Are people born Gay?

[EnhancedSpirit]

It's your choice of words that may be confusing you. I'm simply saying that it "hurts" God and that he disagrees with you. That's it.

~Victor

I fail to see how loving another human being would hurt God, God is Love. And when two people love each other, this would be a good thing to God.

What hurts God is when we pass judgement on each other. What hurts God is that you do not see how perfect Jensa is, just the way she is. God would rather you take the board out of your own eye, perfect yourself, not others.

We have no idea what lessons Jensa and Liz have come to learn in this lifetime, and we have no idea how and where they mean to learn their lessons, but if they have someone who loves them and shares with them, they will be better off then many who are married to people who don't care about anything but their own happiness, at the expense of others.

 

[Mike182]

In that case, how do you know that your god objects to them having sex? Do you know his mind?

god, i think, created everything, from plants to sex - and he designed each with its purpose

the argument would then logically go on to say that the purpose of sex is reproduction, and as homosexual sex does not lead to this, it is not meant to be.

however sex should also be confined to marriage, as marriage is one man and one woman - the same as sex. so the purpose of marriage is to join a man and a woman for the creating and raising of a child

how i have laid tha tout seems quite emotionless and dead, im sur elove was included in the purpose of sex and child raising aswell

C_P

 

[jamaesi]

On a side note, which I think is being very discriminate, is that you can't donate blood or plasma "if you are a male, and have had sex with another male, even once, since 1977." Supposedly its being in a high risk behavior group for aids, but I could have sworn AIDs was determined to not be a "gay disease." And I do donate blood, so I won't take up your challenge.

Não, that is just discrimination.

The group that AIDs is growing the most in with black, straight women.




And seriously, what does it matter if it's a choice or not? One could say that being religious is a choice- you can certainly choose any religion or none at all- and that doesn't make any religion less valid.

 

[Theodore]

I fail to see how loving another human being would hurt God, God is Love. And when two people love each other, this would be a good thing to God.

I don’t think God objects to any two people loving each other. It’s the sexual part that is questionable.

What hurts God is when we pass judgment on each other. What hurts God is that you do not see how perfect Jensa is, just the way she is. God would rather you take the board out of your own eye, perfect yourself, not others.

Your right about judging others. We should really only judge ourselves. However, we do have an obligation to maintain a high level of morality in our society. This benefits everybody. Of course, just what is moral has always been the subject of heated debate.

We have no idea what lessons Jensa and Liz have come to learn in this lifetime, and we have no idea how and where they mean to learn their lessons, but if they have someone who loves them and shares with them, they will be better off then many who are married to people who don't care about anything but their own happiness, at the expense of others.

Where does a sexual relationship fit into loving someone. It is certainly possible to love somebody without having sex with that person, it’s called friendship. And it is certainly possible to have sex with someone without loving them. So what we are really talking about here is not love, but having sex with someone of the same sex.

I am making this point because your argument about love does not really apply. Very few people would object to two people loving each other. I love my sons dearly but this has nothing to do with sex. Homosexuality is all about sex.

I think there is good sex and not so good sex. I think many people of all sexual preferences indulge in sex to an unhealthy extent. Ideally, sex should only be practiced to produce children. I realize this is impractical for most people (myself included) but it’s a place to start from.

Adam and Eve’s fall from grace is rooted in sexuality. Sex has a tendency to bring us down in our spiritual level which is the main reason many ascetics abstain from it. But that’s for another thread.

On a practical level, I think gay sex is an abuse of the sexual function. To what degree and how much karmic debt is incurred depends on the individual.

I am also not judging anybody here. Nobody is perfect and I am certainly no exception. Nevertheless, that’s my opinion.

 

[Flappycat]

Homosexuality is all about sex.

The relationship between you and your wife is all about sex. Hmm, doesn't sound so good when applied to your own relationship, does it?

Theodore, some of the finest people I know are sex addicts, and some of the least spiritual people I've known have no interest in sex at all. I honestly doubt that sex has any effect upon one's level of spirituality.

 

[Sunstone]

Where does a sexual relationship fit into loving someone. It is certainly possible to love somebody without having sex with that person, it’s called friendship. And it is certainly possible to have sex with someone without loving them. So what we are really talking about here is not love, but having sex with someone of the same sex.

I am making this point because your argument about love does not really apply. Very few people would object to two people loving each other. I love my sons dearly but this has nothing to do with sex. Homosexuality is all about sex.

You seem to have overlooked a third possibility: Namely, that of two people being in love and having sex. Furthermore, that seems to be a common enough occurence, whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.

 

[Flappycat]

Besides, if you put two people who spend every waking moment thinking about each other under the same roof, they'll probably end up having sex at one point.

 

[Theodore]

You seem to have overlooked a third possibility: Namely, that of two people being in love and having sex. Furthermore, that seems to be a common enough occurence, whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual.

I didn’t over look it at all. I was merely saying that the core of the argument was sex and not love. Love is not the issue with homosexuality, although many people like to use the term interchangeably with sex. Sex and love are two entirely different things.

 

[Theodore]

The relationship between you and your wife is all about sex. Hmm, doesn't sound so good when applied to your own relationship, does it?

The relationship I have with my wife is within the covenant of marriage. It's not about sex, it's about raising a family.

Theodore, some of the finest people I know are sex addicts, and some of the least spiritual people I've known have no interest in sex at all. I honestly doubt that sex has any effect upon one's level of spirituality.

How would you know? Have you ever studied the subject?
I have done quite a bit of reading on just this topic. I didn't just formulate these ideas a few minutes before writing them.
The subject of sex and spirituality is a fascinating study. I realize that you don't believe in these things but there is, nonetheless, many very wise people who do.

 

[Flappycat]

Sure, Theodore. You've never been a lovesick puppy, nopenope. Word games ain't gonna swallow. Juxtapose romantic love and and fraternal love, and it's easy enough to discern that they're two entirely different things, think you not?

love
n.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Wow! Mister dictionary even gives at least two different meanings! A proper definition for love is a strong desire to pairbond! What does this mean to the layman? Oh, I'm glad you asked! Here's a link to a document that explains it very well!

http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/Pair.pdf

So, what did we learn from the pdf?

And yes, homosexuals are quite capable of limerence. I want you to use this word in a sentence at least once every day for the next few weeks. So, this leaves a question! Are homosexuals capable of moving beyond limerence and developing lasting relationships? Well, there's only one way to find out for sure and for certain! Put it to the test!

http://www.gaywired.com/article.cfm?section=9&id=5853

Hey, so far, so good! I'd like to see what the statistic is in a few more years, though. It hasn't been nearly long enough to give us a clear picture of how long homosexual pairs can last because many of them were mature couples who had been waiting for several years for an opportunity to marry. I doubt that homosexuals are as likely to end up with children as heterosexuals, and, like it or not, many heterosexual couples have chosen to stay together strictly for the sakes of the kids. I'm expecting a higher statistic for homosexual divorce in later years. Even so, it clearly demonstrates that homosexual pairs are capable of developing lasting relationships.

On a related subject, WOW! That country has one low divorce rate.

However, this leaves us open to another question: do homosexuals make good parents? APA to the rescue!

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/l&gbib.html

Egads! They're exactly as woefully incompetent at child-rearing as heterosexuals! Who ever would have thunk it? Oh, but don't let the facts get in the way of prejudice! We wouldn't want that, now, would we?

 

[nutshell]

Statistics get slanted one way or the other all the time.

Every psychologist I've ever met has tried to push their liberal views on me. Not inform, not share, but PUSH their opinions. That said, I have no trust for the APA, there just another biased political organization.

 

[Flappycat]

The relationship I have with my wife is within the covenant of marriage. It's not about sex, it's about raising a family.

Oh, you were just as much a lovesick puppy as I am now, dude! Admiiiiiiiiiit it!

 

[Flappycat]

Statistics get slanted one way or the other all the time.

Every psychologist I've ever met has tried to push their liberal views on me. Not inform, not share, but PUSH their opinions. That said, I have no trust for the APA, there just another biased political organization.

Oh, those naughty, naughty, horrible liberals! Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek! They're just reporting facts that contradict your baseless prejudices. Blame it on the eeeeeeeeeeeebil liberals until you turn blue in the face, but you aren't going to find many empirical studies reporting anything different.

 

[michel]

I keep saying to myself " I am NOT going to allow myself to be drawn into this......alas, I have.

Theodore,

Please, open your heart to God, and think about this properly. Think what jesus Christ would have said about people who genuinely loved each other, while someone tries hard to stop them 'Because It is WRONG'.

I can't even respond to your individual points - I can't stay calm enough to do so.

Please, Please think about what you are saying, and think about what you are trying to achieve. Then look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself 'What would Jesus say to me now ?" . Try it, I dare you to do so.

 

[Sunstone]

I didn’t over look it at all. I was merely saying that the core of the argument was sex and not love. Love is not the issue with homosexuality, although many people like to use the term interchangeably with sex. Sex and love are two entirely different things.

What I believe you've overlooked is the very real possibility that two homosexuals who are having sex are in genuine love with each other.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Jensa,

I have read your posts opening your heart up in this forum. The hard part about going into a debate like this is that one does not want to hurt someone else's feelings when they disagree. I think that the emotional aspect of this debate backs up my contention as to that being part of the decision that one makes in this area of life. Where the resistance to being gay comes from is whether one is truly subjective to their emotions. Sure, they can be overwhelming and the "love sick puppy syndrome" has overtaken everyone at some time. What comes about from this is to rationalize the situation. And this is where it departs from an objective discussion.
To try and be objective here, I would say that society has come to a cross roads on this entire subject. The incremental acceptance of gays has led to more and more demands upon society. It is one thing to leave someone alone who is not hurting anybody, it is quite another to have a social agenda in your face that challenges the very structure of our civilization. It really is founded on the family unit and heterosexual union. Regardless of what is going on in Massachussetts, the majority of people in this country as a whole continually have voted gay marriage down. They may feel that it goes too far.

 

[Flappycat]

To try and be objective here, I would say that society has come to a cross roads on this entire subject. The incremental acceptance of gays has led to more and more demands upon society. It is one thing to leave someone alone who is not hurting anybody, it is quite another to have a social agenda in your face that challenges the very structure of our civilization.

It wouldn't be in your face if the law didn't discriminate, and how does homosexuality threaten the structure of civilization?

It really is founded on the family unit and heterosexual union.

Explain to me how the country is founded on heterosexual unions and how you think voting down gay marriage makes more of them.

Regardless of what is going on in Massachussetts, the majority of people in this country as a whole continually have voted gay marriage down.

Argumentum ad populum will get you nowhere. Besides, this is slowly changing.

They may feel that it goes too far.

How so?

 

[michel]

Hi Jensa,

I have read your posts opening your heart up in this forum. The hard part about going into a debate like this is that one does not want to hurt someone else's feelings when they disagree. I think that the emotional aspect of this debate backs up my contention as to that being part of the decision that one makes in this area of life. Where the resistance to being gay comes from is whether one is truly subjective to their emotions. Sure, they can be overwhelming and the "love sick puppy syndrome" has overtaken everyone at some time. What comes about from this is to rationalize the situation. And this is where it departs from an objective discussion.
To try and be objective here, I would say that society has come to a cross roads on this entire subject. The incremental acceptance of gays has led to more and more demands upon society. It is one thing to leave someone alone who is not hurting anybody, it is quite another to have a social agenda in your face that challenges the very structure of our civilization. It really is founded on the family unit and heterosexual union. Regardless of what is going on in Massachussetts, the majority of people in this country as a whole continually have voted gay marriage down. They may feel that it goes too far.

Hi, Bennettresearch,

Your first paragraph sounds O.K - as far as the "love sick puppy syndrome" assumption .
The second paragraph, I find hard to swallow :-

"The incremental acceptance of gays has led to more and more demands upon society. It is one thing to leave someone alone who is not hurting anybody, it is quite another to have a social agenda in your face that challenges the very structure of our civilization."

what demands ?
how does this challenge the very structure of our civilization ?

 

[Sunstone]

...it is quite another to have a social agenda in your face that challenges the very structure of our civilization.

The notion that homosexuals have a social agenda that "challenges the very structure of our civilization" is laughable. It is laughable because it is never backed up by science. Instead, it is time and again thrown out as if it were a proven fact that giving homosexuals certain rights, such as the right to marriage, would cause irreparable harm to civilization. But what facts does anyone have to support such a laughable claim? None. Zilch. Nada.

 

[jamaesi]

It wouldn't be in your face if the law didn't discriminate, and how does homosexuality threaten the structure of civilization?

Oh Flappy, I think I have to post it again.


Here are just 12 reasons why gay marriage will ruin society.

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Haven't you seen the destruction that gay marriage brought to Spain and Canada and all those other countries that allow gay marriage?

(I haven't either, but I'm just sure it will happen, that's what I'm always told.)



Again, I question- since religious belief is a choice and is protected- why isn't homosexuality even if many people it is believed to be a "choice."