Religious Preference vs. Sexual Preference

From the recent statement by black clergy:

"To equate a lifestyle choice to racism demeans the work of the entire civil rights movement."

Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that each individual chooses his or her sexual orientation. Not everyone agrees with this statement but terms such as “sexual preference” and “alternative lifestyle” imply a choice has been made from the available options.

Now lets look at religion. Isn’t the decision to follow a specific religion, or no religion at all, a “lifestyle choice”? No one is genetically disposed to be a Christian, Moslem, Jew, or Atheist. Don’t the concepts of free will, evangelism and religious conversion depend on the ability of an individual to choose?

Some argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and therefore does not deserve legal protection. However religious belief, another lifestyle choice, has been a constitutionally protected practice in this country for over two hundred years. These choices are not mutually exclusive; I can choose to be a gay Christian, a bisexual Jew, a straight Atheist, or many other combinations of lifestyle choices.

How can we as a society protect your right to choose the religion that touches your heart but not your right to marry the person who touches your heart?

As you are with sexual orientation.

Religion is something you choose. You can find a religion and stay with it until you die. You cannot choose to change your sexual orientation.

This isn't a complex answer to your excellent question, I know.

But this is my take as a gay man (and a Catholic until 25 years ago, when I left the church)

Terry

Are you sure sexual preference is ONLY nature? I mean is there definitive proof of that or can be either or both?

and explain how, when and why they made the choice to pursue that lifestyle, I'll be listening.

until then, by my experience, the only 'choice' for homosexuals, is whether they live and love by embracing their nature or repress that nature.

Homosexuality seems to transcend race, ethnic origin, class, economic status, religion. It just strikes me that it covers all levels of society. Plus, homosexuality has been around for thousands of years.

I think of sexual orientation in terms of being an innate characteristic...that is not affected by environment or other factors.

Terry

And I can certainly invision a situation where someone is raised to embrace a more open view of sexuality as impacting their life. In short, I don't know and it seems like that, as with most things people do, we are complex. For some it is undoubtedly nature. Perhaps for others sex is less of a clear-cut choice.

bronx zoo, and in the bonobo ape tribes, where homosexuality is accepted. It's a part of nature, therefore, it's an innate part of us, and it's something that can't be chosen.

Can't be chosen? No you are citing evidence that homosexuality exists in nature and I don't dispute that. But can you prove that it is always nature over nurture? No, I don't think you can.

Ultimately, I don't care either way but it is an interesting question.

unsuccessful attempts of gays to be ex-gays.

Not everyone does. Look at bi-sexuals for instance.

everyone is bisexual, but then people have very strong sexual orientations such as being straight, or gay. Bisexuality is another matter, in which one feels naturally and sexually attracted to both sexes.

or anything for that matter.

many gays have str8 sex during their lives
many (most?) str8 people 'experiment' with same-sex activity (esp. in adolescence)

but that's just sex.

and it's not about who you screw, it's about who you love.

It doesn't matter whether "nature" (genetics) or "nuture" (environmental factors) are what lead to sexual orientation. All available evidence indicates that it is not a concious choice, but a set constant once a certain point in development is reached.

It's homosexual sex or no sex.

then the inverse would be true as well -- that those rasied in environments where their sexuality was strictly guided toward heterosexuality (religious fundementalism, for example), they would not "become" gay. We know that is not the case however.

As another poster comments, sex is a continuum. I don't any two people who see sex or sexuality exactly the same. Those who have strong views -- either gay or straight -- are likely to be unaffected by anyone trying to coerce them otherwise.

Do you consider your sexual orientation a "view?"

Who fell more in the center of the sexual continuum (that's a good term).

Odd word choice. My sexual leanings are visceral, not a "view". They precede thought or willful choice. The sight of a girl's panties or a stray smutty thought caused me to spring boners at inopportune moments, like during elementary school classes. None of it had to do with allegiance to the "rightness" of heterosexuality, my body was always reactive to stimuli and my thinking self had to deal with the results.

For some it is undoubtedly nature. Perhaps for others sex is less of a clear-cut choice.

I do think that in times past there were undoubtedly men and women who were in heterosexual marriages who were unhappy or who may have felt: "Is that all there is my friend?" I can recall when the only people who were known to be homosexual were "artistic"... actors or writers or etc. So-called "normal" people really had no understanding of homosexuality, and it was "expected" of "normal" people that a man would marry a woman and vice versa. So, I certainly imagine that there were, and still are homosexual men and women who are in heterosexual relationships and manage to maintain them.

At the same time, I'm sure that these people know at some level that their lives aren't of quite the same quality as the lives of their heterosexual friends.

I believe that people love other people, and that sex is only one part of that love. There's a lot left to keep a relationship going even if the sex isn't great, or even if it's non-existent.

Still, I am convinced that sexual orientation is inborn. I suppose that as a former teacher I've just known too many children that even I could see had something different going for them, although at the time I wasn't sure just how that difference would play out. After some time, it became clear.

Also, I tend to think that sexuality is not an either-or kind of thing. There are so many points on the continuum in between absolutely heterosexual and absolutely homosexual, i.e. bisexual, transgendered, etc., that it may not seem clear-cut to "outsiders."

At any rate, I certainly would never dare try to tell another person that something so personal might or might not be inborn. Who on earth am I to say? And what difference would it make anyhow? Don't we treat all people with respect? Aren't all people entitled to the same human rights and, in this country, the same civil rights? As I see it, that is the bottom line... rights and respect.

Does it really matter???????

A shame too, because I would like to hear muddleoftheroads response to the original post.

Choose to stop believing in god right now.

Choose to be attracted to something you are not right now.

Bet you can't do either one. To be sure they are for different reasons. But freewill is trickier than we suspect.

Our beliefs about the world around us are maleable. But at any given moment we can no more choose what we believe than we can choose to ignore the ground beneath our feet. It is simply there. Beliefs come about in a cumulative manner. Over time we come to know the world in our own way. What we come to know defines what we believe.

What we are attracted to comes about in a different manner. There is nothing intrinisicly beautiful about the human form. We are not attracted to Giraffes. We are not attracted to Starfish. We are attracted to our fellow humans. It would be a bad idea genetically speaking for us not to be attracted to our species. There has to be a way for the brain to be wired to be attracted to the correct gender for procreation. And there is likely a way for that wiring to be crossed over to deal with population issues.

Homosexuality occurrs in nature. Gay squirrels do not struggle with social implications of their relationships. They act on what they feel. Lesbian penguins do not struggle with what they think the clergy will think of their actions. Freed of social pressure homosexuality is a perfectly normal occurrence in the world. It is only the learned social pressures of human society that create a tension about it.

I am an adult. I have made countless choices getting here. And, as many here know, I am fairly strongly opinionated on those choices. However, suppose I was much less strong on my views and I was again 2 or 3? Perhaps my opinions could be more easily influenced.

As for some of the rest you say. Yes, some people ARE attracted to giraffes or dogs or donkeys. I consider it aberrant, but it does exist. Were they born that way or did they choose it? Hell if I know.

Yes, homosexuality does indeed occur in nature. I don't dispute that one iota. The question I have is can sexuality also be learned and no one here clearly seems to know.

When we make a choice what is occurring is we have an approximate balance of beliefs between opposing positions. When this occurrs we shift into a fine tuning mode where we bring to bear various tools we have learned to rely on. We struggle with the various factors but in the end it is the emotional weight of the various sides (tools included) that allows us to come to a descision. These descisions lead to later accumulative balances which define what we believe.

Thus yes, choices are made. But the things we currently believe are the result of those paths taken. We do not choose to believe a thing. We examine what we value and this leads to what we believe.

Yes, some people ARE attracted to giraffes or dogs or donkeys. I consider it aberrant, but it does exist. Were they born that way or did they choose it? Hell if I know.

Please tell me that you are not comparing the long and loving relationship I have with my partner with an "aberrant" behavior such as bestiality. Because if you are, I'm going to hit that alert button so fast it will make your head spin, Muddle.

I am simply saying people can make sexual choices. Some of us have our sexuality etched pretty firmly in who we are. Others less so.

And, for the record, I was not the one who mentioned sexual attraction to animals first. I simply corrected a statement that another made.

You made a comparison between the "choice" of being attracted to animals and the possible "choice" of being attracted to the same sex. I have to tell you, I am insulted beyond belief. You owe a lot of folks here an APOLOGY.

Edited to add: the poster you were "correcting" was actually pointing out the difference between being attracted to animals and being attracted to the same gender of our own species. YOU equated them as aberrant sexual behaviors, not the poster you "corrected". Do you think you could possibly have been more insulting?

Az (1000+ posts) "We are not attracted to Giraffes. We are not attracted to Starfish. We are attracted to our fellow humans."

Some folks are indeed attracted to giraffes.

Do they choose to be or are they born that way or is it a mix. Hell if I know.

I owe no apology nor do I intend to make one because you choose to misunderstand my statement.

No I said having sex with animals is aberrant. It is. What consenting adults do is their own freakin' business.

Perhaps it is YOU who misunderstood the poster's point, Muddle. But if playing endless games of semantics is what you want, then count me in for the match. There is no way I'm going to let ANY poster here, however clever, find an end-around way to equate being gay with being sexually attracted to dogs and donkeys.

RE: the poster whose argument you claim to have been "correcting"... A certain percentage of homosexual behavior is the NORM within the parameters of sexual behavior for any species -- not *between species*. THAT was the point, Muddle. That percentage may be small, making it more UNCOMMON, but it is still normal within the spectrum of natural sexual behaviors exhibited by that species. Likewise, a certain percentage of the human species may be attracted to members of their own gender. Though the percentage of homosexual behavior exhibited by humans may be more uncommon (as may be bisexuality), it is normal and natural within the sexual behavior parameters for our species.

Interspecies sexual behavior is another matter entirely, though there have been recorded instances, such as the lovelorn moose smitten with a farmer's cow, but I sincerely doubt there are a certain percentage of moose who are genetically predetermined to seek out bovine companionship.

Though in nature such instances could be considered truly rare and uncommon, using the term "aberrant" carries with it certain moral judgments not applicable to moose and cows. The term might be applicable to sexual behaviors betwen humans and other species, but not adult homosexual behavior within the human species.

ABBERANT: (Abberation) 1.deviation from what is right, true, normal, etc. 2. mental derangement Webster's New World Dictionary

Homosexuality may be the more uncommon sexual behavior exhibited by species, but it in no way is an aberrant behavior within the parameters of human sexuality, nor is it comparable to interspecies sexual behaviors between humans and other species.

The next time you decide to "correct" another poster's argument, do not proceed from a false assumption. In the meanwhile, I'm wondering why you are so certain there are indeed people out there who are sexually attracted to giraffes.

And are more than entitled to do so. But for other folks who have read my hundreds of posts both for gay rights AND for gay marriage, you are going after the wrong guy. It is about my No. 1 complaint about my own African-American community that many do not see this as a Civil Rights issue. I do.

The other poster made a claim. It's a claim that is false. Since it talks about sexual attraction, it is germaine to the whole discussion of sexuality, not just homosexuality.

I don't care if considering interspecies sex carries with it certain moral judgments. I'm OK with that. But, contrary to what you may think, I don't apply any such judgments to any couple of consenting adults.

... instead of "correcting" them on something which was a minor piddly point in the context of the real argument she or he presented, a "correction" which was basically your only response to the entire post (and one which I considered to be cogent and thoughtful). You came off -- to me --as patronizing and needlessly contrary. Sorry, but that's the way I feel about it. Tossing in the word "aberrant" in a discussion about sexual preference was incendiary and having read many, many of your posts here I do know that you are a clever and intelligent person who carefully chooses your words for a reason.

Then the argument becomes well, there are many choices and and aberrant behaviors to be found, but who is to judge? That is NOT the argument, though by selectively zeroing in on that minor point about some people being sexually attracted to giraffes(!), the lines become blurred whether we're talking about uncommon but natural sexual behaviors and those aberrant sexual behaviors which do not involve consent (such as rape and pedophilia). Some truly aberrant sexual behaviors have little to do with sexual attraction but a lot to do with power, and they occur among heterosexual *and* homosexual animals, including man. In fact, since most aberrant sexual behaviors are displayed by heterosexuals, perhaps an argument about whether or why some people are sexually attracted to giraffes should be posed to the more common heterosexuals among us.

(As an aside: Yes, rape is known among other higher mammals such as porpoises, but whether or not porpoises can be found guilty of aberrant sexual behavior is something I will leave to others more versed in ethics to judge.)

Whether or not a person is homosexual by choice or genetics, the poster who brought up the examples of common occurances of homosexual behaviors among many species of the animal kingdom had a good point to make. (Does a drake or a moose CHOOSE homosexuality? We could ask them or we can accept that it simply exists within the normal spectrum of animal behavior.)

Too bad the only response you could muster was to cut them off at the knees with a "correction" and a comment about aberrant sexual behaviors. If this is your idea of supporting or at least being non-judgmental about gays, as for myself I'll take a pass.

You discuss things as you wish and I will discuss them as I wish.

Tossing in aberrant to discuss people who have sex with animals is appropriate. I could have used other words like warped or sick, but I'll stick with aberrant.

Deciding to go to the 'white' school is a racial choice.

Deciding to marry a white woman is a racial choice (a nightmare for some racists).

Going against societal 'norms' with regard to race was considered a kind of 'behavior' and a choice.

So why didn't blacks continue to hide in their own schools and communities, instead of making race an issue? When blacks crossed those boundaries, they exhibited 'behavior' and 'choice' according to the logic of the Right.


For those who don't see clear distinctions with their sexual orientation, I suggest they become familiar with the term bisexual. For everyone else, the gender of their partner is not a matter of preference.

I like brown eyes. THAT is a preference. Even so, when I'm with a brown-eyed person, that is not engaging in a 'behavior'.

it was asked previously...care to answer? thanks.

If you are born with a sexual orientation then it should be as protected as race.

I couldnt' have said it or thought it better!


"God, save me from your followers"

If sexuality is chosen, it should be protected as is religion. If sexuality is innate, is should be protected as is race.

He starts by accepting the dubious proposition that sexual orientation is a choice.

And if so, why shoudn't it be given the same protection as religious choice.

"How can we as a society protect your right to choose the religion that touches your heart but not your right to marry the person who touches your heart?"

Thanks for the clarity, Jokerman.

That is what's going on here.

They want to make into law what they believe.

They want to force their extremist religious views onto society.

Unfortunately, in this matter they are joined by other religious groups who are not seeing the danger of enforcing their religious views onto society as law.

rightwing extremist, thinking hannity, brother.



"Let’s assume for the sake of this discussion that each individual chooses his or her sexual orientation. Not everyone agrees with this statement but terms such as “sexual preference” and “alternative lifestyle” imply a choice has been made from the available options."

for once not so heated talking to brother. have been telling him the last month, if he is going to talk political or religious with me i wont battle. i am not republican.

at this point in discussion, i went to my story.

from beginning of time we have had homosexuals, and in all animal kingdom

the two places homosexuality is in bible it also says equal sin to eat shell fish and divorce.

jesus not only didnt say anything about gays, a roman came to him to heal his boy. boy in those days taking care of all need of said roman, and jesus understood this boys role and still healed

i have two brother in laws gay, in their beauty, be. (after a decade of husband in my family, a couple months ago told brother two of husbands brothers gay. i said, now dont you feel silly all the ugliness you project. brother really admires my husband)

i did lots of research on study of gay, and to me, there is pretty good documentation it is the development of brain, and is genetic thru the mothers gene, and who am i to question and challenge god his creation

then i look at my son. working on 9, struggling in math division, total beauty and lite, tipping on toes in such joy and laughter in life all the time. and i say, can you say gay. i also find out about a year ago. back in the old days, when they had me put him on soy milk as a baby, high in estrogen, they have recently come to studies, with the escaltion of male being fed milk. (now controversial, but i can see if genes are devleoped in a certain pattern and this can escalate growth feeding of estrogen? just theory. i also feel vaccinations can feed the extremities in tendicies to autism and add, adhd.)

and brother of mine, you know and love edmund so, you know what i talk, you know whether gay or not, males like you will a zillion times in his life call him "gay"

so really, i dont want any of your shit. who am i to judge, when i can say in all confidence, i do not know,. and i know you do not know either

so.............

in my logic and my christianity, it sits in peace and stillness and this is where the love can be

my family may be hard core testostrone driven male, but they know how to love, my, my boys, cousins nephews nieces.....kids

whilst we live in a world now where you can choose to be Baptist, gay, Muslim, transgender, Anglican, bisexual, Wiccan or whatever, those generations before us have seen religion as defined from birth - If you're born into a Catholic family, you are a Catholic, et cetera - whilst sexual oddities have just been either preferences or abnormalities (I can't say which, I'm not 200 years old). So whilst the founding fathers wrote into the constitution protection for those of differing religions - because they had no choice - they missed out that for different sexual preferences - because they either had a choice but it was up to them, or they were just plain weird.

Fun questions for any GLBT's who have a good knowledge of the constitution:
Is there any proof in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that the FF's were not actually bisexual cross-dressers?
Did they consider such things so commonplace that it wasn't worthy of inclusion?
After all, according to the Bill of Rights, you don't actually have the right to breath...

(No, not that serious, but worth a thought.)

These bigots have it exactly backwards. It's the dismissal of the underlying principles of equality common to both issues that demeans the civil rights movement.

If the civil rights movement wasn't about equality under law, what was it about? Elevating African-Americans to the same exclusive priveleges as other select groups? I don't think so and I doubt if MLK, Jr. would have thought so.

The question is: In a free society, can people be punished for not conforming to someone else's religious (or moral) rules - when they cause no harm to anyone else?

All other arguments avoid this fundamental question regarding freedom (from) religion. But this is the question that needs to be answered.

The answer will tell us if the American ideal of freedom and liberty is alive or dead. Unfortunately, I think the answer is not good.

Nature / nurture is a blind alley.

I'm an adult who was adopted. I met my birthmother when I was about 35. I found that we had much in common... from our liberal frame of mind to the fact that we both liked bleu cheese dressing on salads. Of course we had the same general body shape, the same eye color, the same hair color... that's to be expected. But there were so many unexpected things that we shared... even the way we sit, the colors we prefer... we even had chosen the same curtains for our kitchen windows!

Now, you would think that growing up with my adoptive family I would have absorbed some of these kinds of things from them. After all, if I was raised in certain surroundings, wouldn't certain styles of furniture or certain foods that I thought were "comforting" be like those I was raised with? Well, guess what. Not necessarily! I mean, my adoptive mother washed her pots and pans after dinner was finished. When I got my own home, I washed things as I went along so I wouldn't have a big pile of dishes at the end of a meal. Nobody taught me to do it that way... it just seemed more natural and comfortable to me. That's how my birthmother does also.

So, if you wonder which I think plays the biggest role... nature wins hands down.

I think that there are studies of twins who were separated at birth that show uncanny similarities also, even though they couldn't possibly have learned them from the same source. Nature.

hehe

"Some argue that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and therefore does not deserve legal protection."

That is the false argument, I think. Why should not someone be able to choose their sexual preferance, just as people should be able to choose their religion. Why should it matter if one person thinks that homosexuality/heterosexuality is a choice and another thinks there are no choices involved.

I don't think it really matters.

There is the point someone made that racial discrimination and religious discrimination (and sexual preferences) are valued differently. Maybe they shouldn't be. Maybe that is the problem.

Race becomes a choice as well. I am mostly African-American. I have a bit of Irish as well. Now, I don't define myself as the latter, but I do as the former. I can't really change because I look black. But if someone is the result of numerous mixings over the years, racial identity -- ala Tiger Woods -- becomes almost a personal choice.

And yes, I would agree with you. I am pro-Choice after all.

You say: "There is the point someone made that racial discrimination and religious discrimination (and sexual preferences) are valued differently. Maybe they shouldn't be. Maybe that is the problem."

It could be. Turns out that sexual orientation isn't a choice based on the current state of research. Just how much is environmental is still a question for the researchers.

Even if a person could decide to be one orientation or the other consciously and change their minds frequently about it, there is no good reason to discriminate.

I personally don't think it is a choice. I know people who have tried for many years to choose heterosexuality, and it's as awkward as the school system trying to get my very lefthanded brother to switch to righthandedness. And we once made value judgement about people who wrote with "the devil's hand".

.. being gay is not one of them. More to the point, it shouldn't matter. Here's one person's opinion which I enjoyed and thought I'd share here: http://www.tcnj.edu/~alamia2/homosexuality.htm Their opinion was succinctly and effectively stated. Here's mine:

Equal protection under the law. That's what this is about. Hypothetically speaking, let's discuss two scenarios: one, that homosexuality is genetically determined, and two, that homosexuality is not genetically predetermined but may be the result of other, undetermined sociological and psychological factors.

Which of these scenarios determines that a person is not deserving of equal protection and rights under the law, unless your opposition to homosexuality is based *on religious grounds* and no discernment is made as to the roots of one's orientation. I have a sneaking suspicion that to these mighty pillars of the church, it wouldn't matter why you were gay, just that you ARE gay.

Nevetheless, let's assume that homosexuality could be both -- either genetic or a "choice". What would these religious leaders suggest as to the means by which a gay person could qualify for their Constitutional rights? Perhaps a screening process by which we could seperate those who are "born gay" from those whose homosexuality could be "cured" by years of voluntary or forced enrollment into institutional "re-education camps" where they could qualify to get their licenses for Contitutional rights after having proven -- having had their penisis wired for the appropriate response -- they can get a hard-on watching straight porn? Hallelujah!

Of course, if you fail the course of "treatment" and are deemed as hopelessly wired to be gay, you're destined to forever be forbidden your Consitutional rights -- in fact, we will rewrite the Constitution to make sure you'll NEVER have them.

As for myself, I am curious whether these religious leaders have ever wondered if such things as racism and homophobia might have some genetic basis or are purely a matter of choice. (I've sometimes wondered if a person's draw to and amount of religious devotion may have some genetic component, not that it matters.) How about violent or abusive behavior, such as that exhibited by batterers, murderers, rapists, sociopaths and pedophiles? (The majority of which, by the way, are HETEROSEXUAL, even in cases where the abuse is same-sex abuse.) Oh, pardon moi -- for a moment I forgot that the legal rights of rapists and mass murderers to marry are protected and will be officially and Consitutionally sanctioned as long as the persons involved are heterosexual. In that case, hell, you can even murder your own family and get yourself a new one later by remarrying, perhaps in a tasteful prison ceremony. There's surely no law stopping you!

Heaven forbid the sanctity of their marriages or the 24-hour kind of Brittney Spears should be sullied should two loving people of the same gender enter into the legal union of marriage, which carries with it not only legal rights and protections but *responsibilities.*

Now, as to those genetic factors... what course should be taken once the "gay gene" has become undeniably identified. Should we pre-test all potential parents who might be carrying this gene? What then? Do we forbid them from reproducing? Pre-test and abort any fetuses that might carry the gene? Identify and tattoo any newborns with the gene so they can be issued a govt card stating they are, by birth, not full citizens of the U.S.? Send little Jimmy and Jane to school with pink triangles sewn onto their clothes so they could attend separate classes in school and recess could be properly segregated as to prevent any "pollution" of budding heterosexuals?

DO YOU SEE HOW UTTERLY STUPID THIS IS?!!! (ie, should gays have legal rights?)

Certainly, my partner and I would like to get married. We have been faithfully together for many years, and at this point it looks as if we may not live to see the day when she and I can legally join as a couple fully protected and recognized by law. I want to know why THAT is. THAT'S the real question, isn't it? Why the love we share is so hated by those blinded by their own bigotry and intolerance. No one here is demanding that folks like us be feted in a church wedding (I'm not a religious person anyway and wouldn't want one). Religion is the CHOICE, but legal rights and responsibilities afforded by the Constitution should be extended to all citizens, and those rights exist outside the church(es). That's one of the reasons we founded the damn country to begin with!!!!

I'm going to cut myself off here, because this whole debate is making me angry and upset. I shouldn't feel obligated, for the thousandth time, to debate whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice, because it isn't the issue and it isn't the point.

So I guess that whatever group you may belong to, you may try to cling to whatever stronghold you can...
My personal view on all this is BULL and I am a heterosexual (or a not-er o sexual, given my recent overworking and no reallly good men on the horizon) Gay sympathetic, was the best damn Fag Hag EVER back in the day. I am white (or off-white? get a tan here and there) and my greatest love so far was black (or kindof dark brown anyway) so that is that. Now, on to the next criteria....
As far as I could see...having had MUCH firsthand experience with those of the non het lifestyle...let me think...As far as I can say, one is born with their preference, and if they are not born with it, they evolve into it sooner or later maybe as a result of environment, but mostly as a result of natural inclination. So those camps where they try to turn gay people into straights are totally bogus. I had an old roommate that went to extremes and he tried to tell me he went straight and all that LIKE haha ok , hunny. It's bullshit. You are what you are, and it's hard to define what you are, so that's not the problem, the problem would be maybe reconciling what you are with "society's views of what you should be".

I have been pretty dismayed by the "black" contingent dis-connnecting with the "white" or other alternative or whatever you may call its...I am a white woman, working a "non traditional job", straight, though who gives a shit...that they would not try to form a coalition with other groups also pretty much disenfranchised is why they will forever be (along with the rest of us...) pretty much FUCKED
XXXOOO

I really didn't want this to turn into a debate on why people are of a particular sexual orientation.

I don't know if it is a choice or not. I personally didn't choose to be heterosexual and I don't know if anyone chooses to be homosexual. If it isn't a choice than it should be protected the same as race or national origin.

Many people opposed to gay rights use the lifestyle choice argument to say homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights because it is their choice. My point is that we already protect lifestyle choices when it comes to religion, why not sexual preference?

:loveya:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:wtf:
i posed the following question to those who agree with this minister:

if you are arguing that sexual preference IS A CHOICE, are you saying you agree with the minister? and if it is only a choice some some people, should those who are born that way be exempt from his bigotry?

i hope this doesn't offend the censors :wtf:

We allow Hard Shell Baptists to marry, why not gays?

Your point's dead on: if being gay is a religious matter, we have to allow gay marriage.

We should, though, try to get fundamentalists to leave their harmful lifestyle by telling them the truth in love...

besides, what will we tell the children???

Do you? Do you really? I don't. There's a certain type that attracts me, both in males and in females. I never made a conscious choice to be attracted to that type. I never made a choice that those who don't fit that type will be unable to turn my crank. Who does and does not strike sexual sparks for me was never a matter of conscious choice. It's a combination of factors that makes me tend to like a certain type in men, and a completely different type in women, but it was NOT a conscious choice.

One chooses actions. One does not choose one's nature.

Legislating against someone because they're attracted to the "wrong" type of consenting adult is as stupid as legislating against them because their eyes are the wrong color. Or their skin.

So sue me.

People could also say I'm Bi-sexual because I believe that I have chosen my sexual preference and I could change my mind. I also think people are influenced by their culture, and a whole host of factors.

Here is an example for you. My husband, when I met him, looked like he looked a certain way. It was really an illusion. I "choose" to be attracted to him. It IS a consious decision.

Also - I think most people can adapt their attractions over time - or they would not choose to stay married. (Some don't, obviously).

i would say your argument is not perfect. this analogy is somewhat false. you compare chosing a belief system, a "lifestyle choice," with whom you bed, a "lifestyle choice." Though they both might be accurately described as "lifestyle choices", they are not analogous.

If one accepts that you can choose to be gay...

"How can we as a society protect your right to choose the religion that touches your heart but not your right to marry the person who touches your heart?"

may i use it?

and thanks!

When someone uses it, I know they are homophobic.

It absolutely amazes me, that anyone with a brain could think that we 'choose' our sexual orientation. The whole proposition is as absurd as believing the earth is flat.

but your sexual identification is much harder to determine.
x percentage of what attracts you sexually is genetic, and while you might think it's your idea it really isn't.
another percent is cultural but where one leaves off and the other begins again would be a difficult question to answer -- and begs the question how much influence does the individual have over formative experience? i.e. free will.
few people, whether they like to admit it or not are 100 per cent straight or gay. but the feelings of guilt and estrangement humans feel are social. society is completely capable of building gay marriages that are healthy and wonderful relationships because the individuals involved embrace their sexual identity and interact with it in a healthy way, i.e. a facet of a good and wonderful self esteem.
gay people have always been a part of human culture and it behooves human culture to embrace it as part of universal personality and build a better world.

But I tend to agree as well.

I think if you are raised in a bi-sexual household for instance, you will be more open to sexual experiences with both genders.

I am not sure about your "few people" being 100% straight or gay. I know some folks who seem pretty extreme either way, so I don't know what percentage that would really be.