If homosexuality is a choice...

[natty dread]

I'm not sure what your hard-on for Night Strike is, but it'd really help the discussion if you'd lay off.

My hard-on is for FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.

Why should Nightstrike be allowed to indoctrinate children with his anti-freedom agenda here on CC? There are children on this site, you know. Young, impressionable minds that may take his moral high-horsing seriously.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Yes the children. But carry on with your pro-drug agenda...because kids need to know it is cool and acceptable to do drugs.

Of course it is! It's very important that children know that they need to take all the drugs their doctor prescribes them. If some children think drugs are not acceptable, they could refuse to take their antibiotics when they get an infection and die!

Why do you hate children so much that you want them to die horrible painful deaths? Are you a sociopath?

[daddy1gringo]

The Bible doesn't expressly say that it's prohibited, but it does say that it's a product of their "shameful lusts" and "sinful desires".

Thank you.
However, I note that it includes many other things that came as a result of turning from God. I won't get into the religious debate here and now. However, the point is why is this particular sin so much worse than any other sin that mere contact with people and mere mention of the fact that it exists is somehow harmful?

Why is it that this sin is so great that these people, alone, have no right to stay with the people whom they love and to form a legally valid bond with one person?

Now we're getting somewhere (I think). You're right, in a very real sense it isn't any worse. Here it is grouped with things like envy and gossip. Certainly there should not be any laws in a secular state like the U.S. or U.K. that forbid it.

It becomes an issue more than the others because no one is trying to pass laws, for instance, declaring gossip equal to reciting poetry. No one is trying to tell me, for instance, that if I say that gossip is not a good thing and one should not participate in it, I am bigoted against gossiping-type people and that I hate them. No one is boycotting Apple to get my "ap" removed from the I-phone if I offer people who want it help in dealing with the reasons that they feel compelled to gossip and getting free of the habit. No one is pushing a "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum in my kids' schools telling them with authority that my cautions to them against gossiping are a "phobia" that "is associated with violence".

That is why it becomes an issue, and those other things do not.

[PLAYER57832]

The Bible doesn't expressly say that it's prohibited, but it does say that it's a product of their "shameful lusts" and "sinful desires".

Thank you.
However, I note that it includes many other things that came as a result of turning from God. I won't get into the religious debate here and now. However, the point is why is this particular sin so much worse than any other sin that mere contact with people and mere mention of the fact that it exists is somehow harmful?

Why is it that this sin is so great that these people, alone, have no right to stay with the people whom they love and to form a legally valid bond with one person?

Now we're getting somewhere (I think). You're right, in a very real sense it isn't any worse. Here it is grouped with things like envy and gossip. Certainly there should not be any laws in a secular state like the U.S. or U.K. that forbid it.

It becomes an issue more than the others because no one is trying to pass laws, for instance, declaring gossip equal to reciting poetry. No one is trying to tell me, for instance, that if I say that gossip is not a good thing and one should not participate in it, I am bigoted against gossiping-type people and that I hate them. No one is boycotting Apple to get my "ap" removed from the I-phone if I offer people who want it help in dealing with the reasons that they feel compelled to gossip and getting free of the habit. No one is pushing a "Children of the Rainbow" curriculum in my kids' schools telling them with authority that my cautions to them against gossiping are a "phobia" that "is associated with violence".

That is why it becomes an issue, and those other things do not.

How do ANY of those things even compare, never mind have equal import to being able to attend to one's loved one in an emergency, assurance that your children won't be taken away simply because relatives dissaprove of you and you happened to be in the wrong state's jurisdiction at the time? How on EARTH does making gossip equivalent to poetry in any way equate to saying that unless you are a religious institution, you cannot refuse to hire someone who does this in private.

Among other issues, homosexuality is practiced in private. The only public part is seeing males with males, females with females.. maybe holding hands, more rarely kissing. Neither of those would be appropriate in most workplaces, regardless of the genders involved.

ALSO... to get back to my question, even gossip has potential for causing people harm. Homosexuality cuases no one outside the relationship harm. So, again, why is this particular act to be treated so very differently than the many things that actually DO cause harm to other people?

A better equivalence, by far, is worship of other Gods. That, too is absolutely and completely prohibited within Christianity. Yet, as a society, we have decided that the harm of denying those individuals their rights is far worse than allowing them to freely excercise their religion. And.. if you really want to get into the history of why most sodomy, etc laws were shot down, it had to do with the freedom of married heterosexual individuals to do as they wish within their own homes and not be threatened in divorce actions, blackmailed, etc.
Why is that freedom only OK for heterosexuals, but not homosexuals? Why is it anyone else's business?

[keiths31]

quote="natty_dread"]

I'm not sure what your hard-on for Night Strike is, but it'd really help the discussion if you'd lay off.

My hard-on is for FREEDOM AND EQUALITY.

Why should Nightstrike be allowed to indoctrinate children with his anti-freedom agenda here on CC? There are children on this site, you know. Young, impressionable minds that may take his moral high-horsing seriously.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Yes the children. But carry on with your pro-drug agenda...because kids need to know it is cool and acceptable to do drugs.

Of course it is! It's very important that children know that they need to take all the drugs their doctor prescribes them. If some children think drugs are not acceptable, they could refuse to take their antibiotics when they get an infection and die!



Why do you hate children so much that you want them to die horrible painful deaths? Are you a sociopath?[/quote]

Funny guy you are. Daniel Tosh has nothing on you!

[natty dread]

I notice you're not denying it.

[KernowWarrior]

In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I'm certain you don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And you shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

All this aside, what has religion got to do with the original question: Is homosexuality a choice.

[Timminz]

Teaching kids about drugs, or sexuality, is not at all the same thing as teaching them to be junkies, or rent-boys. Sometimes it seems that some people found their worries in those kinds of false ideas about drug and sex education.

[PLAYER57832]

In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I'm certain you don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And you shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

As a Bible following Christian, I have to say that several of those are distorted interpretations. But.. I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of biblical law, particularly Old Testament law.

At any rate, the question for the US is why these biblical laws should have any bearing at all, even in discussion, on any issue of US law. That is, sure, they are fine to discuss as morality, religion, but you don't want people citing the Q'ran, so why should anyone be able to cite the Bible as a basis for US law?

[greenoaks]

what i don't understand about a nation that publicly declares a separation of church and state is -

how can the opinion of anyone who states 'this should not happen because it is against my religious views' be an acceptable opinion for the state to consider.

shouldn't the mere mention that it is their religious viewpoint immediately preclude them from the debate in a nation were the church is by law separated from the state?

[KernowWarrior]

In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I'm certain you don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And you shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

As a Bible following Christian, I have to say that several of those are distorted interpretations. But.. I don't want to get bogged down in a discussion of biblical law, particularly Old Testament law.

At any rate, the question for the US is why these biblical laws should have any bearing at all, even in discussion, on any issue of US law. That is, sure, they are fine to discuss as morality, religion, but you don't want people citing the Q'ran, so why should anyone be able to cite the Bible as a basis for US law?

I hate to be the one to break it to you but the Bible is 2000 years worth of distorted interpretations.

[thegreekdog]

what i don't understand about a nation that publicly declares a separation of church and state is -

how can the opinion of anyone who states 'this should not happen because it is against my religious views' be an acceptable opinion for the state to consider.

shouldn't the mere mention that it is their religious viewpoint immediately preclude them from the debate in a nation were the church is by law separated from the state?

Yes.

Except that the state regulates what was a religious exercise (marriage). In other words, the state has insinuated itself into a religious institution We can certainly debate whether marriage is a religious exercise or a cultural/societal one. We can also debate whether marriage should be regulated or governed by the state if it is or is not a religious exercise. I suspect that in the present day, marriage is no longer a religious exercise for most and therefore this particular argument is moot. Libertarians, however, might argue (and I would argue) that there should be no benefits for married couples and no state regulation of marriage, regardless of whether marriage is a religious institution or not (a lot of Libertarians are atheists).

[jimboston]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

[KernowWarrior]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

I would consider sex, sexual attraction and the need to have sex one of the most basic biological things of all.

[jimboston]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

I would consider sex, sexual attraction and the need to have sex one of the most basic biological things of all.

Not as basic as breathing or peeing.

Nor even as basic as eating and sleeping.

I agree it is a major biological function... but people have and can go without sex.

You can't go without eating, drinking, sleeping, and peeing and breathing.

So...

[KernowWarrior]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

I would consider sex, sexual attraction and the need to have sex one of the most basic biological things of all.

Not as basic as breathing or peeing.

Nor even as basic as eating and sleeping.

I agree it is a major biological function... but people have and can go without sex.

You can't go without eating, drinking, sleeping, and peeing and breathing.

So...

ok Sex ranks 6th in the most basic biological functions. Personally if I did less eating, drinking and sleeping I probably get more of the 6th! lol

[keiths31]

I notice you're not denying it.

You're right...I hate kids!

But I love Finnish pancakes!

[keiths31]

Teaching kids about drugs, or sexuality, is not at all the same thing as teaching them to be junkies, or rent-boys. Sometimes it seems that some people found their worries in those kinds of false ideas about drug and sex education.

I agree. Both need to be taught in school. Actually having my 9 year old daughters come home asking me questions about sex, after learning it in school, made it easier for me to discuss it with them. They have also learned bout homosexuality, though they are less comfortable talking about that. And the kicker? They go to a Catholic school.
I am not sure when the drug talk come up in school, my son is going into grade six so it may be this year.

[PLAYER57832]

what i don't understand about a nation that publicly declares a separation of church and state is -

how can the opinion of anyone who states 'this should not happen because it is against my religious views' be an acceptable opinion for the state to consider.

shouldn't the mere mention that it is their religious viewpoint immediately preclude them from the debate in a nation were the church is by law separated from the state?

Yes.

Except that the state regulates what was a religious exercise (marriage). In other words, the state has insinuated itself into a religious institution We can certainly debate whether marriage is a religious exercise or a cultural/societal one. We can also debate whether marriage should be regulated or governed by the state if it is or is not a religious exercise. I suspect that in the present day, marriage is no longer a religious exercise for most and therefore this particular argument is moot.

Actually, marriage has always been a legal status. To the extent it was religious, it is because religion and law have been very much tied together.

Libertarians, however, might argue (and I would argue) that there should be no benefits for married couples and no state regulation of marriage, regardless of whether marriage is a religious institution or not (a lot of Libertarians are atheists).

The issue of marriage and law has some very practical matters. It makes clearer issues of child custody/inheritance.. one of the only really certain ways in a time prior to genetic testing That is, I am not saying that having a child in wedlock meant the child was biologically of the union, I mean that legally, they were considered to be within the union regardless of other details becuase such a ruling benefitted most everyone in the long run, at a time when genetic testing was not possible(.. else, anyone could simply say "hey, that child has pink hair and my family has only blue hair, so its not my child" or some such.)

It also makes issues of who gets to legally decide medical issues when a person is unconscious, inheritance of property, etc all much easier.

Basically, not having marriage would be a boon for attorneys.. so, maybe that is why you want this (OK, could not help the dig... )

Seriously, I DO believe that there should be one rule.. either all marriages between 2 people are honored or none are. While I do believe having marriage honored is reasonable, for the above reasons, I do not think that there should be a specific tax deduction. I do draw a distinction with polygamy, but that is another debate entirely.

[PLAYER57832]

Teaching kids about drugs, or sexuality, is not at all the same thing as teaching them to be junkies, or rent-boys. Sometimes it seems that some people found their worries in those kinds of false ideas about drug and sex education.

I agree. Both need to be taught in school. Actually having my 9 year old daughters come home asking me questions about sex, after learning it in school, made it easier for me to discuss it with them. They have also learned bout homosexuality, though they are less comfortable talking about that. And the kicker? They go to a Catholic school.
I am not sure when the drug talk come up in school, my son is going into grade six so it may be this year.

Here, public schools don't discuss this and neither do the Roman Catholic schools. We also have a high incidence of teen pregnancy. They do discuss drug use and that seems to be declining, though this is somewhat offset by the increase in umemployment, divorce (related particularly to financial issues) and so forth, which have the opposite impact.

[keiths31]

Teaching kids about drugs, or sexuality, is not at all the same thing as teaching them to be junkies, or rent-boys. Sometimes it seems that some people found their worries in those kinds of false ideas about drug and sex education.

I agree. Both need to be taught in school. Actually having my 9 year old daughters come home asking me questions about sex, after learning it in school, made it easier for me to discuss it with them. They have also learned bout homosexuality, though they are less comfortable talking about that. And the kicker? They go to a Catholic school.
I am not sure when the drug talk come up in school, my son is going into grade six so it may be this year.

Here, public schools don't discuss this and neither do the Roman Catholic schools. We also have a high incidence of teen pregnancy. They do discuss drug use and that seems to be declining, though this is somewhat offset by the increase in umemployment, divorce (related particularly to financial issues) and so forth, which have the opposite impact.

The Catholic schools in Ontario are funded by the Province, so they must still follow the guidelines issued by the Government. But I find here anyway that the schools teach inclusion and acceptance. I went to public schools...and they were anything but.

[PLAYER57832]

[
The Catholic schools in Ontario are funded by the Province, so they must still follow the guidelines issued by the Government. But I find here anyway that the schools teach inclusion and acceptance. I went to public schools...and they were anything but.

By "public", do you mean the US "publically funded" or the British "private schools"?

[Lord and Master]

In fact, the Bible accepts sexual practices that we condemn and condemns sexual practices that we accept. Lots of them! Here are a few examples.

DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
I'm certain you don't agree with these teachings from the Bible about sex. And you shouldn't. The list goes on: The Bible says clearly that sex with a prostitute is acceptable for the husband but not for the wife. Polygamy (more than one wife) is acceptable, as is a king's having many concubines. (Solomon, the wisest king of all, had 1,000 concubines.) Slavery and sex with slaves, marriage of girls aged 11-13, and treatment of women as property are all accepted practices in the Scriptures. On the other hand, there are strict prohibitions against interracial marriage, birth control, discussing or even naming a sexual organ, and seeing one's parents nude.

All this aside, what has religion got to do with the original question: Is homosexuality a choice.

Seems I should have been executed years ago!
As to the original question, no, it is not a choice.

[jimboston]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

I would consider sex, sexual attraction and the need to have sex one of the most basic biological things of all.

Not as basic as breathing or peeing.

Nor even as basic as eating and sleeping.

I agree it is a major biological function... but people have and can go without sex.

You can't go without eating, drinking, sleeping, and peeing and breathing.

So...

ok Sex ranks 6th in the most basic biological functions. Personally if I did less eating, drinking and sleeping I probably get more of the 6th! lol

So you concede it's a choice?

[KernowWarrior]

Everything is a choice.

It might be an easy choice, a hard choice...
it might be a choice between to bad options...
it might be a "natural" or "unnatural" choice...
it might seem like "no choice at all"...

ultimately it is a choice

Just like waking up, eating, having sex or not, stroking yourself, watching TV or reading a book, attacking Sakha or not, etc. etc....

(ok maybe everything isn't a choice, you don't choose to breath and if you choose not to piss eventually your body will release fluids anyway... but aside from some very basic biological things... everything else is a choice.)

I would consider sex, sexual attraction and the need to have sex one of the most basic biological things of all.

Not as basic as breathing or peeing.

Nor even as basic as eating and sleeping.

I agree it is a major biological function... but people have and can go without sex.

You can't go without eating, drinking, sleeping, and peeing and breathing.

So...

ok Sex ranks 6th in the most basic biological functions. Personally if I did less eating, drinking and sleeping I probably get more of the 6th! lol

So you concede it's a choice?

I concede that abstaining from sex is a choice, but not someones sexuality that has nothing to do with choice. Choosing to accept your sexuality or deniying it thats the choice. I personally think someone deniying it and pretending their something their not is bad for their own mental health and for the society they live in.

[Mentos-]

To anyone who thinks homosexuality is a choice, you should try your hardest to become sexually attracted to your own gender for a while. I think you'll find that no matter how much you try you won't be able to.