Homosexuality: A chosen trait, or gentetically aquired?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

This question is a major underlying factor of the general homosexual debate, the answer of which can narrow the scope in questioning its morality.



Are people born gay, or do they choose to be?
Can someone be blamed for their sexual orientation, or is it subject to factors we have no control over?

[Bugmaster]

Homosexuality was once equal to Pederaasty, then called inversion and then called homosexuality.

You keep saying that, but you never offer any proof... That statement is becoming background noise in all your posts.

That homosexual activists are allowed in schools give me great cause to beleive that pederasty is indeed the issue.

Actually, sex education in schools focuses mostly on straight sex. Specifically, it mentions the chief danger of straight sex -- pregnancy. That is, as you would put it, "indeed the issue".

Satan means "adversary."

When you say "Satan", most people think of a very specific fallen angel -- Lucifer -- who is the 20-foot firebreathing demonic ruler of Hell with horns and hooves. I don't think anyone on this forum uses the word "Satan" to mean "generic adversary".

The ACLU absolutely chases Chrsitainity everywhere it is mentioned. Yes, the ACLU is Satanic. Satan himself maybe be other places.

If ACLU are demonic minions of Satan, do they have a counterpart ? An angelically-possessed organization ? I know that you'll tell me that all true Christians are opposed to ACLU, etc., but surely, if Satan could bring some demonic muscle to Earth, God would do the same ?

I do not think about gays having sex. Though it is clear that you want me to.

Actually, judging by your posts, you think about gays having sex all the time. The vast majority of your posts deal with homosexuality (usually, in a very militant and denigrating way). I haven't seen anyone else on this board who's so hung up on one issue.

Anatomy leads me to my conclusion about comfortable and non-painful sex.

So... does homosexual sex feel good to homosexuals ? You still haven't answered this question conclusively. Note that I am not trying to get you to watch gay porn, all I'm trying to do is get you to answer a question.

Ever wonder why there has to be a "Defense of Marriage Act?"

Yeah, it's because of intolerant people who want to subjugate a minority of American citizens because they're different. Not anything to wonder about, really.

[AlAyeti]

You speak of "facts," "empiricism" and "logic," yet through your continuing effort to criminalize homosexuality, you betray your argument through hipocrisy.

You are presenting a lie.

I have never promoted criminalizing homosexuality. I present the opposition to redefining marriage and family.

Being Pro-family and Pro-marriage is not outlawing homosexuality. It is doing the right thing.

The Congress had to enact the Defense of Marriage for a reason. It, is being attacked.

My consistent use of facts invalidates the labeling of me as a bigot. You are just stooping to ad hom. This hysteria is typical of the Progressive when he is challenged. You have never been taught to believe anything outside your box.

This "shouting" (as in Gay Pride Parades) is a response to homosexual persecution. You present this as though one day every LGBT person in America decided to flaunt themselves for the world to see. This is not the case. In point of fact, not only is it a response to persecution, often publicly done so, but further to the flaunting of heterosexuality which has become the paradigm of entertainment in western society.

Do you know how uneducated that presentation is? That sexual perversion is displayed on the streets of ANY city is disgusting. Heterosexuality is flaunted? Again that is absurd. That is devoid of reason.

Heterosexuality is a paradigm? It is the natural order of nature! Both Darwinian or Biblical. Please present another avenue of argument. The above belittles your intellect.

Quote:
More Christians (God Bless them) have been murdered in the past month than anyone getting harrassed for walking around in public wearing leather and chains.

More Christians have murdered more people in the past month than anyone walking around in public wearing leather and chains.

Your response is lacking the decency and truth, unfortunately, I have come to expect from a atheist. You need to apologize.

Quote:
I defend the Christian perspective about a life of sanity being better than whoredom and promiscuity. I have the entire New Testament backing me up. Progressive-Christians only have Liberal politics.


I believe Jesus would beg to differ. Not only did he befriend whores, but if you'll notice the genealogies presented in the new testament, Jesus has a couple of whores he's descended from. Liberal politics.... how is it that right wing christians are the last ones to realize they are tools of the Republican party, supporting a party of lies, war-mongering, crony-ism, and crime in it's highest levels?

I believe you nothing of the Gospels. Jesus told one prostitute to go and sin no more. Something you don't hear in Liberal Churches. The whores in the family line of Jesus chose God. All of the other sinners Jesus dined with accepted the Gospel as well. They would have had to have repented.

Right-Wing Christians or any other kind, cannot support the Democrats because the Democrats are anti-Christians.

The Republicans at least allow Christians to practice their faith without being sued.

Quote:
Oh so sad if I hurt feelings by using science and empiricism to defend against accpetance of abominations and aberrations.



A remarkably similar thought process initiated euthanasia in Germany, and eventually grew into Shoa.

When all else fails pull out the Nazi epithet huh? Very shallow and typical hysteria. Certainly in my case, since I worship the Jewish Messiah Jesus, a Jew and a practicing Jew, your insult has its foundation in ignorance and hate.

Quote:
The ACLU (of course) is doing its best for kiddie porn.


This is out of hand. Far from being completely unsubstantiated, this statement speaks more about you than the ACLU.

The ACLU hates Christians. It is an undeniable fact.

To begin with, one book from one historian presenting one view about pederasty during a specific time in one location, Athens, Greece is not THE history of pederasty. How can you possibly claim to have solid evidence for your claims when you not only site history as science, but further make a statement like this. You have thrown out the whole of scholarly work on pederasty for one book you incorrectly think supports your claims... this is narrow-mindedness enacted.

One book? One specific time and location? ONE historian? Who am I debating with?

Please stop going in this direction. There are some atheists on these threads you are embarrassing.

Quote:
have never used the "F" word to describe a homosexual or written off people that engage in unnatural sex. There is cures sought for other congenital disorders, why not homosexuality. Two things give this credence: Why would anyone choose this lifestyle. AND. . . They are born that way.

Then lets help them


You should watch the movie Saved.

It was written by a homosexual and typically denigrates Christians. Why would I watch more insults directed at Christians from the homosexual community? I can watch ABC, NBC and CBS for free. Or read any weekly magazine right?

Quote:
There is no educated stance for violating the human body by invading orifices that are not intended for sex. Sorry if I think dildos and KY are forced into use in same-sex sex. Empiricism is the key to impassionate logic.



Good point. I guess it would then be a sin, and scientifically abnormal to, during sex, kiss, caress, touch in any way (other than with sexual organs of course) whisper, hug, or do anything else that is not directly related to penile insertion into the vagina. You must not violate the mouth with lips, tongue or fingers. You must stay far away from the ears. A female must not handle the penis in any way except when it's inside of her. Yes. That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

I presented anatomical facts to show that aversion and opposition to the normalization of homosexuality is not based on bigotry.

Your response was absurdity.

Quote:
Look at this absurd analogy from an atheist I somewhat respect:Quote:
If you are tlaking about penile/vaginal stimulation I say -
what a load of crap - and I speak from experience.



Um..... this is in no way an analogy.

Hmm, left off my rebuttal to Bernee's silliness didn't you. I wonder why? No I don't really.

Quote:
I sincerely hope that people choose Christ. But, it is clear that some will not.

I just let them get away with denigarting and belittling people of character?

Why not punch back?



Turn the other cheek comes to mind. First, you're not denigrated. Simply because people choose to defend those whom you denigrate (please refer to your constant criminalization of homosexuality) it doesn't mean you're being denigrated, it means you're being defensive about a stance which obviously born out of your own mind rather than the Lord you claim to follow.

Quoting the Bible to prove an atheists' point? And then kindergarten rhetoric in sentence two?

I denigrate actions.

The soul and salvation is strictly God's business. No where have I promoted outlawing homosexuality. I just define it accurately. Just not legalizing same-sex marriage is not a bigoted stance. Which of course means that it already not legal.

Quote:
No one is trying to martyr me. And they all claim that they are presenting science and reason against us ignorant backward Fundies and if we find it unsettling . . . no insult was intended.

Now, we know they are lying, but we play the game huh?

Yet, these same people cannot find the right hole in the human body for the purposes they were designed for.

And they want to be considered intelligent.

Please.


Please explain what this series of one- liners means; specifically, what you mean when you seem to be arguing that everyone who argues against you is ignorant. That's a really christian thing to say.

Do I really need to explain that? Search your own opinions of Christianity for the open-mindedness that is not there.

[Bugmaster]

The ACLU hates Christians. It is an undeniable fact.

I deny it. Let's see some proof.

[Aximili23]

Satan means "adversary." The ACLU absolutely chases Chrsitainity everywhere it is mentioned. Yes, the ACLU is Satanic. Satan himself maybe be other places.

I've always found it odd that you lambast the ACLU so strongly, especially considering that it's main goal is to promote and defend religious freedom. Would you describe the actions of the ACLU in this article as satanic and anti-christian?

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today announced that it is seeking to participate as a friend-of-the-court in the case of a second-grade student who was barred from singing a religious song in a voluntary, after-school talent show.
. . .
"The ACLU of New Jersey has dedicated itself to protecting the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature," noted ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "This student also deserves our full support."

And also..

Homosexuality was once equal to Pederasty, then called inversion and then called homosexuality.

We've discussed this in the Rome-Sodom-Greece-Homosexuality thread already. You're not using the terms correctly. Ancient Greek culture may have closely linked pederasty and homosexuality, but today they're completely different things. Pederasty has several definitions, I assume you're referring to adult man-adolescent boy sex. Yes, this is clearly a specific type of homosexual act; it's very much illegal in the US, and rightly so, I believe, since it's tantamount to child abuse. But homosexuality is a much broader concept, it refers merely to same-sex attraction (male-male or female-female) without any reference whatsoever to age or maturity. No one is pushing for the legalization or acceptance of pederasty. LGBT organizations and GSAs are not encouraging underage boys to have sex with adult men. The acceptance of "Questionig Youth" is simply aimed to give young people a chance to understand their sexuality and sexual orientation, whether gay or straight, without oppression. And the modern homosexual culture/identity is NOT rooted in the ancient greek culture of pederasty; the very website you cited in an attempt to support your claim agrees with me on this point.

Bugmaster raised some very good, clear questions, and I'm sure many of us are waiting to hear your answer. Let me reiterate them for you:

1). Is it possible for two gay adults to engage in mutually consensual gay sex for their pleasure ? Note that I said "their pleasure", not yours.
2). In a homosexual sex act consisting of two people, how many people typically receive enjoyment from it ? 0, 1, or 2 ?
3). If the answer is "0", then why do gay people have sex at all ?
4). Is vaginal intercourse the only method by which people can receive enjoyment from sex ?

And I would like to add one more:

5). Do all gay men seek to have sex with underage boys?

A clear, concise answer to each question would be greatly appreciated.

[AlAyeti]

I've always found it odd that you lambast the ACLU so strongly, especially considering that it's main goal is to promote and defend religious freedom. Would you describe the actions of the ACLU in this article as satanic and anti-christian?

The ACLU is nothing better than liars in my estimation.

How interesting that the ACLU is "joining in" on the rights of the little girl's Christian song smells of a Clinton rat. I noticed the article mentioned the word "recently" about the ACLU's change about religious this or that.

And Pederasty remains well-defined and I use it in context correctly.

It makes me shudder to think that the ACLU is in schools with students that young.

Bugmaster raised some very good, clear questions, and I'm sure many of us are waiting to hear your answer. Let me reiterate them for you:

Quote:
1). Is it possible for two gay adults to engage in mutually consensual gay sex for their pleasure ? Note that I said "their pleasure", not yours.
2). In a homosexual sex act consisting of two people, how many people typically receive enjoyment from it ? 0, 1, or 2 ?
3). If the answer is "0", then why do gay people have sex at all ?
4). Is vaginal intercourse the only method by which people can receive enjoyment from sex ?

And I would like to add one more:

5). Do all gay men seek to have sex with underage boys?

A clear, concise answer to each question would be greatly appreciated.

Bugmaster is baggering me. Number five would be a different thing if the ACLU's client NAMBLA gets their rights upheld.

But, number 1. Privacy is something I want and expect of others' sexuality. I cannot rationalize the kind of things that homosexuality endorses as being comfortable let alone enjoyable. That is their business not mine. I have seen the reactions of a male dog sodomized by another male dog. It did not look to be enjoying the coupling. I'm only assuming anatomy is similar in other mammals,

2) Ask a homosexual. I oppose the redefinition of marriage and family not what adults do to each other in psuedo sexual acts.

3) Their psyches are abnormal. Again anatomy and physiology and not bigotry lead me to this scientific answer. Also, homosexuals state that they were born that way. Yet, if their genitalia is noramal then sexual orientation is self evident. Why is that empirical truth so hard for you guys to grasp?

4) Illogical question. The point is what is anatomically correct sexual intercourse, not errogenous behavior.

5) No. Only because there are "current" laws against it. Homosexual Pedophile Catholic Priests shed a bad light on this question. They are not molestaing grey haired businessmen. They are molesting boys.

Now my question. You know my positions.

1) Do you get a thrill by forcing me to contemplate sexual perversion?

[Aximili23]

AlAyeti,

Your stubbornness is amazing! You're presented with evidence of the ACLU actually defending the right of religious expression, and you dismiss it with vague allegations of "Clinton rat" odor (whatever that means) and recentness (so if the ACLU did this years ago, they'd be all right then?)

But never mind that and the pedastery thing, for now. You've finally answered the questions, which give some interesting insights into your point of view:

1). Is it possible for two gay adults to engage in mutually consensual gay sex for their pleasure ? Note that I said "their pleasure", not yours.

But, number 1. Privacy is something I want and expect of others' sexuality. I cannot rationalize the kind of things that homosexuality endorses as being comfortable let alone enjoyable. That is their business not mine. I have seen the reactions of a male dog sodomized by another male dog. It did not look to be enjoying the coupling. I'm only assuming anatomy is similar in other mammals,

I take it from your answer that you mean "No", gay adults cannot engage in gay sex for pleasure? The new heights to which you have shut out reality, and the arrogance with which you'd presume to declare how gay people feel about what they do, are both astonishing. Considering the strength of your convictions, didn't it ever occur to you to talk to a gay person, and try to understand his or her point of view? Because any of them would certainly tell you that gay sex is in fact pleasurable for them.

2). In a homosexual sex act consisting of two people, how many people typically receive enjoyment from it ? 0, 1, or 2 ?

2) Ask a homosexual. I oppose the redefinition of marriage and family not what adults do to each other in psuedo sexual acts.

Your answer to questions 1 and 3 imply that your answer to this one is "0", so we can ignore your obvious question-dodging. I find it interesting that you're not actually opposed to gay people having gay sex. Although why you would define gay sex as merely pseudo-sex, contrary to all known definitions and common usage, is beyond me.

3). If the answer is "0", then why do gay people have sex at all ?

3) Their psyches are abnormal. Again anatomy and physiology and not bigotry lead me to this scientific answer. Also, homosexuals state that they were born that way. Yet, if their genitalia is noramal then sexual orientation is self evident. Why is that empirical truth so hard for you guys to grasp?

This may be the crux of the issue, so i'll elaborate a bit. You claim that gay people do not enjoy gay sex, and only engage in it because their psyches are abnormal, correct? First of all, exact definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" are required here, in order for any intelligent discussion to proceed. Social scientists will tell you that there is an amazing amount of behavioral and psychological relativism within humanity. What is normal for some individuals or cultures would be truly bizarre and horrendous for others. You can probably argue that gays are a statistical minority, and in that sense, "abnormal". But are their psyches abnormal in the sense that their minds are defective, that these minds have some inherent flaw? It would interest us to know then, what is the nature of this abnormality, and how does it cause gay people to engage in gay sex, which according to you, they do not enjoy? Is this abnormality compelling them to engage in an action that they find disgusting or distasteful?

My point is this: even if the gay psyche were somehow abnormal, surely you would concede that the abnormality causes them to enjoy gay sex? Put it this way: a serial killer can be considered as having an abnormal psyche. This abnormality compells them to kill people. But in most cases serial killers relish the very idea of killing or inflicting pain on their victims; the act of murder gives them an intense feeling of pleasure. It's the same with homosexuals; whatever is different in their brains or hormone levels that causes them to be gay, it affects their behavior by causing them to enjoy physical intimacy with members of the same sex. And most likely, their enjoyment of gay sex is exactly the same as the enjoyment that straight people feel when experiencing straight sex.

Now, your claim of abnormality seems to rest on this bizarre and vague fixation on "biology, physiology, and anatomy". Again, since your convictions are never clearly explained, I'll try to explain what I think you mean, and you can tell me if I'm correct:

Since any physiology or anatomy textbook would tell us that human sexual reproduction is achieved by intercourse between a man and a woman, through the insertion of a penis into a vagina, then the "correct" sexual orientation of a human with a penis is to be attracted to a human with a vagina. Any attraction to members of the same sex would fail to

[melikio]

3) Their psyches are abnormal. Again anatomy and physiology and not bigotry lead me to this scientific answer. Also, homosexuals state that they were born that way.

Al, who should be "believed" here, you or experts who have
considered vastly more than their own beliefs and biases?
And while many or most homosexual people might think they were "born"
with a propensity for homosexual-orientation, it
DOESN'T necessarily rule out environmental factors (among which, may indeed include the type of hounding and dehumanization your TYPE of mindset invokes).

Yet, if their genitalia is noramal then sexual orientation is self evident. Why is that empirical truth so hard for you guys to grasp?

Al, you aren't taking the stance of an educated person; what you say here is apparently based on ignorance (overall).
I haven't even heard "Christian" social-scientists say/imply
the things you tend to. You should consider the criticism being shared with you here.

In general, there are HUNDREDS (perhaps thousands)
of factors which actually make up a person's sexual-orientation
(even one's "gender" is vastly more complex
than YOU ever seem to be willing to indicate).

I can accept that YOU have an aversion to homosexual people,
their behaviors and moral stance, but I don't accept the idea
that you are relating THE truth about all of this;
and the comments you made above support my disagreement.

-Mel-

[melikio]

Sexual Orientation vs. Gender Identity vs. Sexual Identity
Sexual orientation, gender identity, and sexual identity are
independent of each other.
A person may express any variation of each of
these in any combination. To discourage the free
expression of identity and orientation by an individual
is to impose a damaging burden
of conformity.

Source: http://www.sa.utah.edu/lgbt/resources/transgender.html

While some may limit their definitions (or consideration of them)
to operate solidly within their chosen realm of "logic",
that is not always what it takes to truly understand things;
especially as it relates to the things which are still being discovered.

Far too many people "believe" that all that there is to be
understood about human sexuality, has already been
understood. That is not true/absolute, and most credible
experts will explain that to you. If you are "lucky",
you'll get the "short" version.

Even so, there certainly IS a great deal of ignorance
about human sexuality, which traditional religion isn't particularly
apt or necessarily capable of addressing. And though I may agree
that "strict" Christian and/or religious limits represent a safety zone,
I do not agree that people should be compelled or badgered
into "necessarily" honoring and/or observing those values.
The only limitations which should be placed upon individuals
sexually, are those which cause them to be a direct
(and provable) liability to others or society at-large.
That one does not "prefer" it, or find it to be "moral"
according to their beliefs or morals, should never be
justification for marginalizing or treating that person
in any way that isn't compassionate and/or edifying.

Jesus DIDN'T give people the "authority" to
do to homosexuals, what many who claim to be
His "followers" are doing. Sure, it's a traditional
and more popular social paradigm to quietly think
or believe that "homosexuals" are semi-human freaks,
but it surely isn't "justice" (under the U.S. Constitution),
"Christian" (according to the Bible/Jesus) nor "realistic"
(according to that which may be known intuitively).

Extremism and abject marginalization coming from ANY
side in this, is more a portion of the existing problems
than the likely solutions to them.

-Mel-

[melikio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_orientation

Another interesting and informative link.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

If ACLU are demonic minions of Satan, do they have a counterpart ? An angelically-possessed organization ? I know that you'll tell me that all true Christians are opposed to ACLU, etc., but surely, if Satan could bring some demonic muscle to Earth, God would do the same ?

He has.

The children protected from pedophiles would have no voice without a moral majority. Marriage and strong families is the best protection.

Marriage cannot be defined by a Christian any other way than Jesus defined it. A man and a woman. No other text in the Bible needs to be used to orient the Christian on how to vote for laws protecting marriage.

When secualrism destroys the family and completes the job of wiping away sound marriages, I am sure that God will havge had enough.

I am a Christian and I hope this perspective comes as no surprise. Christians do not hide their agenda with carefully crafted political correctness.

Nero understood Christians as easily as does the ACLU.

I am not going to answer your question about the sexual behavior of homosexuals. I find the questioning in poor taste and as a personally directed insult. Would you ask a Muslim to contemplate eating pork spare ribs? Just bad taste man. No pun intended.

Anatomy and physiology should answer the question. The body is perfectly designed to show you the truth on sexual matters.

I will be happy to debate Christianty here at debatingchristianty.com.

I did not duck your question. Please pick up a school text book on either physiology or human anatomy to put me to the test.

I will not do likewise with you, for obvious reasons.

I am a Christian.