sexuality - a hypothetical question

[d.]

wasn't this an interesting statement :

If it was found to be biologically determined, I'm sure many attitudes would change.

which immediately begs the question :

imagine a person actually capable of choosing her/his sexuality, like one chooses what socks to wear, and this person chooses homo- or bisexuality. would this be in any way wrong or immoral? would it be a problem?

my own answer is obviously no, not in any way.

but it's an interesting question because i feel it's at the core of the argument - why is homosexuality so threatening? why is it so dangerous that choosing it would be like choosing a mental illness? why can homo- or bisexuality only be accepted if it's down to biology?

i have my own answers to these questions, but it would be interesting to hear your take on this, if you feel like sharing.

just to clarify : no, i don't believe people can choose or change their sexuality just like that.

 

[Buttons*]

people are people no matter their sexual preference
I have no problem with people being attracted to a particular sex.
Morality is so subjective...

 

[Cynic]

wasn't this an interesting statement :

which immediately begs the question :

imagine a person actually capable of choosing her/his sexuality, like one chooses what socks to wear, and this person chooses homo- or bisexuality. would this be in any way wrong or immoral? would it be a problem?

my own answer is obviously no, not in any way.

but it's an interesting question because i feel it's at the core of the argument - why is homosexuality so threatening? why is it so dangerous that choosing it would be like choosing a mental illness? why can homo- or bisexuality only be accepted if it's down to biology?

i have my own answers to these questions, but it would be interesting to hear your take on this, if you feel like sharing.

just to clarify : no, i don't believe people can choose or change their sexuality just like that.

Because people who believe homosexuality is a sin, think it's a choice, and that people can change their sexuality. I don't think people can choose or change their sexuality just like that either, I believe homosexuality is a natural and unchangeable thing which is determined biologically and genetically, and this is based on what homosexuals have told me, my own observances, theories and speculation. Personally, if it was proven to be biologically determined, as sexuality is an innate thing, I think it would change some people's perspectives.

 

[Flappycat]

I don't know, but homophobes are some superstitious and ridiculous people, I've gotta say.

 

[d.]

I don't know, but homophobes are some superstitious and ridiculous people, I've gotta say.

i would say all people are superstitious and ridiculous, including myself, but yes, i see your point and i agree.

 

[Darkdale]

I think people do choose their sexuality - but I base this on my own inner experience, which is quite anecdotal and subjective. But I feel as though I have a choice. Maybe I'm just weird like that. I've always looked at people who said that they couldn't help only wanting to have sex with one gender to be people who have simply made up their mind that one kind of sexual relationship is desirable and the other is not. That seems to be a subjective choice to me.

 

[Pah]

I think people do choose their sexuality - but I base this on my own inner experience, which is quite anecdotal and subjective. But I feel as though I have a choice. Maybe I'm just weird like that. I've always looked at people who said that they couldn't help only wanting to have sex with one gender to be people who have simply made up their mind that one kind of sexual relationship is desirable and the other is not. That seems to be a subjective choice to me.

It certainly is a choice for some.

 

[Darkdale]

It certainly is a choice for some.

but not for others? Why not? I mean, I've read all the theories, so I guess I already know what you are going to say - but I just don't know if I buy it.

 

[evearael]

This whole arguement like an extension of the 'elect' in Calvinism. If it comes down to biology, then homosexuals are incapable of being saved, because it was obvious God chose to make them with a lifestyle that is incompatible with being saved... So, in my humble opinion, a follower of Calvinism would not accept sexual minorities, regardless of whether it is because of biology because they already have a mechanism that rejects free will, so choice is a non-issue.

Personally, I reject predestination and believe that sexuality is hard wired into us. I believe that the verses like Leviticus 18:22 & 20:18 which firmly reject a man sleeping with another man is more a result of the inability of such a union producing children, than anything else, especially considering the importance of family.

 

[d.]

It certainly is a choice for some.

i agree - i just don't want to step on sore toes. it cerainly isn't a choice for everyone - i would never say i chose my own sexuality, for example.

i've met people who claim to have chosen homosexuality for political reasons though.

 

[Pah]

but not for others? Why not? I mean, I've read all the theories, so I guess I already know what you are going to say - but I just don't know if I buy it.

I don't respond well to being tested with "I guess I already know what you are going to say". You tell us what the theories say and why only your admitted anecdotal evidence must be exclusive.

 

[Darkdale]

I don't respond well to being tested with "I guess I already know what you are going to say". You tell us what the theories say and why only your admitted anecdotal evidence must be exclusive.

I wasn't testing you. I was simply saying that I don't see how sexuality is determined. I mean, once scientists show me the gene, I'll be convinced; but until then, it just seems counter intuitive. I've already stated that my subjective experience isn't proof of anything, but it is the best evidence I have in forming an opinion.

 

[Pah]

I wasn't testing you. I was simply saying that I don't see how sexuality is determined. I mean, once scientists show me the gene, I'll be convinced; but until then, it just seems counter intuitive. I've already stated that my subjective experience isn't proof of anything, but it is the best evidence I have in forming an opinion.

You always test me. And it seems that you aviod the questions/requests as well - "You tell us what the theories say and why only your admitted anecdotal evidence must be exclusive".

 

[Darkdale]

You always test me. And it seems that you aviod the questions/requests as well - "You tell us what the theories say and why only your admitted anecdotal evidence must be exclusive".

I always test you? I think you are overestimating my interest in this topic. I was just sharing my opinion and asking why you guys felt the way you felt; but also that I've heard all the "You can't choose your sexual preference" arguments and didn't really buy into them. If you don't have some unique position, I'll just assume you are going along with the status quo, and that we simply disagree. There is no reason to go theory by theory; again, my position is as subjective, so my only argument against these positions is, "Not in my experience". Nothing really to debate. You seem to want an argument, and I don't really have one.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

It seems almost as if there is an effort not just for toleration or acceptance, because there are people who consider any sexuality outside of traditional hetrosexuality a sin who have no problem tolerating and/or accepting people as human beings despite the fact that they believe that those people have made decisions that they feel are wrong or a sin. There is obviously more to it than that. There seems to be an effort to cause people to celebrate it as if we should all be happier if one were to practice their sexuality in this way. One of the most frustrating things for me it seems is that while it is ok to parade ones sexuality in public streets for everyone to see, it is not ok to mention it in any other fashion outside of a celebratory way, especially if you are not also practicing your sexuality in this way. It is almost like females who wear shorts with writting on their behinds and get upset not only at those who feel that they shouldn't wear shorts that make them vulneralble to unwanted attention but also at those who give them unwanted attention because of the shorts they are wearing.

I don't expect everybody to jump up for joy and have absolutely nothing to say about me being a Christian. As a matter of fact I acknowledge that there are going to be many who violently (in a verbal or even physical sense) disagree with me and I accept that realizing the risks. It's called acknowledging choices and consequences.

Now, I would like to clarify that I find extremes on both sides of this arguement to be absurd. But I can't help but ask if one does not want any negative attention at all drawn towards them, then why would they continue to keep profoundly drawing attention towards themselves. Even if you were to gather everyone up who disagrees with you and and execute them ( which has been attempted in human history ), all you will accomplish is becoming a very lonely person.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[d.]

There seems to be an effort to cause people to celebrate it as if we should all be happier if one were to practice their sexuality in this way. One of the most frustrating things for me it seems is that while it is ok to parade ones sexuality in public streets for everyone to see, it is not ok to mention it in any other fashion outside of a celebratory way, especially if you are not also practicing your sexuality in this way.

it would be helpful if you clarified this? what is it you would like to say?

But I can't help but ask if one does not want any negative attention at all drawn towards them, then why would they continue to keep profoundly drawing attention towards themselves.

one wonders what provoked this comment.

btw, how does one manage to not attract any attention if one is different from the norm?

 

[Pah]

I always test you? I think you are overestimating my interest in this topic. I was just sharing my opinion and asking why you guys felt the way you felt; but also that I've heard all the "You can't choose your sexual preference" arguments and didn't really buy into them. If you don't have some unique position, I'll just assume you are going along with the status quo, and that we simply disagree. There is no reason to go theory by theory; again, my position is as subjective, so my only argument against these positions is, "Not in my experience". Nothing really to debate. You seem to want an argument, and I don't really have one.

I have a feeling that you don't know and haven't read ALL the theories as you boast. But perhaps you can explain why you think your subjective, anecdotal evidence must be the best/better/only answer to the question of sexuality.

By the way, "but not for others? Why not?" in response to my post is not sharing an opinion. So please continue the debate point you espoused and to which, I might add, I agreed in part

 

[Darkdale]

I have a feeling that you don't know and haven't read ALL the theories as you boast. But perhaps you can explain why you think your subjective, anecdotal evidence must be the best/better/only answer to the question of sexuality.

I don't know that it is the best/better/only answer to the question of sexuality. I'm simply saying, that my experience is the only experience I've had, and no argument or theory has adequately demonstrated to me that my experience is either wrong, or not applicable to others.

By the way, "but not for others? Why not?" in response to my post is not sharing an opinion.

So what? lol You seem utterly desperate for an argument; you should learn to have conservations sometime. You are simply coming off as pompous.

 

[Pah]

I don't know that it is the best/better/only answer to the question of sexuality. I'm simply saying, that my experience is the only experience I've had, and no argument or theory has adequately demonstrated to me that my experience is either wrong, or not applicable to others.

What in those theories of which you are aware, causes you to say they are wrong. Is it only because they don't match your subjective opinion?

So what? lol You seem utterly desperate for an argument; you should learn to have conservations sometime. You are simply coming off as pompous.

Only following your debative point/evidence/subjective anecdote. Surely you want to continue the conversation. I can not debate (or become argumentive) until you give me something to debate.

 

[Darkdale]

What in those theories of which you are aware, causes you to say they are wrong. Is it only because they don't match your subjective opinion?

Well, yes. It is only because they don't match with my subjective opinion, and because there is no objective, scientific proof that my subjective opinion is wrong. There is statistical evidence and positive correlations, but nothing that leads me to think, "maybe I'm just weird".

Only following your debative point/evidence/subjective anecdote. Surely you want to continue the conversation. I can not debate (or become argumentive) until you give me something to debate.

lol Alright, you just seem to be coming off a little argumentative, when I'm not saying that you are wrong, or that people are wrong for saying the sexuality is determined before experience - I'm just saying that this isn't my experience and there hasn't been any proof to the contrary. However, I have no objective proof, other than my own experience, so I'm not going to say that I'm right. But, when there is no proof one way or another, why shouldn't I make up my mind based on my own experience.