I would like to ask a question about homosexuality...

Many Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice. I wonder this:

If homosexuality is a choice for those whom consider themselves homosexual, aren't those very same Christians implying that they have made the choice to not have homosexual relations, but that they still could?

They wouldn't even understand your question.

Those who hate gays have boxed themselves in. Their hate is illogical. They have implied themselves to be gay in their attempt to hate gays. It quite interesting to note.

:rofl:

"when did you know you were gay?"

my response: "when did you know you were straight?"

it's the pervs who are gay.

My mom's a fundy and that's how she thinks.

If it is a choice for homosexuals, it is a choice for everyone. If it isn't a choice and they are inherently different at birth, in that case homosexuality is a predefined trait much like being a different eye or skin color. We do not discriminate based upon pre-defined traits and therefore we should not discriminate in the matter of homosexuality.

And why do you care? Don't you think you should concern yourself with your own actions? Just curious.

...just how is the OP judging? What the OP is saying is actually fact is it not? Don't the fundies tell us queers all the time that we made a choice?

Nothing wrong with the OPs question at all. I think the OP has raised a very valid point. And assuming the OP is straight, us homos actually APPRECIATE straight people taking an interest in this.

They see everyone as being heterosexual. Period. It's what gawd intended. Everything else outside of that is choice and sinful.

Just giving one POV to the OP.

You could go look at the label of that person's shirt, for example, and find a 50/50 blend of fabric... and I bet when it's a woman saying it she just trusts in her tampon if she's enduring her moon cycle on any particular Sunday.

Each of those, as I read Leviticus, is as 'unclean', Biblically speaking, as homosexual behavior. As is eating that which crawls through the mud or swims at the bottom of the sea, and touching the skin of a dead pig, which would pretty much outlaw football unless the ball is synthetic.

I think all those are in... it's been a while since I read that particular book. I know there are a lot more, though.

:grr:

that there are two different Hebrew words for "abomination." We are only able to translate both of these words into "abomination" but that one is much more severe than the other. The very sinful one is used when calling homosexuality and adultery an "abomination" and it basically says those are sins punishable by death.

The other Hebrew word which is translated into English as "abomination" does not really have the same meaning as the other word and that it is used when describing the other sins you mention. Those are just "sorta bad."

I was also always told "a sin is a sin" but I guess that isn't really true if you believe this about the translation.

I have no idea if this is accurate because I am not a scholar of the Bible. Maybe someone else can offer some thoughts on this if they know more about the original Hebrew text.

as in, outside of the normal range of behavior. This would make a lot of sense since the "norm" at that time was to marry and have babies to populate the Earth.

So, if you read it that way, God is saying that a man lying with another man is "different" than the normal rules of the tribe.

Any opinions on that interpretation??

Who would choose to the object of scorn, ridicule, abuse and even murder simply because of that 'choice'?

I don't think it is; but even if it were - I just don't get what's wrong about it.

Here's a little exercise for youh when dealing with homophobes. Ask them if they can recall a time in their own lives when they were straddlin' the fence, thinkin', "Am I straight? Or am I gay?" Chances are, they'll tell you they were _born_ straight, and you'll have an opportunity to ask them what leads them to believe homosexuals weren't also born homosexual.

:hi:

ANYONE COULD have a homosexual encounter. That does NOT make them homosexual. Many Homesexuals where married, made children..that didn't make them straight.

Are you gay/lesbian? If not, what business is it of yours? Please explain.

Sexuality is central to who you are but personally I don't think about my friends sexuality, they are my friends and I don't give it that much importance, their character is far more important. If they are happy with their sexuality, I'm happy too.

I do know that their are a lot of repressed fundies out there who may or may not be gay but aren't aware enough of their own sexuality to possibly dictate to others.

There is a lot of peer pressure in some enviroments to repress any expression of sexuality, let alone come out. People who have to exist in these enviroments have nothing but my sympathy. I wouldn't take any cheap shots at them on that basis.

Is it any of their business? Why would they choose to pass laws on something that was none of their business?

A touch sick, in my opinion. Let the gay-haters worry about their own entrance into heaven and judgment day and leave others alone.

The OP is actually showing he/she is on the side of the LGBT community with the rather valid question he/she asked. Why are you unfairly attacking?

By the way, what is a "touch sick" is the fundies using their beliefs to keep minority groups without certain inalienable rights everyone should have.

by any means) are actually bisexuals who HAVE made a choice to act exclusively on their heterosexual side. Not being very clued in to matters psychological, they think it's that way for everyone.

That's the only way I can imagine someone actually making a choice.

To ask President Bush this question:

Mr. President do you believe homosexuality is a choice? If you do, doesn't that imply that it is a choice for everyone? If it isn't a choice for everyone, then why does our government discriminate against someone who is different at birth?

Or get someone else to ask the question.

I watched Countdown with that fella who asked a critical question of the President, and I thought about things that are divisive and came up with this question which demonstrates the logical paradox of RW Christians, many of whom can only produce this as an excuse to legally discriminate against homosexuals.

Injustice for someone is injustice for everyone. Thats why I care. Injustice is everyone's business.

Is it any of your or W's business?

...hasn't Bush* and others in the government already made it their business? So what are we meant to do, you tell us? We cannot simply sit back and let them tell us what we can and can't do with our private lives now can we? Or is that what you suggest?

Moran.

:rofl:

But noooo body wants to admit it. :smoke:

Now I think that Freud once argued that we are all bisexual.

But that goes back to people choosing to be gay, just as your post does.

I'm Heterosexual, I didn't choose that, I just am.

I believe that Homosexuals didn't choose to be Homosexual, they just were born that way.

(I know that there are phenomena such as prison Homosexuality that defy this logic, but those are situations where people are choosing Homosexual behavior over no sexual behavior. So maybe a more accurate post would have been, "everyone is capable of Homosexual behavior, just as everyone is capable of Heterosexual behavior, but preference is not 'choice', it is something that comes to us naturally)

I do believe that the majority of people are bisexual in degrees, which a small percent on either end very homosexual and very heterosexual.

I made out with way too many "straight girls" in my life to believe labels...

:pals:

But I don't believe that EVERYONE is gay. I believe most of us are, however, "homosexual" to various degrees. Social constructivist, here. :)

Ok ok...not 'everybody' but almost everybody...its like...you're somewhere on the spectrum...maybe at the exteme right or left..but
ON IT.

I like the comedian who makes the point that all these macho guys that
like porn gotta have the 'money shot' ...so, what's that about..wanting
to see big ones spermivatin' if not some level of homersexuality?

Of course had people said that during the early 1850s and the 1860s, slavery would still be around. During the late 1800s if people had said that, there would still be children working in factories at young ages. During the 1910s and 1920s had people said the same, women wouldn't be able to vote. The people said that to the Jewish in Germany during the 1930s when there were concentration camps, and had they said the same during the early 1940s there would still be concentration camps. Had people said the same during the 1950s and 1960s and early 1970s segregation would still be around.

We still face great problems and if we don't make it our business to help all people and if we don't do our best to extend liberty and freedom there will be many who suffer from unjust laws.

I am not attempting to ask who is gay and who is not.

I don't really want to know that.

I just want to know that people can pursue happiness.

I don't think that is really bad, is it?

a spokesperson? Why would you not gain info first?

I thought it was a good question. I do admit I probably will never really understand, but I care about everyone. I didn't really want to become some spokesperson or anything, I just wanted to ask a question. I guess I might have hit a tender spot, but I didn't mean any harm. Sorry.

Maybe I should just shut-up.

One person seems to have either misread it or misunderstood your intent.

for an issue and group they don't understand and who has questions for the general public. Don't you?

when they have a genuine question

You know, people who read something and then ascribe various motives with no proof?

You seem to be the only one here with your back up. Either everyone else is a moron, or perhaps you misread the initial post.

everybody has the right to ask questions

Ask those to the Pretzeldent who is a man of faith :

If Jesus foresees Judas' betrayal, then it may be argued that Judas has no free will, and cannot avoid betraying Jesus. If Judas cannot control his betrayal of Jesus, then he is not morally responsible for his actions. The question has been approached by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae, which differentiates between foreknowledge and predestination, and argues that the omnipotence of the divine is not sufficient grounds for eliminating the existence of free will.

If Judas is sent to Hell for his betrayal, and his betrayal was a necessary step in the humanity-saving death of Jesus Christ, then Judas is being punished for saving humanity. This goes hand-in-hand with the "free will" argument, and Aquinas's Summa deals with the issue of free will in demons and other beings instrumental in the life of Jesus that are nevertheless damned. (Judas is punished with Hell for not believing that Jesus was true God and trusting in Him. Judas did not save humanity, Jesus/God did by dying on the cross. Judas was one piece of the puzzle that put Jesus on the cross, but without Judas there would have been some other situation that would have achieved the same end.)

If Jesus only suffered while dying on the cross, and then ascended into Heaven, while Judas must suffer for eternity in Hell, then Judas has suffered much more for the sins of humanity than Jesus, and his role in the Atonement is that much more significant. Standard Christian dogma holds that the suffering of Jesus was infinite, and that the suffering of Jesus was not time-dependent. This position holds throughout orthodox Catholicism and many forms of Protestantism. (As above: Judas did nothing for humanity, he was just an unimportant piece of the story of Jesus, who was punished in life for his betrayal as well as in death.)

Do Jesus' last words on the cross, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do," not apply to Judas? Is his atonement insufficient for Judas' sin(s)?

Since George plays Judas' role in the Plame affair, does he believe that he will rot in hell forever, or will Jesus forgive him ?

You asked an interesting question...one that requires critical thought.
That is why B*sh could never even understand it!

It IS a good question....Maybe someone is misunderstanding your post.

Just to say it again in a different way: I didn't mean any kind of offense.

so I nominated it!

Welcome to DU :hi:

Don't worry about the prickly people...they'd probably be prickly if you were kissing their ass all the way to the bank to deposit a 1,000,000 dollar check in their account. Some people just need someone to piss on to make themselves feel better.

You don't have to be gay to care about the shit the fundies put them through.

Why can't people just be nice to each other? Why do we all have to get so angry? Restraint is very important, and I should have shown a little more when I asked that question. For what little my opinion may count, I think it is important. But why waste time fighting? Asking questions is an important part of learning about people. If we don't ask questions, how are people to speak of the answers? Everyone settle down a little. We don't have to have such an angry tone. Who is that going to help anyway? Not us, maybe the people who don't like Democrats, but not us Democrats.

:hi:

We're not as serious over there, but we also don't jump all over each other. :hi:

their own psychosexual makeup . . .

human sexuality exists on a continuum, and no one is (or ever has been) completely and totally and irrevocably 100% gay OR straight . . .

homophobes know, deep down inside, that they have a little homosexuality within themselves -- and is scares the living shit out of them . . .

you really can't hate something in others that you don't see in yourself -- at least a little . . .

I also think that it is a fear of their own orientation. I am a straight man, happily married for 35 years. I don't care a lick -- so to speak --- about what other people do in bed or with whom or even with what. And neither my self or my marriage is threatened by even the thought of two people of the same sex getting married. My point is that it is important to know who you are. If you are true to yourself it doesn't matter what others think.

one has to freely choose do do that which is sinful. And it follows that anything defined as sinful must be a matter of free choice. (Unlike having blue eyes, for instance -- though there have been times when some Christians have bent the rule in the case of black skin or left-handedness or even being female.) So if homosexuality is sinful, then it must by definition be a matter of choice. A choice, of course, that the good Christian sidesteps by claiming to find it so abhorrent he/she/it wouldn't dream of making it...

The thing that spoils this beautiful (circular) argument is that homosexuality is *not* a matter of choice; we gay people are created that way. And it cannot therefore be held to be a sin, though that doesn't mean that you have to hold it to be a virtue either. It just is, or in theologian-speak, it's morally indifferent. The concept of moral indifference is one that many Christians (and fundamentalists of other religions too) find difficult to grasp, they are so used to categorising literally everything as either good or evil. Heterosexuality is morally indifferent, too, though that doesn't stop people claiming that their being heterosexual is sufficient proof of their superior righteousness.

Welcome to DU!
Thanks for a good and thoughtful post. Have you been "lurking" long?:toast:

I've been around for quite a while now -- a couple of years -- I just don't post very often. The time zone differences mean that usually by the time I catch up with a thread, anything I'd like to say has already been said by someone else.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

that they believe that homosexuality is not a preference.

Therefore, they seem to believe that they could have made the choice.

Manifestation of the sexual drive is called "Libedo"

I have fallen in love with two people in my whole life, the first girl I fell in love with, and my current girlfriend. I wouldn't be upset if I found myself falling in love with a guy, I just don't really think it will happen. I think that is how most people feel. It is all about wanting to do something, and being able to fulfill those wants. "The pursuit of happiness" is something that all people are entitled to in America, and if someone wants to do something that doesn't prevent someone else from pursuing their happiness, they should be allowed to do it. The "pursuit of happiness" is a need not a want. People have complete and total freedom, and laws are simply enacted amongst them to ensure those freedoms can prosper. Laws should help make as many people happy.

I think that there are some distinctions:
Is it a choice to have a desire?
I don't think so.
Can people choose to fulfill or deny a desire?
Yes.

I should refine the question:
If Evangelical Christians believe homosexual desires are chosen, aren't they implying they could choose to desire members of the same sex, but have made the choice not to?


Here is the kicker, I think they have a point from their perspective. For them, because they think they are going to burn in hell for homosexuality they cannot fund a government that supports homosexuality. A law sanctioning marriage between people of the same sex would prevent them from pursuing their own happiness.

This is why religion shouldn't be a part of government. To them (and actually most people) marriage has a religious connotation. The sinners problem. It is the same reason we can't let schools buy Bibles or Qu'rans. Because all of the money goes into a single pot, people of different religions might commit a sin against their religion (and therefore deny their own happiness) if they fund other religions or activities that are sins against their religion.

Marriage should only be sponsored by the state in the sense of legal unions between people. To allow people to carry on traditions, ministers will be able to enable unions. This way all people get to pursue their happiness, with as little encroachment by other individuals.

And homosexuality is, largely, not a conscious choice. That said, I also don't believe that it originates on the genetic level. In my opinion, as a devotee of the social constructivist view of sex, it's largely psychological, with some possible in-utero hormonal levels playing a factor. I believe that sexuality is a rainbow -- the true rainbow -- not the "gay genetic lightswitch," and that we're all straight, and gay and les and bi and trans and whatnot, to various degrees. I believe the categories of gender and sexual orientation are constructs. And lastly, and most importantly, for the reactionary crowd, I believe in equal rights for everyone, gay adoption, civil unions for everyone, and love and tolerance for various sexual "orientations."

So, amidst that, I would say that the Christian argument is probably right. I do believe that some people can ABSOLUTELY choose to be gay or bi, and mosey along quite happily. I believe some people feel attracted to the opposite sex, since their births, and some feel attracted to the same sex. I believe that some people have an event happen that eroticizes the same-sex body at an early age. Whatever. So, yeah, I think that all those Christians could choose to be "gay," and that some already are, and that many already "have."

I'm straight, and thats just the way I always have been.

If these phoney christians act like it's a choice, then that implys they made a choice at some point. A.K.A. Denied their own natural attractions to members of the same sex.