sexuality - a hypothetical question

[Mike182]

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.

are you saying that homosexuals draw negative attention upon themselves, just like a woman who chooses to wear a pair of shorts with writting on them that are provocative? great analogy ........ :sarcastic

 

[d.]

are you saying that homosexuals draw negative attention upon themselves, just like a woman who chooses to wear a pair of shorts with writting on them that are provocative? great analogy ........ :sarcastic

"stop being gay, and all your problems will end."

genious.:highfive:

 

[Cynic]

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.

IMO, that would just show how idiotic and callous God is. Why would you create something, with a certain nature, condemn it, and not allow the capability of being "saved"?

Free will is not an accurate concept. People don't have full control over autonomic/reflexive areas of the brain, including the amygdala, which is partly responsible for a sexual response. It makes assessments, and responds, within milliseconds. Only after that, does information travel to the frontal cortex, where feelings are consciously experienced and decisions are voluntarily made.

Take phobic anxiety attacks for example. Do you think a person has any direct control over their anxiety? No, it's a response, and the amydala is making the decisions on how to respond. Sexual responses are innate and not fully controllable. You can't choose that you don't want to feel aroused or attracted one day, and choose to another.

Sexual response is instinctive, and I know I didn't choose my sexuality, but upon reaching puberty, I reacted to the opposite sex impulsively, and instinctively. It wasn't something that I learned to do.

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.

 

[Pah]

Well, yes. It is only because they don't match with my subjective opinion, ...

That's all I need to know. When reliance is on opinion, I will also go with the one with greater credentials and not myself. Currency has a great deal to do with it as well.

 

[Darkdale]

That's all I need to know. When reliance is on opinion, I will also go with the one with greater credentials and not myself. Currency has a great deal to do with it as well.

Yes, I defer to my own experience in the absence of genuine proof.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

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

It would be helpful if you clarified what about the statement you quoted, you didin't quite understand and why you didn't understand it.

one wonders what provoked this comment.

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

One wonders how one can make comments about a statement that they claim to not understand.

BTW, what is the "norm"? Does having brown hair make me different from the "norm", or hows about sinus problems from birth, does that make me different from the "norm"? Oh, but wait, these are things that I don't have to put any effort into making obvious to others. Is sexuality something one has to put effort into making obvious to others?

are you saying that homosexuals draw negative attention upon themselves, just like a woman who chooses to wear a pair of shorts with writting on them that are provocative? great analogy ........ :sarcastic

Well, lets look at the comment again shall we.

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.

You see, I had this itching feeling, due to the sensativity of the subject matter being discussed, that there would be those who had presuppositions and would respond to what I wrote with biasts based on those presuppositions. Because of that I decided to chose the words I posted very carefully in order to be sensative to others predispositions, although as you have proven, I knew it wouldn't be fullproof. Instead of posting that choosing a sexuality was just like women choosing their clothing as the original post had eluded to, as you supperimposed upon my comment(notice that I underlined the word I am emphasizing in your comment that I quoted), I wrote that it was almost like women chosing their clothing. You see, while I acknowledge that there are those who believe that sexuality is not a choice, although I disagree with that notion, I also acknowledge that it actually takes asserted effort to anounce or make their decisions known to others outside of those they practice their sexuality with.

"stop being gay, and all your problems will end."

genious.:highfive:

"continue to draw rediculous conclusions that we feel are logical about any comments that do not agree with our presupposition and that will shut them up, yeah!!!!!:clap "

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[d.]

It would be helpful if you clarified what about the statement you quoted, you didin't quite understand and why you didn't understand it.

i did; what is it you feel you cannot say? that isn't celebratory. does it need to be said?

One wonders how one can make comments about a statement that they claim to not understand.

a different statement...

BTW, what is the "norm"? Does having brown hair make me different from the "norm", or hows about sinus problems from birth, does that make me different from the "norm"? Oh, but wait, these are things that I don't have to put any effort into making obvious to others. Is sexuality something one has to put effort into making obvious to others?

not hiding who you are attracts attention if you are different from what is accepted, the norm. do you think celebrating what you are always has to be some kind of 'look at me' project? why does it bother you?

Well, lets look at the comment again shall we. You see, I had this itching feeling, due to the sensativity of the subject matter being discussed, that there would be those who had presuppositions and would respond to what I wrote with biasts based on those presuppositions. Because of that I decided to chose the words I posted very carefully in order to be sensative to others predispositions, although as you have proven, I knew it wouldn't be fullproof.

we can only go on what you post.

"continue to draw rediculous conclusions that we feel are logical about any comments that do not agree with our presupposition and that will shut them up, yeah!!!!!:clap "

shutting you up was never my intention.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

what is it you feel you cannot say? that isn't celebratory. does it need to be said?

Anything that I feel the need to state will be clearly stated. What I probably should've clarified is that anything can not be stated that might oppose this celebratory attitude is without an overzealous backlash that usually involves selective hearing/reading that usually include superimposing based on presuppositions.

not hiding who you are attracts attention if you are different from what is accepted, the norm.

O.K. so based on your definition, if it is "accepted", then it is the "norm". Based on that, Hows about that I told you that I have no problem accepting that fact that homosexuality exists and that those who practice it are indeed no more or less than human beings(which just so happens to be a statement I have no problem with). Does that make homosexuality the "norm"?

do you think celebrating what you are always has to be some kind of 'look at me' project?

Well, lets see:sarcastic , If I were to hold a parade on a public street, go on television, and tell everyone I know that about something that wasn't obvious, would it be because I didn't want people to look at me? I sure hope not, that would logically comes across as unproductive. So, the obvious answer to that question would have to be "yes"

why does it bother you?

Did I state that this bothered me. I sure don't remember stating that. What exactly are you trying to get me to state? That "gay parades" or celebrations of homosexuality bother me? Can you quote where I exactly stated that?

we can only go on what you post.

And then some

shutting you up was never my intention.

Well, at least you haven't negated that you have drawn rediculous conclusions from what I posted. So what was your intention in doing that?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Mike182]

Well, lets look at the comment again shall we. You see, I had this itching feeling, due to the sensativity of the subject matter being discussed, that there would be those who had presuppositions and would respond to what I wrote with biasts based on those presuppositions. Because of that I decided to chose the words I posted very carefully in order to be sensative to others predispositions, although as you have proven, I knew it wouldn't be fullproof. Instead of posting that choosing a sexuality was just like women choosing their clothing as the original post had eluded to, as you supperimposed upon my comment(notice that I underlined the word I am emphasizing in your comment that I quoted), I wrote that it was almost like women chosing their clothing. You see, while I acknowledge that there are those who believe that sexuality is not a choice, although I disagree with that notion, I also acknowledge that it actually takes asserted effort to anounce or make their decisions known to others outside of those they practice their sexuality with.

you said it is almost like ......... this means it is not exactly, but similar to ........ you were comparing homosexuals to women who destinctively draw attention to themselves by wearing flashy pants. your point remains that we are drawing negative attention of our own free will.

in answer to the question

do you think celebrating what you are always has to be some kind of 'look at me' project?

you said

Well, lets see:sarcastic , If I were to hold a parade on a public street, go on television, and tell everyone I know that about something that wasn't obvious, would it be because I didn't want people to look at me? I sure hope not, that would logically comes across as unproductive. So, the obvious answer to that question would have to be "yes"

i have never been on any gay pride parades, i do not parade my sexuality. at worst, i held the hand of my Boy friend in public, does your answer remain the same?

you see, by me holding my boy friends hand, i am showing i am with him, i am showing my sexuality, yet i am not "in your face" about it. we still recieve verbal and physical abuse because of it! do we deserve this because we show public affection?

 

[d.]

Anything that I feel the need to state will be clearly stated. What I probably should've clarified is that anything can not be stated that might oppose this celebratory attitude is without an overzealous backlash that usually involves selective hearing/reading that usually include superimposing based on presuppositions.

i got that. what is it you want to say? was my rather simple question.

O.K. so based on your definition, if it is "accepted", then it is the "norm". Based on that, Hows about that I told you that I have no problem accepting that fact that homosexuality exists and that those who practice it are indeed no more or less than human beings(which just so happens to be a statement I have no problem with). Does that make homosexuality the "norm"?

norm
Pronunciation: 'no(&)rm
Function: noun
: an established standard or average: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group

Well, lets see:sarcastic , If I were to hold a parade on a public street, go on television, and tell everyone I know that about something that wasn't obvious, would it be because I didn't want people to look at me? I sure hope not, that would logically comes across as unproductive. So, the obvious answer to that question would have to be "yes"

ok, now we're talking about pride festivals and being open about your sexuality specifically. that makes things a lot easier.

and no, i don't think the primary motivator of all those things would have to be to draw attention to your own person. sure it comes with the territory, but what are you gonna do? is the alternative any better?

Did I state that this bothered me. I sure don't remember stating that. What exactly are you trying to get me to state? That "gay parades" or celebrations of homosexuality bother me? Can you quote where I exactly stated that?

i never said anything about gay parades - you did. just now. that's why i asked.

if you think i'm putting words in your mouth - then answer my questions, and that won't be a problem.

i'm not interested in a word battle here. we're getting off topic.

 

[DesertPoc]

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

Interesting example..what about an example a male can use to display his sexuality preferance?
Grant it, some females do flaunt their sexuality..though wearing shorts written on the behind area does not necessarily indicate their sexual preference. They could have desires for the same sex too - though wearing something that appeals to the opposite sex.
Some females that do wear attire such as mentioned, for example writing on the behind, may be looking for attention and some may just like the look and feel of the outfit (not looking for attention at all).
.
.
.
Sorry, lost here..need more clarification and how it relates.
.
.
.
If there is a beautiful female, should she cover up as the Muslim women of Afghanistan do?
Or, even a handsome male..should he cover up his face/body too?
Just because a person "looks good" does not mean they are fishing for attention. There are fields, example software engineering, that have a reputation for "geeks unsociables etc.." and there are plenty of people that are otherwise - though rare.
Yes, killing all that disagree would be a lonely person..for example Russia's Stalin. This mindset could also be attracted to people with mental disfunctional problems.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

you said it is almost like ......... this means it is not exactly, but similar to ........ you were comparing homosexuals to women who destinctively draw attention to themselves by wearing flashy pants. your point remains that we are drawing negative attention of our own free will.

well, your original assessment of the point I was tring to make was :

are you saying that homosexuals draw negative attention upon themselves, just like a woman who chooses to wear a pair of shorts with writting on them that are provocative?

To which Divine responded

"stop being gay, and all your problems will end." genious

to which you did not seem to negate so my only logical conclusion was that you had assessed that I was trying to state that those who live the homosexual lifestyle were simply drawing negative attention by simply living the homosexual lifestyle which (for the second time) is not the point I was trying to make. The original post asked why it mattered whether or not Homosexuality was chosen or a product of boilogy. And once again the point I was trying to get at is that the asserted effort to make homosexuality an issue of biology rather than choice is just more of an attempt at drawing possitive attention towards
and in turn drew negative attention along with it. So while you may believe that Living the homosexual lifestyle is not a matter of "free will" , unless you are a "Calvinist", any asserted effort buyond that would logically be a matter of "free will" and could be compared to others wearing clothing in an attempt at attracting positive attention, but also drew negative attention at the same time.

i have never been on any gay pride parades, i do not parade my sexuality. at worst, i held the hand of my Boy friend in public, does your answer remain the same?

you see, by me holding my boy friends hand, i am showing i am with him, i am showing my sexuality, yet i am not "in your face" about it. we still recieve verbal and physical abuse because of it! do we deserve this because we show public affection?

Well, I didn't know that I used the word "deserved" anywhere although I do know that I have implied that any asserted effort at drawing positive attention to something will naturally also draw negative attention towards it. The example you gave reminds me of an old western movie I had seen with my dad one time. There was a scene where a man put his arm around another man and they both walked into a bar to get something to drink. My dad made the comment that there was once a time when a man putting his arms around another man was not a big deal but anymore it would be considered an act of homosexuality, which I thought was an interesting thought. Personally, I don't think much of two men holding hands, so my answer to your personal question would be an obvious "no". But your use of the word "abuse" begs the question of what you consider "abuse" and if you consider anything I have written to be "abusive". I wonder if I could guess your answers to those questions. There is however a difference in pushing an issue such as the one mentioned in the OP of this thread, parading ones sexuality in public streets, telling everyone they know about their sexual lifestyle, and just holding hands with someone they chose to share their sexual lifestlye with.

i got that. what is it you want to say?

Why do you insist that I am not stating what I want to state? what is it that you think that I want to state?

norm
Pronunciation: 'no(&)rm
Function: noun
: an established standard or average: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group

I don't see how posting the dictionary definition of the word "norm" answers the question I gave. I suppose that in your personal definition of the word "norm", you inserted the word "accepted" for the dictionarie's word "taken". It still begs the question of what you mean by a "social group" and which "social group" you are reffering to.

and no, i don't think the primary motivator of all those things would have to be to draw attention to your own person. sure it comes with the territory

Please educate me as to what the primary motivator is for such things.

but what are you gonna do? is the alternative any better?

I guess that depends on how productive it is compared to the "primary motivator", whatever it is. Would the alternative be to go on living ones life and quit worrying about trying to get everybody to celebrate what ones sexuality? Well, I'm pretty sure it would cut down on all the attention it is getting, positive or negative. I wonder if one would be accused of a "hate crime" if they were to hold a "hetro pride" parade in somewhere like San Francisco (which BTW is where I was born)?

if you think i'm putting words in your mouth - then answer my questions, and that won't be a problem.

Is that a threat? Why can't I just make a statement and have be taken at face value?

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria