Being gay is a choice.

[Angst]

Let's just assume it is, for the sake of this thread. As for designating the origins of alternative sexual orientations, this thread has assumed being homosexual is deliberate and the origin lies within free will.

With this foundation for our discussion, let me ask:

1) Why was it relevant whether it was a choice or not? It seems like the purpose of the debate is transparent moralism with the standpoint that being gay is fundamentally wrong. So if it had not been a choice, gays were simply diseased or disabled or something similar. (And therefore were to be supported by the humanist moralists - because they couldn't help it.) As homosexuality is a choice, you can actually start damning gays for what they do. But is this right? What's wrong with practicing gay activities?

2) Why did the gay supporters cave in to the accusations of homosexuality being a choice and participate in that debate? Why did they care about it? Why did they need to answer the question with scientific data? Did they need themselves morally excused for their behavior? I think it is strange that they felt the need to defend homosexuality as something "they couldn't help but do", because I really don't see why they should cave in to that discussion.

3) If I assume my bisexuality is a choice, I think I should still be free to be bisexual. If I'm morally allowed to choose my own free lifestyle, such as what work I apply to and what education I take and what housing I purchase, even things as rudimentary as what soup to eat this Thursday, why can't I be morally allowed to choose something as individualistic, important and personal as a lifetime partner?

EDIT: Slight edit clarifying something in 1).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Why would you choose bisexuality if you want to have lifetime partner?

I find that sexuality can be influenced but it is quite difficult though. In most cases it is probably not worth the trouble unless one feels genuinely inspired to do so.

 

[Core Imposter]

Let's just assume it is, for the sake of this thread. As for designating the origins of alternative sexual orientations, this thread has assumed being homosexual is deliberate and the origin lies within free will.

With this foundation for our discussion, let me ask:

1) Why was it relevant whether it was a choice or not? It seems like the purpose of the debate is transparent moralism with the standpoint that being gay is fundamentally wrong. So if it had not been a choice, gays were simply diseased or disabled or something similar. As homosexuality is a choice, you can actually start damning gays for what they do. But is this right? What's wrong with practicing gay activities?

Being gay isn't fundamentally wrong, being publicly gay is wrong.

Human beings mimic behavior. If people are publicly gay, young impressionable minds will mimic this. This will reduce the birth rate and imperil society. This violates God's will: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The more visible the gay lifestyle is, the more will adopt it. It threatens the survival of humanity. No one cares what people do in private. God grants free will, do as you please and accept the consequences as God requires.

Society should have severe consequences for open homosexuality and none for private behavior.

I do not care to judge what people do in their private lives. Let that be between them and God.

 

[Angst]

Why would you choose bisexuality if you want to have lifetime partner?

I find that sexuality can be influenced but it is quite difficult though. In most cases it is probably not worth the trouble unless one feels genuinely inspired to do so.

Uh what?

That's like asking why you would choose heterosexuality if you want to have a lifetime partner.

EDIT: MisterCooper, there's just that one problem that Christianity is only a moralism the way you use it. And you subscribe to this moralism, which makes me doubt your whole point of view as your posts shines of that of a fanatic rather than a participant in a rational debate. "Because God says so" is not a valid point, especially because you have absolutely no authority over God's word.

LAST EDIT: And if mimicry is a factor, there are many more straights to mimic right now.

 

[Luckymoose]

Being gay isn't fundamentally wrong, being publicly gay is wrong.

Human beings mimic behavior. If people are publicly gay, young impressionable minds will mimic this. This will reduce the birth rate and imperil society. This violates God's will: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

The more visible the gay lifestyle is, the more will adopt it. It threatens the survival of humanity. No one cares what people do in private. God grants free will, do as you please and accept the consequences as God requires.

Society should have severe consequences for open homosexuality and none for private behavior.

I do not care to judge what people do in their private lives. Let that be between them and God.

If people are publicly straight, young impressionable minds will mimic this.

If people are publicly religious, young impressionable minds will mimic this.

If people are publicly endorsing drugs, young impressionable minds will mimic this.

If people are publicly political, young impressionable minds will mimic this.

If people are publicly racist, young impressionable minds will mimic this.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Uh what?

That's like asking why you would choose heterosexuality if you want to have a lifetime partner.

yeah, but the partner is either male or female so there is no need to choose bisexuality in your hypothetic scenario.

 

[Angst]

yeah, but the partner is either male or female so there is no need to choose bisexuality in your hypothetic scenario.

Bisexuality means "I want either", not "I want both".

If I'm choosing to be bisexual, I'm "allowing" myself to hook up with both genders according to my sexuality, and I do not aim for a specific gender in the end.

But interesting thought: Now that homosexuality is a choice, are humans all not inherently bisexual? And does that not eradicate the need for a sexuality?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

The more visible the gay lifestyle is, the more will adopt it. It threatens the survival of humanity. No one cares what people do in private. God grants free will, do as you please and accept the consequences as God requires.

This seem to be quite nonsense. You just cant simply adopt sexuality right? Under "normal" conditions by seeing someone behaving gay one doesnt adopt homosexuality. But it would seem to me that long exposure to it could change ones behaviour so I do not favor gay adoption...

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

But interesting thought: Now that homosexuality is a choice, are humans all not inherently bisexual? And does that not eradicate the need for a sexuality?

It is an interesting thought and I think its clear that its actually quite important that sex-drive can overrun rational thinking in most cases(most of the time/ in long run) or humanity would be indeed in trouble...

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

But interesting thought: Now that homosexuality is a choice, are humans all not inherently bisexual? And does that not eradicate the need for a sexuality?

No, it wouldn't work that way. Politics is a choice, but we can't say that all humans are inherently moderates and that political choice is irrelevant. If anything, the base state would be asexuality and a person would choose their sexuality from there.

To MrCooper, the (very arguable) assumption that people mimicking homosexuality would be a threat to the existence of the human race is laughable. First, we are most threatened by overpopulation than underpopulation. Second, the converse would also then have to be true, that young children would imitate heterosexuality from observing it in practice; however, because they prevalence of heterosexuals is greater than homosexuals, there would be greater pressure to be straight, not gay.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Being gay isn't fundamentally wrong, being publicly gay is wrong.

The more visible the gay lifestyle is, the more will adopt it. It threatens the survival of humanity. No one cares what people do in private. God grants free will, do as you please and accept the consequences as God requires.
.

Thats why there are no Gays in Iran.

 

[cegman]

Funny thought even looking at a woman and thinking about her lustfully is a sin in Gods eyes. MisterCooper how many times have you sinned?

If you can say never then you can complain about gay people.

 

[peter grimes]

This will reduce the birth rate and imperil society. This violates God's will: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

So you'd be fine with a same sex couple like my best friends then. They have 2 little boys now, each woman was pregnant once.

I asked this of another christian in another thread, but since you're quoting the bible...:
I thought that Jesus came around and christians were no longer bound by the old testament stuff. New Covenant and all. That's why christians can eat pigs and shrimps. So why are you quoting a commandment from a god that's outdated?

Or are the other christians wrong...?

 

[Lord Gay]

Bisexuality means "I want either", not "I want both".

I think what Gorak was saying Joakim was that if you are going to choose a specific person to be with for the rest of your life, why choose anything other than the specific orientation? IOW, choosing a same gender mate means choosing homosexual and choosing an opposite gender means choosing heterosexual.

I think Gorak was saying that choosing bi makes little sense if you are choosing ONE life partner. This is assuming you are choosing an orientation AFTER choosing a mate.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Truth, though it is one and eternal, expresses itself in Time and through the mind of man; therefore every Scripture must necessarily contain two elements, one temporary, perishable, belonging to the ideas of the period and country in which it was produced, the other eternal and imperishable and applicable in all ages and countries. Moreover, in the statement of the Truth the actual form given to it, the system and arrangement, the metaphysical and intellectual mould, the precise expression used must be largely subject to the mutations of Time and cease to have the same force; for the human intellect modifies itself always; continually dividing and putting together it is obliged to shift its divisions continually and to rearrange its syntheses; it is always leaving old expression and symbol for new or, if it uses the old, it so changes its connotation or at least its exact content and association that we can never be quite sure of understanding an ancient book of this kind precisely in the sense and spirit it bore to its contemporaries. What is of entirely permanent value is that which besides being universal has been experienced, lived and seen with a higher than the intellectual vision.

......

 

[innonimatu]

Interesting thread.

Being gay isn't fundamentally wrong, being publicly gay is wrong.

Somehow I already expected the Spanish Inquisition from you.

 

[eduhum]

Yeah, it is proven that life makes you gay and you don't born that way... Simply people don't wan't that thrush to be known

Fact: parental problems triplicate the probability to be gay, according to empirical studied facts.

 

[Mango Elephant]

This seem to be quite nonsense. You just cant simply adopt sexuality right? Under "normal" conditions by seeing someone behaving gay one doesnt adopt homosexuality. But it would seem to me that long exposure to it could change ones behaviour so I do not favor gay adoption...

That's very true. I was gay for about two years but since almost all of my friends and family are straight my orientation morphed until I was no longer attracted to guys. lol jk

 

[BvBPL]

2) Why did the gay supporters cave in to the accusations of homosexuality being a choice and participate in that debate? Why did they care about it? Why did they need to answer the question with scientific data? Did they need themselves morally excused for their behavior? I think it is strange that they felt the need to defend homosexuality as something "they couldn't help but do", because I really don't see why they should cave in to that discussion.

According to Foucault, it is an idiosyncrasy of the Western world that we seek to determine a scientific reasoning for sexuality. This is in contrast to Roman and Oriental views of sexuality whose focus is more on the artistic aspects of sexuality. The origin of this peculiarity derives from the confessional aspect of sexuality, again unique to the Western world, that there is an urge to announce and discuss one’s sexuality with others, to put a name to it as it were. Foucault holds that this is related to the importance of the Christian church in the Western world the criminalization of sexuality (in the form of sin), which I think seems as reasonable an explanation as anything else. Regardless of the origin, this tradition was aggravated by the development of the psychological and social sciences in the nineteenth century, scientific traditions that were founded with the intent to put label to all sorts of human behavior. Fast forward to the mid-twentieth century and the homosexual rights movement adopts a policy of pressing people to come out as homosexuals in part as a means to tie the legitimacy of equal treatment for gays to the rising social science literature and view of sexuality.

 

[Angst]

I think what Gorak was saying Joakim was that if you are going to choose a specific person to be with for the rest of your life, why choose anything other than the specific orientation? IOW, choosing a same gender mate means choosing homosexual and choosing an opposite gender means choosing heterosexual.

I think Gorak was saying that choosing bi makes little sense if you are choosing ONE life partner. This is assuming you are choosing an orientation AFTER choosing a mate.

Hm, but isn't it so that one's sexuality determines what you're sexually attracted to? As in, I choose to be heterosexual, then I'm attracted to women, then I can find my life partner? One wouldn't choose his sexuality after finding a partner. Would he?

Sexuality in the very abstract should per definition describe what sexual urges you have which then in turn has influence on your choice of romances or life partner, for example. "I'm attracted to people of the opposite sex" being heterosexuality leading to a heterosexual selection of potential partners that you'd enjoy, so to say.

The gender of one's partner doesn't designate your sexuality. Only your internal urges should designate your sexuality. (Or, in the context of this thread, the sexual urges you choose to have designate your sexuality.)

So basically, I still don't see why it would be a problem to choose to be bisexual. I think you're too thinking too concretely about the gay marriage debate going on right now: I think you're saying a "bisexual marriage" doesn't exist, which makes sense, but I really have issues imagining how a bisexual sexuality would be impossible. Which in turn makes it difficult for me to imagine why it would be rationally impossible to choose to be bisexual.

I'm kind of tired right now, so I'm sorry if this post is repetetive/unclear. I can't see it myself. Please ask me what the hell I'm talking about if there's something nonsensical within these lines, or clarify to me exactly what you mean when I might blatantly misunderstand it. xD

EDIT: BvBPL, that was some really interesting information. I love the things I've read by Foucault so far, I haven't yet stumbled upon anything by him that's glaringly wrong.