Everyone keeps telling them that homosexuality is not a choice. Most doctors, scientists and psychologists who have dedicate their lives to studying these types of things have mostly concluded that homosexuality is not a choice. More importantly, millions of homosexuals themselves have said over and over that they did not choose. Who would know better than them?! Still those who find homosexuality objectionable continue to claim that we made a choice to be homosexual. Why cling to the notion of choice? There is only one important answer - it justifies their hatred.
Take away the notion of choice and one is left with simple bigotry - hatred of those that are different than themselves. Most people don't like to think of themselves as bigots so they use some sort of justification to support their point of view. Some use "Holy Books" as their justification, some use the fact that a lot of people agree with them and others just discount the first hand confessions of those that supposedly made the choice as deviants. The problem is that all books on earth - including holy books - were written by humans with natural human bias. And having a lot of people who think alike doesn't make their judgements correct. History has shown this to be true many times.
Recently, religious elitists have started using the phrase "Love the sinner - Hate the sin". Presumably the "sin" is sodomy. But a homosexual who has never had sex with anyone in their entire lives is still a homosexual. If their is no sin - how can you justify your hatred? Only by claiming that their homosexual life is a choice. See how important it is to cling to that notion?
I can't say with any certainty that there is a "gay gene" - it hasn't been proven yet. I can't say that anything in my early childhood caused my sexual identity - it is very unlikely but I just don't know. What I can say - with 100% accuracy - is that I didn't choose this life. There was never a point in my life where I was the slightest bit attracted to the opposite sex. I knew I was attracted to males at 5 years old - even though that attraction wasn't sexual at that early age. My opinion is that I was created this way by God or whoever or whatever created all of us. It does not feel like a mistake to me. It is the most natural thing in the world.
It should also be noted that those who feel we made a "choice" to be homosexual imply that they themselves had that choice to make. That would imply that they have some homosexual tendency themselves. It does seem that a lot of people that protest the most eventually get caught in some homosexual act. It is always so comically ironic! But I feel most sorry for those who cling to their bigotry by religious justification. How will they answer God when asked why they feel God made a mistake? I doubt God would be pleased by such an accusation.
Frankly, I don't really care if you hate me because I'm a homosexual - you certainly have that right. But I must insist that you own your hatred as something you chose - not something I chose. You choose to ignore the facts. I didn't have a choice at all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
93 comments:
You're just as homosexual as I am female.
Born that way.
I didn't have a choice. If I had a choice, I would have been born male. I am not feminine at all. I still like boys. So what does that make me?
I accept you whatever you are. Gay, male, straight, doesn't matter. You're still a human and I love humans; even the flaming bible thumpers.
Cheers,
Lisa
Thank you Lisa! As you wisely pointed out - there are many different types of sexuality. I used to think a person was either gay or not gay. I have since learned of all the wonderful sexual diversity in the world. It is amazing and fantastic.
I probably should have said in the article that being homosexual doesn't upset me or make me sad. It used to - when I was trying to conform to someone else's version of what my life should be - but now I live a very happy and fulfilled life - as it was intended.
I also love all people. Everyone has the capability to learn and grow past their hatred of others. That's why I feel it is important to write an article like this. If it helps even one person understand the true nature of homosexuality then I have made a big accomplishment in this life.
Hatred is such a huge consuming emotion. Life without hate would really be great!
"...those who find homosexuality objectionable continue to claim that we made a choice to be homosexual."
(Again), if "to be homosexual" means to engage in homosexual acts, then it is undeniably self-evident that, each and every time someone engages in a homosexual act, a choice IS being made (other than in incidents of rape). Homosexuals are not just the mindless robots you seem to be unintentionally portraying them as. If, however, you are defining "to be homosexual" as merely having a same-sex attraction, then I am unaware of anyone who has made any claim that you made the choice "to be homosexual."
That is a very critical distinction, and one you seem to often blur.
You also seem to constantly see hatred all around you,in every direction, wherever you look. If you have truly been the unending victim of such ubiquitous,unmitgated hatred all of your life, then I pity you greatly; but have you? Granted, there IS much hatred in the world, but I can't help but suspect that you are using "hatred" as part of a cheap debating tactic , somewhat similar to that you accuse others of using when they (allegedly) inappropriately employ the concept of "choice"; that is to say as an excuse to demonize their thinking on this issue to avoid having to even consider the possibility that there might be any merit to their arguments, indeed , to avoid even having to listen to what exactly those arguments might be at all. Conveniently,if anyone who thinks differently about this than you can just be so casually and summarily dismissed as nothing more than an ignorant "hater", then you will never have to be bothered to make any effort to actually think about and respond in an intellectually honest way to their arguments, or worry about ever being challenged by them on any intellectual, spiritual, or emotional, level at all.
I say this because I have a passing familiarity with what the traditional theistic arguments against the propriety of homosexuality are, and I can observe that they do not resemble in any way the caricatures and straw men that you have presented.
I realize that the possibility exists you may have deep seated emotional and/or psychological traumas in your past (and present?) that might make a more open and honest approach on this issue too difficult for you at this stage in your journey, so I will not push any harder. I am not "calling out your BS", merely pointing out that the truth is different, more complex, and far more expansive than you have presented it here.
"Recently, religious elitists have started using the phrase "Love the sinner - Hate the sin". Presumably the "sin" is sodomy. But a homosexual who has never had sex with anyone in their entire lives is still a homosexual. If their is no sin - how can you justify your hatred?"
Answer: You can't. You can't justify such a hatred, and that's one reason why Christianity does NOT justify it. It's hard to argue for hatred when the the unequivocal call is to "love the sinner", which happens, by the way, to include each and everyone of us (the particular phrase might be recent, but the idea itself is at least two thousand years old).
"anyone who thinks differently about this than you can just be so casually and summarily dismissed"
Yes. They can exactly. Because mine is not a "thought" - it is a state of being. A reality. A truth. There is no other answer. I DID NOT CHOOSE.
"I DID NOT CHOOSE."
So what?
What does that have to do with anything?
We are all born with lots of characteristics that we did not "choose" to be born with. Some of them are morally good and desirable to have. Others, not so much.
I assume that we can both agree on that much, at least.
Going from there, if you want to argue that homosexuality is, in contradiction to the beliefs and inherited wisdom of all human history and all human civilizations, a fine and morally unproblematic condition, then go for it.
But to just say "I was born that way" and leave it at that, does not accomplish your goal. The pyro-maniac and the serial killer could plausibly argue the exact same thing (the fact that they derive great pleasure and/or satisfaction from engaging in those activities might very well be, for them, "a state of being. A reality. A truth.") .
Ironically, it seems to me that you actually give away too much, with this fixation on "choice". If you believe that homosexuality is a good and morally defensible condition, then why would it even matter, assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing was possible, if one actually were to "choose" it?
If something is inherently good, morally unproblematic, and conducive of human flourishing, then it would be extremely difficult to argue that there is something wrong with an individual embracing it, and yet that seems to be exactly what you are (perhaps inadvertently)implying.
That seems to me to be an odd defense of homosexuality.
I love how the religious seem to have the biggest problems with sexuality, don't they? We agnostic and atheists really don't give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, apartment or bedroom. But it's always the religious that make sexuality 'morally right or wrong'. I don't get why they are so focused on how your sexuality 'performs'.
It's not so interesting to us - those without religion. We just want the government out of our bedrooms and out of our bodies and what we do to them in our own private times.
I said in my previous comment that I even love flaming bible thumpers but I need to correct that. I don't love bible thumpers of any persuasion (christian, jew or muslim for example) that compare sexuality and morality as the same. It's not the same.
Lisa
Indeed - there would be nothing wrong with someone choosing to be homosexual - if they had that choice. And, certainly, homosexuality is a good and morally defensible condition. I think we finally agree!
Now we just need to ensure that homosexual couples have exactly the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy. Even pyro-maniacs and serial killers have equal marriage rights - unless of course they are homosexual.
That's what I was trying to explain to my Mother. She asked me about my views and I told her that the biggest concern with same sex marriage is that unless it's recognized, there is a legal conflict with who is considered the next of kin. That, being the simplest way to explain it, was one of my biggest issues with it.
And I told her that this discrimination needs to end because 50 yrs ago, I would not have been able to marry my husband. I think that brought the issue home to her. She realized how silly that would be today. I think she gets it now. I truly believe that her generation and those religious people will someday see this for what it is: discrimination. I can only hope.
Lisa
Right Lisa - that is the biggest one for me too. When I was in my 10 year committed relationship I was always worried he might get sick and they wouldn't allow me to be in the room with him. Then there is immigration, law, taxes, property ownership and hundreds more rights heterosexual couples enjoy that homosexual couples are not allowed. We were not even allowed to serve our country openly until President Obama made it so (almost there anyway).
So Andre - you asked why this:
"I DID NOT CHOOSE."
So what?
What does that have to do with anything?"
The answer is that the rights mentioned above are being denied us simply because they believe we made a deviant choice and are not worthy of equal treatment. Well we didn't choose - we are - in fact - normal, moral, Americans - same as you.
"...certainly, homosexuality is a good and morally defensible condition. I think we finally agree! "
I am not aware that I have ever explicitly made my personal opinion on the question known one way or the other, so I am not sure how you came to that conclusion (whether you meant it sarcastically, or not). I have merely been pointing out what I see as some obvious flaws in your reasoning, and attempting to correct what I believe to be some grossly inaccurate and unfair mischaracterizations on your part of the positions and motives of your opponents on this issue. Attempting these things could easily be consistent with a wide range of opinions on the ultimate nature and morality of homosexuality.
"...we just need to ensure that homosexual couples have exactly the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy."
They already do. As far as the institution of marriage is concerned, you already have exactly the same legal marriage rights as I do. You are legally allowed to enter into a marriage. That doesn't mean that either of us can marry anyone that we wish. We can not marry our mother, for example, or our sister, or a child ( or a horse!) Also, neither of us can marry another man. The fact that you might some day wish to do so, and that I would probably never wish to do so, is completely irrelevant as regards the historical meaning and function of marriage in human society. It is simply an incontrovertible fact that "marriage" , and the "right to marriage" has always referred to the union of a man and a woman (and occasionally in some cultures between a man and more than one woman), so there is no basis to claim that homosexuals are denied that right, because they are not (indeed, many countless homosexuals have entered into marriage over the thousands of years of human history, and almost certainly will continue to do so now, and in the future).
Of course, what you are really asking for is that society change the definition of marriage all together, indeed, change the actual institution of marriage into something completely different than what it is has always been (since as far back in the human experience as we have records, and presumably far before that also).
Now, I'm sure that you believe that you have very good reasons for wanting to make such a change. However, the fact remains the the overwhelming majority of human beings who have ever lived have disagreed with you (as do a majority of human beings who are alive today).
It is certainly possible that all of those people were/are wrong and that the not inconsiderably sized minority of people who currently agree with you on this issue are right, but it is also possible that that minority (and you) are wrong. The fact that your judgement on this issue happens to coincides with your deepest personal wishes on the matter, is not an argument towards proving that you are right, and you should make the effort not confuse it with such.
Whatever judgments people arrive at on this issue, and how they come to arrive at those judgments, it is of primary and fundamental importance that we first attempt to frame the issues as accurately and honestly as we are capable of doing. To constantly dismiss those that disagree with you as being motivated by "hatred", does only the exact opposite (and this remains true even if, as seems at least possible, there exist people, on both sides, whose ability to think clearly on a whole range of issues, may be circumscribed by all sorts of personal hatreds they may be burdened by).
"...the rights mentioned above are being denied us simply because they believe we made a deviant choice and are not worthy of equal treatment."
No,I believe that is technically incorrect. To frame it that way is to completely misunderstand and/or misrepresent what the purpose and function of marriage is (by the way, a confusion that many contemporary heterosexuals also share).
By it's very nature, homosexuality is inimical to the purposes and functions of marriage, and that is the main reason why homosexuals have been excluded from it. This would be true, whether or not any particular individual considers homosexuality as "deviant" or not.
"we are - in fact - normal, moral, Americans - same as you."
Of that, I have no doubt. We all share in the same range of strengths and weaknesses common to all humans due to our shared nature.
That's B.S. Andre.
My marriage isn't to reproduce and make children so that defense about marriage's purpose doesn't fly with me. I am long past child barring years so are you saying that my marriage isn't true or purposeful? Are two people only allowed marriage when they have children because if so, that's a crock. What about couples that medically cannot have children? A man and a woman? Does being childless or unable to conceive mean that it invalidates their marriage?
I call your reasons b.s. And a big stinking pile of b.s.
Lisa
Lisa:
"I love how the religious seem to have the biggest problems with sexuality..."
Apart from the fact that it is quite obvious that you not "love" that (it quite clearly annoys the hell out of you), I think that any thoughtful religious person would admit that every human being has a "problem" with sexuality, in the sense that the sexual impulse is such a powerful and primal force in our lives, that if not properly understood and respected, it can easily lead us astray, both as individuals and as a society, in all sorts of ways.
For example, if we take a close sociological look at the legacy of the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's and the absolutely disastrous effects it has had on such key social indicators as the rate of divorce, illegitimacy and single motherhood, increased abortion, the culture of pornography and the degradation and sexual objectification of women, etc, etc, and if we combine those observations with the pivotal role that "secularism" and the greatly weakened traditional religious morality and culture have had in creating these situations, then I think that "the religious" would be on much firmer ground to claim that it is in reality the non-religious who have the far greater "problem" with sexuality.
"We agnostic and atheists really don't give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, apartment or bedroom."
Really? Somehow I suspect that if your neighbor was operating a meth-amphetamine lab in his home, or luring young coeds there to rape and disembowel them, you would "give a damn" (or at least I hope you would!)
"But it's always the religious that make sexuality 'morally right or wrong'."
No, they don't "make" it right or wrong. They merely recognize that a moral aspect to those issues already exists. That some people lack the will, moral insight, or just plan old intelligence to recognize those realities is a failing on their part, not on the part of the religious (or on the many non-religious who also can recognize the existence of a moral universe).
"We just want the government out of our bedrooms and out of our bodies and what we do to them in our own private times."
So do I, but that really doesn't have all the much relevance to the topic of this discussion.
"I don't love bible thumpers of any persuasion (christian, jew or muslim for example) that compare sexuality and morality as the same. It's not the same."
You have every right to deny that there is moral aspect of sexuality. (you would be wrong, of course), and you have the right to withhold your love from whomever you wish to, even if only for the reason that you believe they are wrong about some issue or other (happily, most sincere religious people will still love you, no matter how wrong they may believe you are).
But I suspect that you don't really even believe sexuality and morality are unrelated. I suspect that if you came home to find your husband engaged in adulterous sexual activity, you would find that to be quite morally offensive, whether or not you would describe it in those terms.
Wow Andre - you really have to wiggle around a lot to make your points - that's because they are twisted logic. You see how my points are very clear and concise - that's because truth is easy.
This whole "marry a horse" or "Marry your Mother" argument really shows what a stretch people go to to justify their ........ wait for it.........hatred.
Just because something is so for a long time doesn't make it right (or wrong). And I think you need to do some further research on the definition of marriage throughout history - it has changed many times.
I have a question for you. How does me marrying a dude affect you in any way?
Den
".... You see how my points are very clear and concise "
Yes, but they are erroneous.
Clarity and conciseness are certainly worthy attributes,and ones well worth striving for, but they must of necessity always take a back seat to truth and understanding.
DEN:
"..he might get sick and they wouldn't allow me to be in the room with him. Then there is immigration, law, taxes, property ownership..."
Red Herring Alert.
All of those issues can (and should) be addressed in positive law without impinging on the institution of Marriage (in many States, and other local jurisdictions, they already have been).
Also, "we want the benefits" seems a rather rash and ill-considered argument for ignoring and overturning the inherited wisdom of thousands of years of human experience.
Den:
"How does me marrying a dude affect you in any way?"
Another excellent question. I may provide you with a commbox answer later (tired), but for now I could not do better than to refer you to the Robert George essay that I refereed Lisa to above. See Section C. "How Would Gay Civil Marriage
Affect You or Your Marriage?" ,
(beginning on pdf page 16):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
Andre - "But to just say "I was born that way" and leave it at that, does not accomplish your goal. The pyro-maniac and the serial killer could plausibly argue the exact same thing"
Andre - "Somehow I suspect that if your neighbor was operating a meth-amphetamine lab in his home, or luring young coeds there to rape and disembowel them, you would "give a damn"
Andre - "We can not marry our mother, for example, or our sister, or a child ( or a horse!)"
It seems people are still comparing homosexuality to child molestation or beastiality. This argument is usually perpetuated by religious zealots and those who cater to them (politicians). Andre even compares the innate desires inherent in every homosexual with the death and destruction caused by the pyromaniac and the psycopath. My innate desire to express physical love with another man is in no way distructive, criminal or psychotic.
Andre - "then I think that "the religious" would be on much firmer ground to claim that it is in reality the non-religious who have the far greater "problem" with sexuality."
Think Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggert, Ted Haggard or any person that tries to corral their sexual desires and identity based on what was written in a book over 2000 years ago.
Andre - "I am not aware that I have ever explicitly made my personal opinion on the question
known one way or the other".
I'm curious Andre, what is your personal opinion? I'm well aware of what the bible says on the
subject but I want to know what you think. Is it immoral for me to be aroused by a man in the same
way you are to a woman?
Andre - "By it's very nature, homosexuality is inimical to the purposes and functions of
marriage, and that is the main reason why homosexuals have been excluded from it."
I'm also curious as to your thoughts on Lisa's rebuttal. You didn't address it in your follow-up post.
"I'm also curious as to your thoughts on Lisa's rebuttal. You didn't address it in your follow-up post."
Sorry Andre, you added 3 more posts before i refreshed the page. I'm trying to keep up. ;)
Andre - "All of those issues can (and should) be addressed in positive law without impinging on the institution of Marriage (in many States, and other local jurisdictions, they already have been)."
Everytime I hear the argument of Civil Unions instead of Marriage, the image of two water fountains side by side pops into my head - one marked "White" and beside it, an inferior one marked "colored".
Yeah, what thohea said.
This b.s. about comparing homosexuals with criminals and animals and psychopaths really ticks me off. There's your straw man, man.
Lisa
I'm for civil unions - for everyone. Everyone should be drinking from the same fountain as far as laws are concerned. Let the churches deal with who gets denied rights from their God of choice.
But wait - this then goes back to the hospitilaization issue. Many hospitals are faith based institutions (for some reason). If my partner were to end up at Holy Cross Hospital here in Fort Lauderdale, I would still demand I be allowed to be by his side. So either the laws of the land with regard to civil unions must allow that (possibly against the will of the hospital) or we really do need marriage equality in it's entirety.
Andre - the answer to the question I asked you of how my marriage to a dude would affect you in any way has only one correct short answer - It doesn't. Unless your answer is "I don't like it" - then I'm sure it requires a lengthy rebbutle.
Thohea:
"It seems people are still comparing homosexuality to child molestation or bestiality... Andre even compares the innate desires inherent in every homosexual with the death and destruction caused by the pyromaniac and the psycopath."
Lisa:
"This b.s. about comparing homosexuals with criminals and animals and psychopaths..."
Andre
I am sure it is due to my own poorly constructed presentation (exasperated perhaps by a some over-zealous defensiveness on your part), but I am afraid that you have both completely misunderstood the point I was attempting to make: I was challenging a proposition that Dennis seemed to be offering; namely, that because a condition or inclination (such as homosexuality) might be present from birth, that fact would thus, in and of itself, suffice as a persuasive argument in defense of the rightness, goodness, or desirability of that condition or inclination.
In an attempt to refute that proposition, I was trying to think of some other conditions or inclinations that might reasonably be argued to have been present from birth, and yet which were so obviously negative and undesirable to posses, that no one here would (I should hope!) have the slightest inclination to attempt to defend them as "only natural" or "not a choice".
So, far from implying any moral equivalency between a homosexual, and a pyromaniac or a serial killer, I was actually going in the opposite direction and stressing the vast distance between them (and note: this distance would remain vast, regardless of whether one started from the belief that homosexuality was negative or positive).
If I had not taken this vast distance as a given, and assumed that you did too, then I would have been undermining my own argument.
More later...
slightly of topic, but...
Den
"Many hospitals are faith based institutions (for some reason)"
For some reason?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the "hospital" was an invention of the Catholic Church, and that for many centuries in the West, the only hospitals that existed were built and run by the various religious orders.
Secular hospitals are a very late (though of course welcome) development in our history.
Andre - I don't mean to be sarcastic when I say, I'm not an idiot. I didn't misunderstand the point you were trying to make but you did put homosexuals and serial killers on opposite ends of the same playing field. It's an argument i've heard my whole life from my family. My own mother has told me she'd rather I have committed murder than sodomy...and she's a Christian. To this day, I still don't know how she could justify a statement like that. I can only think that to southern baptists, murder isn't as taboo as homosexuality.
I have to say though, I'm starting to wonder now (as denbec has mentioned with the tar baby comment) if your subtext is more deliberate than subliminal.
Thohea:
"My own mother has told me she'd rather I have committed murder than sodomy...and she's a Christian. To this day, I still don't know how she could justify a statement like that. I can only think that to southern baptists, murder isn't as taboo as homosexuality."
Wow. That is really harsh. I have to say that I find that very shocking and hard to comprehend (how anyone could say such a thing, let alone a mother to her son!).
I'm very very sorry that you have had to deal with something like that. I barely know how to respond to it...it is so far out of my experience.
Your mother was wrong; both to have said something like that to you, and to have thought it in the first place. I can only imagine that she must have been speaking out of a place of deep fear and confusion, and her thinking and words were consequently impaired by it. It was a sinful act on her part, and a betrayal of Christian charity and compassion, as well as a betrayal of the bond between a mother and her child, one which I am sure that she either regrets deeply now, or one day will.
You must take into account whatever cultural or social aspects of her background that made this such a painful issue for her to deal with, and you must forgive her for those harsh words (if you haven't already).
Forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds here and saying too much, especially in light of my complete ignorance of your relationship with your mother and all the related details, but it's just that I feel strongly that there are certain areas where unconditional love should be sustained...even in the face of the whole possible range of human contingencies...nay,especially because of them.
Thohea:
"...you did put homosexuals and serial killers on opposite ends of the same playing field."
OK, fair enough...I did. But given my metaphysical assumptions, I would put ALL of humanity on that very same playing field, so you should not feel, as a homosexual, particularly or unfairly singled out.
Thohea's Mother is neither sorry for her comments nor looking for forgiveness. She has been told by her Church that she is doing the righteous thing. She is in fact to this day still trying to "Save" thohea from his "evil" ways. It is so sad to see. I'm so thankful my parents were more accepting. They still believe I chose my life too (Dad has since passed but I'm glad I told him about my life before he died) but they accepted me and my life partner (at the time) as part of their "normal" family. God bless them for that. Sadly, more gays deal with Thohea's type of family than my type.
Dad's own words on my coming out - "If you don't look in our bedroom, we won't look in yours"
I have a 55 yr old cousin (from Alabama no less) that came out but he waited until his father was gone. Self preservation I'm sure as his father was a damn redneck drunken atheist hillbilly that would have taken him out back and shot him, I kid you not. His niece is also gay but only in the 20 something age range and she hasn't come out yet. I'm sure it's fear and she doesn't know that I know. I'm waiting for her to come to terms with it and will keep the secret between my cousin and I.
I worry about the youth of today that can't be themselves, fully. Born gay is not a sickness or something you can pray away. It is also just as natural as breathing. I can't believe we still make gays think that they are different or 'special' (even as they are). I remember a quote by Lucille Ball that was recently published. She said "What's not to like about gays? They were the most artistic and talented people she'd ever met".
Leonardo Di Vinci was gay and look at what he left us!
Lisa
"She is in fact to this day still trying to "Save" Thohea from his "evil" ways."
Nothing wrong with that , as far as it goes.
Any mother who sincerely believed that her son was going dangerously off the rails (whether or not she was ultimately correct in that judgement), and who just stood by silently and said nothing, would be negligent in her moral obligation to her child.
However, from a Christian perspective, the possible sin in the statement that Thohea's mom made lies more in what it may indicate about her true motives.
As a loving and caring mom, she should of course be concerned with her son's happiness and sense of self esteem in this life, but even more primary than that should be her concern with the condition and fate of his soul.
That she would even half seriously prefer that he fall into the vastly more egregious and damning state of being a murderer (compounded by the obvious implication of additionally wishing a further evil upon an innocent third party: the victim of any such murder) shows that her primary concern may lay less with the moral state of her son's soul, than with her own fear of any social embarrassment, and possible resulting humiliation among some of her peers, that might come from the public acknowledgement of her son's homosexuality.
In other words, she may have her own narrow self interest more in the forefront of her mind, than what is in the best interests of her son.
Anyone who condemns homosexuality has their own narrow self interest in the forefront of their minds. The reality of the situation is that our lives do not affect your lives in any negative way - unless there is hatred or self interest involved. Our lives are normal in every sense of the word - at least to us. Our only "evil" according to them is being born.
Lisa:
"Born gay is not a sickness or something you can pray away. It is also just as natural as breathing."
It could be pointed out that your comments above are little more than a polemical faith statement, and they are not undisputed factual statements of any kind.
As Dennis has previously acknowledged, no one really knows why (or when) a person develops same sex attractions. It may well turn out to be that homosexuality IS a genetic disorder ("disease", loosely) of some kind that people are born with (comparable to the way people are born with sickle-cell anemia, for instance, which is also in that same sense "just as natural as breathing"), or develop in early infancy.
We just don't know.
As far as being something that you can't "just pray away". Well, we don't really know that definitively either. There certainly are many cases of people who have done just that (or at least claim to), just as their are thousands of people who attribute success in their struggles with alcoholism (and hundreds of other challenges) to the power of prayer in their lives.
A Christian might say that no obstacle exists that cannot be overcome through the grace of God.
Likewise, I'm sure that there are many secular therapists and researchers who would be unwilling to share in your fatalism, and who claim that the limits of the habitual inclinations and personality traits that are amenable to our modification and control are as yet unknown.(google:"brain plasticity")
"I can't believe we still make gays think that they are different, or special..."
Well, we absolutely know as a fact that they ARE different in at least one aspect of human behavior, otherwise why would the word "homosexual" or "gay" even have been coined in the first place? Obviously, it exists to describe something: a "difference" that our previous vocabulary was not adequate to capture.
Den:
"Anyone who condemns homosexuality has their own narrow self interest in the forefront of their minds."
Really? What conceivable narrow self interest does the Dali Lama have?
Given his fashionable popularity with the uber-liberal, Hollywood elite crowd on most other issues, it seems that it would be overwhelmingly in his "narrow self interest" to completely pander to them in this regard. And yet he doesn't. Would not the likely explanation be that he is motivated by far higher principle than narrow self interest?
Is is actually completely inconceivable to you that someone might genuinely and sincerely believe that homosexuality is a disordered condition, and that they might be motivated in their concern for those afflicted with that condition, by nothing else than by simple compassionate caring and unselfish love for their fellow human brothers and sisters?
Are you really that cynical?
I guess I can be that cynical. I have no issue at all with someone not understanding something that is different than themselves. What I do have issue with is someone who feels that difference needs to be fixed - as if it is wrong. I do not consider homosexuality as a disease like sickle-cell anemia - I consider it a trait - like red hair or grey eyes. The majority of people do not have red hair or grey eyes - but they are not abnormal or need to be fixed.
"What I do have issue with is someone who feels that difference needs to be fixed - as if it is wrong."
I understand that. But is it possible for you to concede that someone else might come to the considered judgement that it IS wrong, based on factors having nothing at all to do with "hatred of gays"?
No Andre - because they are simply ignoring the facts. Read the original post.
I find it interesting that someone like Andre who believes that homosexuality is 'wrong, sinful and a disease' continues to frequent this blog like he's trying to fix the author with his long winded homophobic insights. It's like that geezer Indiana congressman who fights for legislation condemning gays but gets caught arranging for a homosexual encounter on Craig's list and refuses to step down even though he is a certifiable hypocrite.
So what is it Andre? Are you unsuccessfully fighting your natural tendencies by coming to this blog to spout your hateful and bigoted homophobia to try to fix Denbec because of your inner demons toward being a gay man yourself? Are you getting a gay man's response to practice how you would respond to those religious and bigoted people for your own use? You know, because you do live in CA so you must be surrounded by 'them'.
Lisa
He says he lives in San Francisco - I don't think there are any gays there.
LOL, that's right.
I thought it was San Fran but didn't have time to pour through his comments of late to verify. Thanks.
Lisa
Lisa,
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are on par with all the other sparkling mental attributes that you have displayed before us here in the past.
Nowhere have I claimed that homosexuality is 'wrong, sinful and a disease'.
What I have done is merely referenced the fact that there are many people in this world who do believe that (or something very similar), and in contradiction to what I view as Dennis's unreasonable, uncharitable, and just plain erroneous contention that anyone who thinks along those those lines in any way must by definition be some kind of ignorant "hater" (although, undoubtedly there are many who are), I have tried to point out that among their number are also to be found some of the most intelligent, educated, and morally and spiritually advanced people in the world.
These are simple facts, available to anyone who bothers to take the time to observe them.
You are free to contest these facts, and attempt to refute them.
You are free to ignore them.
And yes, you are even free to attack the messenger who puts these facts before you, as you have chosen to do with your feeble, mean-spirited, and childishly cliched ad hominem attacks against me.
By really, Lisa, how insufferably dullheaded and boring is that? Does that advance the discussion in any meaningful way? Does that truly bring any of us any further down the road towards understanding (let alone truth)in regards to any of these issues?
Or are you really so insecure and unsure in your views that your only recourse, whenever anyone challenges them in any way, is too immediately attempt to shut them down, and silence all debate and discussion through ridicule and mockery? Is that the only response you know?
Is that really all you have to bring to the table?
The furniture may be different, and the curtains a different color, but when I reflect on the level of narrow minded bigotry, willful tunnel vision, and simple lack of intellectual openness and curiosity that seems so common between the three of you, I can't help but think that, for all your differences, that you, Dennis, and Thohea's mom, are all fundamentally inhabiting the very same house.
Struck a nerve didn't I?
Dennis:
"I have no issue at all with someone not understanding something that is different than themselves."
Of course not, but I'm talking about those people.
What I suspect you may have a great issue with, is someone who DOES understand something that is different than themselves. Especially if that understanding leads them to form a different moral judgement on that particular "something" than you might.
You think?
Lisa:
"...your hateful and bigoted homophobia "
Please provide some examples of such (you won't be able too, because there are none)
"...your inner demons toward being a gay man yourself?"
Please provide an example of anything that I have said, the validity of which would be at all undermined, based on any conceivable sexual inclination that I may or may not posses?
"Struck a nerve didn't I?"
Yes, it's a character flaw on my part,I admit, but ignorance and stupidity annoy me every time I encounter them, but especially when I'm trying engage in a serious conversation.
Myself and millions of other homosexuals have said - with 100% accuracy - that we did not choose our lives. If someone chooses to ignore this most basic fact and call all of us liars in order to further some personal agenda - then I have no problem calling them bigots.
Time for some comic relief...though I am afraid parts of this conversation between two robots sound eerily familiar to some recent conversations here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnzlbyTZsQY&feature=player_embedded
"... we did not choose our lives."
I thought we had moved beyond the irrelevant "choice" canard days ago.
" If someone chooses to ignore this most basic fact and call all of us liars in order to further some personal agenda - then I have no problem calling them bigots."
Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.
the false notion of choosing a homosexual life is the topic of this article, the relevant conversation in this commentary and the whole point of this post. I guess you missed all that trying to justify your objection to reality.
" I guess you missed all that trying to justify your objection to reality."
Once again, I have to say that I have no idea what you are talking about (you seem to be sinking deeper into incoherence with each posting).
Which "reality" is it that you seem to believe that I am objecting to?
The reality that homosexuality is not a choice.
Andre - I just watched that robot video. You have a very bizarre sense of humor. That was just weird.
Weird?
"I am not a robot. I am a unicorn."
What's weird about that?
Have you by any chance seen that latest Woodie Allen movie; "Midnight in Paris"?
Excellent movie.
Adrian Brodie is in only one scene, where he plays a young Salvador Dali. It's worth seeing just for that one scene.
The dialogue in that scene kinda sounds like the dialogue in this video.
Andre
"Which "reality" is it that you seem to believe that I am objecting to?"
Den
"The reality that homosexuality is not a choice."
Andre
I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility...no, let me be more emphatic, the reality, that some people are born with a condition where they are sexually attracted to members of their own sex (or that it develops in early childhood...whatever). Is that even seriously denied by anyone? (Maybe it is...but I've never heard anyone deny that).
There certainly is no "choice" involved in that. How could there be? It is, as you have said elsewhere, like saying that I choose to be born with blue eyes. That's obviously absurd (unless you buy into some of those whacky New Age type of beliefs; let's not go there!)
I also believe that it is just as equally undeniable, that after a certain stage of maturation, just about every intentional act that a person engages in, has at least some element of choice involved (otherwise we WOULD be just preprogrammed robots).
More concisely: you are born with same sex desires, but you choose whether or not to act on and pursue those desires.
I seems to me that both of the above statements are just obvious acknowledgments of reality, and that whether you are gay or straight, hostile to "gay rights" or enthusiastically in support of them (or completely indifferent), you should not find either of them in any way controversial.
Do you disagree?
So you would totally support a Federal legal marriage between two virgin homosexuals - as long as they agreed never to ever have gay sex?
Is that a "Yes" or a "No" to the question I asked at the end of my last comment above?
Yes - I disagree. Now answer mine.
And while you are at it - please answer the other question I asked. If I legally marry a dude - how does that affect you in any way?
Whoa, slow down, chief, we got plenty of time...I'll answer your questions, I promise, but one thing at a time.
When you say you disagree, what exactly are you disagreeing with, and why...I really want an answer to that because it honestly confounds me how anyone could find anything to disagree with in those two items...they just seem so obviously self-evident to me...if I'm really missing the boat there, I really really need to know how.
Please explain (no hurry, I can wait).
The answer lies in the question that I asked you.
"So you would totally support a Federal legal marriage between two virgin homosexuals - as long as they agreed never to ever have gay sex?"
If there is no choice to be homosexual - and no action on that condition then there should be no issue with the marriage. That is my disagreement.
Let me help you understand how silly your arguments appear to us. It's like saying I understand you may have not chosen to have red hair - but you choose to let it grow. I don't like red hair so you should keep it cut off.
Or - I understand you didn't choose to have grey eyes - but you choose to keep them open. It's gross and disgusting.
Now you.
"Let me help you understand how silly your arguments appear to us."
It might help if you refrain from trying to anticipate what my arguments might be until you have actually heard them. You have yet to be correct in that endeavor, and so have spent a good deal of your time and energy essentially just arguing with yourself (although that too can certainly be a profitable exercise).
Consider the following:
1. Whatever it's cause (or causes), one does not "choose" whether one has a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation. One or the other(or in some cases, a combination of both), is innately present at birth (or possibly develops in early childhood) through some as yet unknown process in which conscious, intentional choice plays no apparent role.
2. Consensual sex is an activity that a mature, non-mentally incapacitated adult(homosexual or heterosexual)either chooses to engage in, or chooses not to engage in.
Although #1 and #2 above could be offered as premises in an argument, that is not how I am utilizing them at this stage; I am merely presenting them as factual claims, which as such, must be either true or false.
I have taken the position that both #1 & #2 are likely true.
You said that you disagree, so you must believe that one, or both, are likely false.
Which do you believe is likely false, and what are your reasons for holding that belief?
1. Whatever it's cause (or causes), one does not "choose" whether one has a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation.
True
Consensual sex is an activity that a mature, non-mentally incapacitated adult(homosexual or heterosexual)either chooses to engage in, or chooses not to engage in.
True
Sorry If I misunderstood the question before (it was worded a bit different) I'm assuming you have a point to make with these two questions while totally avoiding my 2 questions.
I'm not avoiding your two questions..I'll get them...BTW: I don't see why you should get your panties all in a bunch with impatience; if you had just given me an honest straightforward response to these two simple points when I first brought them up (the very first comments I made on this thread!) you would have saved us both a lot of wasted time and aggravation! ( I swear, it's like pulling teeth around here, sometimes).
There...I've vented (I feel better)..thank you.
Now...I have no profound or tricky point to make with those two questions...I was merely trying to make sure that I was understanding what you were saying in your original post (you may not give me credit for this, but I really do try to understand your thinking...and you should appreciate the respect...but, I'm just venting again).
"Still those who find homosexuality objectionable continue to claim that we made a choice to be homosexual."
The clear implication is that "those" people are such block-heads that they can't seem to understand the true role that "choice" (or lack of it)plays in this issue. But that is simply inaccurate. They have framed the role of choice spot on, and, coincidentally, it turns out that it matches pretty much exactly with the way you have framed it. At least most of the Christians have (certainly the Catholics).
Consider: They, like you (and me), agree that "to be homosexual" in the sense of #1 above, is NOT a choice. They, again like you (and me),also believe that "to be homosexual" in the sense of #2 above, IS a choice.
That's the only point I was trying to make.
No big whoop.
Andre - "I don't see why you should get your panties all in a bunch with impatience"
See Andre, I take offense to little quips like these. It's degrading and someone with enough grasp of the english language such as yourself knows exactly what he's saying. Usually i let these slips of yours roll off my back but with the subject matter being what it is, I must ask for some respect here if you're going to comment further.
I think Denbec and I put up with enough degradation and discrimination on a daily basis without having to encounter it on this blog.
Thanks
Andre - Since you have been very careful to differentiate between the homosexual condition and homosexual acts, we would also like to know how me having consensual legal sex with another dude affects you in any way. Please keep in mind that we consider such consensual choice to be as moral as consensual heterosexual sex.
We continue to wait for an answer to these simple questions.
Thohea,
Since you feel compelled to take offense on Dennis's behalf, it occurs to me that in this instance that I might do similar.
As obvious as it should be to any sober reader, that the light hearted and playful phrase "don't get your panties in a bunch" is meant purely figuratively, and refers to an impatiently agitated state of mind, and not to any literal form of undergarments that someone might choose to wear, it is also the clear implication of your umbrage that, in your mind at least, there would have to be something wrong or shameful should Dennis actually decide to literally wear "panties", otherwise there would be no logical possibility for any implied insult, let alone any "degradation".
You certainly have the right to find such a minor incidence of cross dressing objectionable, but I must say that does strike me as a rather unusual expression of uptight prudishness to find in a gentleman of the lavender persuasion such as yourself (perhaps you would have found the phrase "don't get your boxer briefs in a bunch" to be less offensive?)
Must people's choice of undergarments really be the object of your public disapproval? Is that something you really spend a lot of time worrying about?
In the neighborhood in which I live there is a not insignificantly sized minority within the community who, although by birth penis endowed (at least that is my assumption, I haven't actually checked) appear to rather enjoy wearing panties, along with all the other various items that one might be forgiven for usually associating with what was once, in an earlier and obviously less enlightened age, referred to as "womens" clothing.
They seem to have taken to the endeavor whole-heartedly and with great enthusiasm, and I don't mind saying that a good number of them have made a quite fetching go at it. Characteristically a very sociable and outgoing lot, they are never shy to strike up a friendly conversation with passing strangers on the street in the evening (no matter how late the hour!)
I feel quite certain from my own conversations with many of these neighbors of mine that they would be all too familiar with the discomfort of bunched panties, and would be able to relate to the state of mind that such an image might evoke. Additionally I am quite certain they would not find an innocent figure of speech referencing such a situation in any way offensive.
I certainly meant no offense by my use of that phrase.
If you insist on seeing only insults and offense everywhere you look, and on assuming only the worst of people and of their motivations, than I am afraid that is undoubtedly what you shall always find, whether it actually exists where you look for it or not.
I am sorry to have rambled on so long about this minor issue, but your overly defensive (some might say "thin-skinned")comments seem to have gotten my panties in a bit of a bunch.
I hate when that happens.
Well.......That distraction must have taken a while to write.
"... Denbec and I put up with enough degradation and discrimination on a daily basis"
Is that true, or is there a bit of rhetorical exaggeration in it? Honest question. I'm not prejudging it one way or the other, I just really want to know.
"degradation" is a pretty strong word (and obviously "discrimination" isn't very pleasant either).
Do you really feel subjected to that on a daily basis? In what ways specifically, if I may ask?
This question is for both Dennis and Thohea.
Again, I am not challenging the veracity of what you are saying, I'm just trying to understand it. Living in San Francisco it might be easy to get the impression (perhaps completely misleading) that for the most part gays in the United States just go about living their lives everyday like everyone else. I just never see or hear or witness in any way any overt hostility or discrimination against gays...I mean, I'm sure it happens from time to time, but on a "daily basis"?
I don't travel alot, but I do go to Texas four or five times a years (and slightly less to the East Coast), and I've never seen such things there either.
I am of course prepared to admit that I might be totally oblivious to that type of thing....that's why I'm asking.
" we would also like to know...."
"... we consider..."
"We continue to wait for an answer to these simple questions."
If your sudden use of the magisterial and inquisitional "we" is an intentional psychological tactic to attempt to intimidate or unnerve me, well then I would have to admit that it is having some effect. I feel like I am being put on trial.
It's got a sort of Orwellian vibe to it, mixed with a splash of dystopian gay Star Chamber.
A little creepy.
I kinda like it.
1. "If I legally marry a dude - how does that affect you in any way?
I can't imagine any way at all that your marrying a dude might affect me.
2. "So you would totally support a Federal legal marriage between two virgin homosexuals - as long as they agreed never to ever have gay sex?"
I'm way too tired to get into this right now, but I did promise you an answer, so let me just preface a fuller future answer by just saying for now that I think there is a very reasonable, and historically justified case to me made for society denying any such couple a "Federal legal marriage", but that the intimate details of this hypothetical couple's sex life (or lack of one) has absolutely nothing to do with it.
And with that little teaser I must wish you a good night, and sweet dreams.
Zzzzzzzzzz.
Gee Andre - you should have wrote your last post first - when you were not so tired and willing dismiss the real and constant trials we homosexuals go through - yes, on a daily basis - because of the mere fact that we were born homosexual. I'm sure it is very difficult to see something when one is likely part of the cause. I can't tell you the number of times people talk to me as if they are totally fine with my sexuality to my face - yet I hear them talking to their friends about me or other gays in a way that is totally opposite. Sometimes its just a joke but most times you can hear the deep rooted fear and hatred of homosexuals in their little accidental slip of the tongue.
And then of course there is the blatant discrimination we face every day by conservative politicians, judges, and clergy who deny hundreds of equal rights such as marriage or hospital visitation - with absolutely no justification for such denials.
In the course of the comments on this topic we broke it down to two same sex virgins who would vow never to have sex ever - and you STILL think they should be denied a legal marriage. What would you call that?
Guess he's never heard of the KISS answer: Keep It Simple Stupid.
No offense meant but I'm sure he'll have an answer to that in 3..2..1.
"... willing (to) dismiss the real and constant trials we homosexuals go through"
When have I once done that? Be specific.
"I'm sure it is very difficult to see something when one is likely part of the cause.."
What evidence do you have that I have ever been responsible for the "degradation" of homosexuals in any way? (I never cease to be amazed at how you feel it is somehow appropriate and justified to so casually hurl the most outrageous slanders and insults at people you don't even know, based on total ignorance and malicious presumptions on your part. And then you have the nerve to accuse others of lack of compassion and arrogance! LOL)
" I can't tell you the number of times people talk to me as if they are totally fine with my sexuality to my face - yet I hear them talking to their friends about me or other gays in a way that is totally opposite. "
That's it? That's "degradation"? Sounds like a very typical human behavior, one that is not in any at all limited in it's application to homosexuals. People do that kind of shit to other people all the time. Be honest with yourself and I bet you will have to admit that you and your friends have probably done the exact same type of thing to other of your "friends". It's not nice,and I'm sure it is very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of, but that hardly qualifies as some kind of persecution.
My question was "Is that true, or is there a bit of rhetorical exaggeration in it?" So far, from what you have told me, it seems that the answer is that it IS mostly just rhetorical exaggeration (happily).
"...two same sex virgins who would vow never to have sex ever - and you STILL think they should be denied a legal marriage. What would you call that?"
I would call that reasonable and logically consistent (I believe I already described it as " very reasonable, and historically justified "), because the status of their sex life is NOT the grounds upon which they would be denied marriage.
From most traditional religious-ethical points of view, whether or not a same-sex couple are having sexual relations would be relevant to the question of what level, if any, of actual sin is involved in the condition of their homosexuality.
Such a consideration of the status of their sexual activity though, would be unnecessary for them to be denied traditional marriage; the mere fact that they are both of the same sex would suffice to that determination.
I should point out,though, that while I feel the case for the historical understanding of marriage is quite compelling, it would be technically untrue to say that I "think they should be denied a legal marriage".
My views on this issue are still evolving, and I have not yet reached any definitive conclusions. However, it would certainly be fair to say that the more I read and study about it, and the deeper my understanding of the underlying philosophical,social, and historical issues grow, the more I find myself forced to acknowledge that the stronger and more persuasive arguments belong to the traditionalists.
Though, of course, as a (more or less)Catholic, and a Classical Liberal, I remain always open to the consideration of reasoned debate on this, or any other, issue.
I need to walk back on something.
Based on a re-reading some of my last comments, I want to stress that it was not my intent to scoff at or minimize " the real and constant trials...homosexuals go through".
The goal of my question last night night was just to honestly determine how bad it actually is on a day to day basis.
When Thohea gets all bent out of shape over such an innocent phrase as "don't get your panties in a bunch", I have to admit that it made me wonder how accurate and reliable a guide he may be about anything. What I probably did not give enough weight to was the possibility that it might be precisely because of the extent of other, more substantial (and I would say, more real) slights and insults he has revived, that makes him so sensitive to other, even perceived, slights and insults. That was a failure of charity and understanding on my part.
Though I have not in recent years experienced it, I am sure that real abuse directed against homosexuals is still a real and ugly phenomenon, and I just want to put it on the record that I consider any hostile or hateful behavior or actions towards people because of their sexual orientation as morally repugnant and reprehensible, and I condemn it unreservedly.
It feels a little strange to have to say that aloud, because to my way of thinking it should go without saying.
But I am also happy to say it.
"My question was "Is that true, or is there a bit of rhetorical exaggeration in it?" So far, from what you have told me, it seems that the answer is that it IS mostly just rhetorical exaggeration (happily). "
I suppose if one focuses on just the office banter comments then the daily trials we face would indeed seem very trivial. However if one reads the next paragraph regarding the conservative politicians, judges and clergy it would then appear that we face some very real challenges on a daily basis. We should also keep in mind parents who feel we would be better off as murderers and those that would tie us to a fence pole and beat us until death (Mathew Sheppard and many others). And that's just in this country where homosexuality is actually somewhat tolerated. Because homosexuality is condition of human nature - it is a world wide condition. Those unfortunate that live in other countries are promptly executed to the cheers of on-lookers - just for being born homosexual.
Trivial - I don't think so.
Let me just end all this by saying - again- that we did not choose our lives. Those that continue to preach, legislate, prosecute and murder under the notion of homosexual choice are ignoring this simple fact to justify their behavior. It is a lie.
"Trivial - I don't think so."
Niether do I, which is one reason why I never used that word. I merely pointed out, correctly as it now seems, that Thohea's characterization of "degradation" was an expression of rhetorical excess.
"it would then appear that we face some very real challenges on a daily basis"
Undoubtedly. As do many others.
"Those that continue to preach, legislate, prosecute and murder..."
Your conflation of preachers and legislators who happen to disagree with you on certain issues, with murderers, is appalling.
You do absolutely no service to your side of the debate with such irresponsible rhetoric.
Preachers use the notion of choice to judge our "morality".
Legislatures use the notion of choice to block equal rights for all.
Activist judges use the notion of choice to support this legislation.
Many others use the notion of choice to justify their hatred, beatings, or even murder.
It's not that they are conflated together - rather they are all using the same false notion of choice to justify their actions.
The only conflation involved is that they are all equally wrong.
"Preachers use the notion of choice to judge our "morality".
Of course. Absent the possibility of choice, there could be no morality.
"Many others use the notion of choice to justify their hatred, beatings, or even murder."
They are wrong. There is no justification for those things, even if they were right about everything else. Most people understand that.
"Recently, religious elitists have started using the phrase "Love the sinner - Hate the sin". "
When I first read that line in your original post, I remember thinking, that more accurately, that idea must certainly be very ancient within Christianity, not at all "recent". I made a mental note to myself (which of course, I immediately forgot) to trace back it's origins (I suspect it is in the Gospels somewhere, and probably also in numerous place in the Old Testament...I wish I were more Biblicaly literate!).
Well, I stumbled upon the video linked below, and at one point the lecturer quotes Augustine of Hippo:
"Love not the person his error, but the person; for the person God made, the error the person himself made."
Cool. What's new is old, and what's old is new.
BTW: You might find this lecture interesting ( though possibly also annoying and infuriating!). I don't know anything about the speaker (never heard of him before), but listening to him, it would be hard to argue that he is speaking from a place of ignorance, fear, and hatred (the alleged ubiquity of which supposedly underlying arguments in opposition to homosexual practice has been both the a major premise of many of your arguments here, and the conclusion of others).
Not to say that I necessarily agree with everything he has to say (and you will probably agree with very little of it at all), but it seems undeniable that he is speaking from a place of great knowledge, compassion, and love:
http://www.xpmedia.com/pBJuL9BY88hw
"How will they answer God when asked why they feel God made a mistake? I doubt God would be pleased by such an accusation."
But "they" DON"T believe that God made a mistake (at least the Abrahamic religions don't - Jews, Christians, Muslims). They believe that sin is the result of human choice. God created us with free will, if we sin, it's on us, not him.
"The Apostle Paul characterized sin in his letter to the Romans (chs. 5-8) as an innate impulse running through the members of the human body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely within human control. Appealing to the congenital character of an impulse does not necessarily absolve it from being sinful. Jesus likewise talked about an array of impulses emanating "from within, out of the hearts of human beings," that defiles humans, including actively entertained impulses for sexual behaviors that God categorically forbids in Scripture (Mark 7:20 23).
"they" may, of course, be completely wrong as to the ultimate basis of their beliefs (i.e..there may not be a God, or even if there is, he may not be at all as revealed in the Judeo-Christian traditions), but they do know what their beliefs are, and what their theology is, better than you do.
You would be better served, as an advocate and an apologist for homosexuality, pursuing other angles of defense than trying to argue supposed philosophical errors or contradictions in Christianity.
If you don't actually know and/or understand what Christians believe, you are quite likely to continue to just shoot yourself in the foot, as in the example above illustrates.
Stick with secular "equal protection clause" type arguments. They are probably your best case.
Sexuality is one of the most basic of all human needs - right up there with food, and water. It would come even before shelter in the list of human priorities in most cases. I find it very difficult to believe that the almighty creator of all things would give us such a strong basic need - and then expect us not to act on it.
Christians believe what they are told to believe. It doesn't make their beliefs necessarily correct - especially in God's eyes. In my opinion, I think God would be more pleased with those who questioned what someone else told them and instead acted on what is in their own minds and hearts - without judgement.
Certainly, there is some truth to what you are saying. I would argue though that it is only a small part of the truth, and it is the other part; the greater part, that is more directly relevant to the issues at hand.
Yes, sexuality is basic to human nature. Few would deny that.
We don't need to overstate it's relevant importance though: the average person can live only about a week without water, a few weeks without food. There is no physical reason a person could not live to ripe old age without sex (however uncomfortable that may at times be). As far as sex coming before shelter in the list of human priorities, when I imagine the survivors of a plane crash in the desert, or of a shipwreck in the Arctic, I suspect those unfortunate folk would be rather more concerned about finding shelter,water, and food (usually in that order) than they would be concerned about locating their next sexual partner!
" I find it very difficult to believe that the almighty creator of all things would give us such a strong basic need - and then expect us not to act on it. "
But does he expect us not to act? I am not aware of any major, living, religious tradition which claims that God does not expect us to act on our sexual impulses. Quit the contrary ("Be fruitful and multiply"). However, at the same time, all of these traditions tend to share fairly strict and confined boundaries circumscribing the conditions under which the sexual urge is to be legitimately expressed.
This creates a problem for the Homosexual Lobby, since short of creating their own religion from scratch, it is difficult to locate sanction for homosexual behaviors in any of the great religious traditions of human history (heroically creative and factually tortured attempts at such notwithstanding).
That God would create us with a sexual nature, and intend for that nature to be expressed in a specific way as part of the expression of his purpose for creation is, if nothing else, at least a reasonable hypothesis. Whether it is true or not, I don't know (neither do you). But I have not been arguing on this thread for the truth of that hypothesis, only that such a hypothesis may be reasonable (and by extension that people who promote such a hypothesis may be acting from motives based on "reason" rather than on "hate").
If there is a God, it seems reasonable that he would make some provision in the created order that would make it possible for us, his creatures, to be able to learn and know something of his nature and of his plan for creation. Surveying the history of humanity's claims to revelation and knowledge of God, we find many differences among cultures and many similarities. There are some similarities however that seem almost universal across all time, and among all cultures and civilizations. Various sexual taboos (including, with varying degrees of vigor)those against homosexual behavior are included among them(others include proscriptions against murder, incest, rape, etc).
Now it certainly could be argued that, although there is a God, the entire human history of religious and ethical teaching represents a complete misunderstanding of his will. But is that more reasonable than the opposing claim that we have in fact been given some understanding of these issues?
(Needles to say, these particular difficulties do not exist for the atheist homosexual.)
"Christians believe what they are told to believe."
Like I said before:
"If you don't actually know and/or understand what Christians believe, you are quite likely to continue to just shoot yourself in the foot, as in the example above illustrates."
Put down the shovel...
If not born into the Christian faith (or any other faith) would most people do the rituals they currently do? No. Most people feel the presence of a higher power however they do as they are taught. Had I been born to Jewish parents - I would follow the Jewish faith. If I chose to question that faith and change - some might judge that I was going to Hell. Faith is born - religion is taught. Christianity is a religion.
We have been speaking a lot on human sexuality - more specifically human homosexuality. How do you respond to Gods other creations that have a homosexual nature and choose to act on it? Homosexuality is found in many, many other species. Their peers do not try to stop them from such a natural act - nor do they judge them for it.
"Homosexuality is found in many, many other species."
Didn't Cole Porter write a song about that? -
“It is nature that is all
Simply telling us to fall in love
And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love
Cold Cape Cod clams, 'gainst their wish, do it
Even lazy jellyfish do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love
I've heard that lizards and frogs do it
Layin' on a rock
They say that roosters do it
With a doodle and cock
The most refined lady bugs do it
When a gentleman calls
Moths in your rugs they do it
What's the use of moth balls
The chimpanzees in the zoos do it,
Some courageous kangaroos do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love
I'm sure sometimes on the sly you do it
Maybe even you and I might do it
Let's do it, let's fall in intra-species same-sex love”
(Oh come on. Thohea..that's funny. Don't be such a tool.)
There is that amazing sense of humor again.
I would just like it noted that I never mentioned inter-species "love". I'm only pointing out that most species exhibit homosexual behavior within their own species. It is not a strictly human condition. Other creatures don't choose to be homosexual either and I doubt they "choose" to act on it. It's only natural.
I said "intra-species" (that means within your own species), not "inter-species" (but given the context, it's easy to understand why you might have misread it).
The claim that homosexual behavior has been observed among some (not "most") species other than our own, doesn't really have any relevance to anything being discussed here. Presumably we share all sorts of traits with many different other species. So what? The issue isn't whether certain behaviors and innate urges are "natural" or not; the issue is whether they are moral. Only humans are "rational" animals , meaning that only they, among all biological beings (at least on this planet), can recognize the moral aspect to their actions. A lion that kills a rival lion to gain sexual access to another lion has not committed an immoral act. A human that killed a rival human to gain sexual access to another human HAS committed an immoral act.
The idea that " Their peers do not try to stop them from such a natural act - nor do they judge them for it" is absurd on the face of it. Of course they don't "judge", they are incapable of making moral judgement about anything.
I would caution you though about pursuing that line of analogy too far in the future...it could possibly provide fuel to some of the more extreme anti-gay rhetoric, which makes the claim that homosexuality is so inherently degrading primarily because of how it lowers humanity to the level of mere instinctual animals. The argument that because some of the non-rational creatures, who are incapable by their very nature, from making moral choices, engage in homosexual behavior, means that it is alright for us to do likewise, is an extremely weak argument, and one much more likely to turn most people away that to win them over.
"If not born into the Christian faith (or any other faith) would most people do the rituals they currently do? No."
Of course not, but that is true of all aspects of a culture, not just it's religious beliefs. Almost everything we know, we directly inherit from the previous generations.
A culture (at least the oldest and longest surviving ones) represents the inherited wisdom of thousands and thousands of generations of trial and error, and the hard won knowledge of what works to insure the survival of that culture, and what leads to it's decay and demise.
We ignore these lessons at our peril.
I'm not trying to "win anyone over" with this topic. I am simply pointing out facts that are conveniently ignored to support a person's irrational judgement and/or hatred.
The truth is that my homosexual nature or even my choice to act on it affects you in no way. My marriage to another dude affects you in no way. I won't suppress my nature because you or anyone else thinks it's "icky". And I expect to be treated equally by the laws of this country.
Oops - let me clarify - I DEMAND that I be treated equally by the laws of this country.
"I'm not trying to "win anyone over" with this topic."
Of course you are (or at least you should be). If you are advocating for a radical change in the historic definition of Marriage, there is only two possible ways to bring such a change about: you can either "win over" a majority of the society to your point of view, or you can attempt to force your view upon them against their will.
I would hope that you would be more inclined to pursue the first approach rather than the second.
"The truth is that my homosexual nature or even my choice to act on it affects you in no way."
I believe that I already indicated that I agreed with that.
" I won't suppress my nature because you or anyone else thinks it's "icky"."
Nor should you. There may be other, quite valid reasons, why one might be inclined to want to suppress some aspects of one's nature, but the mere fact that some others might find those aspects "icky" would probably not, in and of itself, be a sufficient reason to do so.
PS: I personally do not find the thought of gay sex itself particularly "icky" (although, as with any personal sexual response,most of it would have to do with the individual participants involved, for example I would be far less repulsed by the sight of Brad Pitt doing say, Colin Ferrel, than I would be by the sight of Micheal Moore getting busy with Rosanne Barr....but hey that's just me!), but even if I did find the thought of gay sex unpleasant, or even repulsive, that would not have much direct relevance to most of the questions we have been discussing here.
Arguments stand or fall by their own merits,not by the sexual inclinations of the person making them.
Based on the fierce opposition to homosexuality around the world, I don't think we have any choice but to force change. These types of human rights issues are rarely solved by popular vote.
Post a Comment