What if homosexuality was a choice?

[solvs]

So, I've been thinking (and please don't ruin my thread like you did iGary's)... what if being gay was a choice?

Personally, I don't believe it is, but let's go with the premise here. Homosexuality is a choice. So? Aren't we living in a free society where adults can make choices like that? And what if it is a sin against (the Christian) God? Again, so? Putting aside the other things that are equal, or even greater, sins listed in certain parts of the Bible such as Leviticus, since when do we base our laws on religion? I mean, just because morality and ethics often collide, that doesn't mean everything some people happen to believe has to become law. Especially considering how many don't. Some religions believe that pork, or suger, or caffeine, or even electricity is bad. Does that mean if a majority of Americans (read: American voters) were Amish they would get to tell the rest of us we couldn't use toasters or cars? I know I wouldn't like that.

So then if you don't like homosexuality, what's so bad about just not being gay yourself? Why tell other people they can't be? Why is it when they say they want to love someone of the same sex, you get to tell them they can't because you believe it's wrong? I doubt we'll get anywhere here, but I'd really like to know why people think they get to tell someone else how to live based on what they believe?

[Blue Velvet]

Exactly.

I've never understood the 'choice' argument, apart from its obvious absurdity. Even if it was a choice, then why the hell not?

There are plenty of worse choices to make in this world.

Edit: And don't diss the Quakers. :D

[janey]

...because some people get a kick out of telling others what to believe (because the idea that not everyone shares the same beliefs is abhorrent).
and because others truly believe that homosexuality is just wrong (for what reason, i'll never know), not as an opinion, but as [twisted] fact. then again, the same people do change their minds a little when it's their beloved child, or a sibling or someone they care about who comes out. And then sometimes you get the nutcases that go insane and start disowning their kid for being gay, or abuse them, or throw them out of the house and never talk to them again.

re: american voters - It's quite obvious some Americans think the rest of America needs to stop bashing on the GLBT community. Otherwise, there would be no attempt to fight for gay rights at all (a la Gavin Newsom, and all those attempts to secure civil unions and marriages for same-sex couples).

The whole thing's just whacked. Many men who are homophobic have no qualms about anything when it comes to two attractive females who are partners, nobody really cares when it's the likes of Elton John or another gay/bisexual/lesbian/transgender celebrity getting married, or coming out. But they find out the two average men next door are partners, and they freak out.

And this is on the whole assumption that it's all about the sex. Not many successful relationships are based solely on the act of sexual intercourse, so why does it matter what gender the two people are?


Sheesh. </rant>

[rdowns]

So, I've been thinking (and please don't ruin my thread like you did iGary's)... what if being gay was a choice?


I'm sure this will go the way of iGary's thread.

Why can't people just worry about how they want to live their lives and let others live theirs?

[Deepdale]

Why can't people just worry about how they want to live their lives and let others live theirs?

That could be done with a reasonable effort, but then it would take away part of the pleasure of them living their lives. The art of dictating to others and illustrating how and why they went wrong provides both the adrenaline rush and dubious claim to a higher moral ground that some need.

[solvs]

Why can't people just worry about how they want to live their lives and let others live theirs?
Pretty much my point. I don't know, and I don't get it. I'm not gay myself, but I don't really honestly care if someone else is. And I certainly would never tell them they couldn't get married, any more than I would try to tell someone that their religion is wrong (despite my comment on the quakers). Isn't that how it's supposed to work here?

I guess some people just don't really get the correlation.

[greatdevourer]

since when do we base our laws on religion? Since the beginning of law and order. Yes, now, people have ideas of what is right and wrong without religion, but they got it from their parents and the rest of society, which got it from the society before, etc, etc, which was based on a religion of sorts.

[Blue Velvet]

The world would be a much better place without zealous young men running around claiming to speak for God. And believe me, I'm not only a Christian-basher although the madrassas of the mid-west seem equally capable of turning out cannon-fodder.

[pseudobrit]

Since the beginning of law and order. Yes, now, people have ideas of what is right and wrong without religion, but they got it from their parents and the rest of society, which got it from the society before, etc, etc, which was based on a religion of sorts.

Unless you're including philosophy as "a religion of sorts" you're wrong.

[Lau]

But...it's a thread in the Political forum, and...everyone's said really sensible things, and I agree with them! ;)

Well said Solvs. Absolutely.

[iGary]

I loves me some Jesus. :D

[Ugg]

Since the beginning of law and order. Yes, now, people have ideas of what is right and wrong without religion, but they got it from their parents and the rest of society, which got it from the society before, etc, etc, which was based on a religion of sorts.

Roman and Greek laws weren't based on religion as much as they were on property rights. It's true that religion has influenced law making but to claim that religion is the basis of law making just goes too far.

It's true that some societies have instituted religious based law, Sharia comes to mind but those societies are the exception, not the rule.

[aquajet]

Well said solvs.

[zap2]

Does that mean if a majority of Americans (read: American voters) were Quakers they would get to tell the rest of us we couldn't use toasters or cars?


With that statement i stopped read because your wrong, I go to a Quaker school, and we are far from "anti tech" we use toasters, cars ,infact we even start use technology before others do. An Example is that we have 50 iPods for Foreign Language, we have a full 3 computer labs, a full music lab(a computer lab but it's only used for music class.) 3 laptop Lab that move to different class and at least 1 computer in each classroom(many have more). Please next time know your facts before you a post such a bold and incorrect statment, perhaps then i would be able to comment about what your post was really about.

[rdowns]

With that statement i stopped read because you wrong, I go to a Quaker school, and we are far from "anti tech" we use toasters, cars ,infact we even start use technology before others do, example was have 50 iPods for Foreign Language, we 3 Full computer labs, a full music lab(a computer lab but it's only used for music class.) 3 laptop Lab that move to different class and at least 1 computer in each class room(many have more). Please next time know your facts before you a such a bold and incorrect statment, perhaps then i would be able to comment about what your post was really about.

Your school should be teaching you to read something in its entirety before commenting about it. Not to mention proper English.

The OP wasn't bashing Quakers (I think he meant Amish), just using different people as an example.

[iGary]

With that statement i stopped read because you wrong, I go to a Quaker school, and we are far from "anti tech" we use toasters, cars ,infact we even start use technology before others do, example was have 50 iPods for Foreign Language, we 3 Full computer labs, a full music lab(a computer lab but it's only used for music class.) 3 laptop Lab that move to different class and at least 1 computer in each class room(many have more). Please next time know your facts before you a such a bold and incorrect statment, perhaps then i would be able to comment about what your post was really about.

Apparently the English language isn't on the curriculum, though. :p :D ;)

I think he meant Amish. ;)

[zap2]

Ya, i hoped he had made a mistake and my blind angry made me type such bad enlgish:p

(They have to buy it my story is flawless!)

[mactastic]

Oh please do, because fortunately for you, I was sleeping while you were thrashing my other thread. :D
Excellent letter BTW. You're my hero for the week.

Also noticed Erlich proposed something like a 12% increase in state spending while at the same time opposing a minimum-wage increase as fiscally irresponsible last week. Hell of a show you have going on there. ;)

[skunk]

I dunno. I've always thought that the ones who are most anti-gay are the ones who are afraid of their own sexuality.

[zimv20]

I dunno. I've always thought that the ones who are most anti-gay are the ones who are afraid of their own sexuality.
bingo. and one of the straightest, most womanizing guys i know -- who is very secure in his sexuality -- has two gay men as roommates.

[PlaceofDis]

bingo. and one of the straightest, most womanizing guys i know -- who is very secure in his sexuality -- has two gay men as roommates.

ill third this opinion.

i have no problem with gay guys. plenty have been my friends and are my friends. its just not for me. its the people who are afraid of the unknown that are anti gay.

[neocell]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but of course it's a choice. Everything in life is a choice.

"The only thing you have to do is die, everything else is your decision."

I guess we can debate the whole born a homosexual, vs raised a homosexual, where I think both sides (Nature vs Nurture) play a role but in the end it's a decision. But beyond that who the hell cares if you choose to live a homosexual life. You're not hurting anyone, not bring the world down, just trying to find what's right for you, and how the hell can some damn politician tell you that you're wrong because he/she doesn't agree with your view. Be open minded, conservatives can bite my ass. Let people live in peace

[iGary]

Excellent letter BTW. You're my hero for the week.

Also noticed Erlich proposed something like a 12% increase in state spending while at the same time opposing a minimum-wage increase as fiscally irresponsible last week. Hell of a show you have going on there. ;)

And I voted for the toolbox. He was good the first three years...and now.....

[zimv20]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but of course it's a choice. Everything in life is a choice.
assuming you're a straight male, do you believe you can just suddenly decide to start having sex with and being attracted to men?

[3rdpath]

I dunno. I've always thought that the ones who are most anti-gay are the ones who are afraid of their own sexuality.

you got that right.

there was a study that divided males into 2 groups( homophobic and non-homophobic) based upon psych quizes. the men were individually shown gay erotic videos and their reactions were recorded by a wire around their penis..an engorgometer or something.

anyway, the homophobic group had the largest( ahem...) reaction to the videos of either group. the homophobes were also verbally quized later and without fail each member stated that they had not been aroused by the videos. denial...

another example of this behavior is Spokane's mayor who was caught trolling gay chatrooms and offering employment for sexual favors while doing this:

In more than 20 years in the Legislature, West had initiated legislation to outlaw sexual contact between consenting teenagers; supported a bill that would have barred gays and lesbians from working for schools, day care centers and some state agencies; voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman; and, as Senate majority leader, allowed a bill that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians to die in committee without a hearing.

[neocell]

assuming you're a straight male, do you believe you can just suddenly decide to start having sex with and being attracted to men?
Well the having sex is of course yes, and being attracted to I believe can done as well, maybe not quickly but yes. You find things about people that attract you. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find certain men, their qualities, attractive. What I'm trying to point out is there's two things going on in this thread, one is Choice the other is Want. Choice is very simple, and everything in life is chosen. Now wants are whole different thing and the two become blurred because you usually choose because of your wants

[2nyRiggz]

To each their own, i have nothing to say about who wants what....thats why we use the term free not free to a limit. I have my beliefs and everyone have theres and i will never crush someone with mines.


Bless

[Blue Velvet]

Choice is very simple, and everything in life is chosen.


I wondered if you could please clarify this statement. Are you saying that those born with a birth defect made this choice?

[CanadaRAM]

OTOH:

What if it isnt a choice?

So, one might argue, the genetic disposition is there, but the individual has choice over how they act / behave about it.

Try these alternate imaginary scenarios around choice and community standards, then:

"I know you are 6 foot 7. But that is outside of your community norms. You should not go around acting so tall. If you can't act shorter, then you should not go out in public."


"Stop being so beautiful. You may have been born that way, but you should not be flaunting it. Put a bag over your head and stop making the rest of us feel uncomfortable."

[neocell]

I wondered if you could please clarify this statement. Are you saying that those born with a birth defect made this choice?
You maybe taking it out of context, read with my whole post, but maybe not, so I'll try to re-convey what I was posting.

During your life you choose to do "actions". No you don't choose to be born with a birth defect, or a disease, whatever, to be randomly shot by some robber etc, some common sense please :) (well I guess maybe you do get some loonies in these threads, now I wonder how many of you are thinking that of me :eek: :o )

Now maybe I should state this as I see it in my post but maybe it's not clear. I can understand a point/debate in which someone says they had no control over their want to be homosexual, but I can't agree with saying that's there's no choice. Maybe it's just semantics, but sometimes that little bit is enough to balloon issues

[Blue Velvet]

You maybe taking it out of context, read with my whole post, but maybe not, so I'll try to re-convey what I was posting.

Thanks... but when I read a statement that says 'everything in life is chosen', I can do no less than take it at face value.

Everything means everything, right?

[neocell]

OTOH:

What if it isnt a choice?

So, one might argue, the genetic disposition is there, but the individual has choice over how they act / behave about it.

Try these alternate imaginary scenarios around choice and community standards, then:

"I know you are 6 foot 7. But that is outside of your community norms. You should not go around acting so tall. If you can't act shorter, then you should not go out in public."


"Stop being so beautiful. You may have been born that way, but you should not be flaunting it. Put a bag over your head and stop making the rest of us feel uncomfortable."

I like where this is going... opening the mind, seeing things from other perspectives, through other eyes. This is good

Of 'course this sounds completely ridiculous to not act tall or beautiful, but the point is you have the ability to make the Choice. Who the hell would want to? Probably not very many. But you just can't say you Don't have a choice.

[neocell]

Thanks... but when I read a statement that says 'everything in life is chosen', I can do no less than take it at face value.

Everything means everything, right?
You're right, I was sloppy with my writing, keep thinking people know what I'm thinking while I'm typing. Thanks for pointing that out

Quote:

Choice is very simple, and everything in life is chosen.


I wondered if you could please clarify this statement. Are you saying that those born with a birth defect made this choice?


Okay, this may open up another can of worms but when does life begin?

[zimv20]

Okay, this may open up another can of worms but when does life begin?
not soon enough to satisfy this woman (http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0111pregnantHOV.html).

[CanadaRAM]

Of 'course this sounds completely ridiculous to not act tall or beautiful, but the point is you have the ability to make the Choice. Who the hell would want to? Probably not very many. But you just can't say you Don't have a choice.
You don't have a choice as to what you are born as.
(You could also argue strongly that your don't have a choice as to the environment you were raised in through your formative years)

Yes you have a choice how to act. The tall person could walk with a perpetual stoop. The beautiful person could put on ugly makeup every day.

But it is COMPLETLY unreasonable for society to demand that they do so, and a violation of about every personal right and freedom to MAKE them behave otherwise than they were born.

There are acts that are obviously against society's interests: a born psychopath should not be allowed to act out their inherent nature if it is so damaging to society that this overrules the personal freedom to act out. We have laws that protect society against actions: these laws specifically EXCLUDE prosecuting someone for their beliefs or orientation absent of the action.

But should a society discriminate against individuals and their freedom to live their lives in a way that does not harm others? (And I am not including one's very existence, or the existence of their beliefs offending someone else's beliefs or faith in the definition of harm).

No. We don't discriminate in a civil society. Not for being tall, or short, or ugly or beautiful, or sighted or blind, or one race or another, or speaking one language or another, being male or female, or being gay, straight or some combination of the two.

[Blue Velvet]

The beautiful person could put on ugly makeup every day.

My typical morning... :p :D

[Ugg]

Well the having sex is of course yes, and being attracted to I believe can done as well, maybe not quickly but yes. You find things about people that attract you. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find certain men, their qualities, attractive. What I'm trying to point out is there's two things going on in this thread, one is Choice the other is Want. Choice is very simple, and everything in life is chosen. Now wants are whole different thing and the two become blurred because you usually choose because of your wants

How many gay guys or women do you know, and how many have talked to you about when they first realized they were gay?

I knew quite early that there was something intrinsically different about me in comparison to my brothers. What that something was took until high school or so to make itself known. I don't think my experience is all that far out of the norm. Some realize early on and then deny it for years. Others say that it more or less comes out of the blue.

My point is that it can hardly be a choice. Some men marry women, have kids and never have sex with a man but inside, I would argue, they are gay.

I've known a few straight men who haven't had problems having sex with a guy. I wouldn't label them gay or even bi, but straight because sex isn't what defines homosexuality. Neither does sex define heterosexuality.

How we accept or deny who we are may be a choice, but who we are inside is not.

[CanadaRAM]

The widespread belief that there is only black OR white is part of the problem...

[neocell]

You don't have a choice as to what you are born as.
(You could also argue strongly that your don't have a choice as to the environment you were raised in through your formative years)

Yes you have a choice how to act. The tall person could walk with a perpetual stoop. The beautiful person could put on ugly makeup every day.

But it is COMPLETLY unreasonable for society to demand that they do so, and a violation of about every personal right and freedom to MAKE them behave otherwise than they were born.

There are acts that are obviously against society's interests: a born psychopath should not be allowed to act out their inherent nature if it is so damaging to society that this overrules the personal freedom to act out. We have laws that protect society against actions: these laws specifically EXCLUDE prosecuting someone for their beliefs or orientation absent of the action.

But should a society discriminate against individuals and their freedom to live their lives in a way that does not harm others? (And I am not including one's very existence, or the existence of their beliefs offending someone else's beliefs or faith in the definition of harm).

No. We don't discriminate in a civil society. Not for being tall, or short, or ugly or beautiful, or sighted or blind, or one race or another, or speaking one language or another, being male or female, or being gay, straight or some combination of the two.
Very nice, I completely agree with you, pretty much what I was wanting to communicate through my posts. Maybe I should have posted a bit clearer initially

"every action you take is your choice"

[neocell]

How many gay guys or women do you know, and how many have talked to you about when they first realized they were gay?

I knew quite early that there was something intrinsically different about me in comparison to my brothers. What that something was took until high school or so to make itself known. I don't think my experience is all that far out of the norm. Some realize early on and then deny it for years. Others say that it more or less comes out of the blue.

My point is that it can hardly be a choice. Some men marry women, have kids and never have sex with a man but inside, I would argue, they are gay.

I've known a few straight men who haven't had problems having sex with a guy. I wouldn't label them gay or even bi, but straight because sex isn't what defines homosexuality. Neither does sex define heterosexuality.

How we accept or deny who we are may be a choice, but who we are inside is not.
I must apologize for the potential misunderstandings of my post. If you re-read through the thread, hopefully it's clear now when you get to the end, but just in case. I'm not saying that your want is a choice, but the actions you take are. Just as CanadaRAM pointed out, and hopefully I did in my first post, these actions should not be then governed by laws, as eloquently pointed out in post #37

[zimv20]

"every action you take is your choice"
but ugg just argued that homosexuality isn't the act, but the feelings. are you saying that having feelings is a choice?

edit: i see that you addressed this in post #42.

[iBlue]

i wish it were sometimes... i wish i could just "choose" and have that do it for me. either it brings you in or leaves you cold, 'decision' seems to have very little to do with it.
i do often wonder if some aspects of my life would be simpler [if i were gay]. my main reason: i think my husband is a royal pain in the ass. :o

<shrugs>

[CanadaRAM]

i think my husband is a royal pain in the ass.
You're Queen Elizabeth??? :eek: :eek: :D

[iBlue]

You're Queen Elizabeth??? :eek: :eek: :D

not exactly but the volume of annoyance may rival that. :p

[solvs]

Here I give silver full reign to be on topic for once and he goes and gets himself banned. Kinda disappointed that everyone seems to be more or less agreeing and not letting me understand what is supposed to be so intrinsically wrong with a free society allowing homosexuals to have equal rights other than those with religious objections. Anyway, been out all day (sorry, I do have a life) so here we go.

With that statement i stopped read because your wrong, I go to a Quaker school, and we are far from "anti tech"
I do apologize. I meant Amish. Well, actually I meant one of those 'ites, but I didn't know how to spell either one, so I went with Quaker. Like the oats. Apparently you guys have tempers too, huh? :p Kidding. My first post has been fixed. Unless one of you Amish guys have a problem with my premise. Didn't think so.

And yes, I realize you were probably kidding, but I was still wrong about the Quaker thing.

OTOH:

What if it isnt a choice?
I don't think it is, but some do. My point still stands. Even if it were choice, isn't America (or any free society) about choice? If they choose to be homosexual, what's the big deal? Just like some people choose to not be religious or like puppies or to be spanked. If it isn't a choice, well, (religious belief or not) that would just make homophobes terrible people. That's like hating people for their skin color. Which some do. Which also doesn't make any sense to me.

But it is COMPLETLY unreasonable for society to demand that they do so, and a violation of about every personal right and freedom to MAKE them behave otherwise than they were born.
Excellent point, thank you.

I'm also wondering where v is. I'm kinda curious what her take on my hypothesis would be. I know she mentioned she wasn't feeling well. Maybe someone scared her away from the Political Thread. ;)

[Stella]

not soon enough to satisfy this woman (http://www.azcentral.com/families/articles/0111pregnantHOV.html).

LOL. That is quite funny.

But really, you need two or more people occupying a seat... that is what common sense suggests.

[aquajet]

I don't think it is, but some do. My point still stands. Even if it were choice, isn't America (or any free society) about choice? If they choose to be homosexual, what's the big deal? Just like some people choose to not be religious or like puppies or to be spanked. If it isn't a choice, well, (religious belief or not) that would just make homophobes terrible people. That's like hating people for their skin color. Which some do. Which also doesn't make any sense to me.

I agree wholeheartedly, solvs. I'd even go as far to say (save the exception of a few Nazis that would like to impose the death penalty (http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/dec2002/Outlaw_Sodomy_12-3-2002.pdf)) many right-wing religious folk would agree with you. That is, as long as we stay in our filthy, god-forsaken bathhouses, wallowing in dog **** and pools of our own ***. And besides, who could blame them? We would love to go into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers.

And I know this horse has been beaten to death, and then beaten some more until its bones are liquified, and then sent away to make glue. But I want to clarify what the APA (http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31) says about homosexuality:

Homosexuality refers to feelings and self-concept

Homosexuality is not a choice. But right-wing religious folk the likes of Dr. James Dobson would say otherwise. And why would anybody question him, right? After all, he's a Doctor. And the fact he bases his views on Freud gives him even more credibility. And who are we to question Freud, right?

Well, he's wrong. And Freud was wrong too. Wrong wrong wrong! I wish the idiots would stop spreading these lies.

I'm also wondering where v is. I'm kinda curious what her take on my hypothesis would be. I know she mentioned she wasn't feeling well. Maybe someone scared her away from the Political Thread.

I don't think so. She seemed more than willing to tear his reasoning to shreds.

[zimv20]

that is what common sense suggests.
a commodity in short supply these days, it seems.

[XNine]

I'll spin it like David Cross did:

So, people that say being Gay is a choice know this for sure? So, you mean to tell me, that some 15 year old kid, who gets picked on every day, has no girlfriend, has little to no friends, is just oging to decide "Hmmm, I should be gay so I can get my ass kicked even more by ignorant hicks." Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

People LOVE to flock to the classes that get tormented, beaten, and blamed for everything from AIDS to Hurricane Katrina. They all say "Hey, let's be gay so stupid dickheads like godhatesfags.com can come and deface my property and hold signs up stating how I'm going to hell, and how this magnificent being called GOD hates me simply because I like the same sex."

Nobody CHOOSES this. There is something hardwired in the human brain (and perhaps soul) to make them what they are. IT's just like me being a total pervert and loving women. I loooooooooove looking at women and having fun with them. iGary loves men. So what? That's HIM, it's part of WHO HE IS and not WHAT HE DOES.

The whole "choice" argument pisses me off.

[freeny]

The simple answer to original question is this-

There is too much ****ing religion in the world!

RELIGION KILLS!!!

[Mike Teezie]

I think it's my fault iGary's thread got derailed like it did.

Sorry about that!

:o

[neocell]

Just to keep the pot stirring...
In regards to the start of this thread "being homosexual" is a choice, because what "being homosexual" (at least as I would interpret it) is the actions (eg holding hands, kissing, rainbows, go into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers. :rolleyes: because this is what the politicians (people at large, whatever) sees as being gay. Do you think they give a damn about what your internal feelings are or do they care about what's visible on the outside. So being gay is a choice in the content of what society believes, so to say you have no choice being gay, is completely false in this setting, as you have a choice for every action that you do.
Now being gay, basically 1 of 3 options: 1) genetic {nature}, 2) raising {nurture}, 3) some combination of 1 and 2 and then you can debate whether or not there's a choice in these settings. I believe that there is a choice argument in the nurture portion (eg you get beaten by father, brother, males all your life, women/girls give you shelter, love, respect, I would imagine any sane individual will start liking women more and more, which is a choice). In the end though, I think there's a huge genetic, nature component to homosexuality and therefore choice is not a factor, but your actions are always choices and that's the only thing others can see, is your actions. So maybe I just needed clarification on what "being gay" was.

[pseudobrit]

Just to keep the pot stirring...
In regards to the start of this thread "being homosexual" is a choice, because what "being homosexual" (at least as I would interpret it) is the actions (eg holding hands, kissing, rainbows, go into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers. :rolleyes: because this is what the politicians (people at large, whatever) sees as being gay.

What bizarro universe are you from? Many stereotype gays as flamboyant and promiscuous (and just like heterosexuals, many of them are) but I've never ever heard a general consensus that they'll spray their HIV blood all over church and spit at people. That's just... weird.

So being gay is a choice in the content of what society believes,

Society once thought that blacks were a separate and subhuman species. Did that make it true?

so to say you have no choice being gay, is completely false in this setting, as you have a choice for every action that you do.

To deny your nature is futile. Look how popular the Shaker religion is.

Now being gay, basically 1 of 3 options: 1) genetic {nature}, 2) raising {nurture}, 3) some combination of 1 and 2 and then you can debate whether or not there's a choice in these settings. I believe that there is a choice argument in the nurture portion (eg you get beaten by father, brother, males all your life, women/girls give you shelter, love, respect, I would imagine any sane individual will start liking women more and more, which is a choice). In the end though, I think there's a huge genetic, nature component to homosexuality and therefore choice is not a factor, but your actions are always choices and that's the only thing others can see, is your actions. So maybe I just needed clarification on what "being gay" was.

Your individual actions are indeed choices, but your nature forces your hand on many of them.

Based on your criteria, I choose to be straight. Now it's just down to whether or not I think it's a sin to act on that nature.

[aquajet]

What bizarro universe are you from? Many stereotype gays as flamboyant and promiscuous (and just like heterosexuals, many of them are) but I've never ever heard a general consensus that they'll spray their HIV blood all over church and spit at people. That's just... weird.

Perhaps I should have mentioned -- that was a quote from my personal favorite religious nutcase, the one and only Pat Robertson. :mad:

[leekohler]

Just to keep the pot stirring...
In regards to the start of this thread "being homosexual" is a choice, because what "being homosexual" (at least as I would interpret it) is the actions (eg holding hands, kissing, rainbows, go into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers. :rolleyes: because this is what the politicians (people at large, whatever) sees as being gay. Do you think they give a damn about what your internal feelings are or do they care about what's visible on the outside. So being gay is a choice in the content of what society believes, so to say you have no choice being gay, is completely false in this setting, as you have a choice for every action that you do.
Now being gay, basically 1 of 3 options: 1) genetic {nature}, 2) raising {nurture}, 3) some combination of 1 and 2 and then you can debate whether or not there's a choice in these settings. I believe that there is a choice argument in the nurture portion (eg you get beaten by father, brother, males all your life, women/girls give you shelter, love, respect, I would imagine any sane individual will start liking women more and more, which is a choice). In the end though, I think there's a huge genetic, nature component to homosexuality and therefore choice is not a factor, but your actions are always choices and that's the only thing others can see, is your actions. So maybe I just needed clarification on what "being gay" was.

So- am I gay because I was a varsity high school jock? Maybe it was seeing all those penises in the shower that did it. God, I'm so stupid! :rolleyes: There are no definite behavioral patterns to being gay, that was completely insulting. What is it that people see when they see me? I can tell you for sure the first thing they think is not "homo". I'm 6'3" and #195 and athletic. I've astounded many a straight boy when they found out I was gay. Incidentally, most of my friends are straight males. I would argue that there is not a choice, at least for me. According to you, the only thing that makes you gay is rainbow flags and leather. I always thought you were gay because you're attracted to the same sex. Silly me. :rolleyes:

[XNine]

Now being gay, basically 1 of 3 options: 1) genetic {nature}, 2) raising {nurture}, 3) some combination of 1 and 2 and then you can debate whether or not there's a choice in these settings. I believe that there is a choice argument in the nurture portion (eg you get beaten by father, brother, males all your life, women/girls give you shelter, love, respect, I would imagine any sane individual will start liking women more and more, which is a choice). In the end though, I think there's a huge genetic, nature component to homosexuality and therefore choice is not a factor, but your actions are always choices and that's the only thing others can see, is your actions. So maybe I just needed clarification on what "being gay" was.

Apprarently you didn't read my post erlier in the thread.

So, I'll sum just a small part of it up: Are you a man or a woman? Do you like men, or women? Do you have an attraction to the same sex?

If no, then why do you suppose that is? Did you CHOOSE to like the opposite sex when you were younger? NO. Did you think long and hard about the pros and cons of each sex? NO. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that being "gay" is not a choice. It's nature.

Sure, there's lots of signs that abused children later on in life are "gay," that could be a possible trigger. But then again, there's also studies showing that abused children turn into murderers and rapists and child molesters. Which one is right? Perhaps both?

I've known lots of people who were never abused whatsoever as children, and a lot of them are "straight" and a lot are "gay." So those studies aren't proven for 100% accuracy.

This "choice" you keep spouting off about.. The reasoning behind a choice is to go one of several directions because of measuring the pros/cons. You CHOOSE which car you want to buy, you CHOOSE to rob a bank, you CHOOSE to rape a cheerleader, you don't CHOOSE who you are attracted to. Therefore your argument, I find, is moot.

[aquajet]

According to you, the only thing that makes you gay is rainbow flags and leather.

Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;)

[neocell]

So- am I gay because I was a varsity high school jock? Maybe it was seeing all those penises in the shower that did it. God, I'm so stupid! :rolleyes: There are no definite behavioral patterns to being gay, that was completely insulting. What is it that people see when they see me? I can tell you for sure the first thing they think is not "homo". I'm 6'3" and #195 and athletic. I've astounded many a straight boy when they found out I was gay. Incidentally, most of my friends are straight males. I would argue that there is not a choice, at least for me. According to you, the only thing that makes you gay is rainbow flags and leather. I always thought you were gay because you're attracted to the same sex. Silly me. :rolleyes:
Re-read what you quoted, if you still feel the same as what you posted (what I've quoted here) obviously I wasn't clear enough in my first post (then one you quoted). No one knows what you are until you act on it. Therefore from someone else's perspective being gay is your actions, which are choices. I never said that the only things that make you gay is rainbows etc etc, I'm just saying that is what people see/associate with as being gay. And if you read the bottom of my post I said that nature appears to have a very large part in your desire to be gay and for that you don't have a choice. But if you want to read everything backwards and say I'm the anti-christ, whatever, it's an open forum. :p
As long as you're having a good time and not letting others bring you down :)

[neocell]

Apprarently you didn't read my post erlier in the thread.

So, I'll sum just a small part of it up: Are you a man or a woman? Do you like men, or women? Do you have an attraction to the same sex?

If no, then why do you suppose that is? Did you CHOOSE to like the opposite sex when you were younger? NO. Did you think long and hard about the pros and cons of each sex? NO. Therefore, it's OBVIOUS that being "gay" is not a choice. It's nature.

Sure, there's lots of signs that abused children later on in life are "gay," that could be a possible trigger. But then again, there's also studies showing that abused children turn into murderers and rapists and child molesters. Which one is right? Perhaps both?

I've known lots of people who were never abused whatsoever as children, and a lot of them are "straight" and a lot are "gay." So those studies aren't proven for 100% accuracy.

This "choice" you keep spouting off about.. The reasoning behind a choice is to go one of several directions because of measuring the pros/cons. You CHOOSE which car you want to buy, you CHOOSE to rob a bank, you CHOOSE to rape a cheerleader, you don't CHOOSE who you are attracted to. Therefore your argument, I find, is moot.
I did read you're earlier post and this one, and I don't agree with everything that you're posting. But that's okay

[leekohler]

Re-read what you quoted, if you still feel the same as what you posted (what I've quoted here) obviously I wasn't clear enough in my first post (then one you quoted). No one knows what you are until you act on it. Therefore from someone else's perspective being gay is your actions, which are choices. I never said that the only things that make you gay is rainbows etc etc, I'm just saying that is what people see/associate with as being gay. And if you read the bottom of my post I said that nature appears to have a very large part in your desire to be gay and for that you don't have a choice. But if you want to read everything backwards and say I'm the anti-christ, whatever, it's an open forum. :p
As long as you're having a good time and not letting others bring you down :)

Nothing's getting me down. I just don't get your point. I said being gay is who you are attracted to and who you sleep with. To my knowledge, no one has ever seen me have sex with someone else. So- I'm not getting you at all. I don't get what you're referring to as a choice that someone is visibly seeing.

[leekohler]

Not that there's anything wrong with that... ;)

;)

[Dont Hurt Me]

Every action a person takes is a choice. period.

[aquajet]

Do you think they give a damn about what your internal feelings are...

Apparently, some do:

http://www.exodus.to/
http://www.family.org/married/topics/a0025114.cfm

Ugh. It's depressing to see such cute boys on the exodus site. Traitors...:(

[leekohler]

Apparently, some do:

http://www.exodus.to/
http://www.family.org/married/topics/a0025114.cfm

Ugh. It's depressing to see such cute boys on the exodus site. Traitors...:(

Thanks for depressing the s*** out of me, man. I knew a few people who did that. They are the saddest, most depressed people I've ever met. And guess what, they're still gay too.

[gekko513]

Every action a person takes is a choice. period.
And that's an argument for or against what?

Now being gay, basically 1 of 3 options: 1) genetic {nature}, 2) raising {nurture}, 3) some combination of 1 and 2 and then you can debate whether or not there's a choice in these settings.
You're missing one option. I'm not sure how to put it in short, but the development of the fetus is affected by the hormonal, biological and medical conditions in the womb and of the woman that carries the child.

As an example, I heard about some research that suggested the chance that a male child is gay increases with the number of male child births that the mother has gone through before. This correlation seemed to exist even when the raising/nurture of the child was otherwise comparable. I assume that would require the study of adopted children. Since I have no link, the argument is weak, but at least it's food for thought.

[3rdpath]

Every action a person takes is a choice. period.

are you suggesting that a person is defined solely by their actions..period?

[Ugg]

Every action a person takes is a choice. period.


That is the most blatantly false statement I've heard in a while.

We are all heavily influenced from the moment of conception by the world around us. There's actually some evidence that homosexuality is determined in the womb due to an excess of testosterone in the mother's blood stream. If that's true, whose choice is it? The mother's?

The level of prenatal care, how healthy our parents are, what kind of childcare we get, our diet, all influence who we will become. Choices may well have been made but in infancy and childhood, but those choices aren't our own.

I didn't and couldn't choose to be gay, I did, however, choose to come out of the closet and live my life as an openly gay human being. There are too many people out there who feel they don't have that choice due to societal restrictions. Brokeback Mountain is a good example and people who live like that are seriously effed up. Whose choice is that, the individual's or society's? If society chooses to make homosexuality a crime then it narrows the individuals opportunity to choose what's best for himself. That's not choice that's repression.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Im not bashing so lets not put words in my mouth, im just saying that every man and woman has free will, free choice. You want to be gay ,be gay but lets not say that choice doesnt exist because it does. We all have free will to choose our lives just as we have free will to choose our partners.

[gekko513]

Im not bashing so lets not put words in my mouth, im just saying that every man and woman has free will, free choice. You want to be gay ,be gay but lets not say that choice doesnt exist because it does. We all have free will to choose our lives just as we have free will to choose our partners.
I think you're using the wrong definition of being gay.

I haven't had sex with anyone since I broke up with my boyfriend one and a half year ago. That is by choice. Does that mean that I haven't been gay the last one and a half year? No it doesn't. I'm still gay, just as gay as I were between the age of 12, when I realised I had sexual desires, and the age of 18 when I had sex for the first time.

[iGary]

Did I leave my mascara in here?

[gekko513]

Did I leave my mascara in here?
Yeah, it's right here with the leather pants and the boa. You really shouldn't wear those together, you know.

[iGary]

Yeah, it's right here with the leather pants and the boa. You really shouldn't wear those together, you know.

I'll just have to wear the blonde wig, then.

Damn. :D

[skunk]

I'll just have to wear the blonde wig, then.Well, it's your choice...
Not a good one, I'd have to say, but it's yours.:D

[aquajet]

Im not bashing so lets not put words in my mouth, im just saying that every man and woman has free will, free choice. You want to be gay ,be gay but lets not say that choice doesnt exist because it does. We all have free will to choose our lives just as we have free will to choose our partners.

You're confused, DHM. "Gay" is a state of mind, an identity. Nobody chooses to be gay, straight or bisexual. However, everybody has the choice to have sex or remain celibate (edit: well, there could be exceptions). I didn't choose to be gay. However, I do choose to have sex. Not with anybody, but someone I care for. That is my choice.

[FoxyKaye]

That could be done with a reasonable effort, but then it would take away part of the pleasure of them living their lives. The art of dictating to others and illustrating how and why they went wrong provides both the adrenaline rush and dubious claim to a higher moral ground that some need.
I'd add that this art also sometimes rooted in self-esteem issues wholly unrelated to the targeted community.
I dunno. I've always thought that the ones who are most anti-gay are the ones who are afraid of their own sexuality.
Ayup.

There's also something to be said for freedom of religion too. I'm Queer and I'm a Witch. I wasn't born a Witch, I chose to be one - this choice is supported by the law and the Constitution. Although I personally come down on the side of being born Queer, even if I did make the choice to be so, my personal liberties should still be protected under the same Constitution that protects my religion.

It seems to me, since our Constitution is deeply rooted in Christian tradition (no matter how much I'll argue that it also sets clear boundaries on the separation of Church and State) our laws also reflect this tradition. In general, and I know there are some exceptions to this, Christianity rejects homosexuality - thus, our laws and legal system do nothing to support Queers. Why the same legal system that protects my non-Christian religion impedes my civil rights because of a Christian bias is because the current line between Church and State is really blurry right now in the U.S.

So to me, the entire choice/not-a-choice debate is a diversion to a greater problem: the fact that an entire group of people do not have equal standing under the law. My answer to the original question that started this thread would be similar to what others have already said: that for the purposes of social inclusion, legal protection and personal liberties, it shouldn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a choice at all.

[Edit] Granted, a lot of Queers, including myself, have a great deal of personal energy and esteem built into the identity of being born "that way," which tends to also shape the types of arguments used to gain civil protections, equal access, and non-discrimination laws. But, what's interesting to me about this thread, is that it raises a larger question of legal and social strategy: Would civil rights for Queers be better achieved if the basis for their support was that homosexuality was a choice just like religion. I dunno, not being a lawyer, I leave this to folks who know better...

[mactastic]

Lady, I gotta tell you... I have been grossly misinformed about Witches
My what a gay thread this has become... :p

I'm often confused by people who claim homosexuality is a choice, but they can't ever describe or remember how their own choice went. I mean, it's not easy to make a decision like that without at least trying both ways, right?

[aquajet]

I'm often confused by people who claim homosexuality is a choice, but they can't ever describe or remember how their own choice went.

Ahhh, but somebody (http://exodus.to/exodus-speakers_paulk.shtml) has described their decision to become hetero. He's even got a book about it.

Alas, the poor boy just couldn't help himself (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/140/53.0.html). Ooops.

[vniow]

Ahhh, but somebody (http://exodus.to/exodus-speakers_paulk.shtml) has described their decision to become hetero. He's even got a book about it.

Alas, the poor boy just couldn't help himself (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/140/53.0.html). Ooops.

Oh. My. Gawd. I was just reading some of the articles in the Sexuality and Gender (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/features/issues/sexuality.html) section of that second link and just...wow.

My hatred of women led me to lesbianism? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/36.62.html)

Concerned Women for America face July 8 protest over stance against sadomasochism. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/007/19.13.html)

Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/20.94.html)

WTF is wrong with these people?!?

[leekohler]

Oh. My. Gawd. I was just reading some of the articles in the Sexuality and Gender (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/features/issues/sexuality.html) section of that second link and just...wow.

My hatred of women led me to lesbianism? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/36.62.html)

Concerned Women for America face July 8 protest over stance against sadomasochism. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/007/19.13.html)

Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/20.94.html)

WTF is wrong with these people?!?

The answer to your question is simple: they don't like us and will do anything to make us what they want. It's all about power and control. How dare we be happy being gay! That's just not right! God says so! :rolleyes:

[atszyman]

There's also something to be said for freedom of religion too.

That begs the interesting question that has been banging around in my head for a couple days now. Let's see if I can put it down coherently.

If being gay was a choice (I don't believe this but let's follow), and it is wrong because it is immoral (because the Bible says so). Therefore we cannot allow gay people to have equal rights.

Let's apply this logic to religion...

When you are a child your religion is not your choice, however when you grow up you are free to convert to any religion you might choose. The Bible says it is wrong to worship other gods and follow false prophets. Therefore alternate religions are immoral. Therefore people of other religions should not have equal rights.

How do we choose which religion is the correct one?

The oldest?
That would be Paganism, but that throws out the Bible and eliminates the whole stream of logic.
Orthodox Judaism then?

The most followers?
Currently Christianity but which offshoot is correct? Baptists? Lutherans? Catholicism?

Once the correct religion is chosen do we only allow people of that faith to get married legally?

[fistful]

The only choice a homosexual has is pretending to be hetero, anything else is natural. A choice between living a lie and being true to oneself.

[leekohler]

The only choice a homosexual has is pretending to be hetero, anything else is natural. A choice between living a lie and being true to oneself.

Thank you.

[XNine]

The only choice a homosexual has is pretending to be hetero, anything else is natural. A choice between living a lie and being true to oneself.

Ah, more voice of reason coming to the front. Thank you. This "choice" argument is so stupid. I swear. It's completely illogical.

[aquajet]

Well jeeez...is there anybody that can come in here and start bashing the homos? Tell us we have a choice between our sinful lifestyle and Jesus? Anyone? I kind of miss watching 'em crash and burn. Where's SB when we need him?

[solvs]

But, what's interesting to me about this thread, is that it raises a larger question of legal and social strategy: Would civil rights for Queers be better achieved if the basis for their support was that homosexuality was a choice just like religion.
Thank you, that was my point. If we went with the ridiculous statement that it is a choice, wouldn't that mean that they should have the same rights under the law that any other choice like this would be? Even if it was. Which it isn't. Just negates the argument.

Oh. My. Gawd. I was just reading some of the articles in the Sexuality and Gender (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ctmag/features/issues/sexuality.html) section of that second link and just...wow.

WTF is wrong with these people?!?
They're probably gay. Notice the lack of smiley. That's because I'm not being sarcastic. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Good to see you here v, hope you're feeling better. What do you think of my ridiculous hypothesis in response to their ridiculous hypothesis?

This "choice" argument is so stupid. I swear. It's completely illogical.
I hope you aren't talking to me, because if so, re-read my first post. Kinda tongue in cheek. But wouldn't it be a good argument? If homosexuality is a choice, even a sinful one, wouldn't it then be allowed just as freedom of religion would be? Then again, it's the same people who want to take that away too, so maybe it's not such a good argument.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you, but logic doesn't much play into their argument. ;)

[vniow]

Good to see you here v, hope you're feeling better. What do you think of my ridiculous hypothesis in response to their ridiculous hypothesis?

I just want to know where I can find the rainbow flags and leather mentioned on the previous page.

[pseudobrit]

How do we choose which religion is the correct one?
...
The most followers?

Currently Christianity but which offshoot is correct? Baptists? Lutherans? Catholicism?

Christian followers make up a plurality but not a majority of the world's people.

For starters, there are as many people in the world who do not adhere to any religion (either atheist, agnostic or apathetic) as there are non- Roman Catholic Christians.

[mactastic]

I just want to know where I can find the rainbow flags and leather mentioned on the previous page.
Oh honey, you need to get to the Castro more... ;)

Well jeeez...is there anybody that can come in here and start bashing the homos? Tell us we have a choice between our sinful lifestyle and Jesus? Well snap, it's not so much your lifestyle that's the problem; it's your agenda. :p

[XNine]

I hope you aren't talking to me, because if so, re-read my first post. Kinda tongue in cheek. But wouldn't it be a good argument? If homosexuality is a choice, even a sinful one, wouldn't it then be allowed just as freedom of religion would be? Then again, it's the same people who want to take that away too, so maybe it's not such a good argument.

Otherwise, I completely agree with you, but logic doesn't much play into their argument. ;)

No, I'm just ranting in general. :)

[atszyman]

Christian followers make up a plurality but not a majority of the world's people.

For starters, there are as many people in the world who do not adhere to any religion (either atheist, agnostic or apathetic) as there are non- Roman Catholic Christians.

It was a rhetorical question, I did a quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=largest+religion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) and found that currently Christianity is the largest religion I would not expect it to be a majority of the world's population, and I never said that it was.

I was using it to make an absurd point about how if you believe homosexuality is a choice and that it is immoral, then restricting rights based on that should also allow for restricting rights based on religion (another choice) since most religions preach that it is wrong (ergo immoral) to worship "false gods/prophets."

[vniow]

Oh honey, you need to get to the Castro more... ;)


I go there often enough, its where I get my piercings. :D

[pseudobrit]

It was a rhetorical question, I did a quick Google search (http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=largest+religion&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) and found that currently Christianity is the largest religion I would not expect it to be a majority of the world's population, and I never said that it was.

I was using it to make an absurd point about how if you believe homosexuality is a choice and that it is immoral, then restricting rights based on that should also allow for restricting rights based on religion (another choice) since most religions preach that it is wrong (ergo immoral) to worship "false gods/prophets."

Right, right. I wasn't pointing it out to correct you but rather to clarify that Christianity is a minority religion worldwide. I suspect many people do not realise this, with the exception of the "oppressed Christians" in America who think they're special and alone (which makes them doubly wrong).

[.Andy]

If homosexulaity where a choice I'd probably give it a go. Love is love is love.

[skunk]

homosexulaityYou mean it's not only priests who do it?;)

[aquajet]

You mean it's not only priests who do it?;)

lol Priestly love, yeah...I guess to them, a **** is just a ****. :(

[FoxyKaye]

Let's apply this logic to religion...
Thanks, that's also a broader way of stating what I was trying to bang out on the keyboard last night.
Thank you, that was my point. If we went with the ridiculous statement that it is a choice, wouldn't that mean that they should have the same rights under the law that any other choice like this would be? Even if it was. Which it isn't. Just negates the argument.
Except, I just thought that maybe there's a different precedent at play here, and that's "harm to oneself or others." What has been codified into law, only until very recently, is that homosexuality is harmful to oneself, to others and to society at large. So, responding to my original post and your quote, maybe the impetus would change then to "guilty until proven innocent." It was only last year (2004?) that Bowers v. Hardwick from 1986 was overturned - a process that took almost 20 years to prove that consentual homosexual sex isn't a harm to the participants or others, and therefore can't be criminalized.

Aargh. Now I'm just demoralized...:(
How do we choose which religion is the correct one?
The oldest?
That would be Paganism...
"Boo-yeah, kudos to Mindy on the catch!" Just had to say it, since The Simpsons were referenced earlier WRT my post and made me giggle... :D

[FoxyKaye]

Oh. My. Gawd. I was just reading some of the articles...
My hatred of women led me to lesbianism? (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/002/36.62.html)
Maybe I'm just tired, but for kicks I just read this article (as a Queer woman, I've got a vested interest and all), and it made NO SENSE. OK, I understand finding a religion with which you're comfortable, but being locked out of meaningful emotional relationships with women while growing up leads her to find a deeply personal, intense and meaningful relationship with another women?

Something else occurs to me re: the whole "choice" debate WRT to homosexuality - it tends to gloss over folks who are happily bisexual. Usually, the supporters of homosexual "choice" tend to position it as a process of going from gay to straight. But what about folks who move from gay to straight who are in fact, simply bisexual, and happy with relationships with either sex? The entire debate is socially constructed around sex and gender roles in our society, so do we even have a representative sample of people from which to determine how much of being Queer is a choice (and I've already stated my thoughts here) and how much is not?

[.Andy]

You mean it's not only priests who do it?;)
Touche :)

Curse my heterodexterity.

[skunk]

Touche :)

Curse my heterodexterity.Or is it homosinistry?:)

[.Andy]

Or is it homosinistry?:)
I'm ambidextrous when it comes to typing. Happy to swing either way with each hand.

Still no guarantee of hitting the right letters though.....

[solvs]

Except, I just thought that maybe there's a different precedent at play here, and that's "harm to oneself or others."
But that's a shady area. Look at cigarettes. Or alcohol. Or basejumping. Very hard to quantify as "harm to oneself". Despite the obvious, still protected under the law.

Let's just say, for example, I would like to perform a certain sex act on another consenting adult. Or 2. If she's okay with it, and so is her friend, where's the harm? It's my bedroom, I should be able to do as I please as long as everyone is cool with it and it doesn't hurt anyone. Well, doesn't hurt anyone much. :p I mean, no one died or anything. :eek: Anyway, let's say I start to get a little bored and go get myself a sandwich while the 2 of them keep going at it. What if someone finds the video tape? Could I be arrested for performing those acts? Or them for engaging in lesbianism? I would certainly hope not. So it stands to reason that if such sex acts aren't illegal, why would the legality of the union of those 2 women be in question? Under the same principle, members of the opposite sex would have the same social rights for an emotional union as a physical one. As would a legal union, which could be separate from a religious union, except that there are some churches that are ok with gay marriage, so I guess it's ironically under religious freedom as well. Make sense to me.

* And no, I'm not a pervert, thank you. And no, you can't see the video tape. Erm, of the hypothetical situation. :o

[iGary]

You know - who cares?

Getting married is a choice.

Having sex with a woman is a choice....


What good does discussing this do?

The fact is, people are being discriminated against in this country because of who they choose to love and live their lives with.

That's seriously ****ed up.

[blackfox]

prejudice against homosexuality in general and gay-marriage in specific seem no more than vestiges of Christian morality.

There are certainly no decent reasons for the positions otherwise.

You often here the threat Gay Marriage poses to traditional Marriage - from it "corrupting" the institution (whatever that means), to the statistical liklihood of gay couples to be unfaithful - and thus posing an irresistable example to the straight couples of the world - here are better dressed couples, with nicer haircuts and a well-designed house - and they are having more fun than you.

Which of course is all a crock. To those points, however, no one ever talks of the "Swingers" movement. Every "sin" that gays are accused of - recruiting, cheating, leading a "lifestyle" are actually commited by swingers.

There are around 60 million men in the US between 18 and 50 (marriage age) and about 4% of them are gay. That is a little over 2 million individuals, which would make a maximum of about 1 million couples, disregarding gay men who didn't want to marry and those no-one would like to marry).

There are 1.1 million swinger couples (give or take). Which poses more of a threat to "traditional" marriage?

Oh, to those who wonder is being gay is a simple choice, here is a proof:

"Is there anything a gay man could say or write that would convince you (a straight man) to willfully, happily, lustfully, eagerly put his dick in your mouth and leave it there till he orgasms?"

No? Case closed.

[MacRumorUser]

And don't diss the Quakers. :D

Who would? They make great Oats :D

I agree with nearly everyone on this thread.
Homosexuality is not a choice, but if it was.... then who cares?
Hey the ancient greeks were at it all the time :)

I was brought up Catholic and have serious issues with an institution which on one hand discriminates against gay's and tells us it's a sin... And on the other hand it has systematically controlled and protected Child molestors within it's own walls..

If Jesus was alive today I know who's Arse he'd be kicking and it would start with that Ex Nazi Youth Member in charge....

My sister is a lesbian and has been in a long term relationship with her partner for a long long time, and if they choose to marry then I'll be happy for them. At least legally things like property and such will be sorted if anything should happen to either of them...

[mactastic]

prejudice against homosexuality in general and gay-marriage in specific seem no more than vestiges of Christian morality.

There are certainly no decent reasons for the positions otherwise. Not decent, but homophobia is a reason outside religious morality. Personally I think a lot of guys feel threatened by homosexuality. The irrational revulsion they feel is covered nicely with a religious fig leaf, but it boils down to being uncomfortable around a homosexual. Most of these guys have no problem with lesbians (and in fact often get off on 'hot lesbo action'), but the bottom line is that two guys going at it makes them uncomfortable.

You often here the threat Gay Marriage poses to traditional Marriage - from it "corrupting" the institution (whatever that means), to the statistical liklihood of gay couples to be unfaithful - and thus posing an irresistable example to the straight couples of the world - here are better dressed couples, with nicer haircuts and a well-designed house - and they are having more fun than you.

Which of course is all a crock. To those points, however, no one ever talks of the "Swingers" movement. Every "sin" that gays are accused of - recruiting, cheating, leading a "lifestyle" are actually commited by swingers.

There are around 60 million men in the US between 18 and 50 (marriage age) and about 4% of them are gay. That is a little over 2 million individuals, which would make a maximum of about 1 million couples, disregarding gay men who didn't want to marry and those no-one would like to marry).

There are 1.1 million swinger couples (give or take). Which poses more of a threat to "traditional" marriage?
We're on the same page as to the results of religious intolerance of Christianity. I'm just not convinced that if we were a nation of atheists that homophobia would then vanish.

Oh, to those who wonder is being gay is a simple choice, here is a proof:

"Is there anything a gay man could say or write that would convince you (a straight man) to willfully, happily, lustfully, eagerly put his dick in your mouth and leave it there till he orgasms?"

No? Case closed.I'm keeping my mouth closed on this one...
;)

[takao]

...it would start with that Ex Nazi Youth Member in charge....

which after 41 or 42 was mandatory which somehow the yellow press always "forget to mention" ;)

[solvs]

That's seriously ****ed up.
So you either got my point, or you missed it. I can't tell which. But I agree.

[groovebuster]

If Jesus was alive today I know who's Arse he'd be kicking and it would start with that Ex Nazi Youth Member in charge....
I don't think that Jesus would judge him by the fact that he was in the Hitler Youth as a teenager (which was mandatory back then anyway). Part of the Christian idea is tolerance and forgiveness based on the believe that people can learn from their mistakes and can change. Or maybe you meant a different Jesus? ;)

groovebuster

[iGary]

I don't think that Jesus would judge him by the fact that he was in the Hitler Youth as a teenager (which was mandatory back then anyway). Part of the Christian idea is tolerance and forgiveness based on the believe that people can learn from their mistakes and can change. Or maybe you meant a different Jesus? ;)

groovebuster

Yeah, Jesus can stay out of this too.

That's why they call it a PERSONAL belief system, no offense to any present company.

[ahunter3]

First off, homosexuality can be a choice. That is, you may not be able to choose to be attracted to folks of the same sex, but you could choose to have sex exclusively with them anyway.

Why would you want to? At first glance, I guess it might be hard to see a reason, but I think the feminism of the 1970s and the gap between men's and women's understanding of it led at least a few women to write off males as personal erotic possibilities ("sleeping with the enemy") even if they found guys cute and women not.

Reciprocally, I suspect lots of folks who are intrinsically sexually attracted to their own sex have made the choice to only have sex with the opposite sex anyway. Lots of marriages based on that bust up later, and supposedly hetero married folks come out of the closet as they can't stand it any more, but for the duration that it lasts, they're doing it.



I am not a Christian and can't conceive of a god that issue the kind of edicts claimed for god by anti-gay fundamentalists. But for the (ahem) hell of it, let's pretend there is such a God, a wrathful Jehovah-figure, prepared to punish people who don't go by the Instructions in the Book, and who abhors homosexuality. If there is such an entity, that entity is clearly evil and needs to be opposed and overthrown, or, if that isn't possible, at least defied. Therefore, we should all choose to be homosexual (even if we are attracted to the opposite sex), at least enough to rile up God.

[leekohler]

First off, homosexuality can be a choice. That is, you may not be able to choose to be attracted to folks of the same sex, but you could choose to have sex exclusively with them anyway.

Why would you want to? At first glance, I guess it might be hard to see a reason, but I think the feminism of the 1970s and the gap between men's and women's understanding of it led at least a few women to write off males as personal erotic possibilities ("sleeping with the enemy") even if they found guys cute and women not.

Reciprocally, I suspect lots of folks who are intrinsically sexually attracted to their own sex have made the choice to only have sex with the opposite sex anyway. Lots of marriages based on that bust up later, and supposedly hetero married folks come out of the closet as they can't stand it any more, but for the duration that it lasts, they're doing it.



I am not a Christian and can't conceive of a god that issue the kind of edicts claimed for god by anti-gay fundamentalists. But for the (ahem) hell of it, let's pretend there is such a God, a wrathful Jehovah-figure, prepared to punish people who don't go by the Instructions in the Book, and who abhors homosexuality. If there is such an entity, that entity is clearly evil and needs to be opposed and overthrown, or, if that isn't possible, at least defied. Therefore, we should all choose to be homosexual (even if we are attracted to the opposite sex), at least enough to rile up God.

I like your thinking- do you like my av? ;)

[MacRumorUser]

I don't think that Jesus would judge him by the fact that he was in the Hitler Youth as a teenager (which was mandatory back then anyway). Part of the Christian idea is tolerance and forgiveness based on the believe that people can learn from their mistakes and can change. Or maybe you meant a different Jesus? ;)

groovebuster

I meant Jesus O'Brien a 'traveller' from the Rathkeale :)

I guess your all right, don't have anything against the current pope parsay, rather than the churches definition of 'morality'....

[ahunter3]

I like your thinking- do you like my av? ;)

av = avatar?

I wouldn't know, I've turned them all off so I don't have to see 'em ;)

[skunk]

parsayJust for clarity, could we stick with per se? It's how the Romans would have liked it.:)

[belvdr]

There are around 60 million men in the US between 18 and 50 (marriage age) and about 4% of them are gay. That is a little over 2 million individuals, which would make a maximum of about 1 million couples, disregarding gay men who didn't want to marry and those no-one would like to marry).

There are 1.1 million swinger couples (give or take). Which poses more of a threat to "traditional" marriage?

Where did you get your statistics? According to the US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U), there's way more than 60 million men in that age bracket. What about these other statistics? Are they your own estimates?

[blackfox]

Where did you get your statistics? According to the US Census (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP1&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U), there's way more than 60 million men in that age bracket. What about these other statistics? Are they your own estimates?approx., I admit, although it does not effect the larger point - imo.

[belvdr]

approx., I admit, although it does not effect the larger point - imo.

Okay, I wasn't trying to disprove your point. Did you approximate all of those statistics or is there some sort of research that found some of those?