I like boys and don't know why.
 

Now, this has been my belief on the subject since I have 2 homosexuals in my family that both tell me that it isn't a publicity stunt. I don't know how credible it is, but I hope we can have a decent discussion that doesn't end in us all calling each other dumbheads.

Does anyone still believe (in a non-baiting voice) that homosexuality is a choice like a choice to purchase a vehicle? If so why? It would intrigue me to hear the arguments.

This has got to be very concerning to my straight friend with a gay identical twin!!

I do think it is a choice, like most of what you do and who you are.

and you are a dumbhead (just to get it out of theway)

disclaimer - I'm not an expert on genetics, and I'm not gay...meaning I have nothing but intuition to go on.

I certainly don't think homosexuality is a publicity stunt, or a concious decision. I also don't think it's 100% genetic - I'm willing to believe that you may be genetically predisposed to someday become gay, but I don't think your preference is decided in advance. I think that's shaped, largely subconciously, by events that happen in your early life - events that you have no control over.

You won't convince this audience. One time we went through this I cited double blind separated twin studies (ie twins who were separated at birth by adoption) that showed separated twins were more likely to have the same sexual orientation, but no one cared.

If being gay was a choice, go hump a man tonight (Marmels don't count).

Not to equate gays with Child Molesters, but here goes anyways...

Why does society seem to think that pedophiles and donkey-bangers are making choices in their attractions and not gays?

I think something happens to most pedophiles and animal lovers. (Sort of like what Draft Dodger said about gays) Why couldn't something cause people to be gay?

I don't think we can rule out all sociological factors.

There are a few societies in Africa that are predominantly homosexual and have partners of the opposite sex for creation only. Other societies have had predominantly bi-sexual people. (Sparta is a good example, most all Spartan soldiers took part in homo-sexual behavior)

I don't really consider it a consious choice that people make. I don't think you wake up one morning and say "geez, I really like guys now, I think I'm going to become gay" I do think that there are other factors other than hard wiring that can cause someone to be gay.

Not sure if anyone could understand that, but I gave it my best shot. :)

TroyF

I think this is plausible view, but how would you separate repression from "events that happen in early life." In other words, how do you ever know if you have found your "true" sexual orientation or whether you are just living according to cultural dictates that you inherited while young? For example, Freud agreed with your idea because he thought everyone was born bisexual and we "learned" early on to be one way or the other (or stayed both - or changed back and forth).

I have a co-worker in the same boat. She's straight, her sister is gay. To compound matters, my co-worker's husband may possibly be the gayest straight man I've ever met.

Maybe because no scientific evidence supports the idea that child molestation or donkey-banging is genetic.

JG, I love your sig. Perhaps Walter screaming this isn't 'Nam, this is sexuality, we got rules! would...well I don't know where I was going with this.

Re-reading my post I think I quoted draft dodger for something he didn't say, I will edit. Please don't jump all over me.

Ancient Greeks had a fondness for little boys. Symposium is the sickest shit I have ever read.

That being said, you're more or less born with certain sexual inclinations. Some people realize it, some don't, and some deny it. Just the way it is IMHO. Doesn't make me hate them, but being gay isn't something I can see myself doing. But if it makes you happy.

I saw this article but decided against posting it for the reasons you mention. However, since you posted it...

My feelings on the subject are this: I believe that 99.9% of us are born pre-disposed to either heterosexuality or homosexuality. I believe that a percentage of us - not sure what percentage - on both sides of the fence encounter an environment which is conducive to altering that pre-disposition. I believe that environmental factors can serve to affect a person, but in a (mostly) subconscious manner. Whether environmental factors ultimately affect a change against the pre-disposition is entiely random, but I don't think it is a choice for most people. I say most, because I believe that there is a small segment of the homosexual population who consciously choose to pursue the lifestyle, for whatever reason, be it an abusive ex-husband/boyfriend, being more comfortable and finding companionship with members of the same sex, etc.

That's my take on the whole subject. I've known too many people who ended up coming out, who you just knew were gay before they were ever a sexual being, for me not to believe it is, in large part, genetics. On the other hand, I've also seen people choose to forego a homosexual life because they were doctors and wanted a family, and didn't want that issue to be an obstacle. I've seen women switch sides after being abused. So I know that it can be a choice, but I don't believe that to be the case for vast majority of the homosexual population.

isn't this the whole crux of why it's so hard to be a gay youth? not only do you have the social pressure to be of a specific orientation, but you have the added bonus of trying to sort through all the fucked up feelings you've got going on at that age and deciding if you really were gay, or just confused.

in other words, don't ganbang you?

only saturdays and the occassional third Tuesday of the waning moon.

well, if I am wrong there is some good news. One day there will be a chemical treatment for the people aflicted with the defect.

Even if that day comes, for some reason I don't think it's going to be quite that easy.

That of course would come the same time as the cure for ugliness and stupidity.

Where can I get in line?

I'm Bill McNeil on crack I like boys.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

We're all born sinners. Period.

Whether or not we choose to embrace a sinful lifestyle is the whole point.

here's another recent study

New research published last week claims that homosexuals and lesbians who undergo psychiatric therapy can change their sexuality. Charles Laurence in New York meets three of the study's 'converts'


From his earliest memories, Jeff Johnston was one of the girls. Before he was five, he would shun the rough and tumble of boys' play, and stay in the house with his mother and sisters. He looked liked his mum and, relatives would say, acted just like her, too.

At seven, he ran away, terrified, from several encounters" with older boys. At high school, he joined the girl gang as a "peer" rather than a suitor, and realised that he was homosexual while reading pornographic magazines, and finding the men in the pictures far more attractive than the women.

But these days Johnston, 40, is married with three sons: Nathaniel, six, and Aden and Brendon, twins of three. "Gay, I was ashamed and afraid," he says.

"There was a constant conflict between my Christian faith and my feelings, I always wanted a family and children in the normal way, and I was terrified of Aids. Now, I have a wonderful marriage and my children, like those of every dad, are brilliant and beautiful."

Johnston is one of the 200 former homosexuals and lesbians who took part in a study by Dr Robert Spitzer, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York. The publication of his findings, in the US journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, has created an uproar.

Dr Spitzer concluded that homosexuals can change their sexuality. His study, first revealed at a conference in 2001 but published only last week, created even more of an impact among psychiatrists and homosexual organisations because, in 1973, he had been instrumental in deleting homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's list of official mental disorders.

That decision - the foundation of the belief that homosexuality is nature, not nurture, and therefore beyond free will and moral choice - is at the heart of the "gay liberation" movement.

But his new study found that 78 per cent of males and 95 per cent of females who voluntarily underwent the "reparative" or psychiatric therapy reported a change in their sexuality.

And of the 143 men and 57 women who participated, 66 per cent of males and 44 per cent of females had achieved what he called "good heterosexual functioning".

This he defined as being in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship, getting "emotional satisfaction" to a point of seven on a 10-point scale, having heterosexual sex at least once a month, and never, or rarely, fantasising about someone of the same gender during heterosexual sex.

"My conclusion is that the door is open," Dr Spitzer said. "I came to this study as a sceptic - I believed that a homosexual, whether born or made, was a homosexual and that to consider their orientation a matter of choice was wrong. But the fact is that if I found even one person who could change, the door is open, and a change in sexual orientation is possible."

Dr Spitzer has said repeatedly that as an "atheist Jew" his only interest in the issue is scientific truth, adding that an orthodoxy which forbids acknowledgement of the possibility of change is as flawed as that which labels homosexuality an act of will and morally wrong.

But gay rights groups insist that Spitzer is a "cultural conservative" who is supporting "therapies" for changing behaviour which are doing psychological damage to troubled homosexuals.

According to Joan Garry, the executive director of Glaad, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: "No research nor findings should have any bearing on whether people - gay, lesbian, bisexual or straight - are treated fairly.

Spitzer's conclusions are based on a self-selected sample of people who are so troubled by their sexual orientation that they will go to any lengths to try to 'change' it."

In London, Peter Tatchell, a gay rights campaigner, said: "Everyone I have spoken to who has been through this so-called treatment says it has not only failed to convert them to heterosexuality, but it has caused them immense psychological and emotional harm."

Both the scientists and the campaigners complain that Dr Spitzer's sample of 200 people is bogus because most came from Christian fundamentalist communities and were simply tormented by the social pressure brought to bear against their natural sexual orientation.

Dr Spitzer agrees that the participants were "highly motivated" but that none the less they managed to change to his definition of "good heterosexual functioning". And in their own words, homosexual "converts" describe social pressure as only part of the cause of their misery and faith as only part of the cure.

"Changing was a long process that took many years, and at the heart of it was relationship issues," said Richard Cohen, 50, who became a psychotherapist and now works with troubled homosexuals. "To make behavioural change, you have to go into the past and discover the wounds that created the problem.

"This is what I found for myself: I had a fear of my father, an angry man who frightened me; my mother was overbearing and I was too close to her; I had an older brother who was physically abused - beaten - by my father and who in turn abused me; my uncle saw my needs, and then polluted our relationship with sexual abuse; and I was a sensitive kid who was bullied at school."

Mr Cohen, a married father of three children aged 20, 18 and eight, says the key to change is to fit into gender roles that have nothing to do with sex: "A man must first be able to be a man with men, to find his gender identity. When he does, opposites attract and he will want a woman."

Ashley, 47, was a lesbian committed not only to sex with women but to the "activist" lifestyle in Los Angeles, until she started therapy in her late 20s. Now she is married, with a son of 10, and was among the women studied by Dr Spitzer.

But although she started going to church during her therapy and says that her faith and the church community helped her change her orientation, it was a search for emotional stability that turned her from her lesbian lovers.

"I knew as a teenager that I was a lesbian, and at 18 the magic moment came and I acted on my feelings with a woman 13 years older," she said. "For years I was totally committed to the lifestyle. But I was not happy. Some of my relationships lasted three or four years, and my family was tolerant and I would go home with my lovers. But something was wrong."

Ashley realised in her 20s that her lesbian community seemed unable to offer calm, stability and a sense of security. "Every relationship was so intense," she said. "There was anger and jealousy and I could not bear to be away from my lover for even a few minutes.

There was also violence and a great deal of alcohol abuse. These things - unhappiness, alcoholism - are symptoms of people functioning in a way they are not designed to, and, yes, I think that is morally wrong."

Ashley found herself turning away from women for sex after realising in psychotherapy that, all along, she had been looking for a mother figure.

Her mother had been an emotionally unstable woman who would one minute be an attentive, safeguarding parent, and the next "absent". Her father, meanwhile, was a hard-working provider whom she hardly knew.

"I was looking for my mother in all the wrong women. When I realised that, I slowly started to find men more attractive, or at least I found the guy who is now my husband attractive," she said. "And I simply no longer want to have sex with women."

For Jeff Johnston, the transition to physical attraction to the opposite sex was not as immediate. Even with the woman he fell in love with, Judy, with whom he recently celebrated his 10th wedding anniversary, the chemistry was elusive in the beginning.

"It was terrifying, horrible," he said. "Our dating relationship was really rough. I was in my early 30s, and I was trying to do stuff that guys do when they are 16 or 18.

"But now it's wonderful," he says, describing how the couple found true happiness after their wedding. "We had a two-year honeymoon."


FWIW, I think we're all somewhat hardwired to be as sexual as possible, and societal influences can make us more apt to act on our sexual impulses. I don't want to get into a religious debate, so I'll leave out the part about struggling not to sin.

I read the article as though it says that the doctor took 200 people who didn't want to be gay and convinced them they weren't. Doesn't actually prove one way or another if it is biological. It just proves that people who are disturbed (see the people described in the article) can have their behavior manipulated.

If I had an inclination towards obesity, I could theoretically control it by enough conditioning and not eating the kinds of food that promote it, but that doesn't mean the inclination is gone. Instead it is supressed.

longlonglong article

But they're still making a choice.

Their making a choice to ignore what to them is a disturbing biological situation.

Like I said Cam, or maybe I didn't, I am not attempting to use this article to prove a point, because I don't know the rep of the people who did it. All I am attempting to do is to see the side of an issue I don't see another side too.

oh, and not trying to get feisty Cam, just trying to kill time so I don't have to write a response paper.

Know anything about the US v. Morrison court decision in 2000? I swear, Congress and their reasons for supporting lawmaking decisions really doesn't make sense most of the time. A cleared rapist affects interstate commerce? Argghhhhhh.

But I believe that we're all hardwired to be as sexual as possible. It's up to us to ultimately determine what is right and wrong.

Free will, it's an amazing thing. The point is, for these people who are gay and believe that their homosexual activity is a moral dilemna, there seems to be strong evidence suggesting they don't have to stay that way. The corrollary to that would be the situations Ksyrup pointed out (straight folks deciding to be gay).

I'm not really interested in getting into a big debate about this either... I'm just suggesting that maybe the issue isn't black and white.

I for one do not think sexuality is 100% genetic, the decisions you make in life can alter any way of life, I believe. Not just sexuality.

I would contend we all stay that way.

and thank God for that!

:D

ah cool, I get ya.

I think deteriming right and wrong is really left up to the individual involved in said acts (i.e. those that do not intentionally harm either party such as homosexual acts) and not the masses. But its all good, we pretty much agree. If someones gay but they feel opposed, then if they can deal with "turning" straight, so be it.

And don't even get me started on free will. I need sleep tonight.

Cam: A couple of points. One, the study is obviously skewed because it relies on volunteers. This is hardly a scientific study. It may tell us thatsome gays who have already had a desire to change their behavior can, but so what ? Any straight person can also give up sex if they are inclined.

That leads to the larger point. Does the sex act define the identity? I don't believe it does. If I don't have sex with my wife(being married you can understand how this might happen) does that make me less straight? Giving up sex doesn't necessarily make these people less gay. Its like alcoholics who don't drink for years. Even though they don't drink, they are still alcoholics.

I agree that the argument is far from black and white. I think straights can choose to have a gay sex and I think gays can choose to have straight sex. What I don't think is a matter of choice is basic orientatoin.

Other points to consider from the study Cam cites:

- How many of these people that "converted" to heterosexuality stay that way?

- How truthful are these volunteer subjects being when quizzed about critical factors like sexual frequency, sexual fantasies, etc.

I'll echo what has been said already - there's no question that gays can act straight, have straight sex, etc. Does that mean they're straight, or that they're suppressing their true desires?

Of course, seeing as anything outside of totally sober sex, in the missionary position, within the bounds of marriage is considered sin, this doesn't leave a whole lot of room for *anyone* to cast aspersions on someone else's lifestyle.

With this audience I am sure this will be a dead end, but why is there anything wrong with or, as Fritz terms it, "defective" with homosexuality? To me, whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not is pretty much a no brainer. I mean, seriously, who in this society would choose to be homosexual? Considering the attitude of a very large section of society, probably the majority that it is evil, a sin, a defect, against nature, etc, and the persecution homosexuals put up with you would have to be insane to choose it. To me, that's an open and shut case. The larger question is what is wrong with homosexuality (without quoting The Bible please)?

What exactly is gay? And why is it?
If I ever engage in a sexual act with a man does that make me gay? Does it matter what level that act is? If I see Brad Pitt on TV and comment on how attractive he is, does that mean im gay? What if my girlfriend asks me If I would do him if she was in the bed with us and I say yes, does that mean im gay?
What im trying to get at, in my rambling manner is this, if im willing to be gay, but have never been gay, does that make me gay? Am I not gay till I do the actual act? Am I not gay till I do the "ULTIMATE" act?
Am I gay because thinking about the act brings me sexual pleasure?

To me, I think alot of people have alot of problems with Homosexuals more because of how they act than what they do. People think effeminite men are funny and it's been my experience that gay men get bashed first because of the way act and then because of what they do.

Then there are those who say things like "God hates fags" or beat them to death. To me, your argument is blaming the victim and trying to hide the underlying prejudice.

dola

Somewhat off-topic but not really, this board, as a whole, is pretty anti-homosexual. However, there is far more homoerotic humor here than any message board I have ever seen. Don't know what that says exactly.

I think a majority of us, myself included, find the sterotype funny, I find all sterotypes funny, but theres some you don't touch, Homosexuality is sort of free range as long as we don't think there any gay folks around.

Whoa dude, you asked why, I gave you a reason, it isn't my reason.
People hate people for all sorts of reasons, I am certainly not blaming the victim, im giving you an example of what ive seen, I certainly don't condone it wether it's true or not.

Good points. Theres nothing wrong with being gay, people are just stupid and afraid of things they don't understand or things they don't consider "normal".

I hate the fact that society dictates that has to be a distinction between "gay" and "straight". My sister-in-law has two children with her partner (artificial insemination) and for the last few years, I didn't feel the need to say anything about their situation to my daughter. In the last few months, however, I can tell that she's been hearing things at school (she's in second grade). So when she asks questions now, I have to explain to her that regardless of what she's heard, her aunt being "gay" is no different than the relationship between her mom and I. They have a great family, we have a great family...and just because a few kids at school repeat the hate coming from their parents, that doesn't make a bit of it true.

Maybe I got off the track of this thread, so I'll say that my sister-in-law had sex with a man once, and found that she was attracted to women more....Point being is that society had nudged her into a man/woman relationship, only for her to find that it's not what she required. So, I'll throw my vote towards "it's somewhat related to genetics".



Edited to add:
Eh...my sister-in-law tells jokes about her sexuality...I don't think that the trivial joking I see on this board = anti-homosexual.

Here here.

I have a couple of problems with this paragraph.

1) Saying it is a choice does not mean it is a conscious choice. It's like saying our favorite color is "hardwired" When you were a kid, did you sit down for 3 hours determining what color was the most pleasing to you? I have no doubt that a lot of it is genetic. I don't think it all is. Again, I cite the sociological evidence of entire cultures that are homosexual. Maybe they were all hardwired, I just don't buy it.

2) What right do you have to tell someone not to quote The Bible? Let me say right off, I don't think there is anything wrong with homosexuality. However, a person who lives their lives by the word of God and The Bible has every right to use it to make their point. You may not think the point is valid and have every right to believe that. (as I said, I don't) There are some people who use the lines in The Bible as an excuse to hate. That's sad. There are other "Christians" who do believe those lines with all of their hearts, but treat gays better than many "non-Christians" do.

TroyF

I think it says we all secretly have the hots for you.
or something.

I have no interest in boy-boy love, I just wanted to be the 50th post in this thread

But you've made the point anyway. If it is not a conscious choice, how can they have any control over it?

As for your sociological evidence, how do you know that those cultures were not all hard wired to be homosexual? For example, native-americans as a whole cannot be color-blind and have a very weak tolerance for alcohol. Could that not be the case with a homosexual tendency as well? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, but it is a possibility.



I was asking the question. If the answer is going to be directed to me, since I asked, then obviously they won't want to give something I would dismiss out of hand, correct? I don't believe in The Bible so quoting this or that passage is not going to have any effect whatsoever on my thinking. If it influences the thinking of another person, that is their right, obviously, but the effort will be wasted on me.

Queer.

Astral,

I owed up to the possibility that those societies could have all been hard wired. I said I didn't believe they were. I think there is room for both explanations.

As for The Bible, strong faith is all a person needs to believe that way. It isn't about proving anything to you, it's about saying what your opinion is and having a reason for having that opinion. It's very easy to win a debate with someone when you simply disregard the main reasoning you know your opponent will use. It's the same thing as asking a Christian to explain the afterlife without using anything found in The Bible. You are asking the impossible.

As far as what's wrong with homosexuality disregarding religion? Every theory I've ever read has debunked these notions. The only thing wrong with homosexuality is the way people perceive homosexuals. That doesn't mean the Christians are wrong though. Discriminating against someone because they are gay? I'll be on your side of the debate in a <3beat. (I already agree with you, I just don't believe in disregarding their reasoning)

TroyF

i have no idea what causes homosexuality, but i do know that it isn't a choice. i'm leaning towards part genetics part environment

"<3beat"

thats totally gay, btw. approptiate though, for the thread

I care 100% nothing about what you think is gay.

TroyF

Andrew Dice Clay once said "I don't know gay or straight. Lemme tell ya. There are only two sexes. You suck dick or you don't. If you don't you are of no use to me."

Well that is a paraphrase. Scatter a few "fucks" in there, and you will probably have the actual quote.

I don't really see a need, in our society, to "correct" homosexuality. What is it we would be fixing? Two people of the same sex cannot have children. Two people of different sexes can. So, "correcting the defect" of homosexuality would lead to more people having kids. There are already too many people in this world. This isn't a "defect" that needs correcting. We can obviously sustain our species with a certain percentage of the population not procreating because they are either (a) are gay, or (b) never get the chance, for whatever reason (i.e., too much time spent at FOFC).

As for the religious aspects that might necessitate a "correction" in some people's eyes, I don't want to get too deeply into that subject, else this topic completely degenerate, but suffice to say that my take is this: God didn't take a "details oriented" role in the creation of the Bible, meaning that he didn't edit out the obvious (to me) human perspectives that are put forth as the "Word of God" on a variety of topics. Therefore, my reading of the Bible largely stops at a "in the spirit of God" reading, and not a literal reading. I honestly have a hard time with the idea that it's God's beliefs about homosexuality that are put forth in the Bible, as opposed to the beliefs of the humans through whom the Bible was written.

I miss Phil Hartman.

Something tells me that every effort in this thread will be wasted. I see nothing wrong with a good discussion every now and again, but anyone who has actually been around this board for a while should know that minds are not going to be changed on issues such as this.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist. :D

Further, once you have decided that being gay is genetic and a "defect" - what's next - being black or hispanic or asian is a defect too? And don't say race is different - the whole premise of this line of discussion is that being gay is genetic just like race. What Fritz said is one of the most offensive things I've ever read on this board.

I'm pretty sure there was a healthy dose of sarcasm in his comment - at least, that's how I read it.

Maybe - if so then I take what I said. I tended to believe otherwise because Fritz has never taken to kindly to being gay (except with Subby).

pretty amazing, actually, that we got this far in a "gay" thread without mentioning Subby.

Me too. :(

Several points I'd like to bring up.

1. The editorializing of the scientist's report is completely bogus (unless there is additional info not stated in the quoted article that such editorializing was based on). The author concludes that the "choice" of homosexuality is disproven by this study. Yet this study doesn't even address that question. As I read the article, the findings are thus: "male brains exhibit measurable genetic differences from female brains." Frankly, no surprise there. But there is no mention of genetic studies in homosexually oriented samples, only male vs. female.

IF part of the study indicated "homosexually oriented individuals share the same genetic differences as members of the opposite sex", then the author's conclusion would be correct. But there is no mention of that in this article. IF you can evidence that people with genetically female minds are living in male bodies (or vice versa), then you've got a good case. But again, this article doesn't suggest they've found such an individual.

It would appear that this is a sad case of journalistic bias and irresponsibility.

2. Recognizing that the changing of minds is rarely possible on this board, I submit the following perspective, not argument:

First accepting a biblical mindview, it is no surprise to me that human genetics may have been corrupted by The Fall. For example, I would not be surprised if my genetic makeup is partially responsible for the surge of hormones I personally experience when confronted with an attractive woman other than my wife. One could say, I suppose, that I am "genetically predisposed to sexually desire many different women." Yet, I do not consider bigamy or adultery to be morally acceptable -- genetically predisposed to it or not. The fact that I am so tempted may be beyond my control, but how I act on those temptations is a matter of choice. I consider homosexuality to be no different than adultery or bigamy or even premarital heterosexual sex - that is, regardless of the cause or source of the temptation, outside a divinely created plan for human sexuality.

That some, Christians included (some would say especially), have made homosexuals the recipient of disproportionate derision is a disservice to both the message of the Bible and Christianity. In that I was once guilty of premarital sex ("fornication") only furthers the truth that I am no more holy or morally superior to those that have engaged in homosexuality. But just as I would encourage unmarried lovers or adulturous lovers to seek conformity to God's design by reserving sex to the bounds of marriage, I would likewise encourage homosexual lovers to reserve sex for the bounds of heterosexual marriage. Additionally, I can no more support the position of those that declare "Homosexuality is OK" than I can those that declare "Adultery is OK" or "Bigamy is OK" or "Casual sex is OK" or "Beastiality is OK" or etc, etc.

I have sympathy for those that must deal with homosexual temptations (just as I have shared sympathy for those that struggle with heterosexual temptations), but on sympathy alone I cannot condone giving in to those temptations. Forgive, sure. Emotionally support, befriend, love, sure. Condone as acceptable, no.

As always, very well said revrew. It's nice to see you around here, something that's becomming far too rare lately.

As always, revrew, I respect your opinions and arguments because I know they come from a good place. I think your argument is sound if you accept the premise that God's plan is to have heterosexual relationships (a point which is very open to debate). If, however, God planned to have all sorts of relationships (heterosexual, homosexual, relations with the transgendered, etc.), then wouldn't be a Christian obligation to fight for the right for gay marriage?

My point is that while many on this board (including yourself) have seemingly reached what they consider a middle ground: It is OK to be gay, but one should resist the temptation of having homosexual sex. I think this effectively sentences gays (and transgendered people) to a life of a monk/nun. Solitude and a lack of physical intimacy isolate them in a way that is cruel and in my uneducated view, un-Christian. I find it impossible to conceive of a world where a creator would deny a large segment of the population any hope for intimacy and love. I'm fine with the perspective that you can condemn pre-marital sex and homosexual sex, but when gays aren't afforded the opportunity to marry, I find the result to be unsatisfactory. It is easy for those who are not gay to essentially say, "those are the breaks," but the result is intolerable to me.

Thanks, I appreciate the affirmation. I broke down your last post here, not because I want to "point-for-point" refute it, but because I'd like to respond to the individual questions you brought up...



My premise begins with a biblical basis for determining God's plan. Though I have heard others attempt to reach another conclusion, I have never yet heard any truly reasonable evidence to the contrary. The Bible itself (if it is to be taken as authoritative--something which, of course, is debatable) is clear on it.



Yes. Yes it would. But that "if" negates the rest of the statement for those that hold to the Bible as authoritative for determining truth.



I don't like to think of this as a middle ground. It isn't in any way an attempt at a compromise. But perhaps that's semantics...

I really appreciate the vulnerability and thoughtfulness of the statements "solitude and lack of physical intimacy isolate" and "large segment of the population any hope for intimacy and love." Very good points at the heart of the matter.

Again, knowing that I'm not going to change minds, I believe that the Creator has a way for bringing intimacy, love, and fulfillment to those with homosexual temptations. All of those things (save the physical part), I believe, can be found in abundance in relationship with the Creator himself. The desire to be fully known, unconditionally accepted, affirmed, supported, made secure, and so forth can be found in God himself. As for the physical aspect, I also believe that though it may be incredibly difficult (for which I can offer little assurance) a person whose life is submitted to perfect love (God's) can also find a change of heart in him, and that a healthy chastity or even healthy heterosexuality is possible.

Though I have little more to offer than my own beliefs and the examples of men and women who have successfully and happily found that change of heart, I believe that a man or woman that looks to homosexual relationships to fulfill that need for intimacy and love is accepting a lesser fulfillment, a less-satisfying imitation, than could be found in relationship with God.

*****

I think I've said all on this I care to. I've tried to maintain a peaceful spirit and state what, I believe, are views representative of the Christian faith, expressed the way God desires. But I recognize that I, too, can be too easily pulled into a war of words, and think it best if I bow out of this discussion. If there are those that would like to continue this discussion in PM, I will. But I do not think I will be returning to this thread. Thanks again for your affirmation of my attempts at being a reasonable peacemaker, and I wish you all will find the highest love you can possibly find.

To expand upon John Galt's points:

revrew equates homosexual sex with adultery, bigamy, premarital sex, bestiality, etc., i.e. that they may be genetically-driven "desires" or "urges", but ones that a moral person should avoid.

One of the primary 'drives' in humans is sex. Not every person feels this drive to the same extent, and for a rare few that drive is almost non-existent, but for most there is a strong desire to have sex. In revrew's views, heterosexuals still have an option to engage in sex provided it occurs within a marriage.

The problem here in equating homosexuality with adultery, bigamy and premarital sex is that homosexuals don't have that option of 'moral sex'. If we believe that gays are gay because they fantasize about, lust for and find attractive those of the same gender and do not find the opposite gender sexually attractive, then that leaves homosexuals with no opportunity to engage in satisfying sex under this moral perspective.

Knowing a number of gays and reading the accounts of many more, I see no reason to dispute the notion that most people who identify as "gay" are at best not interested in and at worst revolted by the idea of having sex with someone of the opposite gender, and lust for/fantasize about those of the same gender.

While Fritz may categorize homosexuality as a 'defect' (and in a strict reproductive biological sense he would be correct) this 'defect' in my view is not something that in an ideal world causes anyone any harm. In our non-ideal world, it can cause a lot of harm for those who are gay, as it subjects them to a great deal of confusion, scorn and even hate for feelings they are innate to who they are.

I was going to post something quite similar to this in response to you John. I know that this doesn't offer much of an answer to the problem that you posed, but I can tell you that a large number of people who consider themselves Christians (including revrew obviously) don't look at that situation and say "Those are the breaks." I think that true Christians recognize the incredible difficulty in living the kind of life the Bible commands. I also think that true Christians recognize that everyone sins, and that no one can live a perfect life. For those that do believe, however, this is not a reason to fail to try.

I had a friend in college who was raised quite strictly within the Christian faith. He confided in me that he believed himself to be a homosexual and asked what I recommended that he do. To be honest, I had no idea what to tell him. I wish I could have asked revrew. :)

What I did tell him was that he had to make a decision based upon his beliefs about what is best for his life. I don't know how much of homosexual feelings are decided by genetics or environment, but I do know that regardless of predisposition, one can decide how to live their life whether that be a contented existence or a troubled one. My friend decided that his faith was more important to him than his sexual feelings. He married a woman who was well aware of all this. In all likelihood, he struggles with it every day of his life in much the same way heterosexuals struggle with other temptations in life. He is, though, a very happy person in his relationship with his wife and with God.

Obviously, I can't begin to understand his situation because I've never had to squelch feelings so much a part of me. (unless you count quitting smoking :) )

The reason that I said earlier that threads like these will never change anyone's minds is because I just believe that you either have faith in a value system that forbids homosexuality or you don't. It's really that simple.

Upon reflection, I'll say that the one thing I ignored was that threads like these can offer the opportunity for us all to see everyone's position on these issues and respect them regardless of our feelings towards them.

Just to expand a bit further on this point, this would also rule out male-female anal sex, oral sex, and sex with the use of contraceptives. If the argument against homosexuality is that it does not contribute to reproduction, then you would have to rule those others out as well. At least the Catholic church is consistent in this regard.

Indeed. I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised that the level of discourse has remained as high as it has.

Just to be clear, I wasn't making a value judgement here. As I've stated repeatedly, I have no problems with homosexuals or homosexual sex. What people choose to do in their own bedrooms is their business, so long as it's consensual.

Your statement is correct obviously - from a biological point of view, anal sex and oral sex do not adhere to the prime reproductive urge. If a heterosexual person has no interest in intercourse and only engages in oral and/or anal sex, that would be considered a biological defect - those genes are not being passed along to another generation. In these instances using the term 'defect' should not be construed as a value judgement, but rather acknowledging that from a genetic point of view this is a set of genes that is not predisposed to reproduce.

Nah, those are just bonuses to male female reproduction in a relationship.

FYI,

I'm interviewing Mike Haley with Exodus International, followed by Nathanial Batchelder with the Oklahoma Peace House on this issue right now.

You can listen at ktok.com.

/gratuitious plug

Been down this road before. It doesn't matter what the temptation is, be it for men or for women.

And as I said above - unfortunately this leaves gays with no hope of physical intimacy and love since they can't marry. Temptation is easy to condemn when gays aren't afforded any avenue to pursue their desires while straights can have their cake and eat it too.

Let me put on my fundamentalist Christian hat for a minute and say "gays can marry... they just can't marry a person of their own sex." If you are like a majority of Christians, you can't change what's a sin just because you want to be able to engage in sinful behavior.

My point is that the so called consistent standard doesn't end the debate (as SD believes), it opens new questions. Remember he is using this to say even if being gay is genetic, they should resist temptation. I say that the combination of the two factors (genetic and lack of marriage) mean solitude, loneliness, and suffering for gays. To just say, that's the way it goes (or "those are the breaks" as I said above) is cruel.

I say not necessarily. I have a good friend (www.allenlevi.com) who is in his mid-40's and single. There is NO WAY you can categorize Levi's life as one of "solitude, loneliness, and suffering." He has one of the most full, rich and fulfilling lives of anyone I know. He is celebate, and he doesn't date.

A life truly enriched by a vibrant relationship with Christ (such as Allen's) is full, whether married, single, tempted toward sex with the opposite sex, or tempted toward sex with the same sex.

It may very well be for some - ie monks, nuns, and priests. The fact that gays have no choice but to become virtual monks and nuns (but not priests) means a great many will find no love in their lives and never know real intimacy. That is a basic part of human life and to condemn other people for finding it is just wrong, IMO.

...but it appeared that your point was that adhering to the Biblical standard forces all of those who never marry or have sex with a person with the same sex to have a lonely, miserable existence. My point is that it doesn't. Just because SOME may live a lonely, miserable existence doesn't make it cruel. SOME married heterosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some married homosexuals will live a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in monogamous homosexual relationships will have a lonely, miserable existence. Some homosexuals in sexual relationships wiht multiple partners will live a lonely, miserable existence. Etc. Etc. Etc. That is that person's choice.

John,

Gays do have a choice. They have a choice not to believe in a religion that says the act of sex with a person of the same sex, or sex with a person outside of marriage is a sin. If they choose to believe in that religion, they should at least try to abide by its guidelines.

So, how many "fundamentalist Christians" on here had sex before or outside of marriage?

I dislike the Bible as a backing for this. When I studied the Bible in college, the main thing my teacher taught us was that it was written by men and probably altered numerous times by people who interjected their own ideas. I believe that faith should be more based on what you see as good and moral and not that of men who told the stories that had been passed on many times prior. Gods word can change as it passes from one hand to another. That is how cults are formed, because someone skews part of it and alters it to form a new meaning that wasn't originally intended.

I still believe a lot of the ideas brought in from the Bible, but the fact that many still believe Mary was a virgin (someone who hasn't had sex) is very odd considering the fact that the Bible states in a few places the possiblity of older siblings. The truth, IMHO, is that the word virgin there is meant as a woman of purity, thus telling a good story. That is how most of this stuff was passed on before it was wrote down.

You know the answer to that. Sinning, recognizing that one has fallen short in the eyes of God, asking for forgiveness, and making a sincere effort not to sin is a little different than simply celebrating a sin and pretending it's not.

A better question would have been "how many fundamentalist Christians have attempted to explain why premarital sex (or adultery) isn't a sin?"

Well, I've stated before my dislike of the term "Christian." That being said, I'll assuming you were lumping me into that category. I, for one, can tell you that the first time I had sex was on my wedding night. That being said, EVERYONE sins. Just because someone hasn't slipped up in this area doesn't mean that they have no right to comment on it.

Dola--Cam beat me to it, and said it better. I'm trying to get work done and participate in this discussion at the same time. I fear that I'm not doing either one particularly well right now. :p

Dola,

I think at heart this has to become a theological argument. It boils down to "do you believe homosexual acts are sinful?" If you do, then it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not. You can, as a human being with free will, choose to fight against your natural impulses in order to not sin.

If you don't believe homosexual acts are sinful, then it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not. You're okay with God regardless.

That is true Cam, I tend to believe that the story tellers disliked homosexuals just because and added it in.

That is why I dislike faith that is based soley on a book. I tend to believe that many things in the Bible were there to keep the peace and safety amongst an uneducated public.

I've cited this before, but in support of your belief, The Afoci, here is a basic discussion of the key passages in the Bible:

http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

JG, Everytime I see your sig, I know what I am doing that night. Big Lewboski.

Thanks, I will check that out.

We all know, however, that pre-marital sex is treated pretty lightly by many self-proclaimed religious people (not necessarily religious leaders, but normal church-going folks), while homosexuality is not. So, where IS the thread attempting to explain why pre-marital sex is not a sin? I'm sure many of the people railing against homosexuality have practiced pre-marital sex, mostly unapologetically. Sure, you can ask forgiveness later, but couldn't you do the same as a homosexual?

This is a line of argument often used by conservatives in many contexts (affirmative action, gay rights, welfare, etc.). It essentially says there are people in every group who are suffering/happy so therefore everyone within that group has the capability to suffer/be happy. This generalization technique is logically fallicious and ignores the real affects to your worldview. Yes, it is POSSIBLE for some gays to find a happy life, but a much greater number will suffer under your perspective of the world. You can blame them for their "choice," but don't pretend your view doesn't have REAL consequences for people.

(And just so I don't hear more right/left wing nonsense on this issue - liberals usually make a different logical fallacy in these cases by assuming a natural state of egalitarianism and not recognizing that every worldview creates some inequality and suffering).

Amazing that an online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Christians has theological arguments supporting the idea that homosexual acts aren't sinful. :)

I guess I don't understand what we're arguing here. You say that Christianity forces gays to live lonely lives free from any real intimacy, but yet you point out a portion of Christianity where homosexuals can live under the welcoming arms of a God that doesn't see any sin in their behavior. If we're going to get into an argument over who's theology is "more correct", then I'm gonna back out of this argument, and we can have a discussion about this after we die (unless you don't believe in the afterlife, which opens up a whole new can of worms :) ).

Basically, this debate is just another manifestation of the old religion vs. science conflict that arisen repeatedly over the centuries. And in the end, science always wins, because science has a reliable method for discovering the truth, while religion has little more than assumptions that can't be tested. Most religions will eventually acquiesce to the inevitable conclusions, and incorporate a more tolerant view of homosexuality into their doctrines.

Probably, but you don't see people who unapologetically practice premarital sex hold a parade to celebrate it. :)

Actually, I don't know how many church goers you know, but here in the Bible belt, I think the vast majority of church-goers do see premarital sex as a serious problem, albeit one that can be dealt with in the home. That there is no public discourse or debate on whether or not pre-marital sex is a sin doesn't mean it's not important to people.

And I'm curious how you can state "I'm sure many of the people railing against homosexuality have practiced pre-marital sex, mostly unapologetically." That sounds awfully omniscient to me. I wouldn't assume to be sure of anything like that. Confession and repentence doesn't happen in public in this country, so how you can be sure people are doing anything without apologizing to God is a bit of a stretch for me.

A point I forgot to add, in rebuttal to Fritz and others. If homosexuality is genetic variation, that does not necessarily mean that it's a defect. It could just as easily be a natural evolutionary variation that serves as a population control mechanism. Which, considering how prolific humans have become at increasing their population, might be a very good thing biologically.

Then what would you call college? :D