Homosexuality: Lifestyle Choice?

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]I do understand the ramifications. I never said it would be easy. I also never said I was implicitly against homosexuality. I AM against blaming it on genetics though.

And I am against blaming homosexuals for being weak minded, incapable of excercising self-control and for deliberately choosing to indulge in something that is veiwed as wrong.

Oops, sorry if it sounded like I was angry, I wasn't.

Quote[/b] ]Nature abhors a vaccum, it will always right itself. I guess that means we're this way for a reason. Male+Female=Continuance of the species.

I could go on, but I don't want to produce another tangent

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]
The difference between a disability such as deafness and blindness is that, once restored, bestows a useful ability that enables a person to partake in activities they normally would be unable to, makes their life easier, etc. For a homosexual to be 'cured' and become heterosexual, it is not bestowing a useful sense upon them, to enable them better participation, removing something that is a hindrance, it more like tailoring yourself to fit a more socially acceptable mould. That is the main difference.

EXACTLY my point, which reinforces my belief that it is a CHOICE.

Assume you were homosexual, and grew up as a homosexual, not knowing what it is like to be heterosexual. Someone tells you you can be 'cured'. It isn't much of a choice to tell someone they can throw something they have known all their life away just to become 'like the rest of us'. Naturally, they will want to remain the way they are because it is how they feel is natural.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 27 2004,1:59)]Sorry I was not clear on this. Gay Marriages affects my ability to practice my religion.

If gay marriage becomes legal, then it would be taught in schools, to my children, that my religion is wrong.

It in essence would be Congress placing a law on the practice of my religion.

Even if all that were true, which is doubtful, it still won't affect your ability in the slightest to practice your religion.

You are still free to believe what you want and practice what you want.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Jim @ Oct. 27 2004,2:07)]

Quote[/b] ]And I am against blaming homosexuals for being weak minded, incapable of excercising self-control and for deliberately choosing to indulge in something that is veiwed as wrong.

I never, ever claimed they were weak minded. We are all held accountable for the choices we make, why should this one be any different?

Quote[/b] ]Assume you were homosexual, and grew up as a homosexual, not knowing what it is like to be heterosexual. Someone tells you you can be 'cured'. It isn't much of a choice to tell someone they can throw something they have known all their life away just to become 'like the rest of us'. Naturally, they will want to remain the way they are because it is how they feel is natural.

This isn't a very good analogy. Assuming that one could be homosexual without knowing heterosexuality isn't logical. Let's assume that a male/male couple raised a male child in a homosexual environment totally devoid of heterosexuality. One of the first things kids ask is, WHERE DID I COME FROM? You can't answer that question and keep your analogy intact. Once they are exposed to the worldview, the whole thing falls apart when they notice they are in the minority. Not to mention that the analogy is skewed because they child was never allowed to experience heterosexuality.

 

[Kidan]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 27 2004,3:08)]Even if all that were true, which is doubtful, it still won't affect your ability in the slightest to practice your religion.

You are still free to believe what you want and practice what you want.

not really. The government would be instructing my children that my religion is wrong.

That is a violation of the church/state seperation doctrine. Especially as it stands now.

 

[Dark Virtue]

No, what it would be doing would be showing that there are more opinions in the world than just yours.

There ARE more religions in the world than just Christianity.

They are not instructing children in what religion is right or wrong. No one is standing at the front of the class and saying Christianity is wrong.

You would have the same freedom to practice your religion.

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]I never, ever claimed they were weak minded. We are all held accountable for the choices we make, why should this one be any different?

I apologise, I never implied you did, but I clearly gave the wrong message.

But my point was that some view homosexuals as being weak against temptation, unable/unwilling to control themselves or quite simply acting in defiance.

Quote[/b] ]This isn't a very good analogy. Assuming that one could be homosexual without knowing heterosexuality isn't logical. Let's assume that a male/male couple raised a male child in a homosexual environment totally devoid of heterosexuality. One of the first things kids ask is, WHERE DID I COME FROM? You can't answer that question and keep your analogy intact. Once they are exposed to the worldview, the whole thing falls apart when they notice they are in the minority. Not to mention that the analogy is skewed because they child was never allowed to experience heterosexuality.

I see where you are going, but this is not the point I was making. I sincerely apologise if I misled you. My point was never experiencing the emotions, feelings and thoughts of a heterosexual. I didn't mean never being exposed to heterosexuality.

I have never lusted after, or had any kind of crushes on males. Thus, I have no idea of what it is like to view the same gender as I do females. Now to step into a homosexuals' shoes, I assume I would not know what it is like to have feelings for a woman. By asking a person to cure themselves of homosexuality as though it were a disease you are asking them to make a step that involves altering an entire mindset to a completely new one, and doing so to appease a social norm. Of course, homosexuals will always be a minority. That is not disputed.

Please imagine a hypothetical situation, homosexuality was normal, and you were offered the chance to become 'cured'. How would you feel, altering your mind so that you become attracted to males rather than females (Please just bear with me)? Would the thought abhor you? Would you feel it unjust/ unfair/ unnatural?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] (Jim @ Oct. 27 2004,2:41)]

Quote[/b] ]I apologise, I never implied you did, but I clearly gave the wrong message.

But my point was that some view homosexuals as being weak against temptation, unable/unwilling to control themselves or quite simply acting in defiance.

I think that has a lot to do with the double standard coming from the homosexual community regarding the cause (ie genetics vs decision).

Quote[/b] ]I see where you are going, but this is not the point I was making. I sincerely apologise if I misled you. My point was never experiencing the emotions, feelings and thoughts of a heterosexual. I didn't mean never being exposed to heterosexuality.

I have never lusted after, or had any kind of crushes on males. Thus, I have no idea of what it is like to view the same gender as I do females. Now to step into a homosexuals' shoes, I assume I would not know what it is like to have feelings for a woman. By asking a person to cure themselves of homosexuality as though it were a disease you are asking them to make a step that involves altering an entire mindset to a completely new one, and doing so to appease a social norm. Of course, homosexuals will always be a minority. That is not disputed.

Please imagine a hypothetical situation, homosexuality was normal, and you were offered the chance to become 'cured'. How would you feel, altering your mind so that you become attracted to males rather than females (Please just bear with me)? Would the thought abhor you? Would you feel it unjust/ unfair/ unnatural?

Before we can get into that hypothetical situation, are we assuming that this is a genetic cause or a decision? You seem to be placing emphasis on homosexuality as a disease. If it is a disease then it is an abnormality. If there is a cure for this abnormality, why would you NOT want to be normal, even if it means changing your sexuality? Many homosexuals that blame their sexuality on genetics claim there's nothing they could do about it. If there WAS a cure, they would be stopped dead in their tracks, wouldn't they? They would be faced with...A DECISION. Now we're back to square one. To be a homosexual or not to be. That is the question.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 27 2004,1:22)]

Quote[/b] ]That is a good point.  However, I believe that most of those against homosexual marriages are so ultimately, and will not budge despite contrary evidence discovered in the future.  This is what gay activists are afraid of, so they feel they must act now.

I'm sure blacks felt the same way, as did women, when they were both fighting for their rights.

Yup.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 27 2004,1:40)]at no time is the US saying who you can and cannot love.

The government is enforcing the will of the majority of the people as to what constitutes marriage.

This is homosexuals forcing their beliefs upon society at large.

Now onto the topic question at hand.  I firmly believe that it is a lifestyle choice.  

Now about some of your specific quotes I saw while reading this thread
There is no such thing as a homosexual animal species.  In fact there is no such thing as homosexuality in animals, and in fact in 1996 a homosexual scientist admited this.

Twin studies.  What is very important to remember, is that in genetic duplicate twins, homosexuality does not always occur in both twins.  If homosexuality was genetic, then when one of the genetic twins was gay, the other would be as well.  Since this does not occur, then it cannot be genetic.



Mr. Bill - while i am firmly against gay marriages, and believe that they will damage the concept of family (as well as my abiilty to practice my freedom of religion), my biggest complaint about how Gay activists are doing this, is that they are not attempting to have a law changed.  They are attempting to get sympathetic judges to legislate from the bench.  

Gay Marriages has come up on ballots around this country, and have routinely failed (even in California).  Realizing this, they feel the need to get judges to tell us that what we, the majority, believe is irrelevent, and only what the judges, and the gay activists beleives matters.

In essence, I believe that the US government legislating against homosexual marriages communicates the idea that homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love.  Does it not?

Pardon me, you are right to say that there are not entire species of animals that are homosexual, though there are transexual species.  I was referring to reported colonies of, for instance, fish that are entirely female.  I can find a link if you wish.  But if you are going to address whether homosexuality is a choice, I think you need to take serious consideration into animal homosexuality.  Becuase animals are not capable of making such choices.

In the twin studies, you are right to say that often there would be one identical twin that was homosexual, and one that was heterosexual.  In all instances that there was at least one homosexual twin, 50% of the time the other was as well.  In fraternal twins, where there is less shared genetic material, it was roughly 25% of the time.  In siblings, it was roughly 10%.  Now, if the chances of being homosexual are 3.33/100, based on the population percentage of homosexuals in the world, how do you explain this phenomenon?  Clearly it can't be entirely genetic or heritable, but it's also clearly not all environment induced either.  That's why I believe it's a bit of both nature and nurture that determines one's sexual orientation.  Perhaps more one than the other, but we cannot be certain which.

I know you are worried about homosexual marriages being forced into you and your childrens' acceptance Kidan, but realize that there is a difference between 'condoning' and 'allowing'.  It is not the gay activists' goal to force their ideas down your throat--they merely want to be able to do the same things that heterosexual people can.  I still do not understand why you believe this is an infringment of your freedom of religion.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (MontrezAnthony @ Oct. 27 2004,1:41)]Ok I thought my last post was it I was wrong my apologizes.

**You avoid the question.  Do you believe that the USA government has the right to dictate love?** I did not realize you expected an answer

NO one is dictating love, The government is dictating marriage! You can love a rotten sock, you can not marry it. (**I am not saying gay people are in any way a rotten sock**)


****So if those lustful feelings are there by nature, do you believe it is right to discriminate them for being themselves?*****

OM GOODNESS, YES if a psycho wants to chop you up I should let him because his noodle is broke. No if fact the government has laws that forbid such behavior.
The Bible says homosexuality is lewdness. The Bible ranks it with sex with animals copulating with whores, adulterers, and those who have sex with family members. These are veiws to Us Gospel believing Christians, it is the Word of Our GOD

Bill grasp this simple but awesome fact I am a BIBLE believing Christian, all of my answers will be based off the fact That that word is my sword. I am sorry if that doesn't make sense but it is the core of my beliefs.

I well understand what and why you believe Montrez. I am asking whether you believe that the government should be allowed to legislate something if it is based entirely on religious reasoning.

A psycho that wants to kill other people cannot be advocated by the government, as that would be inhibiting the rights of others. Here, it's two people wanting to marry each other. The Bible may be against it, but should be against the LAW?

 

[LionOfJudah]

havent read the discourse but you have to realize that homosexuality is appalling to other religions than just Christianity, i know native americans view it as evil (traditionally i dont know about now) also Islam condemns it, while Buddhists would say its wrong because it is a desire and the only desire one should have is to remove desire from ones life

(go have logical fun with that one DV

)

 

[Dark Virtue]

Too bad for you I understand and appreciate Easter Philosophy.

Dark Virtue is straight out of the Taoteching

 

[Kidan]

Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Oct. 27 2004,5:27)]I know you are worried about homosexual marriages being forced into you and your childrens' acceptance Kidan, but realize that there is a difference between 'condoning' and 'allowing'.  It is not the gay activists' goal to force their ideas down your throat--they merely want to be able to do the same things that heterosexual people can.  I still do not understand why you believe this is an infringment of your freedom of religion.

but it is the activists' goal to force their ideas down my throat.

They cannot win their way by normal legislative processes, so they go and get it their way from activist Judges. How is that not forcing their ideas on the entire population?

It would be akin to me getting a judge to say that everyone must take the Lord's Supper at least once a month. There is not a single iota of difference in the two.

That said, regarding marriage, gays can do the same things that heterosexuals can. As a heterosexual I can marry any member of the opposite sex I chose (provided I was unmarried of course), homosexuals can marry any member of the opposite sex they chose. As a heterosexual, I cannot marry more than one member of the opposite sex (at a time) , a homosexual cannot marry more than one member of the opposite sex (at a time). As a heterosexual I cannot marry a member of the same sex, a homosexual cannot marry a member of the same sex. It's not that gays do not have equal rights, they just refuse to accept those rights as society grants them, and wish to force their ideals upon society at large.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 27 2004,8:53)]

Quote[/b] (Mr.Bill @ Oct. 27 2004,5:27)]I know you are worried about homosexual marriages being forced into you and your childrens' acceptance Kidan, but realize that there is a difference between 'condoning' and 'allowing'.  It is not the gay activists' goal to force their ideas down your throat--they merely want to be able to do the same things that heterosexual people can.  I still do not understand why you believe this is an infringment of your freedom of religion.

but it is the activists' goal to force their ideas down my throat.

They cannot win their way by normal legislative processes, so they go and get it their way from activist Judges.  How is that not forcing their ideas on the entire population?

It would be akin to me getting a judge to say that everyone must take the Lord's Supper at least once a month.  There is not a single iota of difference in the two.

That said, regarding marriage, gays can do the same things that heterosexuals can.  As a heterosexual I can marry any member of the opposite sex I chose (provided I was unmarried of course), homosexuals can marry any member of the opposite sex they chose.  As a heterosexual, I cannot marry more than one member of the opposite sex (at a time) , a homosexual cannot marry more than one member of the opposite sex (at a time).  As a heterosexual I cannot marry a member of the same sex, a homosexual cannot marry a member of the same sex.   It's not that gays do not have equal rights, they just refuse to accept those rights as society grants them, and wish to force their ideals upon society at large.

The difference in your example is that a judge forcing people to do something like partake in communion is directly inhibiting peoples freedom.  All a judge is doing with homosexuals is 'allowing' them to do something that they could not do before.  Are they forcing you to accept it?  No, they just want to be able to do it.  

I find that the arguement that both homosexuals and heterosexuals are able to do the same things is a bad one, because you are assuming that they should be treated in the same manner, which is a fallacy.  That's like me saying justifying gay marriage by saying that were it accepted, both heterosexuals and homosexuals would be able to legally marry members of the same sex. If you will assume for a moment that homosexuality is largely not a lifestyle choice, then do you not think they should be allowed to partake in what theirselves tell them is the right path?  Homosexuals and heterosexuals are by definition polar opposites of each other in the realm of sexual orientation, so naturally there should be some differences in how they are treated.

Homosexuals aren't forcing their ideas on society: they are being smothered, they are merely pushing back.

 

[Dark Virtue]

I don't see how they're being pushy and forcing their way into your life either.

I think I understand though, you don't like their lifestyle and want NOTHING to do with them. You prefer they stay out of view, swept away under the rug.

Is that pretty much it?

 

[Kidan]

Quote[/b] ]because you are assuming that they should be treated in the same manner, which is a fallacy.

So we should treat them special?   Why should they not be treated as everyone else is treated?  Is that not what being equal means?

Quote[/b] ]If you will assume for a moment that homosexuality is largely not a lifestyle choice, then do you not think they should be allowed to partake in what theirselves tell them is the right path?

This is a large assumption, one I am not willing to make.  There is no scientific proof that homosexuality is genetic.  Yet even if it is, does that mean we should change common, time-honored social institutions to accomodate a genetic disease?  That's like saying it's okay for those suffering of allergies to not have to cover their mouths when they sneeze.  Of course I'm not going to 'catch' an allergy, but that doesn't mean we need to destory the social institution of covering your mouth when you sneeze.


DV -  You don't?  Yet you see it plain as day when someone wants prayer at a football game.    The concept is the same.  Homosexuals want to change the meaning of an marriage.  Marriage, across all cultures (even those that accepted homosexuality as normal), has always been between a man and a woman.  Yet they wish to change that in the here and now.  How is that not forcing their beliefs into the standard beliefs of the culture as a whole, especially when the majority of the culture in question do not want it!

Marriage has repeatedly been upheld as between a man and a woman, in even the most liberal of states (California).  

Yet regardless of the will of the people, these gays want a judge to enforce their worldview on the population.

How is that not what you described in another thread a moral evil?

As for the second part, not really. I could care less what they're doing in their bedrooms. If they want to walk down main street in a pink leotard holding a sign saying 'I'm Gay and I'm Proud!' more power to them.

Do I think it's a sin? Of course. I firmly beleive it's a choice that they make. That its not genetic, and it's not a mental disease. Does that mean I want them all to die? Of course not. It's a sin, just like adultery and any other form of pre-marital sex.

What gets my chain, is gay activists trying to change laws through lawsuits rather than through actual legislation and votes by the people.

What gets my chain, is thousands upon thousands of dollars spent by governments to have 'Gay pride' days, festivals and parades.

What gets my chain is gay activists trying their best to equate their lifestyle choices to the race issues of the 1960's

 

[Jim]

Kidan, I think you are frustrated because you feel homosexuals are attempting to muscle in on the life and society you know and cherish. Truth be told,

Quote[/b] ]If they want to walk down main street in a pink leotard holding a sign saying 'I'm Gay and I'm Proud!' more power to them.

Quote[/b] ]What gets my chain, is gay activists trying to change laws through lawsuits rather than through actual legislation and votes by the people.

Quote[/b] ]What gets my chain, is thousands upon thousands of dollars spent by governments to have 'Gay pride' days, festivals and parades.

Quote[/b] ]What gets my chain is gay activists trying their best to equate their lifestyle choices to the race issues of the 1960's

On the first points, I dislike those who wear their sexuality as a thing of pride, something to flaunt, but be aware that many simply want to be left to themselves, and if they should find someone who is 'right' for them, they would like to marry, just as you would if you found a woman you wanted to marry. However, if they feel very strongly about something, desperation may force them to take underhand actions. Please don't be angry at the whole for the sake of the selfish among them.

If you found out a child or yours (I apologise the assumption, but I need to make a point) was being stopped from saying prayers in a multi-cultural school because he/she was a minority, would you be angry at your child's rights being stifled? If Christian children were not in the majority, and therefore were not allowed to exercise their faiths in fear of offending others, would this be attributed to political correctness/prejudice?

On that last point, I still cannot be conviced homosexuality is entirely choice. I have said it many times over, my friend is gay and never made any choice. He has never felt any feelings toward girls. That is a fact. Ask a few homosexuals and ask them, exactly, when they felt sleeping with men was more 'correct'?

Of course, I have never stated I firmly disbelieve choice. I am sure a few make an active choice. I simply don't accept all homosexuals have deliberately chosen to be gay, that's all.

 

[Kidan]

Refusing to make a choice, is a choice.


Ahh, but that's an invalid argument in the U.S. freedom of Religion is a basic right, freedom to marry anyone/thing you wish is not.

Society places rules on who you can and cannot marry. Otherwise, who knows who'd get married. Maybe you like your first cousin, or your sister. I know, let's marry the family dog, after all there's more laws protecting the dog than their is protecting an in-utero child.

No, society has deemed that marriage should be between a man and a woman, with neither one being a close relative. A handful of gay activists should not be allowed to over-write societies wishes on the matter.

 

[LionOfJudah]

Taoism is totally different from Buddhism, atleast from the studing i have done, i understand much of the shinto religion in japan, and respect much of the religions of the east, not because of their philisophical aspects, but because the called men to a higher standard of living, during a fudeal time.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Yup, they are very different. There's something relaxing about flippping through the taoteching though.

Back on topic...

This thread only strengthens my argument that morality is subjective and fluid. As society grows so does its view of morality.

For lack of a better term, this issue is attacking the very heart of our being: marriage. It forces people to do something they don't want to, which is to wake up and actually take a look around and question themselves. What is this thing called marriage and why is it only for a male and a female? This is something DEEPLY personal to society, ALL societies. Change, if it happens, will take time. This will be a long, drawn out process. Unfortunately, in our microwave society, everyone wants it NOW. It's not going to happen that way.