Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You do realize that people can be attracted to both genders but still have preferences with regards to their specific partner, right? Just as being attracted to women doesn't mean you're attracted to ALL women.
Just because you're attracted to both men and women doesn't mean you're an insatiable sex machine. I know multiple people who are bisexual and yet practically celibate.
Since you do not understand the difference between a sexual preference and actual nymphomania, you are in no position to lecture anyone about any kind of disorder.
All transsexuals are gay. Or they're bisexual. They're not straight.
I don't assume. I go by what you tell me about your sexual choices.
OK
Didn't say gender identity is a choice. But you are saying it is a mental disorder. I quite agree.
No. Sexual preference is the issue, and sexual preference is not "a compulsion".
You said that you'd "never met a situation where you had no choice". I've laid out some examples. It's really quite simple: You don't CHOOSE who to be attracted to anymore than you CHOOSE to need to eat, or sleep, or breathe, or believe certain things. These are not choices - they ARE involuntary. The comparison is apt, and the fact that you don't think it is is only an indication of your lack of understanding of the subject.
Yours is like the involuntary nervous system and organ argument. Fails to realize what was being discussed.
Of course it is. Compulsion refers to the drive a person has. Maybe look up the word.
What do you say about bisexuals? Their libido is active toward both sexes without discrimination.
Just because I say I'm gay, straight or bi doesn't mean I'm having sex with anyone or have ever had sex with anyone.
It's not a mental disorder and isn't treated like one. There's nothing wrong with the brain/mind. The problem is that the body doesn't match with the brain sex and so the treatment is to bring the body into alignment with the brain sex. It's a disorder in that the natural development of the fetus in the womb did not occur as it normally should. Instead of an XX fetus receiving estrogen to the brain, it receives testosterone and it masculinizes the brain (vice versa for trans women), thereby making the brain sex a mismatch with the primary, and later, secondary sex characteristics of the body.
Actually, it's active towards both sexes WITH discrimination. Bisexuals won't sleep with just anyone - they still have likes and dislikes like you or I do, obviously. The only difference is that an individual's sex is not an obstacle. That's not "a lack of discrimination", it's just a difference of preference. Straight people prefer to have a partner of the opposing sex, bisexuals don't have that preference. That's all.
I don't dismiss those people either. But nor do I dismiss the accounts of the countless people for whom sexuality was not only not a choice, but a thing that took them a lot of introspection and personal difficulty in coming to terms with. To say that those people simply "choose" to be gay is an insult to them, and shows a lack of education on the subject. Human sexuality is complicated and multi-faceted, and people can have various preferences that could have all kind of different causes - but to dismiss the millions of testimonies of homosexuals for whom their preference was not a matter of choice and instead simply tar them with the brush of having made a "choice" is utterly and wholly ignorant.
I very much doubt they suffer anywhere near the amount of bigotry, hate, intolerance and discrimination that homosexuals do. The idea of someone "being gay and then not being gay" isn't in and of itself incomprehensible - but the idea that such people exist and that therefore homosexuality is "nothing but a choice" or is "some form of disorder" is not only insulting but flat-out wrong.
And many who identify as gay do not have those experiences. Many who identify as anything with regards to any subject may link their feelings or preferences to specific events or memories in their past. How does that, in any way, make their preference or belief any less valid or any more a matter of choice?
So is wearing kilts. So what?
"Unhealthy"? You mean sterile, right? Sterility isn't always an indicator of health.
How is that? The only way that could be true is if homosexuals a) never have children and b) were the entirety of the human population. Since neither are true, this statement is erroneous. You might as well argue that sterile people are incapable of surviving any species. So what?
Homosexuality won't "eradicate" anything. Gay people do still have children, and there will always be plenty of people having children regardless of how high the percentage of homosexuals there are in the world. Again, the existence of homosexuality poses no more a threat to the survival of the species than the existence of sterility (in fact, even less, since gay people CAN STILL HAVE CHILDREN).
It isn't supposed to. It's specifically a reaction to the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural" or specifically not found in nature. It isn't supposed to have anything to do with gay rights, which should be pretty obvious.
Incidentally, some of the teachers at my all-boys school in the 1960's were gay but we couldn't complain to the headmaster because he was the ringleader..
His favourite trick was to call a boy out to the front of the class on some trumped up charge, make him bend over (pants up) then whack him a few times on his bum with the inside of his clenched fist. It didn't hurt a bit and was more like a gentle nuzzle (I speak from experience), and it never bothered in the slightest, we were too young (11-ish) to know anything about that sort of stuff anyway and simply regarded him as an eccentic old duffer.
Here's the school in 1867, it'd been much enlarged by the time I got there-
