Is homosexuality a choice? [split off from "Why is Homosexuality , still wrong?"]

GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Is homosexuality a choice? [split off from "Why is Homosexuality , still wrong?"]

After the "Is Homosexuality still wrong?" thread went explody in Kill em with kindness, I decided to put my unanswered questions up in Atheist vs. Theist.

So, to anyone, atheist/theist, straight/bi/gay, lemme' know what you think.

Most theists who insist gayness is a choice didn't choose to be straight themselves as far as I can tell. If god supposedly didn't make gay people, then WHY would a person have to smother same sex attraction and choose heterosexuality?


I've never met anyone who was bisexual but chose to "act straight". It makes it sound like gay men are either bisexual but choose to have sex with men exclusively, or straight men who for some reason, choose to have sex with men even though they are not attracted to them at all......

I just want to know HOW sexuality is a choice, if you in fact did not choose. What would one base this idea off of? What possible reason would people who "were created by god to be straight" have, to choose to be gay?

Okay, so hypothetically, god doesn't create gay people, right? They are not born that way, correct? God only makes straight people. So what POSSIBLE reason would a gay person have to be gay? Obviously they aren't attracted to men, since god doesn't MAKE men who are attracted to men. So why would they make this choice? Who chooses to be gay? Noone I know.

And before it comes up, yes, I am bisexual. I'm currently dating a guy, but I still identify as bisexual. Because I'm still attracted to girls. So in that respect, all these supposed "cured" ex-gays, are still homosexual in my eyes if they are still attracted to other people of the same sex. Most of their "cure rates" reflect celibacy or having relations with the opposite sex regularly. SO I guess they're TECHNICALLY choosing to be straight. Or at least trying to. But that's really beside the point. Wink


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
If sexuality is a choice, I

If sexuality is a choice, I should be able to choose to be homosexual. Here I go:

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Nope, didn't work, still straight Sad

 

I actually met a person that says she chose to be straight. She really claims she sat down, thought about it, and chose to be hetero. She also claims god talks to her, in a calm fatherly voice. Nuff said.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Damn you beat me to

Damn you beat me to it^

 

Anyway, since sexuallity is determined by 3 genes which determine what sex you like it can not be the choice. Homosexuality happens when those genes are reversed, for a man it would be the women genes, and for a women the man genes. Homosexuality is also a type of population control, higher rates of homosexuality happen in poverty stricken countries. I guess you could say your DNA wants to help keep the population down, to help the way of living in the area.  

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
The whole debate kind of

The whole debate kind of illustrates how poorly we understand sexuality. My temptation would be to take the whole thing back a step and say who CARES if homosexuality is a choice or not? There's absolutely no reason why a person shouldn't be able to sleep with someone of the same sex if they want to, and christcons who want to say otherwise can get busy explaining all the other biblical lifestyle guidelines that they ignore.

Bottom line: if christians can't find a better reason to persecute gays than because the bible tells them to, then they should reflect on the fact that being christian is still a choice in this country and that people are allowed to choose to NOT be christians.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
Well, I'm pretty sure I

Well, I'm pretty sure I didn't choose to be straight.  I have friends who say they knew they were gay from a very young age, but they just didn't know what 'gay' was. 

 http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice

I'm attempting to find some better links for scholarly studies done on this subject.  If I can find them, I'll post them.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
I fall into the "Not a

I fall into the "Not a Choice" camp for a simple personal reason (I seem to have simple personal reasons for alot of things I'm noticing), when I am , how to put this...., "physically" attracted to someone, there is no choice about it.  Certain anatomical structures are revelaed and voila (gimme the accent Rhad, I'm on a windoze box now).  I have very little to do with it.  On the contrary, show me certain males anatomical structures and ....nothin...., nope still not gay, but also no choice involved.

No Gods, Know Peace.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: Bottom

Tilberian wrote:

Bottom line: if christians can't find a better reason to persecute gays than because the bible tells them to, then they should reflect on the fact that being christian is still a choice in this country and that people are allowed to choose to NOT be christians.

Nail meet hammer.

I quizzed my mother on this and the only thing she could say was, "The Bible says it's wrong."  I just kind of looked at her funny and walked away.

I don't give a shit whether it's choice or not.  No one should give a shit. 

As for the disease angle (the only other argument against homosexuality I've ever heard that seems to have any merit), we all need to practice "safe sex" methods.  And if actions that cause diseases becomes an indication of morality, let's start locking up people who don't wash their hands after using the bathroom.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: As

Iruka Naminori wrote:

As for the disease angle (the only other argument against homosexuality I've ever heard that seems to have any merit), we all need to practice "safe sex" methods. And if actions that cause diseases becomes an indication of morality, let's start locking up people who don't wash their hands after using the bathroom.

I bet you are at a greater risk of disease from straight sex than gay sex. Gay sex got associated with disease because of AIDS. But AIDS is rare in this part of the world. Let's remember than most gay sex is just oral, and it's pretty hard to get a disease that way. Lots of gay men don't do the anal thing at all. Compare straight sex where there's penetration and fluid exchange almost every time. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Lynette1977
Lynette1977's picture
Posts: 126
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote: If sexuality

KSMB wrote:

If sexuality is a choice, I should be able to choose to be homosexual. Here I go:

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Nope, didn't work, still straight Sad

 

I actually met a person that says she chose to be straight. She really claims she sat down, thought about it, and chose to be hetero. She also claims god talks to her, in a calm fatherly voice. Nuff said.

 

And I have atheist gay friends who think that bisexual people should make up their mind. I think it's resentment, mostly, but I think that gay people can, too, be pretty biased against people who aren't on their same sexual number. The "choice" issue alone doesn't just come from  Christians, unfortunately. It's a debate I've been in time and time again with lesbian friends.  

Flemming Rose: “When [christians] say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission….”


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I have to weigh in then, as

I have to weigh in then, as one of those rare theists who believe that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.  I know gay and bisexual Christians, both practicing and chaste. 

I believe, however, that God calls those of us with belief in Him who have same-sex attractions to chastity, that is, to living a life style in keeping with our state of life (single, married, religious). 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Do I understand

Do I understand correctly?

If someone happens to be born gay, you think they should never be allowed to have a fully loving relationship?

Should that also be true for short people?  Blue-eyed people?  They were born that way, too.

Sounds to me like your god discriminates. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 229
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Education, education,

Education, education, education.

Theists (and "those" others) should really research and investigate the following issues IN DEPTH. Would do them and the rest of the world a whole lotta good. For starters:

1 . Genetics

2. Chromosomes

3. Intersexed/Hermaphodites

4. Nature/nurture 

 Amazing what happens when one opens oneself to reality, science, facts etc...

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


DeeLock
DeeLock's picture
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Why do x-tians get to bring

Why do x-tians get to bring their bigotry and prejudice into government?  I can stand people being put off by it or ignorant about it to a certain extent, but to force your beliefs on an entire country is ridiculous!

 

It makes me sick. 

Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.

-Woody Allen


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz wrote: Anyway,

James Cizuz wrote:

Anyway, since sexuallity is determined by 3 genes which determine what sex you like it can not be the choice. Homosexuality happens when those genes are reversed, for a man it would be the women genes, and for a women the man genes. Homosexuality is also a type of population control, higher rates of homosexuality happen in poverty stricken countries. I guess you could say your DNA wants to help keep the population down, to help the way of living in the area.

I know a few homosexual people that certainly don't act like it's a choice (one of which is a Christian that "really wants to fix the 'problem'&quotEye-wink, and I'd certainly like to point him in the direction of some material on the genes you speak of. Do you have some links or other sources on this (I have access to a rather large number of journals if the sources are there). I'd sort of like to help this guy stop feeling so "guilty" with his life (and getting him to stop being a theist isn't really an option here, unfortunately).

 

Also, this is my first post: hello everyone!

 

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote: If sexuality is a

Quote:

If sexuality is a choice, I should be able to choose to be homosexual. Here I go:

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Nope, didn't work, still straight Sad

Likewise, I choose to be asexual.  I think I can feel myself budding already.

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


ImmaculateDeception
ImmaculateDeception's picture
Posts: 280
Joined: 2006-11-08
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I believe, however,

Quote:
I believe, however, that God calls those of us with belief in Him who have same-sex attractions to chastity, that is, to living a life style in keeping with our state of life (single, married, religious).

You know, it doesn't matter how you sugarcoat it.  You're basically saying here that your god has forbidden those who were born gay from experiencing love.  That's pretty sick. 

Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: Do I

Susan wrote:

Do I understand correctly?

If someone happens to be born gay, you think they should never be allowed to have a fully loving relationship?

Should that also be true for short people?  Blue-eyed people?  They were born that way, too.

Sounds to me like your god discriminates. 

You sure misunderstanding, Susan.  I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them.  I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.

I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions.  Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Wishkah311
Theist
Wishkah311's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
There's a good chance that

There's a good chance that you have heard about this already, but I watched a documentary about a gay man who was a mormon.  They not only forced him to buy gay porn (which made him very uncomfortable) in attempt to "cure" his gayness, they also gave him into secret electroshock therapy.  When the "cure" didn't work, they excommunicated him.  He didn't have sex with men.  In fact, I don't know that he had ever had any kind of sex with anyone.  He felt so bad for being gay that he willing had electro shock therapy, which has given him scars, in attempt to "cleanse himself."  Even after the whole ordeal was over, he wanted back into the church.  He cried for the loss of it.  If anyone knows this story to be false, do let me know, but I find it disgusting.  How could anyone go through that much in order to fix what cannot change?  How could anyone put another human being through that kind of pain and hatred?  Anyone who tells me that is what God wants is completely insane...

Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
Wishkah311 wrote: There's a

Wishkah311 wrote:
There's a good chance that you have heard about this already, but I watched a documentary about a gay man who was a mormon.  They not only forced him to buy gay porn (which made him very uncomfortable) in attempt to "cure" his gayness, they also gave him into secret electroshock therapy.  When the "cure" didn't work, they excommunicated him.  He didn't have sex with men.  In fact, I don't know that he had ever had any kind of sex with anyone.  He felt so bad for being gay that he willing had electro shock therapy, which has given him scars, in attempt to "cleanse himself."  Even after the whole ordeal was over, he wanted back into the church.  He cried for the loss of it.  If anyone knows this story to be false, do let me know, but I find it disgusting.  How could anyone go through that much in order to fix what cannot change?  How could anyone put another human being through that kind of pain and hatred?  Anyone who tells me that is what God wants is completely insane...

I personally know a gay man who was a Mormon. The church told him to ignore those feelings and get married, and he did for a long time. I think his finally deciding to come out was pivotal in the breakup of his (large) family, and incredibly painful for all involved.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Wishkah311 wrote: There's a

Wishkah311 wrote:
There's a good chance that you have heard about this already, but I watched a documentary about a gay man who was a mormon.  They not only forced him to buy gay porn (which made him very uncomfortable) in attempt to "cure" his gayness, they also gave him into secret electroshock therapy.  When the "cure" didn't work, they excommunicated him.  He didn't have sex with men.  In fact, I don't know that he had ever had any kind of sex with anyone.  He felt so bad for being gay that he willing had electro shock therapy, which has given him scars, in attempt to "cleanse himself."  Even after the whole ordeal was over, he wanted back into the church.  He cried for the loss of it.  If anyone knows this story to be false, do let me know, but I find it disgusting.  How could anyone go through that much in order to fix what cannot change?  How could anyone put another human being through that kind of pain and hatred?  Anyone who tells me that is what God wants is completely insane...

I'm not quite clear on who "they" are in you post (the Mormon church, his family, or some wierdo "i-can-cure-the queer" therapist).  In any event, I just want to go on record saying that "their" behavior is truly reprehensible and is a horrible violation of this man's human dignity.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
canofbutter wrote: James

canofbutter wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:

Anyway, since sexuallity is determined by 3 genes which determine what sex you like it can not be the choice. Homosexuality happens when those genes are reversed, for a man it would be the women genes, and for a women the man genes. Homosexuality is also a type of population control, higher rates of homosexuality happen in poverty stricken countries. I guess you could say your DNA wants to help keep the population down, to help the way of living in the area.

I know a few homosexual people that certainly don't act like it's a choice (one of which is a Christian that "really wants to fix the 'problem'&quotEye-wink, and I'd certainly like to point him in the direction of some material on the genes you speak of. Do you have some links or other sources on this (I have access to a rather large number of journals if the sources are there). I'd sort of like to help this guy stop feeling so "guilty" with his life (and getting him to stop being a theist isn't really an option here, unfortunately).

 

Also, this is my first post: hello everyone!

 

    Well scientists did discover genes that control preferences in sexuality, when comparing between homosexuals and hetrosexuals they kept getting simularties that these genes were changes in the homosexuals. It is not a absolute "this is why gay men are gay" however is still being studied and tested.  Unfourtunitly these genes also control if a man likes beastality, or pedofilia, or bondage, or anything else you can think of. Which is sad, because these people don't choose to be this thing, they are forced it upon themselves. Of course when it comes to pedofilia since second party is not fully mentally ready, is wrong and the pedofile must fight those urges. As for beataility... I don't see much wrong with it... Well it does disgust me myself, but it is their choice.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:
Susan wrote:


Do I understand correctly?

If someone happens to be born gay, you think they should never be allowed to have a fully loving relationship?

Should that also be true for short people? Blue-eyed people? They were born that way, too.

Sounds to me like your god discriminates.



You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.
You've either deliberately misconstrued the meaning of "a fully loving relationship" or you're just 'confused' or you're in denial.

Quote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions. Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink
As I understand celibacy, you merely choose to not have sex with another person. But if you are normal you still have sex; however, alone.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
James Cizuz

James Cizuz wrote:
canofbutter wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:

Anyway, since sexuallity is determined by 3 genes which determine what sex you like it can not be the choice. Homosexuality happens when those genes are reversed, for a man it would be the women genes, and for a women the man genes. Homosexuality is also a type of population control, higher rates of homosexuality happen in poverty stricken countries. I guess you could say your DNA wants to help keep the population down, to help the way of living in the area.

I know a few homosexual people that certainly don't act like it's a choice (one of which is a Christian that "really wants to fix the 'problem'&quotEye-wink, and I'd certainly like to point him in the direction of some material on the genes you speak of. Do you have some links or other sources on this (I have access to a rather large number of journals if the sources are there). I'd sort of like to help this guy stop feeling so "guilty" with his life (and getting him to stop being a theist isn't really an option here, unfortunately).

 

Also, this is my first post: hello everyone!

 

Well scientists did discover genes that control preferences in sexuality, when comparing between homosexuals and hetrosexuals they kept getting simularties that these genes were changes in the homosexuals. It is not a absolute "this is why gay men are gay" however is still being studied and tested. Unfourtunitly these genes also control if a man likes beastality, or pedofilia, or bondage, or anything else you can think of. Which is sad, because these people don't choose to be this thing, they are forced it upon themselves. Of course when it comes to pedofilia since second party is not fully mentally ready, is wrong and the pedofile must fight those urges. As for beataility... I don't see much wrong with it... Well it does disgust me myself, but it is their choice.

I was wondering if you knew specifically what journals or other sources have information directly on these studies. There are a number of things I've found in general searching, but a lot of it seems conflicting and inconclusive. You mentioned spefifcally "three genes" and really want more information on it. I've read about numerous studies anywhere from 30 to 3 years old and still can't find any information as specific as you specified (if you have a link, I would really, really appreciate it).

I personally could care less if it's genetic or a choice - a mutually consenting homosexual couple being married, adopting children, having sex, etc doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights at all, so they should be free to do it regardless.

I agree with your comments on pedophilia 100% - a child is not mentally ready to consent, so their rights would be infringed upon in such a situation.

However with beastiality seems like a rather different thing, as it would be difficult to determine if an animal was consenting... Not wanting to "go there" - I don't have enough information on this topic to form a sufficiently rational opinion Smiling

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I snagged this from Dan

I snagged this from Dan Savage's column in The Onion: 

 

In other lesbian news…

The publisher and editor of a magazine for African-American gays and lesbians recently came out as an ex-lesbian. The news was splashed all over the cover of the most recent and, without a doubt, final issue of Venus ("Redeemed! 10 Ways To Get Out Of 'The Life' If You Want Out!&quotEye-wink. Charlene E. Cothran has found Jesus, and we're encouraged to conclude that she no longer has any desire to bury her big stupid face in Halle Berry's smokin'-hot crotch.

The American Taliban, predictably, are absolutely ecstatic about the news. They're also annoyed that Cothran's conversion hasn't received much attention from the national media.

"Imagine a prominent conservative Christian publicly announcing that he has renounced heterosexuality and will henceforth and forever be homosexual," writes Kelly Boggs, editor of the Baptist Message. "Try as I might, I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the mainstream press failing to report such news. Instead, there would be a media firestorm."

Cothran's prominence in the gay community is debatable (this pasty white fag had never heard of this dyke or her magazine until she came out as an ex-dyke), but this point is not debatable: Cothran is still a dyke. She may have renounced her homosexuality, but she has not managed to become, to use Boggs's words, "henceforth and forever" heterosexual. In what has to be the most entertaining interview with a closet case since Ted Haggard discussed meth and male escorts with a TV reporter as his horrified wife and children sat beside him in the family minivan, Cothran told freelance journalist Clay Cane (claycane.blogspot.com) that… Actually, it's such a delicious interview that it's worth quoting from at some length:

 

 

So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?

Charlene: Nothing… My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word….

Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?

Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I'm not saying there won't ever be a man in my life. You're asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate… But… there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again…

Are you physically attracted to men?

Charlene: [Pauses.] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now…

Are you still attracted to women, or is that attraction completely gone?

Charlene: I would say after 29 years of walking in the sin of lesbianism that if the devil were going to try and tempt me that he's probably not going to send a football player, if you will, because that didn't do it for me. You follow me?

Yes, Charlene, we follow you. If the devil is going to tempt your ass, he'd better send Halle Berry and not William "Refrigerator" Perry. Because you're not attracted to men. Except Jesusand you're not even attracted to the hot body (and blood?) of Christ, just to His "spirit."

Um, Kelly Boggs? The mainstream media is ignoring Cothran because there's nothing much to see here. Just another silly, insecure homo undone by the zap put on her head by her family (Cothran was disowned when she came out 20 years ago) and the faith in which she was raised. The celibate Cothran hasn't been liberated from her homosexuality, just from the possibility of an intimate adult relationship. Getting right with her fictional bogeyman of a savior didn't make Cothran straight. She's still a 'mo—a slow 'mo, but a 'mo.

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: totus_tuus

AiiA wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:
Susan wrote:


Do I understand correctly?

If someone happens to be born gay, you think they should never be allowed to have a fully loving relationship?

Should that also be true for short people? Blue-eyed people? They were born that way, too.

Sounds to me like your god discriminates.



You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.
You've either deliberately misconstrued the meaning of "a fully loving relationship" or you're just 'confused' or you're in denial.


Quote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions. Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink
As I understand celibacy, you merely choose to not have sex with another person. But if you are normal you still have sex; however, alone.

I'm either confused or in denial then.  I'd not deliberately misconstrue things.  Perhaps we're disconnecting on the meaning of fully loving.  Your definition, please?

I gotta chuckle outta the celibacy comment.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
canofbutter wrote: James

canofbutter wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:
canofbutter wrote:
James Cizuz wrote:

Anyway, since sexuallity is determined by 3 genes which determine what sex you like it can not be the choice. Homosexuality happens when those genes are reversed, for a man it would be the women genes, and for a women the man genes. Homosexuality is also a type of population control, higher rates of homosexuality happen in poverty stricken countries. I guess you could say your DNA wants to help keep the population down, to help the way of living in the area.

I know a few homosexual people that certainly don't act like it's a choice (one of which is a Christian that "really wants to fix the 'problem'&quotEye-wink, and I'd certainly like to point him in the direction of some material on the genes you speak of. Do you have some links or other sources on this (I have access to a rather large number of journals if the sources are there). I'd sort of like to help this guy stop feeling so "guilty" with his life (and getting him to stop being a theist isn't really an option here, unfortunately).

 

Also, this is my first post: hello everyone!

 

Well scientists did discover genes that control preferences in sexuality, when comparing between homosexuals and hetrosexuals they kept getting simularties that these genes were changes in the homosexuals. It is not a absolute "this is why gay men are gay" however is still being studied and tested. Unfourtunitly these genes also control if a man likes beastality, or pedofilia, or bondage, or anything else you can think of. Which is sad, because these people don't choose to be this thing, they are forced it upon themselves. Of course when it comes to pedofilia since second party is not fully mentally ready, is wrong and the pedofile must fight those urges. As for beataility... I don't see much wrong with it... Well it does disgust me myself, but it is their choice.

I was wondering if you knew specifically what journals or other sources have information directly on these studies. There are a number of things I've found in general searching, but a lot of it seems conflicting and inconclusive. You mentioned spefifcally "three genes" and really want more information on it. I've read about numerous studies anywhere from 30 to 3 years old and still can't find any information as specific as you specified (if you have a link, I would really, really appreciate it).

I personally could care less if it's genetic or a choice - a mutually consenting homosexual couple being married, adopting children, having sex, etc doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights at all, so they should be free to do it regardless.

I agree with your comments on pedophilia 100% - a child is not mentally ready to consent, so their rights would be infringed upon in such a situation.

However with beastiality seems like a rather different thing, as it would be difficult to determine if an animal was consenting... Not wanting to "go there" - I don't have enough information on this topic to form a sufficiently rational opinion Smiling

I actually can not remember... I'm trying but it's been about 3 years since then. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: AiiA

totus_tuus wrote:

AiiA wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:
Susan wrote:


Do I understand correctly?

If someone happens to be born gay, you think they should never be allowed to have a fully loving relationship?

Should that also be true for short people? Blue-eyed people? They were born that way, too.

Sounds to me like your god discriminates.



You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.
You've either deliberately misconstrued the meaning of "a fully loving relationship" or you're just 'confused' or you're in denial.


Quote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions. Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink
As I understand celibacy, you merely choose to not have sex with another person. But if you are normal you still have sex; however, alone.

I'm either confused or in denial then. I'd not deliberately misconstrue things. Perhaps we're disconnecting on the meaning of fully loving. Your definition, please?

I gotta chuckle outta the celibacy comment.

There is people who do have sex with there parents, but that has nothing to do with this.

 

Fully loving, would be consenting, sexually attracted, and just love for the other person. I love my mother and father very much, is it the same as the love I feel for my girl friend? I hope you said no to that.

 The english language is the only language where love can mean many things, the greeks had 5 words for love. English has one. I love pie, do I want to marry that pie? Greeks had a word for love of an object, person, friend, mate, and related. Other languages were simliar.

 

Also, why did you automatically bring up you love your parents, but do not want to have sex with them? Were you that confused with what she wrote, or do you really "love" your parents in the way you suggested? 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Avecrien
Theist
Avecrien's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-04-25
User is offlineOffline
I've known people who were

I've known people who were gay who chose not to have gay relationships for the sake of their faith. If that faith is christianity, that's technically what it is asking of a gay person.( No idea how that's worked out for them in recent years)

Mike Gravel for president!


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: You

totus_tuus wrote:

You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.

I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions. Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink

Natural laws don’t carry prohibitions because they are descriptive not proscriptive. Natural laws merely describe the manner in which physical substances behave. They impose no obligation upon anyone, there is no penalty for breaking them, and there’s no reward for following them.

This argument was brought up in the last thread. You’re assuming that sex organs have one proper or natural function and that using them for anything else is wrong. Your sex organs can be used to litter the world with miniature versions of yourself, or they can be used to express love between you and another person, or they can be used for pleasure. Unless you believe that pleasure is itself bad, then I don’t see any reason for you to believe that using your sex organs to produce pleasure is wrong. You might say that it wrong in certain contexts like your incest example, but no parallel can be drawn there. Incest involves a child that can’t give informed consent and it may damage them psychologically. Homosexuality involves consenting adults and the only real consequence is not having children which is a choice your free to make anyway.

Why not just admit that it’s not prohibited by natural law, (whatever that’s supposed to mean) it’s prohibited by an old book that was written by savages, who were dumber than us by a very wide margin and knew no more about god than you or I do?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


NinjaTux
NinjaTux's picture
Posts: 265
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: You’re

Gauche wrote:
You’re assuming that sex organs have one proper or natural function and that using them for anything else is wrong.

 

In reality the only thing that "natural law" says you have to use sex organs for is the elimination of waste...which is the best argument against design I know...

No Gods, Know Peace.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: You sure

totus_tuus wrote:

You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.

Oh brother.  I believe you deliberately said that.  If you didn't, it was quite ignorant. 

I won't go on because that was covered by James Cizuz before I got back to this thread.

totus_tuus wrote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, 

I assume that was a bad attempt at humor. 

 

totus_tuus wrote:
but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions.

 Natural law doesn't prohibit gay sex (so we'll assume it's OK to be short and have blue eyes).  Besides, it's natural to find homosexuality in the animal kingdom.  Even National Geographic has an article here that some animals are, in fact, gay.

totus_tuus wrote:
Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink

Your choice, but don't assume you or your church should be able to make the choice for someone else. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Wishkah311
Theist
Wishkah311's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-04-21
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

I'm not quite clear on who "they" are in you post (the Mormon church, his family, or some wierdo "i-can-cure-the queer" therapist). In any event, I just want to go on record saying that "their" behavior is truly reprehensible and is a horrible violation of this man's human dignity.

Sorry for the lack of clarity in that post. "they" is anyone who thinks they can "cure the queer." Although I only know about the Mormon church going to such lengths, I know it isn't just them. Not all Mormons are crazy like that. The Mormons were just the example I know of.

 (edit for typo)

Ah, the pitter patter of tiny feet in huge combat boots.


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
Hmmmmm I've always felt

Hmmmmm I've always felt there was a difference between sexual orientation, sexual preference and sexual desire. I dunno if I choose to me  straight.....I'm pretty sure anyways kissing a girl or the thought of trying to have sex with a girl or having sex with a girl voluntarily would make me want to vomit in my mouth but it's cool if you're into that (not directly meaning you but you can include yourself lol) and so I just  feel and know that my object of my sexual desire and sexual preference is men, I couldn't change that if I wanted so that is what makes me straight. I get a few flashes of I'd go bi for a day or two for her but those moments pass. And I think if a God(s) didn't make some of his/her/their creatures such douches to people who they/he/she made that way then no one in their right mind would choose an sexuality that made them the  brunt of hate/violence/other bad stuff. I'm all for how you are now is the way you were meant to be/supposed to be.

 

BUT there have been a few people I've know who decided to bat for the same team because they had enough of the opposite sex for w/e reason.  Heck yeah those "cured gays and bi" people are still well not straight because gay or bi isn't a disease. 

Quote:
Religion at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled.

---George Carlin---


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: totus_tuus

Susan wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:

You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.

Oh brother.  I believe you deliberately said that.  If you didn't, it was quite ignorant. 

I won't go on because that was covered by James Cizuz before I got back to this thread.

totus_tuus wrote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either, 

I assume that was a bad attempt at humor. 

 

totus_tuus wrote:
but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions.

 Natural law doesn't prohibit gay sex (so we'll assume it's OK to be short and have blue eyes).  Besides, it's natural to find homosexuality in the animal kingdom.  Even National Geographic has an article here that some animals are, in fact, gay.

totus_tuus wrote:
Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink

Your choice, but don't assume you or your church should be able to make the choice for someone else. 

I'm a little ahort on time, so I only want to address the last point, you make, Susan.  ie That Christians or their Church shouldn't be able to make chaoices for others.  Coming from the citizen of a republic, and arguably the greatest republic ever established, this statement is silly.  Is it not impossible for the nature of a republic to be independent of the nature of its people?  If the people hold religious views, is it possible to escape the projection of those views into the public arena?

The idea of repulbican government as seen today has its roots in that most treasured period of "freethinker" history, the Enlightment, that flowering of reason and secularism of the 17th and 18th century.  Don't blame me.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: Susan

totus_tuus wrote:
Susan wrote:
totus_tuus wrote:

You sure misunderstanding, Susan. I had a fully loving relationship with my parents, but never had sex with either one of them. I have totally loving relationships with my children, but we've never had sex.

Oh brother. I believe you deliberately said that. If you didn't, it was quite ignorant.

I won't go on because that was covered by James Cizuz before I got back to this thread.

totus_tuus wrote:
I'm 6'4" and have green eyes, so the other restrictions wouldn't bother me much either,

I assume that was a bad attempt at humor.

totus_tuus wrote:
but I'm not aware of any aspect of the natural law that has such prohibitions.

Natural law doesn't prohibit gay sex (so we'll assume it's OK to be short and have blue eyes). Besides, it's natural to find homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Even National Geographic has an article here that some animals are, in fact, gay.

totus_tuus wrote:
Besides which, I'm a celibate. Eye-wink

Your choice, but don't assume you or your church should be able to make the choice for someone else.

I'm a little ahort on time, so I only want to address the last point, you make, Susan. ie That Christians or their Church shouldn't be able to make chaoices for others. Coming from the citizen of a republic, and arguably the greatest republic ever established, this statement is silly. Is it not impossible for the nature of a republic to be independent of the nature of its people? If the people hold religious views, is it possible to escape the projection of those views into the public arena?

The idea of repulbican government as seen today has its roots in that most treasured period of "freethinker" history, the Enlightment, that flowering of reason and secularism of the 17th and 18th century. Don't blame me.

I didn't say it wasn't happening.  That's definitely a problem these days.

However, what I said was:  don't assume you or your church should be able to make the choice for someone else.

totus_tuus wrote:
Don't blame me.

If you vote to ban same sex marriage and deny the rights to some people, yes, I do blame you. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


canofbutter
Silver Member
canofbutter's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Susan wrote: totus_tuus

Susan wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:
Don't blame me.

If you vote to ban same sex marriage and deny the rights to some people, yes, I do blame you.

This is what bugs me the most about this whole thing. People will vote against giving other people rights when it doesn't effect their own rights at all.  A personal act shouldn't be illegal if it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Besides, it's not like legalized same-sex marriage will automatically make it law that you can't hate homosexuality anymore.  As irrational as such a hatred would be, the first amendment would still cover your right to have that opinion and speak of it freely.  

 

Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!


Juvenile Narcissist
Silver Member
Juvenile Narcissist's picture
Posts: 115
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: I'm a

totus_tuus wrote:

I'm a little ahort on time, so I only want to address the last point, you make, Susan. ie That Christians or their Church shouldn't be able to make chaoices for others. Coming from the citizen of a republic, and arguably the greatest republic ever established, this statement is silly. Is it not impossible for the nature of a republic to be independent of the nature of its people? If the people hold religious views, is it possible to escape the projection of those views into the public arena?

 

 

the people can project their religious views into the public arena all they'd like. they have that right. but when you use those religious views as the basis for laws and the basis for denying rights to people when no legitimate reasons can be found to deny these rights, then we have a serious Constiutional breech on our hands. one which erodes the very foundations that makes this republic "arguably the greatest republic ever established." my Constitution is intended to (doesn't always happen, but tends to get rectified eventually) protect me from any establishment of religion making legal decisions for me. so i'm not sure why her statement is silly. if you think her statment is silly, you find the First Amendment silly, because it says the same thing.

Rill


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
You know, with all these

You know, with all these posts about whether or not sexuality is a choice, I started wondering... if it is when did I make my choice to start wanting to have sex with only women?

I certainly don't remember thinking to myself "You know men are great, but all those girl-bits are what really gets me going."  So maybe I was born straight.  But if I was born straight (like most of the theists say that we are) AND homosexuality is a choice, then I should be able to decide to like men.  Really, the advantage of no risk of pregnancy is a good one, but try as I might, I just can't convince myself to like penis.

So either you don't choose to be gay, or I'm just really indecisive.  I'm betting on the former given that I can't remember making a concious choice for being attracted to women with glasses or women with dark hair either. 

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote: I'm a

totus_tuus wrote:
I'm a little ahort on time, so I only want to address the last point, you make, Susan. ie That Christians or their Church shouldn't be able to make chaoices for others. Coming from the citizen of a republic, and arguably the greatest republic ever established, this statement is silly. Is it not impossible for the nature of a republic to be independent of the nature of its people? If the people hold religious views, is it possible to escape the projection of those views into the public arena?

The idea of repulbican government as seen today has its roots in that most treasured period of "freethinker" history, the Enlightment, that flowering of reason and secularism of the 17th and 18th century. Don't blame me.

Is it possible that the politics of the Republic can escape influence from the irrational views of the populace? No, of course not. But rationality can be the ideal and commonly held standard for agreement on fact. It should never be sufficient for someone to stand up in the House or Senate and say "the government should force people to act this way because acting the other way is wrong and I know because God says so." Yet it happens all the time.

Theists can carry their fucked up delusions around in their heads all they want. They can conduct their own lives and vote according to those delusions if they want to. But there's no way that they should be able to make laws based on those delusions unless they can come up with a real argument from reason as to why that law is needed. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


kmisho
kmisho's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-08-18
User is offlineOffline
NinjaTux wrote: Gauche

NinjaTux wrote:

Gauche wrote:
You’re assuming that sex organs have one proper or natural function and that using them for anything else is wrong.

 

In reality the only thing that "natural law" says you have to use sex organs for is the elimination of waste...which is the best argument against design I know...

The whole naturalism argument from the side of believers is disingenuous at best. Most who think about it at all say god is utterly and completely outside of nature. What could be more unnatural than god? And does this god work miracles? Miracles are violations of nature; they are unnatural. If a believer wants miracles to happen, he wants unnatural things to happen. It makes no sense at all for someone who desires the unnantural to attack something else as unnatural.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote: I've

GlamourKat wrote:

I've never met anyone who was bisexual but chose to "act straight". It makes it sound like gay men are either bisexual but choose to have sex with men exclusively, or straight men who for some reason, choose to have sex with men even though they are not attracted to them at all......

I'm one of those bisexual people who chose to "act straight".  I've been married, divorced, currently in a long term (7 years now) relationship with a man, and have three kids.  My parents and children have no idea and i choose to keep it that way for my own reasons.  I still have sex with women from time to time, though I have never actually dated a woman.  I guess I've just never been ready to embrace a fully gay lifestyle.  If I had a choice I never would have chosen this.  It was something obvious to me from very young but I suppressed it the best I could till my best friend came out.  I came out limitedly, only to my closest friends and remain that way.  Everyone deals with their own struggles their own way.  Some choose to fully embrace what they are, some choose to completely deny it, while others choose to just hide it.  Ex-homosexuals who choose celibacy I don't see as ex's, just people who chose to deny it, which is why a lot of them don't have hetero relations.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I think in most cases it

I think in most cases it isn't a choice and, anyway there is nothing wrong with either choice. I have a friend (atheist) who is probably bisexual but says he's straight but quite openly admits he wasn't sure for several years. Knowing him, he probably finds women more attractive, but is still attracted to men, it is possible to be bi but not 50/50. I have another friend who says he's 75% gay and is in a gay relationship with another guy who is bi.

Sexuality is a strange thing, and something I do find hard to understand. I know that I'm probably 90% straight, which I actually think is the most anybody can be straight really. I'd probably never have sex with another man, I wouldn't want to, the idea is very off putting but I can find men attractive and I think deep down even a staunch homophobe does too.


Kaelestis721
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-05-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm not personally gay, so

I'm not personally gay, so my most honest answer to the question would be "I don't know".

 But if you ask me, (and I guess ur asking in general), I'd say that sexuality is not a choice.  You like who you like...be it man, woman, large, small, dark, light, whatever...everybody likes different ppl and types of ppl...their sex being one of those different traits.

The only real choice I guess there is is whether or not you choose to act on your feelings if you do like ppl that others deem to not be 'correct or socially acceptable'.  Personally, I'd say like who you want to like and act on it...the only thing that you have to live with your entire life is you...why deny yourself?

Even for those that choose to limit who they like based on the surrounding society I have no hate for them...I understand that the pressure and discrimination that goes with not meeting certain standards can have very real and heavy consequences in certain situations.  Jobs, feelings (which are important), families, etc can depend on ppl having a good perception of you.

So, basically I don't know if you can choose who you like...but I suspect that you can't.  Even so, however a person deals with it there will be consequences for their decision and the best thing to do is to try and understand and support them.  And cheer/help them against those who refuse to understand and support those who may be a bit different from them.

 ^_^ v


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
I think my parents actually

I think my parents actually wanted me to be gay, they asked me when I was going to come out on several occasions. I don't think my straightness dissappoints them really.

I've always been brought up to respect people regardless of colour, sexuality, gender, religion (the latter one is something I find hard but I separate the person from their beliefs, I respect the person not the beliefs). I think it is important not to judge people on irrelevant differences. Judgement should be on actions.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley wrote: I

Jacob Cordingley wrote:

I think my parents actually wanted me to be gay, they asked me when I was going to come out on several occasions. I don't think my straightness dissappoints them really.

That's something I've not heard before:  Parents asking their straight child when they're going to come out. 

Did they give you any reasons why they thought you might be gay? 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
No, I don't think it was

No, I don't think it was said absolutely in seriousness though, but I think they were expecting it. There was a bit of a jokey edge to it. They did think my brother would be once they realised I wasn't, but he's pretty straight as far as I'm aware (I've not lived at home really for a couple of years so I don't really see much of my family except at holidays). He is a pretty messed up kid though, more because of school than because of parenting.

I don't get it though, I'm not camp - most of the time. I don't really find men that attractive. I mean my parents are fairly left-wing and liberal, and they aren't the type to try and prove how accepting they are by boasting about a gay son.

 

 

 


IzzyPop
IzzyPop's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Alright.  I have a couple

Alright.  I have a couple of dogs in this hunt.

I am not homosexual.  My parents are.  My father had a Masters of Divinity from a Baptist college (I can't remember which one and I'm too darned lazy to dig through the attic to find out.)  He was working towards a Doctorate when he had a 'crisis of faith'.  He realized he liked penises.  He discussed this with one of his advisors.  He was booted from the school and was only 'allowed' to keep his Masters if he promised never to preach.   Very Christ-like, that school.

Fast forward 2 years.  Mom realized she was having a 'crisis of faith'. She didn't like penises.  She settled down into a 14 year relationship with an abusive woman. (Three guesses as to wether my childhood was much fun.)  She finally left that one and settled into a much healthier relationship with a great woman...who after 9 years found the LDS church and left mom to live in a 'Godly' relationship with an ex-homosexual man who had been 'cured' by the church.

 I have talked to Mom about it.  She never 'chose' to be gay.  I talked to Mom's patner (pre-conversion) and at that time she never 'chose' to be gay, but she did apperently choose to be straight later on.  My dad died before I ever got to talk to him about it, but I highly doubt he chose to be attacted to men given that his decision to live an honest life ended proposed career.

"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
All I can say is "WOW",

All I can say is "WOW", great post Izzypop.


Free Thinking
Free Thinking's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Oh yeah, being gay is a

Oh yeah, being gay is a choice... oh yeah, I just love living my life in fear, having people hate me.... oh yeah, thats the choice for me.... I just LOOOOOVVVVEEEEE being scared to walk down the street because I just love getting my ass kicked by theists with steel toe boots... yeah, that's my idea of a good time... Are you people that stupid?!

Get over it theists... who cares what you are?  Instead of searching for gay people to bash physically and mentally or preaching lies about it, why don't you get off your asses and do something good instead...

I am so sick and tired of this auguement... No matter what the scientific evidence says, homophobes still deny the reality...

Yeah, I choose to be straight. (accetable)

I chose to be a women. (oops, wrong choice, should've been born with a peni...d'oh! men have it way easier than women in this day and age....)

I chose to be a non-white. (holy shit, why the hell did I chose this one?!  I didn't realise there was still so much racism!  Good thing I didn't choose the be black!  phew!  I'd never get a taxi!  double d'oh!)

Fuck, the right choice would have been white straight dude... It seems they are the ones' who got the power!!! 

 

Why are you so stupid?  Is this a choice?  I hope not.

And why do you care?  You have nothing better to do then judge other people and tell them they're going to hell?

Way to be compassionate.

Oh, and like I said, stop perverting love by equating it with sex... It's so shallow... (shiver)

If you can't tell the difference then I guess your stupidity wasn't a choice after all...  

 

 

Judge: god, you have been accused of existence! What do you have to say for yourself?

god: I am innocent until proven guilty, your honour!


d_focil
Theist
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
The whole idea of a choice

The whole idea of a choice of GAY, NOT GAY is way to simple for human affairs. For some there must be a genetic difference that predisposes them to feelings of attraction for the same sex. But there are also people who engage in homosexual acts yet can't really be called "gay". People in prison for example can be termed situational homosexuals. This implies an element of choice depending on where they are and their lack of acess to women.

Look at any girls gone wild commercial and you can see how many college women have sex with other women when they are not really lesbians. In that case you have social pressure from guys who find it attractive, and the overall fashion of lesbiannism contributing to behavior.

The human sexual condition is a mix of genes, society, and personal choices. Things as always are much more complicated than most want to think.