Click here

I know the debate seems tired and old (kinda like Blue *rimshot*), but there are still way too many people that think sexuality's a choice.

If it's a choice, I chose mine in the womb.

Oh God that's so ridiculous...I mean what are you going to believe...a properly conducted scientific experiment involving pheromones that basically proves homosexuality is biological or a passage in a book written over 2000 years ago.

Obviously the book. Duh. Why even post this ****. Go back to your pot smoking hippee fests and sex orgies and stay out of the religion forum!

Work of the devil.
Do
You
See
Why?

What I don't get about those who think homosexuality is a choice is this:

I would never, ever, consider getting stuck by a guy, or sticking it in a guy unless some serious money were on the line. It's not a choice for me because it's not even an option. It seems to be that in order to consider it a choice, there has to be something desirable about it. Am I wrong in thinking that anyone who considers homosexuality a choice must have some latent homosexual tendencies?

In most cases, yes. I think the main problem is ignorance. Give this thread a few days and you'll see it.

maybe this is due to my lack of scientific knowledge, but it is not possible that some brain functions are affected by person's choices or some aspect of socialization?
if that is the case, then even evidence as presented above only implies an increased likelihood that sexuality is not learned, but by no means is it conclusive.

even though i am of the opinion that
- sexuality is probably not learned
- sexuality should absolutely be treated as being not learned

i still have yet to see any type of convincing or definative proof that it is not a choice.



i think that is a non-sequitar and completely irrelevant.
i don't see how the two are related.

What passage in the Bible says that homosexual tendency is a choice? There are a ton of things and urges in my life that I was born with, but that doesn't make them right. For instance, I really want to rob a bank, I think it would be fun and the money would be a huge plus.... but just because I really want to rob a bank doesn't mean that God would be cool with it. Even though I pretty sure I could get away with it.






lol

and furthermore, many people, and by people I'm assuming most everyone that has posted so far... think that religious wackos that believe crazy stuff like, the Bible, are hate mongers. This is not true. I don't hate gay people or anyone else, neither did Jesus. The Bible says that committing a homosexual act is wrong. Being born with urges is not. I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, I didn't make the rules. God says it's wrong, and so it is. Being gay is no worse than living in any other sin. According to the Bible if you go to a strip club you are committing an act equal with guy on guy action. Sin is sin. Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The good news is Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death.... but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

None. That's not the point. The fact that the bible says homosexuality is forbidden is enough proof for most people.

Comparing a bank robbery to falling in love is like comparing apples to monkeys.

My point, which I may not have made clear, is that as a heterosexual with no homosexual leanings I don't see why anyone would ever choose to engage in any homosexual activity. To see it as a choice implies a tacit acknowledgement of seeing the appeal.

Homosexuals are not attracted to people of the opposite sex. A gay man has as much desire to have sex with a woman as you desire to have sex with a man (i.e. none).

So should gay people all remain celibate their entire lives, or should they live utter and complete lies by marrying members of the opposite sex?

Could you deny your urge to be with a woman......forever?

Not.The.Point.

"Sir, I'm sorry you couldn't deny your genetic predisposition to become a crazed alcoholic, so we're just gonna let this drinking & driving go..."

Honestly I'm glad everybody sins because it would be awfuly hard to talk about this if I couldn't say "hey, I've had premarital hetero sex, and this is just as sinful as homosexual brokebacking." But I have; a sinner I am. I couldn't deny my urges Tim, and I'm not even 24 years old yet.

Did I still ef up? Yep.

Leviticus 18:22
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

Leviticus 20:13
" 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


This is as simple as it gets. I've said it before . . . GOD created Adam and Eve . . . not Adam and Steve. The Bible is very clear on this point. Homosexual relationships are becoming more common only because society is basically saying it is OK. Since the early 90's homsexuality has been on the rise exponentialy . . . why?? Because we are showing it to our kids on prime time TV and saying that this behavior is now socially acceptable. It is now "cool" for two girls to kiss. It is now OK that in some place two guys can get married. It is now OK for a homosexual couple to raise children and teach them THEIR "family values". Homosexuality is a choice . . . a choice that society (and MTV) has said is OK.

What's a real shame to me is when I have to explain to my 5 & 8 year old sons why those two men on TV were just kissing on that show.

A bigger shame is that you choose to follow the fictional writings of people who lived more than 2000 years ago. Can you explain to me how you're any different than the Greeks or Romans who believed in their numerous gods?

Most think mythology was quaint. As a society, we've evolved past the superstitions and explanations mythology made necessary to explain seemingly impossible things to ignorant peasants.

The church made a pariah out of Gallileo for his proving the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. So to say the church is the final authority on science or biology is kind of ridiculous, don't you think?

Were homosexuals looked down upon 2000 years ago? Probably. But so were people who were crippled and diseased.

For people who claim to be righteous and tolerant, you all sure have a lot of discriminatory rules.

Sorry, but the real shame is that you were allowed to reproduce

Why do the crazies from both sides always end up arguing the loudest on this issue?

I'm glad I found the humor forums.

Being able to drink and drive is COMPLETELY different than being able to marry someone they love.

I think it is a basic human right to be able to live, love and marry any person you choose that has the requisite legal capacity.

There is no basic human right to get wasted, get in a car and proceed to risk the lives of every other person on the road.


As humans--we require stable, loving companionship----not a captain-and-coke.



And to Foose1---there's nothing like a blind meritless statement that lacks any sort of historical perspective to make someone sound completely ignorant. Homosexuality has been around for thousands of year--it is not a recent phenomenon. If you think that today's increasing acceptance of gays actually results in more gays---well... Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't there. It is just unfortunate that, until now, intolerance and bigotry was so strong that people had to hide their sexuality. And the choice you speak of is the acceptance rather than the gay/straight choice. You're confusing the issues.

What's even more a shame is that this is the RELIGION forum. So you choose the RELIGION forum to criticize someone who believes in GOD. Interesting.

What I find interesting is this. Someone posts an article about gays (IN THE RELIGION FORUM). I assume that means they want responses and perspectives from religous people. But it seems that more people who are not religous are the ones that respond (IN THE RELIGION FORUM) . . . and then to top it off, they insult the actual religous people (WHO ARE RESPONDING IN THE RELIGION FORUM) and act like we are lunatics for believing in GOD.

If you ask me . . . there is more intolerance for christians in this world than there are gays. So when you try to lecture me on my beliefs and opinions and try to accuse me of being intolerant . . . look in the mirror first.

Just on a side note . . . not that I care what any of you think . . . One of my best friends (for over 20 years) is GAY. He knows my beliefs about his lifestyle. He knows my beliefs about GOD and what the bible says. But he is still a great friend and always will be. I do not judge him. We have had friendly debates about his lifestyle . . . but that is where it stops. I am not the one to judge him and I accept him for who he is . . . not his sexual preference.

Just because I have a belief about a topic does not make me an intolerent "crazy".

Religion is an interesting topic to discuss, even for non religious people.

Do you see why?

Good Luck!

So Farnan you completely ignored what I said previous to the statements you quoted???

If you come from a Christian standpoint, a sin is a sin is a sin. If you do not, then I see where you're coming from. Heck, I'll agree with you that my personal life will be less effected by a gay couple living next to me than a drunk swerving down my neighborhood road.

I also agree that a secular government such as our own probably should not dictate by sexual preference an attainable set of rights.

So, summing:

I think BEING homosexual is 95% a genetic issue.

I think ACTING on your homosexual urges is very human. It is also a sin.

I sin, daily.

I do not judge homosexuals for acting on their genetic predispositions.

"Marriage" is a religous term & function. Unfortunately, our government chose to recognize it as such. Therefore, it is secular now, and a government must allow it for secular individuals.

In ancient Rome, there was no such thing as a homosexual. Instead they viewed sexual acts in light of who is active (masculine) and who is passive (feminine). One way of putting it is that there was no shame for a man to be the pitcher to another guy, but being the catcher was seen as effeminate and thus, unseemly.

Basically, the Romans were a little more tolerant than we are.

i thought this was a discussion forum for religion. Once again, you're being exclusionary based on my beliefs. I don't have to have been an NFL player to have an opinion on the super bowl.



No, what makes you intolerant is your refusal to accept the lifestyle of another that, in no way, infringes on you or your rights.

If intolerant isn't the right word, maybe it's judgemental?

Doesn't the bible say a couple of things about judge not, lest ye be judged? or he who is without sin among you should cast the first stone?





Ironic, eh?

You're right--i mean, first Christmas, now all of Christianity. You're lucky you're able to walk down the street without people looking at you strange, beating you up or worse yet, killed.



Yeah, i've got a few friends who are incredibly selfish, ignorant, jerks at times, etc.---but they're i accept their faults (as we all have faults) and don't let it affect our friendship because deep down they are really good people. But it is unfortnate that some people think being gay is a fault or something one needs to overlook. Maybe some day people will wake up and realize that the reason why many people have gay friends is that they're like everyone else in most ways--and what they do in the bedroom is irrelevant.



You can have all the beliefs you want---i draw the line at taking action to prevent gays from marrying/adopting/etc.---when they have every right to do that as anyone else in this world. Hold whatever opinions you desire--but when it influences governmental policy, i have a serious problem with that. Acceptance isn't as necessary as equality.




I ignored with the rest of the quote because i accepted your opinion. I just thought the other part stuck out as something worth commenting on.

Did you actually read my above post . . . or just respond after you skimmed it???? I DO NOT JUDGE GAY PEOPLE (little story about my gay friend ring a bell?). I was stating my opinion and what the bible says. I CAN have an opinion and not judge. I do think it is biblically wrong to have a homosexual lifestyle. However, I will say it again, I am not the one to judge.

Do you think they deserve equal rights?

Not to mention preaching that they should be put to death.

Which begs the question FOOSE1, if you beleive the teachings of Leviticus 20:13, why do you not have your gay friend put to death?

However if you don't feel you should follow those teachings, why post it in the first place?

And before you come back with your 'It's not up to me to judge' - you are not being asked to judge, you are being told what to do. Your friend says he lies with men, your bible tells you to put him to death - you are actually only putting judgement on the worlds of the bible if you don't kill him.

Go get him tiger!

You said what he does is a sin. I think that's a judgement.

No, they just want you religious crazies to finally give up because you are clearly wrong and should probably just find a state to all move to like the Mormons did.

No, he not judging - the bible tells him its a sin

Just like it tells him to put him to death.

Hmmm, seems like a catch 22 to me

actually, one of my best friends is a 'catholic'...Although i don't share his beliefs, and think he's a little whacko, he's a good guy underneath. The hard part is explaining to my kids why he worships an imaginary man in the sky.

I think we just judged here.

No, saying something is a "sin" doesn't mean I'm judging him. Judging someone would be something along the lines of "he sins, he's a bad person, and I won't talk to him/afford him equal rights/etc."

And Jeff, why do you even mess with citing the bible or even using terminology like "sin" if you don't believe in that stuff??




FYP

That's the terminology he used. To me, using the bible as justification for your opinion on someone's lifestyle is a cop out. You can say "the bible says he's a sinner, so that's what I believe" or you can say "I think he's a sinner because of my beliefs and what I've been taught"

To me, it's semantics. If you say someone is sinning, you're judging their actions. Generally, as a society, we agree something like murder is clearly a sin (although we don't use that term, we say it breaks the laws of our society).

I simply don't agree with his belief that homosexuality is a sin...or breaks god's laws...or that society should discriminate against those who are homosexual.

Like you've never talked about Superman's x-ray vision, or discussed time travel...

Point is all good works of fiction should be debated in context.

I'll also take your 'FYP' as evidence of your inabilty to discuss an extremely simple and relevant point. I didn't make anything up about him as you suggested. English is not your first language is it?

Some idiot comes here and suggests that gays should be put to death and I take him to task on it. Don't give me any crap about he doesn't believe it, or it's being taken out of context.

He directly quoted instructions that he lives his life by stating that gays should be killed

You have no problems with that??

Excellent question Farnan. I sincerely mean that. This is a touchy subject (obviously).

NOTE: THIS IS MY OPINION AND YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AGREE

I will assume you are talking about marriage. Marriage in the bible is defined as a man and a woman because that is the way GOD intended it. The founding fathers of this country founded this nation "UNDER GOD". We, at one time, were a predominately Christian nation and that is the exact reason why our money says "UNDER GOD". Now marriage has always been recognized by the secular world in the same way based on the same religous principles. Along with marriage comes the benefits that the secular world allows, ie insurance, tax breaks, etc. Politically speaking, this is the real issue with gays wanting to have their unions recognized in marriage. This will allow them the same benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.

With that said, this is my stance. Since I believe in GOD and I believe in the holy union of marriage as it is stated in the Bible, I believe that gays should not hold the same "title" of marriage. Like I said, marriage is defined in the Bible as a man and a woman only. Therefore I do not believe that gays should be allowed to marry.

As far as benefits are concerned, that point could in my opinion, be argued more successfully. Because, common law heterosexual couples could be classified in the same group as common law gay couples. So, should they enjoy benefits from their common law status . . . maybe. I am torn on that one. My friend lives with another man (his partner). He has lived with the same guy for over ten years. Again, I do not agree with his lifestyle but I value his friendship and do not judge his decision. So really, based on personal experience (not opinion) I really don't know where I stand on the issue of benefits. I know my friend and his friend could benefit from it. But, if that means they would have to be "married" then I do not agree.

NOTE: I ANSWERED THIS OPEN AND HONESTLY WITHOUT JUDGEMENT. THESE ARE MY OPINIONS ALONE AND ARE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

Leveticus also says you can't eat shellfish. And that you should sell your daughter. And that you can't cut your hair or shave.

I'm sure you don't do those things either...

This was a reasonable and thoughtful post. I respectfully disagree of course, but am impressed with the care that went into the writing. No SW.

This is how reasonable people discuss an issue on which they disagree.



Isn't Ivan Catholic?

Old Testament vs. New Testament . . . I won't even began to try and explain. It does no good anyway.

90% of the country is religious, along with probably 90% of the world...and you think YOU'RE being discriminated against? You can't possibly be serious...

You actually made ME laugh with this one.

Again, old testament vs. new testament. What's the difference? If YOU knew that then you wouldn't have made such and idiotic statement.

But it did make me laugh . . . go get him tiger

Well, since to me the bible is a fictional book which is full of contradictions (lets kill gays, but thou shall not kill), I don't think I will allow it to make decisions for me. People once thought the world was flat too, but if someone didn't think for themselves and just went with what they were taught as a kid, america wouldn't be discovered yet.

The founding fathers were also slave owners, should we keep repressing minorities? We were also founded on the freedom to practice any type of religion without harrasment from the government, and the seperation of church and state. The government making any decision to not allow gay marriges firmly goes against what this country was founded on.

Also, I'd prefer "under god" was removed from my money personally, but seeing as I can spend it either way I don't really lose any sleep over it.

I you and every devoutly religious person that thinks like you.

These are fair points and I agree with you if you are talking about the eligabilty of a homosexual couple to enter in a religous binding (ie marraige) within a religion that 'prohibits' homosexuality, and then partaking of the benefits of that religion.

However the secular benefits you wish to keep from the gays are in the domain of the state as you pointed out.

From your argument you would suggest marraiges between a man and a woman would be ineligble for benefits of the state if they were Hindu, Islamic or civil, simply because America 'used to be mainly Christian?

Was that democracy I saw just leaving the room?

Actually didn't the countries citizens use to be mainly white? Maybe you should take the vote back off those nasty non-white folk....

Your numbers are grossly off . . . I am speaking of Christians . . . Not religous people. There is a difference.

Aren't you the one who opened with a quote from the Old Testiment?



Remember?

I never said I was against the benefits. Actually I said I was torn on the point about benefits. I was against the "marriage" of gays based on my beliefs. I am open for debate on the benefits part.