can homosexuality be a choice?

[bronson]

There are some of us who have a compulsion to shoplift, and actually enjoy itm, and feel no guilt.

There are some of us who enjoy setting buildings on fire, and feel no guilt.

There are some of us who enjoy doing our own activities instead of tending to our family's more important needs, and feel no guilt about it.

There are some of us who enjoy lying and cheating customers, and feel no guilt about it.

Enough examples? Need I go on?

The examples you give all involve things that cause harm to other people on a very direct level. Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to anyone, it's just a given personal choice that someone can make. Sexual preference is just that, a preference. Not an affliction.

Put the definition of affliction next to that of homosexuality and you should start to see a major disconnect in your thinking. If not, perhaps reread the definitions.

 

[bagochina]

WHO FUCKING CARES!!!

drug addicts were not born addicts they chose to ingest drugs, just like gays chose to ingest dick [even if its unnatural and sick].

....

Homosexuality doesn't cause harm to anyone

yeah tell that to some gay kids mother and father, see what they say.

 

[bronson]

^ Genetics actually have a good deal to do with both on your first point. And two of my best friends are homosexual, one gay, one lesbian. Their parents are supportive and certainly don't feel they've been harmed. So it's safe to say this varies on a case by case basis.

 

[tricomb]

Hold on, you're being a little fast and loose here.

First, you can reread my postings, they're part of the public record here in this very Bluelight thread, I never once indicated that homosexuality is a disease. And, there is a very specific reason I have not said that: I don't think that.

Second, you know nothing of what I do and do not understand, you have no knowledge of me and the motives for why I think the things I do. The same goes for me in regards to you. I think we should stick to discussing what people post, and not guess at or assume things about each other. For all you know, I understand homosexuality far better than you ever will.

Third, I think there is a huge difference between a "disease" and an "affliction", so I don't think they should be treated as being the same. Leprosy is a disease; jealousy is an afflication. Do you see the difference that I'm getting at?

I know that the DSM says that homosexual impulses are not a diseases. So what? I was talking about them as an affliction of the human person, not as a medical disorder.

I want to be careful, I'm not upset at what you wrote, I just want people to understand what I wrote, and not misunderstand what I wrote.

Also, I read everything, there's no need to write my response off as if I didn't read what you were saying, even if I didn't exactly understand exactly what you were saying. I apologize for the misunderstanding. It's because other people I know have used the word affliction interchangeably with disease on the subject of homosexuality, I should not have assumed you were like them, again, for that I apologize.

You said it was an affliction, which is usually something that contributes to disease or degrades ones mental health, but you're right, you didn't use the word disease, but that's basically the message that you sent, whether you realize it or not, the way you worded your response.

As for your qualifications, I wrote in my post that I wasn't sure of your qualifications, I only inferred that IMO you probably don't based on your posts, and you confirmed that you were no more qualified than me. I never claimed to know you, but to me it's pretty obvious that there are some things about homosexuality that I think you don't understand. I am certainly no more qualified than you, I never claimed to be. I'm not homosexual but some of my closest friends are bisexual, and I assure you by the correct definition of affliction, they have none. In fact, my friends that aren't straight, are probably some of the happiest people that I know. Do you know many gay people that feel "afflicted"?

As for passing judgement with no information to go on about eachother, certainly, I misunderstood what you were saying and I hope you don't think I'm upset either, I enjoy debating.

 

[bagochina]

Exactly it destroys some families. Of course most parents are going to be supportive, it's their fucking kid but I am sure there are many parents that support there child even though they feel like puking in the inside. Just like drug addiction destroys families. Both are unhealthy and thankfully can be cured if you abstain and deal with the unhealthy behavior.

 

[ebola?]

How does it "destroy families" outside of the effects of living in a homophobic culture?

ebola

 

[bronson]

Heterosexuality I can guarantee makes more parents puke inside, when they find out their young innocent daughter is suddenly pregnant. Just food for thought, but to me, unsafe sex can be considered an affliction, orientation aside. Fear not, there are a lot more people popping out kids at a rampant rate who can never afford them without public support, than there will ever be homosexuals.

 

[Voxide]

It's not a choice. It's a sexually deviant behavior no different than pedophilia, zoophilia, etc.

I must add that not all gays are born that way. A lot of them were made that way either through shitty relations with the opposite sex or a terrible home life in general.

 

[bagochina]

Excellent answer voxide, except I still disagree that people have a choice on whether or not to act on deviant thoughts. I also think a lot of them were 'formed' by being a typical adolescent (fads, rebellion, not knowing better, not being able to think for themselves, etc.) hence why it "seems" to be increasing the last 20 years. The internet can be blamed for fostering gay pride and all that hogwash that is out there hence popularizing it.

<snip>

 

[L2R]

whether it CAN be a choice or not is not even a rational controvery imo. i think a more interesting question would be what would constitute a valid reason to elect to change one's own predisposed (by either nature or nurture) preference?

How does it "destroy families" outside of the effects of living in a homophobic culture?

ebola

exactly.
hostility and prejudice is no reason to change, even if it is from your family. if your dad bashed you because you prefer peas to carrots, would that motivate you in any way to find carrots more pleasing?

the only valid reasons have to come from within, not from outside. you can't force passions of any kind onto others.

 

[bagochina]

i think a more interesting question would be what would constitute a valid reason to elect to change one's own predisposed (by either nature or nurture) preference?

common sense, guilt, change of a social clique, growing up

 

[bronson]

Perhaps a summary of the ways in which you feel it does cause harm?

 

[bagochina]

I think you're begging the question (my question), which is, Is homosexuality good for the human person? *If* we have the courage to face that question

of course homosexuality is bad for the person and its bad for society, duh.

 

[L2R]

common sense, guilt, change of a social clique, growing up

rubbish. these are reasons based entirely on prejudiced judgement.

 

[bagochina]

i think a more interesting question would be what would constitute a valid reason to elect to change one's own predisposed (by either nature or nurture) preference?

ok lets hear your answer L2R? All those are valid reasons why to why people stop drinking/using substances. That is what I based my answer on. I dont even know what you mean by prejudiced judgement.

 

[bronson]

common sense, guilt, change of a social clique, growing up

I think you make a valid point, and these are all indeed reasons that might make someone change sexual orientation. On the other side of the fence, there are homosexuals out there who these wouldn't ever apply to imho.

I think above anything else, it has to do with the person in questions level of comfort with being who they choose to be.

 

[bagochina]

I think it would be better to compare sexuality to vegetarian or red meat eater rather than peas/carrots/snails/oysters. I eat red meat and I know it isnt the healthiest for me and yet changing my diet would probably have beneficial results for me. Many people think the act of eating meat [killing/farming animals] is a negative for our society and i tend to agree when viewing the big picture. It could be seen as immoral [the act of killing] decision but the majority of people would think your crazy if you voice that opinion.

 

[PantyRaid]

Why would someone choose something that can cause so much trauma? You can't choose if you're attracted to blondes brunettes or redheads, you can't choose to be attracted to thicker or thinner people, and you can't choose what gender you'll be attracted to. You either sexually desire someone or you don't. There's no switch you can flip on or off as you please or as is convenient at the time. Before I realized that bisexuality existed I was just so confused and disgusted with myself whenever I felt turned on by a woman. I didn't understand because I'm also very turned on by men. When I finally found a girl to experiment with I was so happy, but then after making out with her in public and feeling/hearing the backlash of it EVERY SINGLE DAY, I realized how horrible it must be to be a man in a similar situation (girl on girl, while recently has become 'hot' still disgusted - and disgusts- many people, but never incites as much violence or beatings as male on male relationships). When I realized I could have both men AND women it was like so many doors had been opened for me sexually speaking. While I prefer having actual sex with men, I find women in general to be much more appealing to the eye. I've gotten a little off topic I suppose, but my point is that no, it's not a choice, and I feel that the world will be a much safer and more comfortable and welcoming place for the lgbt community when more people can realize and accept that and see that homosexuals aren't a threat to them. Also men who hate gays cause they might hit on them is ridiculous. As a woman, I am constantly harassed and hit on by men that I find unattractive, repulsive even; I don't take this out on them. Again, you can't help who you're attracted to. It's not that hard to say no and move on (even to the really persistent ones). They are not a threat to you or your sexuality and do not deserve any less rights than anyone else.

 

[L2R]

ok lets hear your answer L2R? All those are valid reasons why to why people stop drinking/using substances. That is what I based my answer on. I dont even know what you mean by prejudiced judgement.

there is no answer. the answers are as unique as the lives of each individual. that is what makes the question i posed far more interesting. what would it take for you to change or adjust your preferences (consider this rhetorical question seriously, you don't need to answer me, it's got nothing to do with me).

Harmful addictions are a very poor analogy. Sexuality (adult consensual) only becomes harmful in the presence of a harmful social environment, but this comes from outsiders.

as for prejudiced judgement, i'll go over your answers one by one.
common sense- this assumes an inherent legitimacy to heterosexuality that doesn't exist with homosexuality. this judgement is based on prejudice and nothing of objective substance.
guilt- nature and nurture both heavily influence initial dispositions at sexual maturity (as it does at all ages), there is nothing to feel guilt for in this regard. it is merely the luck of the draw (where everyone wins). so to say guilt is to imply a negative action which carries negative responsibility. again this is based on prejudice and holds nothing of objective substance.
change of a social clique- this is the strongest of your answers, since society and interactions with external groups do indeed influence one's intuitive dispositions. however, coming from you it seems to imply reacting to social exclusion. this is no reason to change your preferences, since they are of no concerns to society. by suggesting that peer pressure should prevail over sexuality, you are lowering sexuality from a prejudicial starting point.
growing up- maturity does bring change, but this does not mean that homosexuality is a sign of immaturity (which stems from a prejudicial bias). i'd say that there's be more cases of adults discovering their homosexuality than adults growing out of it.

Ha! Very interesting question!

I recall from the movie Spartacus in which Crassus (Laurence Olivier) asks his servant Antoninus (Tony Curtis) questions intended to convince Antoninus of the moral neutrality of homosexuality.... Well, you can just read the dialogue for yourself:

Dialogue from the Spartacus 'Snails Or Oysters' scene.
Crassus: Do you eat oysters?
Antoninus: When I have them, master.
Crassus: Do you eat snails?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes both snails and oysters.

dig in!

I find this VERY interesting that human sexuality - which is clearly a MAJOR component of our lives, an essential element of who we each are as persons - can be compared to simply being very similar to prefering snails or oysters - or peas or carrots. I think this attitude toward our sexuality is pervasive, and is at the root of the many problems we see in these times involving human sexuality, and why we can't seem to intelligently talk about this in society at large.

I am of a contrary viewpoint. I don't think the food taste analogy is degrading to the importance of sexuality (i'd probably enjoy having sex with a guy more than i would eating ginger), and i don't think the food analogy is used enough. Food is both casual enough (by being an every day thing) and firm enough (by analogy of almost un-moveable tastes) to put great emphasis on sexuality's true nature, which is it is deeply personal and none of anyone else's business.

 

[bronson]

3) Third - and most obviously, and most importantly - Just look at the male and female sexual organs. They tell us things. They tell us that they "fit together". They tell us that they have a larger purpose - to bring new life into the world, another human person. That alone tells us that our sexual behavior is definitely other peoples' business.

They only tell you that they fit together so obviously because it's part of your genetics, and the way you are subconsciously wired to feel. Lots of things fit together, but we only see meaning in those that are of importance to our thinking.

A homosexual gay has no genetic desire for women, so the vagina just becomes another thing without importance to them, likewise with lesbians the penis.

You really seem to be falling hard into the trap of thinking because you feel something, everyone must feel it.