I do not care which members read this, nor who responds. But I have some points to make:
Anybody who thinks that sexual orientation can be chosen must then remember that would be true for all orientations. Such a person should then be able to detail how their own selection was made, and how it could be changed. That is what it means to "choose." So I ask all courageous members of the forum to undergo a simple thought experiment: tell us how you would change your behaviour forever if you were accidently exiled to the "Island of Banished Homosexuals," where the law mandates that if you make love to the opposite sex, you will be imprisoned, and if you don't take a same-sex partner, you probably won't find a job or apartment.
I think sexual orientation is chosen if the orientation is something other than bisexual. As a bisexual, I found my own orientation was chosen by reason. While this seems to contradict the first sentence, I find that it is not me that is doing the choosing when it comes to aligning myself with bisexuality. Whereas, when I align with either heterosexuality or homosexuality, it is (clearly me) that is doing the choosing. With bisexuality, the orientation can, I think, rather easily appear to change. In fact, I would say the idea that bisexuals are apparently in some sort of minority demonstrates, consistently, how easily bisexuality can change/adapt. You really think a bisexual would have a problem on your hypothetical island? Really, really?
Anybody who thinks that one sexual orientation causes STDs needs to realize that this is not true -- what causes and spreads STDs is every sexual orientation when it is completely promiscuous. So I ask all courageous members to admit if they have ever had unprotected sex with somebody (of either gender), whom they did not know well enough to be sure that no STD would result. (Bonus if you can tell us why you think you lucked out in not getting the plague.)
I don't think this offers any challenge to me. I think STD's can occur as a result of promiscuity regardless of alleged orientation.
Please, all courageous members, tell us exactly why you are so concerned about what other people are doing in bed - especially when you don't even know them.
I don't think this point is intended to appeal to reason, so I will pass it by. If you think it is very much a reasonable question, feel free to quote this response and call me out, and I'll be glad to play with it some more. It currently strikes me as red herring / non sequitur type inquiry.
Can any honest member tell me how they might cope if, as was very much the case when I was growing up, the whole of society denied you the simple right to exist and love in your own way, on pain of very hurtful social consequences? ("Gay ghettos" were the result of loving Christians saying "your kind ain't wanted here!")
I think I can explain how I might cope in such a society. I would think coping would entail repression of certain actions I may wish to take as a result of feelings I'm certain I am feeling. I would've rationalized that those actions (by me) are less important than my feelings, and that perhaps there is something wrong with me, for feeling a need to express myself through those actions. From where I am now, with benefit of hindsight, I realize that had I gotten to point of "something wrong with me" based on that type of realization (and I had gotten to that point), that help would surely come (and it surely did). It might not come from this world, so I reference spiritual help. Which is whole other aspect to this whole discussion, but you are asking an honest member to address coping. I see no reason to be shy about how Spirit within me/us, would be able to offer suitable coping mechanisms to such a world paradigm. I do think the idea that this world might persecute you for not behaving (acting) in the way it deems appropriate is very common. In fact, I would be greatly surprised if there was a human that has ever existed that did not experience this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was someone who claimed they didn't have a problem with this, to a fellow human, in order to save face. But if they were being "perfectly honest," I would then be surprised if they had not felt the world of separation ever confronted them with ideas of persecution (toward them) for choosing to love another in their own way.
A gay military couple was married on base in Canada a few years ago. (In 2004, Jason Stewart was the first member of Canada's military to marry a same-sex partner. In May 2005, Canada's first military gay wedding took place at
Nova Scotia's
Canadian Forces Base Greenwood. Officials described the ceremony as low-key but touching. A similar wedding has since taken place between two male
Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers. Today, the Canadian Forces recognizes same-sex marital and common-law unions, and affords them the same benefits offered to all married or common-law serving members.) In the absence of condemnation from either troop members or fellow Mounties, can anybody explain how this is likely to destroy either the Canadian Armed Forces or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
I cannot. I don't even understand why the military thing is up for discussion on this thread. Can anyone reading this explain that to me?
In 2001, Revered Bruce Lowe wrote "A Letter to Louise," in which he accepted homosexuality.
God Made Me Gay: A Letter to Louise Would any member care to explain (using only the letter itself) why he should be condemned by God to Hell?
Without reading the letter, I can surely tell you that God does not, nor ever has condemned. That there is no other place of Hell. If there is some sort of debate to be had on those assertions, I'm game. Perhaps this isn't the thread for that. But understanding that as my position (my gnostic theist position, mind you), would you still like me to take a gander at the letter and still respond?
A couple of years ago, Pope Francis I said (about homosexuality) "who am I to judge?" Can the judgers here please explain why he can't -- and yet they should?
Should? Nope, I can't. I honestly do not think anyone "should" ever do anything. Ever. Without exception. But sometimes I slip up and use the "should" word as if things really should happen the way I judge they must happen. Had you said "why he can't -- and yet they could?" - I could answer that. That's easy. Perhaps it would benefit taking brother Francis off of whatever perceived pedestal he is on, so as to think that if he can't, no one else possibly can. I dunno if that's necessary among those who don't put much credence in Pope righteousness, but also not sure why I'm responding to a point/question invoking Francis, other than the idea that his rhetorical inquiry is possibly seen as righteous approach for all people, particularly Christians.
I do think the question applies to all situations. And is rhetorical in all situations. Such that it could be received in at least two ways. They you are not to judge any situation, ever. That it is you who are the judge. The latter makes it sound like it contradicts the first, but I see it as more in vein of exploring what judgment actually entails, if being perfectly honest. And if cutting to the chase, that it is always, without exception, always a judgment of own self. Thus the question by Francis, IMO, gets even more interesting. For who is to judge Pope Francis is even Pope (head of Church)? Who indeed.
