Homosexuality: Lifestyle Choice?

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 27 2004,10:32)]

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

No, we treat them the same, because in the act of granting them the ability to marry members of the same sex, we at the same time grant every citizen the same right.

Quote[/b] ]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.

You are right, it is a large assumption. There is no conclusive proof that homosexuality is genetic or induced purely by nature, and yet there is evidence for both. So clearly we do not understand the issue. Should we changed our time-honored institutions to accomodate these afflicted? Would that really be worse than discriminating against the afflicted? Let us assume you are a homosexual, and you cannot remember ever being any different. You have a partner whom you love very much, and you wish to spend the rest of your life with this person. You want to raise a child with this person. Society hates you for wanting these things, but you cannot help it. You feel you should be allowed to, since you feel it is not your 'fault' for being the way you are. You do not understand why people believe you are this way by 'choice.' How do you feel? And is it not the government's place to give aid?

Also, please comment on what I said about the twin studies and animal homosexuality.

 

[Kidan]

ok- the twins.  No, if it was a genetic issue, then genetically identical twins would both be gay, 100% of the time. In genetic twins, if one of the twins gets some rare genetic disease, they both have it. The fact that they're not, demonstrates a lack of genetic causality.

Now about the animals.  Again, let me reiterate, there is no such thing as animal homosexuality.

Do some animals exhibit homosexual behaviour?  Sure, under certain conditions they do exhibit it.

Take dogs.  If you don't allow a male dog a female dog, he will start mounting anything/everything he can to relieve the sexual frustration.  I had a male Lhaso Ahpso, that before we had him fixed would mount the cat.   As well, if another male dog had just been with a female, then a second male dog would mount the first.

Now, random homosexual behaviour found in animals is due to conflicting behavioural insticts.  Much as a male tomcat that maul's it's own kittens when the tomcat an the kitten's play has gotten to rough.

There is not an animal that exhibits truly homosexual behaviour, for that would imply a disdain of the opposite sex.  Animals, lack the cognitive function that requires, and are compelled by biological urges and insticts designed to achieve procreation.  In homosexuality there can be no procreation.  It is impossible.

Quote[/b] ]Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an "animal homosexuality". All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Antonio Pardo, "Aspectos médicos de la homosexualidad," Nuestro Tiempo, Jul.-Aug. 1995, pp. 82-89.



Now, you say we should not treat them special, but you wish to break how laws in this country are made, so we can cater to their wishes. How again is that not treating them special?

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]Refusing to make a choice, is a choice.

So then, you chose to be heterosexual because you chose not to be homosexual? Heterosexuality wasn't 'in-bred' or came naturally? Is sexuality truly such a simple choice?

Quote[/b] ]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.

I'm not making a statement on current affairs, it was a thoroughly hypothetical situation. The point was if you find it unacceptable that you should be denied the right to practise your religion in society, but gay people cannot marry who they feel naturally inclined to?

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.

Brother/sister etc actually has a name; incest and you don't see anyone trying to get that legalised, nor does anyone want to marry their pet. They want to marry their fellow human being. Not their brother/sister, but another person who reciprocates their feelings. Exactly like a hetero couple.

Quote[/b] ]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.

I also recall society deemed women and blacks as unfit for voting. Looking back, most would agree that was wrong, and thank goodness for it. Homosexuals are probably seeing their current situation as some kind of similarity.

And once again, you show anger toward them on the basis that you feel they are pushing your interests aside and pressing their own views home. They feel they are being denied a right that hetero couples enjoy and they are fighting for it.

Quote[/b] ]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.

Sorry to jump back a bit, but I totally disagree, there is a lot of difference.

If you were to have a judge force everyone to take the Lord's Supper, you are forcing everyone, wether they share your religious views or not, to observe a mark of respect for someone they don't believe in. Homosexuals are not. They want to be allowed to do something they are being denied solely on their sexuality and are not demanding it be enforced. Just that if they want to marry, others should not interfere.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 28 2004,12:25)]

Quote[/b] ]ok- the twins. No, if it was a genetic issue, then genetically identical twins would both be gay, 100% of the time. In genetic twins, if one of the twins gets some rare genetic disease, they both have it. The fact that they're not, demonstrates a lack of genetic causality.

You are right Kidan, if this issue was ENTIRELY genetic then both identical twins, being genetically identical, would be homosexual. However this is not so, only roughly 50% of pairs of twins were both homosexual, where the other half were one homosexual and one heterosexual. But if homosexuallity is entirely a choice, how do you explain the finding that fraternal twins had a 25% ratio and siblings had a 10% ratio? By your logic, should they not all be the same? If homosexuality is ENTIRELY a choice, then the odds of someone being homosexual is about 3 : 100. And yet, in all these instances, this is not so. Clearly it is not entirely a genetic issue, but according to this is also just as clear that it is not entirely an environment issue. We just do not understand it yet.

Quote[/b] ]Now about the animals. Again, let me reiterate, there is no such thing as animal homosexuality.

I do not see how you can be so sure of that Kidan. Of course homosexual pairs cannot procreate, and thus cannot pass on their genes, yet homosexuality has been present from day one, regardless of persecution or acceptance. Despite evolutionary impossibilities and improbabilities, it's just as prevalent today as it was 1000 years ago. I believe there are far too many examples of animal homosexuality for you to explain away that easily. For instance, 22% of black headed gulls are homosexual, 44% of galahs are homosexual, and 100% of bonobo chimpanzees are bisexual.

Read more about it HERE.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Always willing to throw a monkey wrench into a discussion, I offer up this Church website: http://www.mccchurch.org/

Quote[/b] ]ALL are welcome in MCC...a worldwide fellowship of Christian churches with a special outreach to the world's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities.

Quote[/b] ]Other churches today are influenced by a century of psychoanalytic thought promoted through a powerful minority in the field of medicine. They see homosexuality as some kind of sickness. Although this view has now been soundly discredited by the medical profession, some churches and clergy continue to be influenced by the idea. They say that homosexuals are "imperfect" and in need of "healing."

Quote[/b] ]The Good News is
that, since 1968, when Metropolitan Community Church was founded, the emergence of a strong lesbian and gay community, and the conclusions of new scientific studies on homosexuality have forced the Christian Church to reexamine these issues. A growing number of biblical and theological scholars now recognize that Scripture does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships. Therefore, gay men and lesbians should be accepted - just as they are-in Christian churches, and homosexual relationships should be celebrated and affirmed!

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is a collection of writings which span more than a thousand years recounting the history of God's relationship with the Hebrew and Christian people. It was written in several languages, embraces many literary forms, and reflects cultures very different from our own. These are important considerations for properly understanding the Bible in its context. There are vast differences in doctrines between various Christian denominations, all of which use the same Bible. Such differences have led some Christians to claim that other Christians are not really Christians at all! Biblical interpretation and theology differ from church to church.

Oh there is plenty plenty more. Including an explanation of Sodom and Gommorah's destruction having nothing to do with sexual impropriety.

I'll just leave you with this...

Quote[/b] ]Conclusion…No Law Against Love:
The rarity with which Paul discusses any form of same-sex behavior and the ambiguity in references attributed to him make it extremely unsound to conclude any sure position in the New Testament on homosexuality, especially in the context of loving, responsible relationships. Since any arguments must be made from silence, it is much more reliable to turn to great principles of the Gospel taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. Do not judge others, lest you be judged. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is love . . . against such there is no law.

 

[Kidan]

dv - All that shows, is that Christian churches are still subject to heresy. The Bible is clear in it's condemnation of the sin of homosexuality. It is not a sickness, it is not a genetic mutation/disease. It is a choice, one that is made conciously or unconciously.

Bill - on the animals, I give you a published quote by a prominent homosexual scientist. You give me a quote/link to a gay radio tech.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Actually, there's a greater underlying problem here.

That anyone can read anything they want to into the Bible to support their group.

I'm not sure if you looked at it in detail or not, but these people feel they are RIGHT in the Lord, RIGHT in their understanding of the Bible. Honestly, how can YOU say they are wrong? You are both using the same Bible, you are BOTH using the Holy Spirit to guide you.

 

[Mr.Bill]

I use the page mainly for numbers, as I can't seem to find a difinitive list of homosexual animals. Still, I do not think you can explain this away so easily, for there is still so much about homosexuality that we do not understand.

The twin study?

 

[PapaToad]

I am at the sister site oof the link you gave DV. Interesting

 

[Dark Virtue]

This is for Jim when he shows up today...

According to this Church webpage, these people feel that homosexuality is NOT genetic, stating that it is NOT a sickness. I'm assuming this only leaves one option, that it is a choice.

How does that fit into your argument?

 

[Kidan]

Mr. Bill - In my experience, when somoene does not wish to accept proof, they always claim 'There's just so much we don't understand..'

Yet such claims are not levied against studies of evolution (as an example), even though we still do not know if evolution is a truly viable theory or not, nor is it a repeatable event.


Now the twins, it is not genetic, for you would get a 100% time. To say that there would be a 3/100 chance for both twins being gay is not a responsible claim. For environment influences choice. The environment that produces 1 homosexual, is more apt to produce a second homosexual.

An example, I grew up in a home that did not watch sports, as such I do not like sports, I find them trite and boring. My older brother watches football, while my younger doesn't watch any sports at all. We all came from the same environment, and that enviornment influenced our choice when it came to our enjoyment/desire to watch sports.


As such, a home/social/cultural environment that can lead to homosexuality, is more apt to produce multiple homosexuals.

Ancient Rome had lots of homosexuals, while Ancient Isreal had few. There was a cultural environment that affected the person's choices in those two ancient cultures.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]Mr. Bill - In my experience, when somoene does not wish to accept proof, they always claim 'There's just so much we don't understand..'

You may need to expand your experience a little. A true scientist or anyone who depends on logic and reason will not use such a lame excuse. It would be just as easy for me to condemn a Christian for saying "I don't care about the facts, I have FAITH!"

Quote[/b] ]Yet such claims are not levied against studies of evolution (as an example), even though we still do not know if evolution is a truly viable theory or not, nor is it a repeatable event.

Again, you need to look at this area more objectively. There are MANY scientists who do not lend credence to Darwinian Evolution for precisely the reasons you suggest. It is swiss cheese, it's a theory full of holes. You need to be careful about throwing around the word "evolution" as it carries multiple meanings, similar to the term "atheist".

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Kidan @ Oct. 29 2004,9:13)]Mr. Bill - In my experience, when somoene does not wish  to accept proof, they always claim 'There's just so much we don't understand..'

Yet such claims are not levied against studies of evolution (as an example), even though we still do not know if evolution is a truly viable theory or not, nor is it a repeatable event.


Now the twins, it is not genetic, for you would get a 100% time.  To say that there would be a 3/100 chance for both twins being gay is not a responsible claim.  For environment influences choice.  The environment that produces 1 homosexual, is more apt to produce a second homosexual.

An example, I grew up in a home that did not watch sports, as such I do not like sports, I find them trite and boring.  My older brother watches football, while my younger doesn't watch any sports at all.  We all came from the same environment, and that enviornment influenced our choice when it came to our enjoyment/desire to watch sports.


As such, a home/social/cultural environment that can lead to homosexuality, is more apt to produce multiple homosexuals.  

Ancient Rome had lots of homosexuals, while Ancient Isreal had few.  There was a cultural environment that affected the person's choices in those two ancient cultures.

Your concern is valud Kidan, but I think it is important to distinguish the difference between stubborness in the face of contrary evidence and pensive hesitation due to insufficient evidence. What you have is not 'proof' that you are right; if it was then there would be no confusion as to the origin of homosexual behavior. But that is not the case, there is still much that is unknown to scientists. Some animal behavior can probably be explained by your logic, but I think it may be unwise to assume that this is true for all animals. And so we must examine other possibilities.

Quote[/b] ]Now the twins, it is not genetic, for you would get a 100% time. To say that there would be a 3/100 chance for both twins being gay is not a responsible claim. For environment influences choice. The environment that produces 1 homosexual, is more apt to produce a second homosexual.

Yes. But then why are their such distinct differences between identical twins, fraternal twins, and siblings? All of these have the same environment.

Some cultures may appear to have more or less homosexuals, but it is important to take into account the homosexuals that remained 'in the closet.' If a culture denounces the practice, there will probably be less open homosexuals.

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]This is for Jim when he shows up today...

According to this Church webpage, these people feel that homosexuality is NOT genetic, stating that it is NOT a sickness. I'm assuming this only leaves one option, that it is a choice.

How does that fit into your argument?

They are stating something they believe. I've been reading Kidan's and Bill's argument and from what I can tell, there is simply no way I can state homosexuality is genetic, but if you read my posts, you'll find I never implied that I thought homosexuality was entirely genetic. I have never said anything against that.

How does that fit into my argument? They say the view that homosexuality as a sickness has been soundly discredited. But by who?

link

The part I read from here:

Quote[/b] ]
Edited for content.

If homosexuality was entirely a choice, don't you think they would be more willing to give it up? As I asked Kidan, if heterosexuality is absolutely natural, and homosexuality can be chosen at will, did you actively choose to be attracted to women? Do you have any feelings for handsome men? I'd bet not.

Quote[/b] ] Detection of homosexual propensity in children: Richard Green, a psychiatrist from UCLA has compared effeminate with "masculine" boys. 5 Children who grow up to become homosexuals often engage in "gender inappropriate play" in early childhood. 6 "'Feminine' boys played about four times as much with the doll...a third as much with the truck." By interviewing their child subjects later in life when they were in their teens and early twenties, the researchers found that 75% of the effeminate boys had become gay adult males. It is obvious that these boys were not taught this behavior. They did not copy their behavior from other children in the family; they were often under harsh and severe pressure from their parents to change. One reasonable conclusion is that that they are driven to this type of behavior by an innate trait which is outside of their control and consciousness.

As it says, studies have shown that homosexuality isn't necessarily picked up during teen years. In these cases, how exactly did these children decide they wanted to be gay, opposing their heterosexual nature? Could it be that they have either a reduced, or no attraction to those of the opposite sex?

In the end, my argument is more in line with wether homosexuals should be mistreated due to their sexuality as opposed to the cause, but the cause is important too. There simply isn't any way to argue it conclusively. Kidan has brought much to suggest the genetic factor isn't entirely plausible, but choice simply doesn't cut it either.

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]If homosexuality was entirely a choice, don't you think they would be more willing to give it up?

Why? They have their cake and are eating it too.

They have chosen to be homosexual AND they feel they are vindicated in their choice in the eyes of God. In other words, they have done no wrong and God loves them.

What impetus is there to say their choice is wrong?

 

[Jim]

Regarding the edited bit, my apologies, I didn't realise it was offensive.

Quote[/b] ]Why? They have their cake and are eating it too.

They have chosen to be homosexual AND they feel they are vindicated in their choice in the eyes of God. In other words, they have done no wrong and God loves them.

What impetus is there to say their choice is wrong?

You assuming they thought between being attracted to their own gender and the opposite gender. Then they decided that homosexuality was better for them and whent ahead with it. In this case, are you suggesting that everyone's sexuality is a personal choice?

But anyway, the point of that statement was pointed at the 'treatments' devised to 'cure' homosexuality. Read the site and find out what I meant.

It seems from your post you are still assuming that at some point, people think to themselves "I think I will be hetero/homosexual" as though they were choosing a career. As above, it has been shown (NOT proven, though, I won't go that far) that there is a linkage between feminine behaviour at early childhood and homosexuality in later life. A 75% occurence among adults with this behaviour noted.

I also ask that someone answer the question: If homosexuality is entirely a choice, and people can turn their back on their sexuality merely by choice and not at all by impunction, that they can look upon a person of the same gender as they would a heterosexual would look upon a member of the opposite gender, then it begs the question: Why is their natural impunction subject to their whims? I can be certain the idea of being attracted to a member of your own gender is repulsive to many. If so, why is this not a problem for a large number of people across many cultures?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Quote[/b] ]In this case, are you suggesting that everyone's sexuality is a personal choice?

BINGO!

I believe it is.

There just happens to be a preponderance of heterosexuality. Call it a natural instinct if you will.

Why do you believe it's NOT a choice?

Quote[/b] ]I also ask that someone answer the question: If homosexuality is entirely a choice, and people can turn their back on their sexuality merely by choice and not at all by impunction, that they can look upon a person of the same gender as they would a heterosexual would look upon a member of the opposite gender, then it begs the question: Why is their natural impunction subject to their whims? I can be certain the idea of being attracted to a member of your own gender is repulsive to many. If so, why is this not a problem for a large number of people across many cultures?

I think it's because it's NATURAL to be attracted to the opposite gender. There are people that aren't and there are people that are attracted to both, and there are people that are attracted to neither and prefer abstinance. It's a choice.

 

[Jim]

Whoa, hang on...

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]In this case, are you suggesting that everyone's sexuality is a personal choice?

BINGO!

I believe it is.

There just happens to be a preponderance of heterosexuality. Call it a natural instinct if you will.

Why do you believe it's NOT a choice?

I don't understand. You are saying it is a choice, that people can choose who they are attracted to, but at the same time, they are naturally predisposed toward the opposite gender. So... Why, if they are simply choosing to be gay, WOULD thay want to be gay? If they are naturally attracted to the opposite gender, but choose to be gay anyway, are you suggesting they are simply being perverse or rebellious?

Once again, I never said it it WASN'T a choice, nor have I said I believe it is entirely genetic. There is too much uncertainty either way to argue it entirely one way.

Quote[/b] ]I think it's because it's NATURAL to be attracted to the opposite gender. There are people that aren't and there are people that are attracted to both, and there are people that are attracted to neither and prefer abstinance. It's a choice.

Wait a second, if it is natural to be attracted to the opposite gender, but there are people who are not attracted to anyone at all, are attracted to the same gender and are attracted to both,despite the fact they should be naturally attracted to the opposite sex, doesn' this suggest a bit more than a personal preference?

Let me make this situation, I know you are married so please don't take offence

You see an attractive woman. What do you feel? Attracted to her? Did you choose to feel that attraction? Could you suddenly choose to see a handsome man and decide you are attracted to him? Is it at all possible for you to be attracted to a man? If not, why? If you cannot at any point be attracted to a man, then your sexuality is not choice, as you said, it is instinct.

To turn it on it's head, imagine you are homosexual and see a handsome man and are attracted to him. What makes you think this person can then see a woman and be attracted to her in the same way?

And what about the young children who display feminine behaviour? The fact that 75% or so became gay adults? What would explain this?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Being attracted to the opposite gender is a natural PREDISPOSITION.

I don't find men sexually attractive because I don't dwell on it. The problems come when you start dwelling on it, thinking on it and then acting on it. I'm not gay, so I can't answer all these questions.

But think about it this way. You're a young, single guy. What thoughts go through your mind when you see a pretty girl? You DWELL on details. Hair, skin, face, etc. If you took the time and spent effort into thinking the same thing about a man, you would be open to doing more than that.

This is a bit complicated, so I'm not sure if I have explained this well.

 

[Jim]

Quote[/b] ]I don't find men sexually attractive because I don't dwell on it. The problems come when you start dwelling on it, thinking on it and then acting on it. I'm not gay, so I can't answer all these questions.

Quote[/b] ]But think about it this way. You're a young, single guy. What thoughts go through your mind when you see a pretty girl? You DWELL on details. Hair, skin, face, etc. If you took the time and spent effort into thinking the same thing about a man, you would be open to doing more than that.

It is quite a difficult argument, but I will attempt to argue nevertheless, sorry.

But the question is, what makes a person DWELL on details about a girl, but not a man? I cannot say I have been attracted to men because I KNOW I am heterosexual, mainly cos I've had crushes on girls but have never thought twice about guys. However, I HAVE dwelt on my male peer's appearance before, when they come in wearing new stuff,a new hairstyle etc. and think 'that looks great, I would love to have those shoes/jacket etc.' But at no point have I ever contempleted a male peer being attractive. Does this mean, If I am not attracted to them, I am choosing to be heterosexual? No, I CAN'T be attracted to them. My mind simply won't work that way.

If my mind won't work that way, It isn't a choice because I am doing something that comes naturally, something that is normal to me. If I could feel attracted to men, It WOULD be a choice, because I am choosing between two things, both of which hold appeal, whether in equal measure or not. As you say, it is impossible to get an actual insight into how their mind works.

And don't worry. I fully appreciate your arguments, as I do Mr Bills and Kidans.