Homosexual

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by dinc

I'd like to know what everybody thinks about being gay. Is it a choice? Is it something that can be changed? Is it contrary to your moral code or religion? Is it possible to deny your sexuality for your moral code or religion?

It's a choice... waaay back in the unconscious. So in most it's not a conscious choice. Sure you can change it as long as you're accepting of it. If you want to change it because you think it's wrong or immoral, you're going to have a bitter fight with yourself.

[beautyscientist]

Originally Posted by Angela

If you're gay, you're gay; if you're straight, you're straight. Either way, hooray! You're alive, and you're related, and you're a sexual being filled with desire, you are a human being who understands the joy of being connected. You are perfect, whole, complete, and beautiful.

Straight? Celebrate!! Gay? Yay!!!!

Great reply!

I don't think there is any conflict between being catholic and being gay. But if it is a problem for you, dropping the catholicism will be a lot easier than dropping the gayness.

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

It has been my experience that a thing is not beneficial or harmful based on whether the majority of people like, dislike, practice or don't practice that thing. Nor is commonly held or so-called "conventional wisdom" a good guide.

It was once universally held that the sun revolves round the earth. It was once universally held and practiced that women are not fit to vote in elections or to have any role other than that of baby factory and home maker. It was once universally held that if you sailed far enough straight west you would sail over a cliff into a nest of sea monsters. There was a time when, if you opposed any of these ideas, you would be ostracized and persecuted by society.

I wonder ... what made Columbus want to be a deviant? Or Gallilleo? Did they "just wake up one day" and decide to be annoying?

I know what you are trying to say, and I was not trying to say that it is not possible for conventional beliefs to be overruled, and that of course has been happening, and still is, and still will, all throughout the ages. What I was trying to say is the that the code of natural law will always go against same sex couples, whether that is what society says or not and whether it is accepted by the world. Common knowledge does interfere with our thoughts, whether you choose to go with it or not. The choice of being gay is not necessarily like choosing what to wear. It's controversial, and is a life defining decision. There may come the day where people will just take a time in their life and simply choose their orientation, but it's always a process in these sorts of arguments and takes time to be drawn out. I'm suggesting that even in a time where this argument becomes more widely open to each opposing party, it is not always a thing that you will simply think of one day and choose to go against.

Look, I used to be an evangelical Christian, and in many such circles, what you are stating is conventional wisdom. You want to know though what my biggest beef with that tradition was and is? Not its views on topics like this as such, but its insistence that reality conform to its teaching rather than that its teaching conform to reality. "Let God be true and every man a liar", says the Bible, and that is in my view its most pernicious teaching that generates the most suffering and agony in the world. There is much good in the Bible, but that is not one of those good things

Reality plays out in each way that is portrayed in the book. Now don't go a way and say that I do not understand where you are coming from. But we as people make our own mistakes. It may speak in that manner, yet we, just in our own can be tolerable, even within our own circles.

A few percent of the population are, or if you like, choose to be, gay. It's just the way it is. I no longer have the energy to try to wish things like that away just to make my reality more tidy.

Deal with it, already. It's not the end of the world.

You can take this personally, as Im not saying this is meant to bring down anyone. I don't understand what you can mean by this however.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Strokes

What I was trying to say is the that the code of natural law will always go against same sex couples.

May I know where you have found this code of natural law? And why it does not apply to homosexual dolphins, beetles, lizards, penguins, monkeys, sea gulls, flamingos and chimpanzees?

Could I also ask whether it is stated in your code of natural law that homosexuality is less natural than, say, toothpaste, capitalism, art, science, celibacy or Coca-Cola?

If I point out to you that man is the only species of animal that worships God, will you then say that prayer and worship is unnatural and wrong?

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by Strokes

natural law

Natural law seems to be the moral conclusions that are drawn from the concept of how nature should be in its ideal form. As such I think it can be a useful concept. But I do think it is very much immoral to hold it against homosexual persons. What is going to be next? Deny the blind their guide sticks and guide dogs because in the natural law eyes are meant to be used to see? One could argue that homosexuality is some kind of handicap but I do not like that very much. Since the feelings of expectation and excitement that come with the formation of the heterosexual identity are just the same in the case of homosexuality this does not go well toghether with idea that one is handicaped. It would basically just be a disempowering belief and deciding not to hold disempowering beliefs is generally a good thing.

Originally Posted by Strokes

The choice of being gay [...]

Pardon me? Just a few posts ago you were agreeing that being gay is not a choice. Can we keep the discussion sane by applying consistency to our opinions? Thank you!

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Personally I think that regardless of the appetite -- food, sex, whatever -- there is practically no end to the tastes one can acquire. People become stimulated by and obsessed with all sorts of things when it comes to sex ... same gender, opposite gender, threesomes, old people, pee, poop, you name it.

I don't like this very much though.... I'd rather take my sexuality seriously... Not judging others seems to be a good thing though.

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

Does homosexuality fit that profile? I think it does. I think that people generally acquire a taste for same-gender sex incidentally [...]

I don't believe this. Homosexuality is too deeply ingrained in the person to be comparable to an acquired taste.

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

At the end of the day, I think that much of the charged rhetoric around sexual orientation comes from trying to make sexual orientation something it's not in order to flog a point of view and feed people's egos by creating huge gulf of "otherness" and "difference" between people.

I think this "huge gulf of 'otherness' and 'difference'" is an overcompensation against the prevalent idea that homosexual persons are in some way less than the "normals".

Originally Posted by SonoranBob

I actually believe that gender orientation is not black and white, nor is it set in stone -- even if, for most of us, for practical purposes, it's a given and doesn't change.

Huh? It is not set in stone, but for practical purposes it does not change? Whaaaaaaat?????

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

Natural law seems to be the moral conclusions that are drawn from the concept of how nature should be in its ideal form.

Oh. And how should nature be, in its ideal form?

Bacteria reproduce by asexual binary fission.
Rats are promiscuous.
Leopards invariaby opt for one-night stands.
Weak males in a wolf pack are not permitted to have sex.
Gorillas adopt a harem concept - one dominant male to many nubile females.
The female praying mantis eats her lover, after sex.
Non-consensual sex, or rape, is common among ducks & geese.
Many fish species spawn via mass orgy.

Consider the above, and explain to me what kind of code of "natural law" for humans, we may extract from the above.

[Chris_1977]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh. And how should nature be, in its ideal form?

True, I think this is the biggest problem with the concept of natural law. Potentially, everybody will imagine their own idea of what nature should be. But well, Strokes seems to like it, so why not let him have his way with it? Nothing wrong with using some old-fashioned philosophy sometimes... It does seem to be a problem with christians though, that they don't like new ways of looking at things. Strangely enough Jesus was not at all like that...

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Consider the above, and explain to me what kind of code of "natural law" we may extract from the above.

That you should eat your partner whenever you feel like it, obviously!

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Old Soul

ok so do you see it as a sexual peversion? a type os sexual deviancy? if so , then would this explain the reason the majority of the gay population says " I was born this way"?

This is what they believe, and you as well, however, I do not. Being gay as a type of perversion, if I recall, did I say this? My beliefs are strong, and possibly you found it in some way, implied because of that, but I, who would know better, would know I indeed was not.

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

My only response to this is can you honestly say you were born straight? I am guessing you would agree that you were.

And you're correct.

I couldn't just choose to be attracted to women.

Did I not say that?

What in our society would the benefit be of choosing to be gay? That's one pretty good reason I believe it's a trait from birth -- who would willingly choose to have people call them abnormal? Who would want to live with fewer rights than their fellow countrymen?

As I said, there is no benefit at all, being gay is feeling love for someone who is of that same sex, just as straight people do, and that is how it would be, whether you believe it is a trait from birth or not, and when you feel that love you feel there is no way out of it, a man in madly in love with a woman would no more want to leave her any more a man who has those same feelings for another man. So whether you became gay through choice or not, which is what I do not believe and you do, may we please when we're posting at least stick to the fact that we all have different views, you will want to stay with that person even despite the hardships and scorn you may face, and it is the love, that binds you to stick on your path. Do I not believe it's possible for a person to have these types of feelings for another, of course not! We see this all the time, but I don't believe that this comes about through choice, what I believe.

Just as Chris mentioned, only a small percent of the population is left-handed -- is that also weird and abnormal?

This question is of course sarcastic, but pointless, being left-handed is not a choice true, it's just how the world works, just like the way you have a certain color of hair, you may like to write with your right if you're left, but what "handed" you are has nothing to do with what you choose.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

May I know where you have found this code of natural law? And why it does not apply to homosexual dolphins, beetles, lizards, penguins, monkeys, sea gulls, flamingos and chimpanzees

Because it happens that with humans, same sex couples cannot reproduce, and even a homosexual is a not able to contest to that.

If I point out to you that man is the only species of animal that worships God, will you then say that prayer and worship is unnatural and wrong?

If you read the Bible, in fact even if you know of what the Christian scientists say, which I'm not saying you don't, it states that man is the most dominant and able species, and that they are the only one that is able to challenge the extent of its own mind.

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

Natural law seems to be the moral conclusions that are drawn from the concept of how nature should be in its ideal form. As such I think it can be a useful concept.

I see we agree on something.

But I do think it is very much immoral to hold it against homosexual persons.

Who is "holding it against" them? I am merely stating my beliefs on their part.

What is going to be next? Deny the blind their guide sticks and guide dogs because in the natural law eyes are meant to be used to see?

A clever plea, but being blind is actually nothing like homosexuality at all. It may not be a choice just the same, but this is something that has nothing to do with mental choosing.... that is unless, you do choose it, which again, in my mind to say the least would be, pretty abnormal.

Pardon me? Just a few posts ago you were agreeing that being gay is not a choice. Can we keep the discussion sane by applying consistency to our opinions? Thank you!

Oh here we go, trying to turn my own words against me. What I meant was that being gay does not happen as deciding sometime that you are just going to go some other way, rather of some mental conversion, and by choice I meant in the sense that you would be, say, taken to a random place by a taxi driver, it was a choice to board the taxi, but where you end up going is not of your free will.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Strokes

Because it happens that with humans, same sex couples cannot reproduce, and even a homosexual is a not able to contest to that.

Indeed. And similarly a homosexual penguin, lizard, beetle, chimpanzee or flamingo would not be able to contest that. Therefore your argument revolving around a "code of natural law" is false.

What, by the way, is your view of:

(a) heterosexual couples who use contraceptives;

(b) heterosexual couples having sex despite the woman being past childbearing age;

(c) men and women who insist on having heterosexual sex despite having undergone vasectomies and ligation, respectively;

(d) heterosexual couples who insist on having sex despite one or both persons having fertility issues.

Do you therefore consider them as unnatural as same-sex couples. Since, obviously these heterosexual couples also cannot reproduce.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Strokes

If you read the Bible

Do you agree that your argument is of no relevance whatsoever to non-Christians.

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Indeed. And similarly a homosexual penguin, lizard, beetle, chimpanzee or flamingo would not be able to contest that. Therefore your argument revolving around a "code of natural law" is false.

I don't understand, you're agreeing and disagreeing with what I've said. Whether a "lizard or chimpanzee" is able to contest to that means nothing, it is only the law itself.

What, by the way, is your view of:

(a) heterosexual couples who use contraceptives;

(b) heterosexual couples having sex despite the woman being past childbearing age;

(c) men and women who insist on having heterosexual sex despite having undergone vasectomies and ligation, respectively;

(d) heterosexual couples who insist on having sex despite one or both persons having fertility issues.

Do you therefore consider them as unnatural as same-sex couples. Since, obviously these heterosexual couples also cannot reproduce.

I see how you may have come up with this argument, and yet I was not jumping into the argument of reproduction by mentioning it, but telling why homosexuality goes against what nature says. And yes, though I never said that I hate homosexuals, or people who limit themselves productively, it is indeed unnatural for a person who was originally born with the ability of having children to take that away, just as paper or plastic is unnatural because it is compressed, and altered by man, of natural things.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Do you agree that your argument is of no relevance whatsoever to non-Christians.

Of course. In fact I already stated before that we all have our own views.

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

Potentially, everybody will imagine their own idea of what nature should be.

Precisely, and I see that we both can agree with that.

But well, Strokes seems to like it, so why not let him have his way with it?

It's funny, you seem as if you are open minded and yet you're teaming up with others to dodge and criticize what I believe, and bask in your own. I'd appreciate it, even if everything I try and say is preposterous in your, or anyone else's mind, to respect that everyone isn't buying into yours, just as you don't with mine, I kind of thought that this site was more about learning and understanding, more than just siding.

And I'm female by the way.

Nothing wrong with using some old-fashioned philosophy sometimes...

No, I think not...

It does seem to be a problem with christians though, that they don't like new ways of looking at things. Strangely enough Jesus was not at all like that..

Oh, if there's one thing I don't like it's assumption. Just because I'm giving a lot of classic views on things does not, in any sense mean that I don't agree with "new ways of looking at things." because that is.... well, your assumption. "Strangely enough JESUS was not at all like that", I find that very insulting...

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Strokes

I don't understand,

Then I will explain.

1. You said that homosexuality is against the "code of natural law".

2. I pointed out that homosexuality is in fact widespread in nature, and therefore cannot be against the "code of natural law".

3. You reiterated that homosexuality is against "the code of natural law", because it cannot lead to reproduction.

4. I pointed out again that notwithstanding the fact that homosexuality cannot lead to reproduction, homosexuality is in fact widespread in nature amd therefore cannot be against the "code of natural law".

Of course, you may take the view that homosexual penguins, beetles and flamingos all made the lifestyle choice to be homosexual, and are acting unnaturally.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Strokes

So whether you became gay through choice or not, which is what I do not believe and you do

Actually I don't believe it's a choice. I believe it's from birth. Just so we are clear.

So you don't believe it's a choice --or-- that people are born gay, but rather that it's the result of some abuse or trauma?

[ZHereford]

From everything I've read about it, there are many variables both physiologically or psychologically that contribute to homosexuality.

Each person is unique. For some it could be a preference, for others they have absolutely no control over it based on their genetic composition. To this day the medical community has no definitive answer which only underscores the complexity of the issue.

[SonoranBob]

Originally Posted by Chris_1977

Huh? It is not set in stone, but for practical purposes it does not change? Whaaaaaaat?????

What can I say, it was late, and I was tired. ;-) What I was trying to say is there is a paradox, or at least the appearance of one -- on the surface sexual orientation seems more permanent than it is because a lot of people are content with their orientation and have no desire to change it; but in absolute terms I think it's like another poster suggested -- you can change it if you really want to, though you will probably not succeed if you are motivated by resistance.

--Bob

[Strokes]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Then I will explain.

1. You said that homosexuality is against the "code of natural law".

2. I pointed out that homosexuality is in fact widespread in nature, and therefore cannot be against the "code of natural law".

3. You reiterated that homosexuality is against "the code of natural law", because it cannot lead to reproduction.

4. I pointed out again that notwithstanding the fact that homosexuality cannot lead to reproduction, homosexuality is in fact widespread in nature amd therefore cannot be against the "code of natural law".

Of course, you may take the view that homosexual penguins, beetles and flamingos all made the lifestyle choice to be homosexual, and are acting unnaturally.

Originally Posted by Strokes

man is the most dominant and able species, and that they are the only one that is able to challenge the extent of its own mind.