Sexuality and Choice...

[Autodidact]

1. Hmm...It shocks me that people believe it is a choice. One can remain against homosexuality and see it as not being a choice.
2. People control their desires and feelings all the time. Unlike you, I see homosexuals as competent human beings that are FULLY capable of controlling their desires and refraining from participation in homosexual activity. Guess what, living a life where you don't do every little thing your body wants isn't a life of miserable frustration. It's a life where you're not a slave to your body.

Of course we can. But there is no moral reason to do so. I don't consider giving and receiving love to be equivalent to doing every little thing my body wants.

3. Haggard went through a botched therapy process. I'm sure that with the appropriate therapy, he could have changed his sexual orientation.

:biglaugh:

Ted Haggard is a good example of sexual immorality. His entire life is a lie, including his primary intimate relationship. He lied to everyone he met, and to himself. In the process, he deprived himself of the opportunity for an authentic relationship based on trust, mutual respect and love. I feel nothing but pity for him and even more for his poor wife. He trashed the only life he'll ever get. Well, there's hope for him yet. He might figure it out yet, and learn the difference between a real morality and honoring ancient tribal purity taboos.

 

[Autodidact]

Regardless of what you believe or what the truth is concerning the source or nature of one's sexual attraction, does anyone believe that sexual behavior is anything other than a choice.?

Of course. Why do you ask?

What we can't choose is who we love.

The issue is not whether we can choose a celibate life, but whether that is the most moral choice to make. I don't believe it is. Feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.

btw, the prime example of sexual immorality, almost never discussed on these boards, is rape. Heterosexual, male dominant, woman-harming rape. And it's quite prevalent. For some reason you don't see Christians raving on about that.

 

[Kerr]

Of course. Why do you ask?

What we can't choose is who we love.

The issue is not whether we can choose a celibate life, but whether that is the most moral choice to make. I don't believe it is. Feel free to try to persuade me otherwise.

btw, the prime example of sexual immorality, almost never discussed on these boards, is rape. Heterosexual, male dominant, woman-harming rape. And it's quite prevalent. For some reason you don't see Christians raving on about that.

Yeah, it makes me wonder what peoples priorities are (even though I am sure they consider rape is worse, even though they just don´t go on about it as much).

 

[LittleNipper]

Yeah, it makes me wonder what peoples priorities are (even though I am sure they consider rape is worse, even though they just don´t go on about it as much).

No one at this time is promoting the marriage of rapests with their victims.

 

[Kerr]

No one at this time is promoting the marriage of rapests with their victims.

Rape is still a far larger issue and should be dealt with. Even if it would be wrong for two of the same sex to go and marry each other, it would still pale in comparisment.

 

[Ardeaa]

I didn't get married until I was 45. For me, well past any child-bearing age, and I never wanted children to begin with. So it's immoral for us to have sex for pleasure because we have no desire to have children at our ages? Please.

We have gay friends who have been in loving, committed relationships for years. Their relationships are every bit as valid as mine or anyone else's. This idea of sex being only for procreation is ridiculous, and those who are claiming that people need to control themselves are fools and, most likely, hypocrites. Or else they're incredibly anal and/or scared to death that god is going to smite them for touching themselves. What a pathetic way to waste your life.

 

[TheKnight]

You are really out of touch with humanity, never mind sexuality.

You think sex is about doing every little thing your body wants?!?

You know, it might make you sound more intelligent if you actually read the post of who I quoted and then read my post. Cause this whole reading my post and not knowing what I'm talking about thing is starting to get annoying. Daemon Sophic said "

Then they should....what?.....repress their feelings and desires and simply lead a life of miserable frustration?"

My response about control and not doing everything your body wants is directed toward that statement.

This is about living a shared life of fulfilled love and adult companionship.
Why the hell should people give up a shared life of fulfilled love and adult companionship because ... well.... you say they should. :sarcastic

This is not a thread about gay marriage. It is a thread about sexuality and choice. I do not believe that sexuality is a choice. However, I do believe that it can be changed.

I honestly don't care if two homosexual love each other. That's FINE. If a homosexual is proud of being a homosexual and doesn't want to change, fine. However, there are homosexuals that don't want to be homosexuals. You can place the blame for that on anything you want, but the fact is that those people exist. I believe that those people should not be denied treatment just because you don't like that. It's not really your decision.

Don't you understand that homosexuals LOVE each other?
Just like heterosexuals do.
And yet you expect them to live in pain of unfulfilled adult love & passion?!

Not at all related to my post. My post was about how control does not lead to a life of miserable frustration.

As for #3, .... homosexuality is not a disease, or condition that requires "Therapy", it is an integral part of who an individual is: their biology and their persona. I strongly disagree with your final statement "...with the appropriated therapy, he could have changed his sexual orientation." :no:
I'm sure that he is now a little more trained at hiding/repressing his homosexual nature, but he is still homosexual....and always will be.

Do you believe that therapy can help a person to change anything about their mental state of being? (This is a yes or no question).

TheKnight; I will suppose here that you are heterosexual.
1. Do you think that talking things over with a homosexual counsellor, watching some motivational videos, and a little shock 'therapy' could ever make you gay?

Probably not. But I'm sure there are appropriate therapies that could.

2. Do you think that it would be appropriate for a moral and decent society of gay people to inflict this 'therapy' upon you?

Is anyone in this thread talking about inflicting anything on anyone else? I am not advocating forcing gay people to change. I'm advocating allowing those who want to change that opportunity.

3. Do you believe it right for members of a religion whose sole premise is to be kind, forgiving, and loving to all other beings, to inflict such 'therapy' upon an individual?

If the person wants to change, and the religious organization believes it has developed an appropriate therapy, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Of course we can. But there is no moral reason to do so. I don't consider giving and receiving love to be equivalent to doing every little thing my body wants.

I hadn't said that it was.

 

[Autodidact]

No one at this time is promoting the marriage of rapests with their victims.

Which is odd, since it's biblical.

 

[Kerr]

Not at all related to my post. My post was about how control does not lead to a life of miserable frustration.

Just like not controlling it can make you a very happy person.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

However, there are homosexuals that don't want to be homosexuals. You can place the blame for that on anything you want, but the fact is that those people exist. I believe that those people should not be denied treatment just because you don't like that. It's not really your decision.

I guess then also that you have the same tolerance for heterosexuals that might want to be homosexual?

Probably not. But I'm sure there are appropriate therapies that could.

I have not seen any objective study of therapies that yielded the result "there is a therapy X that does the job".
Have you?

Is anyone in this thread talking about inflicting anything on anyone else? I am not advocating forcing gay people to change. I'm advocating allowing those who want to change that opportunity.

I could go with that.

If the person wants to change, and the religious organization believes it has developed an appropriate therapy, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Frankly I do. A "religious" organization per default has no "apropriate therapy". Either there exists a scientifically secured one or not.
Why do you think it seems to be the case that there are ONLY religious based efforts to offer a therapy?

 

[Autodidact]

I honestly don't care if two homosexual love each other. That's FINE. If a homosexual is proud of being a homosexual and doesn't want to change, fine. However, there are homosexuals that don't want to be homosexuals. You can place the blame for that on anything you want, but the fact is that those people exist. I believe that those people should not be denied treatment just because you don't like that. It's not really your decision.

Of course. However, the facts are that such "treatment" does not change sexual preference, and contributes to unhealthy feelings of shame and a fragmented, dishonest life. Better therapy would be to learn acceptance and positive expression of one's true nature.

Probably not. But I'm sure there are appropriate therapies that could.

On what do you base this assumption? Is there some therapy that would change your primary orientation?

If the person wants to change, and the religious organization believes it has developed an appropriate therapy, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Well, they're mistaken, for starters. In fact they don't change people, which is why they never publish and controlled, double-blind research. The results completely discredit their so-called "therapy."

I hadn't said that it was.

Then why mention it in a thread about homosexuality?

 

[Perfect Circle]

This idea of sex being only for procreation is ridiculous, and those who are claiming that people need to control themselves are fools and, most likely, hypocrites. Or else they're incredibly anal and/or scared to death that god is going to smite them for touching themselves. What a pathetic way to waste your life.

Probably not anal... that doesn't lend itself to procreation.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Which is odd, since it's biblical.

LittleNippler most likely cut that part out of his bible, along with the rules on shellfish, and wearing blended clothing. This works well because it leaves the parts about anti-homosexuality and self-righteousness quickly accessible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

LittleNippler most likely cut that part out of his bible, along with the rules on shellfish, and wearing blended clothing. This works well because it leaves the parts about anti-homosexuality and self-righteousness quickly accessible.

Perhaps he's just not Jewish.

 

[LittleNipper]

Which is odd, since it's biblical.

Only if the woman was willing. If not, the rapest lost his life...

 

[Perfect Circle]

Perhaps he's just not Jewish.

I'm sure he isn't. But he sure isn't Christ like either.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Only if the woman was willing. If not, the rapest lost his life...

Deutoronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

...you were saying?

 

[Zorro1227]

Deutoronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

...you were saying?

This passage is one that I have always had a terrible time understanding. IF the god of the bible is real, I do not want anything to do with him.

 

[madhatter85]

For those that believe that a person's sexual preferences is a choice rather than an innate trait...

1. What evidence do you have to support this assertation?
2. Why would someone choose to make a decision that quite often results in physical and social alienation from family and friends?
3. What evidence would you require to change your opinion that sexual preference is a choice?

Using the information provided in this speech: Beau Lotto: Optical illusions show how we see | Video on TED.com We can see that people are defined not by the information we recieve through our sense but rather what we do with that information.

Whether or not it's genetic, It's a problem. at a very primal level, A genetic trait that promotes behavior contrary to the reproduction of the species is a genetic flaw or defect. Even so, Genetics do not remove volition from the subject. You always have a choice whether or not to ACT on the said urges. It is the same as people who are born with genetic defects or flaws. For example, there are genetic traits that make people more susceptible to addictive behaviors, submissiveness, dominance, anger, depression or any other myriad of behavior variances from the center of the bell curve. Does that mean we should put rules in place to provide them with extra privileges based on behavioral desires? I do not believe so. You are free to act how you want, but forcing everyone to accept abnormal behaviors (whether based on choice or genetic predisposition) as "normal" I believe to be morally wrong.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Deutoronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [a] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

...you were saying?

What's the modern conversion rate on a 'shekel of silver' nowadays?