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?

[AlAyeti]

These categories are also used to describe sexual behavior, which may depart from an individual's chosen identity or spontaneous desires.

Classification of individuals into these groups is controversial, and different observers may prefer orientation, behavior, or self-identification as the sorting criterion, and make different judgments as to degree.

I believe that the Bible has described these sexual behaviors and is clear on the degree of judgment. Your right that there are other sins mentioned that people do as well. But the list includes all that it does for a reason.

The other url you posted is from the LGBT activist organization.

What would we expect?

Repentance?

Mel,

It took a long time to carefully craft the language being used to promulgate sexual perversion and sexually aberrant behavior as something desireable and to be desired.

People ascended into positions of authority for this designed purpose.

Believe what you want and I will believe the Bible and observable facts that always back up its warnings.

[melikio]

Believe what you want and I will believe the Bible and observable facts that always back up its warnings.

Al, even if you had the WHOLE truth and nothing BUT that,
I would still question what you say for many reasons.

And that is what this is about. You cannot prove what you say
absolutely. And there are obsevable facts which contend from
all side of this issue.

Even so, I narrow my view empirically down to one thing:
Homosexual people do not deserve or need to be treated as
sub-humans. And in THIS nation, they have recourse to insure
that they are treated as human beings.

I understand and have even supported your concerns widely
in my day-to-day living. I'm conservative enough, that you
likely woudn't recognize me outside of this forum.

Even so, you nor anyone else has THE conclusion
(bilbical or otherwise), as to whether homosexuality
is caused or chosen. The most probable reality is that
it's likely a combination of many factors.

Repentance? You need to STOP DEMANDING IT,
as if you are actually speaking for God.
You don't even know what you are asking, really.
As I've said before, you don't KNOW anyone's heart
and barely have a clue about your own. That is what
I know of HUMAN BEINGS, whether "Christian" or other.
People are sinful, period.
Without God's grace and Jesus dying on the Cross...
you and I can hang it up now.
I know we've not met the STANDARD of God;
though we've BOTH likely tried (and very hard too).

You have NO IDEA, how repentance applies to my life
(or anyone else's in a real sense; only God knows that.
Demand it (repentance) of YOURSELF,
and see what good it does; not the other way around.

-Mel-

[Aximili23]

I am not going to answer your question about the sexual behavior of homosexuals.

If you're not willing to contemplate or discuss the sexual behavior of homosexuals, then what right do you have to condemn it so strongly?

[melikio]

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

Al, is "secularism" to blame for the "Christian" DIVORCES?

Have you ever paid really attention to the effects of DIVORCE?

What about "relgion" that has destroyed lives, and led to
all manner of evil? What; do you THINK "religion" is good
and secularism is bad?

Al, this is about YOU man. And you aren't going to FIX this world,
you can only work on yourself.

How much like Jesus are YOU, Al? (Rhetorical question.)

There are a host of other questions like that,
which any homosexual, atheist, agnostic can ask you;
and they are indeed valid. They are going to WATCH what
you DO and compare the meaning of that with what you SAY.
That is how the "validity" of the "authority" with which you speak
will be judged by other human beings.

I see the things that some heterosexuals SCREAM
about where it concerns homosexuals,
then in a very short time later, I notice them "winking"
at most heterosexual "misdeeds";
how can it not affect people
(society) over time
(especially homosexuals trying to live in that society)?
That type of moral HYPOCRISY
is as widespread as anything "homosexual" in this society.
It's downright creepy (and disheartening
for those earnestly seeking help), that some
of those most adamantly against homosexuality,
will not address the other side of the "fence" (as it were).

I'm not shocked to find heterosexuals who feel "strongly"
against homosexuals and homosexuality. But I am also aware
of the ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy of many who only see
what they WANT to see, where the truth is concerned.

Want to make a BIG difference
and ACTUALLY improve "families" or "marriages"?
Start instilling into heterosexuals, the REAL meaning of marriage
(between a man and a woman). Start taking some of the insane
moral pressure applied to homosexuals, and transfer it
to those heterosexuals screwing like rabbits
with no plan or intention to take care of what they
ultimately "produce".

But I know that won't happen; why?
(The simple answer is fairly obvious.)
Why is it OK for some young kid
with a propensity to be homosexual, to be ridiculed and even dehumanized by his/her peers,
while kids who walk around thinking
that "oral sex" is not really sex
are just kind of...well..accepted?

Read all of my posts, and you'll likely never see me say that "homosexuality" is a good thing.
But you WILL almost always notice,
that I will defend their RIGHT to be treated as human beings,
equal to all others.

-Mel-

[Bugmaster]

The ACLU is nothing better than liars in my estimation.

Can you list some specific lies that they perpetrated, preferably with links so that we can all judge for ourselves ?

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,

You have not answered the question at all. Is it possible for two gay adults to engage in mutually consensual gay sex for their pleasure ? Yes or no ?

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

Again, you're dodging the question. In a homosexual sex act consisting of two people, how many people typically receive enjoyment from it ? 0, 1, or 2 ?

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?

I don't even know what this has to do with anything. Why do gay people have sex, do you think ? Do they do it specifically to piss you off, or what ?

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

The question was, "Is vaginal intercourse the only method by which people can receive enjoyment from sex ?" I don't see why this question is so illogical; the answer is obviously either "yes, this is the only way", or "no, there are other ways to enjoy sex". So... which is it ?

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.

Ok, you've actually answered this question. Good job ! Now, let me ask a follow-up:

5a). If the current laws against pedophilia were repealed (which would be a horrible thing, yes, but let's entertain this hypothesis for a second), would all homosexuals immediately start having sex with underage boys ? Note that "all homosexuals" also includes lesbians.

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

Huh ? No. In fact, I am not forcing you to contemplate anything... How can I ? I'm not a telepath, I can't make you think things.

[Aximili23]

Satan means "adversary." The ACLU absolutely chases Chrsitainity everywhere it is mentioned. Yes, the ACLU is Satanic. Satan himself maybe be other places.
...
The ACLU hates Christians. It is an undeniable fact.

I realize this is off-topic, but let me just take a moment to illustrate some of the things that the ACLU has recently done to defend religious freedom, including those of christians:

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit. (Not christianity, I know, but I felt this was worth mentioning anyway).

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run “anti-Santa” ads in Boston subways.

These were all taken from the ACLU website. So Al, still think their demonic and anti-christian? Care to explain why? Or will you just dismiss this without evidence or explanation, just like everything else?

[The Happy Humanist]

I realize this is off-topic, but let me just take a moment to illustrate some of the things that the ACLU has recently done to defend religious freedom, including those of christians:

Hmmm...by countering his ACLU paranoia, you make his wider point for him. Where is all this oppression coming from? Who is punishing kids for distributing candy canes, fer cryin' out loud? I always thought stories like that were concocted by the religious right as a Red Badge of Courage...

The sidewalk preachers may be a different issue. I'd like to know just what their "preaching" entailed.

I don't know why people in government have such a hard time interpreting the Wall of Separation. To me, it's simple. I think of it as "transparency," as used in the software world. The government cannot "perceive" religion. You and I see a minister babbling away on the sidewalk, and think "uh-oh, darn Christians using a public thoroughfare to spread their message." The government can only see a man babbling. They cannot hear his message, and therefore cannot determine if it is a Christian one or a Jewish one or a B'ahai one. He is just babbling. So their only concern is, is he bothering people? Is he interfering with the flow of traffic? The message is of no concern.

In the case of the children distributing candy canes, the message on the candy canes becomes invisible to the government when it is religious. If it were pornographic or otherwise harmful to the kids, all of a sudden they can see it, and take action accordingly. But if its a religious message, all the government sees is kids selling candy canes.

Anything that comes along that "upsets" that transparency, such as a Ten Commandments monument in a courtroom, it becomes obvious that such should not be allowed.

Viewing things in this way I think would go a long way towards healing the fissures between religious and secular America. The idea behind the wall is to make certain that no one group gets a leg up on the others, or can in any way be perceived as being adopted as the "official" religion. I think that in most cases that simply means the government is blind to "which" religion is invoking its rights, or treading on the rights of others.

Yes, I'm something of an accomodationist, but only because it does away with a lot of silliness and money being wasted on frivolous court cases.

Moderator: feel free to make this the start of a new topic...

[AlAyeti]

Opposition to the homosexual agenda whether secualr or Biblical does not have to be bigotry, or a hate filled position.

There is no doubt that same-sex marriage will find the light of day. in THIS country. Humans embrace wrongdoing and history inside and outside of the Bible prove that.

Same-sex marriage will outlaw the Church. The true church. I have always found it fascinating that the homosexual agenda co-opted the Rainbow and the term "coming out." Paul pointed out that the Church will struggle against powers and principalities, as the rulers of "this age."

The Rainbow was a promise made by God to Noah or, actually mankind. The "ecclesia" or, "Ekklesia" or "The Called out ones," IS made up of the called out ones. Called out from a life devoted to sin and rebellion to God.

Even the most adversarial opponents of Christians point out how Christians should live if indeed they are "real Christians." There is obviously a line of demarcation. Literally a seperation of them and Christians.

The debate focuses on what or Who called out the persons to become Christians. Because certainly, there is a debate about this and the foundation of each perspective.

[AlAyeti]

It is a personal attack to refer to my positions as paranoid.

Just for the record.

The First Amendment literally means that religion exists outside of the Constitution.

The ACLU in the case of the Los Angeles city flag forced the expulsion of the tiny little cross and never attempted to have the enormous Goddess Pomona removed.

The ACLU helping out Christians is for ulterior motives. Satan can indeed masquerade as a angel of light. The Christian that wrote that lived in a very similar society then as we do now. Debauchery is a civil right and loving the God of Israel is a hate crime.

Bugmaster,

Ask your questions about rectal and oral sex to those that claim both define their culture. Christians do not think about discussing their sexual lives or marching them down main street.

"Sexual intercourse" (or coitus) is penis-vagina. By definition and empiricism anything else is psuedo-sexuality, sexual behavior, or to be exact, quasi-sexual intercourse. That is if science has any bearing on accurate definition.

Sexual intercourse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about sexual intercourse in humans and its societal implications. For biological copulation in general, see copulation.

Sexual intercourse or coitus is the human form of copulation. In a wider context, the term sexual intercourse may refer to a wider range of sexual activities than the term coitus, which usually only refers to vaginal intercourse. See human sexual behavior for a discussion of the broader sense of sexual intercourse, . . .

and for information on the wide variety of sexual activities there are to choose from.

Sexual intercourse may be preceded by foreplay which leads to sexual arousal of the partners, resulting in erection of the penis and natural lubrication of the vagina.

To engage in sexual intercourse, the erect penis is inserted into the vagina and one or both of the partners move back and forth to repeatedly pull the penis out (but usally not all the way out) and push it back in. In this way, they stimulate themselves and each other usually until they achieve orgasm and ejaculation. A detailed description of the physiology of sexual arousal and orgasm can be found in the article Human sexual response cycle.

///

Well what do you know, wikipedia even turns to good ol' physiology now and then to find their definitions.

And also this from the wiki people:

Sexual intercourse should always be considered likely to result in pregnancy unless adequate contraceptive (birth control) measures are in force. Even then, pregnancy should be considered a possible outcome of the activity since no birth control measure is 100% effective. Coitus interruptus, or "withdrawal" of the penis from the vagina just before the man’s orgasm, cannot be considered an effective method of contraception and is not recommended, as the male usually releases a small amount of semen before the main ejaculation. Abstinence from heterosexual sexual intercourse and sterilization are the only 100% effective ways to avoid pregnancy.
Outercourse, in which there is sexual activity without insertion, can be performed without resulting in pregnancy provided that semen does not come in contact with the vulva.

///

Even outercourse is seen as male/female in the context of intercourse. Outercourse? Talk about politically incorrect.

But it does seem that homosexual sex (abstinence from heterosexual sexual intercourse (which of course is the only kind by definition) is the means to avoid having children. Those wikipedia people are going to get a rude awakening from the LGBT lawsuits coming their way.

Am I bigoted to think that "IF" sexual intercourse should always be considered to result in pregnancy, than that would eliminate homosexuality to be considered as sexual intercourse?

Or is it sexual "behavior?"

Standing in the sunshine with arms outstretched will cause a person to make a little shade but does that make a person a tree?

Than there is really no conclusion that can be made on this thread topic, because homosexuality, whether a chosen trait or congenital condition, is not sexual intercourse. It is just a behavior.

How is the choice or desire to engage in sexual behavior with a member of ones own sex, should be what is sought. And that will be found only in making a conscious choice.

So children and family, and marriage which benefits both as an exclusive "right" in humans, is for those that choose sexual behavior defined exclusively for that purpose.

[melikio]

The First Amendment literally means that religion exists outside of the Constitution.

And one thing is certain, a religious state where questions can't be asked and laws can't be challenged, is not a good thing.

And that again, is the broader issue here. For if the sanctity of "marriage" and the protection of the family institution is really the primary issue or concern, the BOTH divorce and the typically POOR concept of the meaning of marriage between a man/woman, needs to be addressed with FAR MORE intensity than most seem to be willing to.

If homosexuals disappeared altogether starting tomorrow; I doubt if that would affect the very things I've just pointed out. It might freak some people out and make other very happy...but it would resolve the kinds of issues that most marriges and families must face.

As far as the U.S. Constitution and religion, it is my understanding (as I and many others have been taught), that the government cannot support nor tear down any given religion. However, there are limits to the rights and influence of religion upon individuals in this society. I don't think there is anything new or radical about me stating those things.

And Al...while it may be a personal attack for someone to say YOU (yourself) are "paranoid", it is not necessarily an attack (or particularly worng) for them to imply or say they find what you are saying to appear or be paranoid. Some people get offended, just because someone DISAGREES with them, and while that may seem or feel offensive to them, it's not necessarily an attack.

Gay people know well what it feels like to have their values challenged (most learn to deal with it, early in life); but it's VERY evident, that for a very long time, many of the biased, bigoted and ignorant views of certain anti-gay heterosexuals went unchallenged.

And a large part of the problems and issues being discussed right here, stems NOT from homosexuality itself, but the very unnecessary and evil treatment many have leveled at homosexuals throughout time. I honestly believe, that God intends for ALL of this to be addressed, and as with everything that happens, He is watching the "hearts" of those caught up in and around the issue.

-Mel-