosexual relations with someone they will be able to covenent to marriage with because it's right.

But what are they taught about homosexual relations? If nobody ever told them it's wrong, they won't see anything wrong with it.

Agreed. Just because I am attracted to a woman doesn't mean I've done wrong. Having sex with her when she is not my wife is the sin. It does not apply only to homosexuals. The only difference is that Homosexuals would not be allowed to marry under the laws of God.

All sin infers choice to sin. It is decriminalized because what they do in private is between them and the Lord. That means that it is none of our business, and we'd prefer that they keep it to themselves.

And when the sinner insists on identifying themselves with their sin, it becomes harder for either side to distinguish the difference. The more those lines blur, the more both get hit. Picture this: I'm trying to shoot a bullseye with a shotcun with scatter shot. If you insist on holding the bullseye, you're going to get hit with some of the shot too...

I think if you look hard enough, you'll find genetic vulnerabilities to all forms of deviant behaviours (sins to us religious folk). It means that certain temptations are harder to resist than others. Homosexuals get this worst because of the grevious nature of the sin that they struggle with.

Nice point Chev! kind of shoots HB down on that one...

That's one of the problems in this issue. The individuals are lost in the pile of statistics and rhetoric. Same gender temptation is a heavy burden to bear, and as such, it's easy to say that it's not their fault, ot that they will burn in hell, but the truth is we don't have all the information. We cannot truly make the right judgement in these cases. Sure what they have chosen to do is wrong, but it's not always our place to get in their face about it.

A good family member should know these things. He was lucky that he hadn't memorized your number...

One thing I have noticed from both sides in this thread is a condescending tone, blaming this on Genetics, mental illness or other traumatic events in the past. Temptation is meant to be resisted, and forthe religious, we believe that in addition to prayer, there are clergy members that they can turn to to help them overcome the temptation in their lives. Appealing to society for acceptance of their decision will not work, as those of religious standards are taught not to look upon sin with the least of acceptance.

 

Not. You guys all tell us that the call of God is irresistible once you hear the Word. Are you likening resisting God to resisting what you call to be sin? Is God like sin? Think harder before you make comparisons that don't stand up to logic.

Nakia is the wisest voice here. I can't say it any better than she already has.

 

Just going to throw in with the Nakia etc. crowd...

(was going to have a 'why is it wrong' waffle - but the thread's not actually about that, so I won't knock it off course)

 

ironic?

 

Fel:

I think that one stretches back to conclusions drawn by Dr. Kinsey in "Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male" (iirc) back in the 50's. It's a viewpoint I happen to agree with; people tend to try and pigeonhole everything, and the tendency to categorisation can become self-fulfilling. That this happens with sexuality too is only to be expected.

I know it's a viewpoint that most homosexuals themselves aren't too keen on - I have a gay friend who's very strict on the gay/straight division, and insists that bisexuals are really living in denial - but I think that's mostly because it's always been used as a 1st line of defence against religious criticism. Personally, I take the entirely heathen view that even if it is a choice, it's not wrong. Why? Because the bible was written about 3,000 years ago by a bunch of thinkers who may have been wrong about stuff. They tried there darned-est to be right, bless 'em, but you can't win 'em all. Leviticus falls into the same category as Genesis and the other early books - hotly disputed over by the majority of (Christian) theologians, and with some chunks that can just be disproved (i.e. the Hebrew idea of the Universe). Now, moral questions can never be fully disproved (that is the nature of moral questions - "there are no moral facts", to quote Nietzsche), but you can consider the origins of a set of moral statements, and from what you know establish whether such things would still be arrived at today. This gives us some clue as to their validity, albeit with some margin for personal taste.

Leviticus covers many issues relating to sexual behaviour - the thrust of it (excuse the pun ) was to advise the Hebrews against copying the practices of their Egyptian masters. They were forbade from a variety of practices, including (but not limited to) homosexuality, because "God does not like it". Now, there's a clue here. Sodomy is more likely to transmit disease than normal intercourse, because of the greater risk of lesions in the anus wall, which can lead to some very nasty infections (remember, this before condoms & lube). It was also back in the day when disease was an act of God, not an act of germ. Essentially, this is just sexual health advice looked at through the lens of having an all-powerful creator god looking over your shoulder.

It seems absurd that these earliest writings could produce a snowball effect so pronounced as to spark such vitriol and hate - but hey, I suppose man never needed much of a cue to persecute the different. BA perhaps came up with the most profound and wise statement in this whole thread:

I mean... exactly! I seriously think it's time to move on from the notion of homosexuality as a sin. There are better things, frankly, for religion to worry about. Promiscuity I'd consider a "problem" for today's society where religion could conceivably help, but is frankly neutered by lumping everything together. Most people don't see gay people as "evil" anymore - and they're not going to listen to one message if they find the other is tainted by prejudice.

True. But more thought needs to go in to how we respond to choices made. With regards to homosexuality, I think that the issue of choice isn't even relevant anymore, and that the idea of forcing people to act so far against their natures is seriously outdated & erroneous. To put it in cliche, times have changed. We need to consider wider repercussions; not just "is being gay bad?". We need to realise that the important sexual issue is that of promiscuity, and its effects. That impacts gay & straight alike; witness the growth of STIs among the young in Western countries.

How one acts upon one's sexuality is far more important than whether one does, and that is the choice that should be studied, for everyone.

 

Well, in my circle of friends, only two of them are homosexual, both of whom happen to be women. They are actually my wife's friends who became my friends as well after we got married. Anyway, the point of it is this - I have actually asked them if they think they were born gay or became gay, and both of them claim that they feel they were born gay. The reason they claim this is because they look back to their pre-pubescent years before they were attracted to either sex.

In the games that they would play, they would always want to roleplay the male part. Rescue the damsel in distress from the dragon to site an example one of them gave to me. And the two women come from very similar upbringings. Both of them were raised by heterosexual parents. Neither one claims to be abused as a child. Both of them had parents who held steady jobs. One of them even had a father who is a minister.

What I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to be anything present in either of their backgrounds that would have caused them to become gay. Also, I think it is ridiculous to say one would chose to be gay if you were actually straight, for reasons that HB and others have mentioned. Plus, I have the word right from their mouths - they feel they were born gay. Granted, I have a small sample size to deal with here, but if they feel that they were born gay, and I have no evidence to suggest the contrary, why should I not believe they are being honest?

I cannot accept that people simply chose to be gay. I agree that acting upon this sexual desire is a choice, just like acting upon heterosexual desire is a choice. But there are extremely few heterosexual people who go through life without having sex, so I think it is a stretch to say that people who are homosexual should just not have sex for their entire life.

Finally, I will leave you with a humorous anectode. My mother-in-law does not believe that gay people exist. She makes this claim because she says that she has never met someone who was gay in her entire life. What she really means is she has never met someone who TOLD her they were gay. It's very strange - it's like she expects that people who are gay would be very different and be obvious to identify from straight people. Finally, even though I don't know how many gay people she has actually met in her life, I do know of at least one she knows personally. One of my wife's friends that I mentioned early. She's even invited her over the house for dinner and had fairly long conversations with her. So even though she would claim otherwise, there's at least one gay person that she not only has met, but knows quite well.

 

Lets consult with them meddling forces of science.

HB doesnt look so 'shot down' to me all of a sudden. The choice-folks on the other hand...

 

I still believe being gay is a result of your upbringing and not genetics. I'm not saying you need some massive traumatic experience in your childhood in order to become gay but the way in which you are raised will make you gay. Since we don't know how each and every person was raised and the most contributing factors would be the parts they can't remember (when they were 2-4 years old for example) it's hard to say 'WHAT' exactly makes people become gay. Frankly I don't think there is one reason, there are many and each more subtle than the last.

It can be compared to how a person is in real life, their religion, moral code, mannerisims and so forth. The commanding factor in who we are and who will become are the experiences in our life, sure genetics contribute but people aren't born Christian, Republican or anti-abortionist, their experiences led them to become those.

What I mentioned before about homosexuals not reproducing should have been taken as tongue in cheek. True, homosexuals DO reproduce but does the fact that they're having sex with someone of the opposite gender change their sexual orientation? They are no longer homosexual, they are bi-sexual. Well what about artificial incemination? They didn't have that until fairly recently. What have these homosexuals been doing in order to spread their recessive gene until we had artificial assistance?

People aren't born with a genetic desire to be hetrosexual, they're born with a desire to mate and the gender of whom they mate with is not an issue. Look at prisions, most of the people who go to prision are the last type of person you would think are gay. Yet you put 20 men in a cell together for an extended period of time and they ARE going to have sex when if these people were on the outside they would have sex with females. They PREFER females yet failing that they'll settle for males. And aren't prisioners just those in our society who can't protect themselves against thier own instincts?