Private Schools and Society

[JoeyKnothead]

From the article here:

The firing of a gay physical-education teacher from a Columbus Catholic high school would be a violation of a city ordinance if a complaint were filed and investigators determined the dismissal was based on her sexual orientation.

Carla Hale of Powell, who worked at Bishop Watterson High School in Clintonville for 19 years, said she was fired in March after an anonymous parent complained that an obituary for Hale’s mother listed the name of Hale’s female domestic partner.

^my link to what is assumed to be the school in question.

On the one hand, why would a gay person ostensibly seek to encourage a Catholic education, when at least this bunch of Catholics are so against homosexuals? Then we have the issue of a possible violation of a city ordinance conflicting with the idea that religious schools be allowed a certain latitude as relates to their religious convictions.


For debate:

Which is the greater harm (or good); allowing religious schools to fire folks over their sexual preferences, or to hold that all who are shown capable should be allowed to work (where we 'decide' this school is a part of the city as a whole)? I assume this is a privately funded school, but still contend society has a right to make certain decisions in this regard.

I propose the greater good is in allowing this woman, who hasn't been accused of anything within the school setting, to be allowed to continue to teach. But what does that say about allowing folks to practice their beliefs as they see fit? I'm lost as a cow at a square dance.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

Conflict is part of the human condition. It won't magically disappear if people stop joining religion.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

Conflict is part of the human condition. It won't magically disappear if people stop joining religion.

But the open question is whether religion in general increases or decreases the human propensity for conflict. But that is beyond the scope of this debate. Religion. What is it good for?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 29 by Clownboat]

Conflict is part of the human condition. It won't magically disappear if people stop joining religion.

I agree. Why would conflict as a whole magically disappear if people stopped joining religions? I'm certainly not making that argument.

Some conflicts would disappear though, and that was my point. I also wonder how adults make the decision to join a religion that automatically makes "enemies" out of our fellow humans. Then I can't help but make the connection that cults often invent enemies to maintain their sense of community by creating an us vs them mentality.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 28 by dianaiad]

You don't need to know any actual scientific facts before hand in order to read a passage on a scientific subject then answer questions about it. At least that is the case for the ACT, I never took the SAT.

In any case the ACT/SAT aren't really relevant since they are test for entering college and going to college is not required by law. The real question is how many standardize tests like the CAT that private and homeschoolers have to take.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 19:

Perhaps you don't. However, what if, rather than sleeping with one partner of her own sex, she was a hooker in the evenings, and a porn star?

More hypothetical tangents.

Are we to conclude we now live in a world where you've used so many hypothetical tangents, there ain't enough left for anyone else to use?

That said, I've learned me a good bit from hookers, about having to budget my money and all, and have made a porn star out of more'n one woman in my day, and have found the experiences quite educational.

According to Catholic doctrine, one is no bigger a sin than the other.

'Parently, in accordance with "Catholic doctrine", pedophiling on little kids is no more a sin than coverin' it up.

Whether or not YOU agree, it's their doctrine, their school....and the parents send their kids there because they trust that the teachers share their values and religious ideas.

Some parents also think praying works better'n going to a doctor. Do we not at least try to invoke some sense of shame when coming across such?

Now me, I don't care.

By the feathers of a bull, you do care, or you wouldn't try to defend this deplorable act.

I don't care. If she were honest with me, I'd hire her. The issue for me is honesty. She lied. She KNEW that her employer had rules, and she lied. For quite a long time.

You've repeatedly invoked this accusation.

I now request you provid us with substantiating documentation.

1st challenge[/i].

As well, I have a fundamental objection to this idea you seem to have that the prospective employee has all the rights and that the employer has none...as if this teacher has the RIGHT to work for that school, no matter what.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding, and I contend this thread bears witness to my charge. Never in this thread have I sought to claim or imply the employer has no rights.

Yet again we see that you, Miss dianaiad, see nefarity where none is presented. It is my firm conviction that based on your past accusations that those who oppose you on the various issues of homosexual rights are seeking to "force" you, or your "church" to change your beliefs should be held in evidence against your position regarding this issue. Your inability to see any "fundamentals" here, but your own, "fundamental" religious demand that anyone but whom you or your church declare worthy of teaching the basic education the government demands, should lead us all to the firm conviction that religious institutions should not be trusted with, nor tasked with such a "fundamental" undertaking.

...and the politically correct idiocy...

And there we have it.

Anything which you don't agree with is "politically correct idiocy".

I leave the remainder of the post as the -ahem- idiocy it's now clearly shown to be.

[marketandchurch]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Then you may as well give up on any laws about mandatory education. The same government which has decreed that all children are to be educated also has the right to determine what is or is not valid education.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Why? Are you afraid that an out of the closet gay teacher is going to corrupt our youth?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God. But we don't live in that world.

Your ideal world is one where homosexual couples would deny the validity of their own relationships and only espouse heterosexual marriage?

We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

None of the advocates for same sex marriage want to destroy marriage as an institution. We've had same sex marriage in Canada since January 2001. Heterosexual couples are still getting married; the divorce rate is not substantially rising; there are no indications that marriage as an institution is being destroyed, in fact, I am still happily married to an opposite sex partner and feel no threat to my marriage by the same sex married couple who live a few doors down. Please tell me what do you mean that they want to destroy marriage?

Gender is fluid, and there's a war to destroy biblically sourced gender roles. Gay marriage will only accelerate this.

We can only assess the full ramifications of the decision to allow Gay marriage, 4 generations down the line, when he/she/him/her/boy/girl/man/woman are meaningless labels, and the biblical preference has been fully uprooted from the cultural zeitgeist. If we fragment traditional notions of gender, but still continue to marry, and reproduce, then great. That would be romantic. But highly unlikely, given the current trajectory of Europe, and the secularized parts of the West.

[Clownboat]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Then you may as well give up on any laws about mandatory education. The same government which has decreed that all children are to be educated also has the right to determine what is or is not valid education.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Why? Are you afraid that an out of the closet gay teacher is going to corrupt our youth?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God. But we don't live in that world.

Your ideal world is one where homosexual couples would deny the validity of their own relationships and only espouse heterosexual marriage?

We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

None of the advocates for same sex marriage want to destroy marriage as an institution. We've had same sex marriage in Canada since January 2001. Heterosexual couples are still getting married; the divorce rate is not substantially rising; there are no indications that marriage as an institution is being destroyed, in fact, I am still happily married to an opposite sex partner and feel no threat to my marriage by the same sex married couple who live a few doors down. Please tell me what do you mean that they want to destroy marriage?

Gender is fluid, and there's a war to destroy biblically sourced gender roles. Gay marriage will only accelerate this.

We can only assess the full ramifications of the decision to allow Gay marriage, 4 generations down the line, when he/she/him/her/boy/girl/man/woman are meaningless labels, and the biblical preference has been fully uprooted from the cultural zeitgeist. If we fragment traditional notions of gender, but still continue to marry, and reproduce, then great. That would be romantic. But highly unlikely, given the current trajectory of Europe, and the secularized parts of the West.

If this is truly how you feel, please answer this real life scenario for me:


She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

An ultrasound check found she had no ovaries and no uterus but two small testicles hidden in the abdominal cavity. A chromosome examination, however, confirmed Zhang is actually a male.

Since Zhang has a vagina, it was not until the ultrasound exam that the couple learned "she" was a "he."

Zhang only has testicles but no other male organs, such as a penis, and other male characteristics.

She has female external genitalia and was reared as a girl.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm


If you had your way, what would you suggests this man does with his marriage?
When this happens, should these people's marriages just be dissolved?
Should he be forced to leave his partner and marry a women, even though he has a vagina instead of a penis and did not even know he was a man until this all happened.
Was being gay a choice for this person?

No matter what, I find it evil to not allow a fellow human to take part in something that I hold sacred for myself.
No amount of: "but, but, butt... they're gay" will suffice.

[marketandchurch]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Then you may as well give up on any laws about mandatory education. The same government which has decreed that all children are to be educated also has the right to determine what is or is not valid education.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Why? Are you afraid that an out of the closet gay teacher is going to corrupt our youth?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God. But we don't live in that world.

Your ideal world is one where homosexual couples would deny the validity of their own relationships and only espouse heterosexual marriage?

We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

None of the advocates for same sex marriage want to destroy marriage as an institution. We've had same sex marriage in Canada since January 2001. Heterosexual couples are still getting married; the divorce rate is not substantially rising; there are no indications that marriage as an institution is being destroyed, in fact, I am still happily married to an opposite sex partner and feel no threat to my marriage by the same sex married couple who live a few doors down. Please tell me what do you mean that they want to destroy marriage?

Gender is fluid, and there's a war to destroy biblically sourced gender roles. Gay marriage will only accelerate this.

We can only assess the full ramifications of the decision to allow Gay marriage, 4 generations down the line, when he/she/him/her/boy/girl/man/woman are meaningless labels, and the biblical preference has been fully uprooted from the cultural zeitgeist. If we fragment traditional notions of gender, but still continue to marry, and reproduce, then great. That would be romantic. But highly unlikely, given the current trajectory of Europe, and the secularized parts of the West.

If this is truly how you feel, please answer this real life scenario for me:


She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

An ultrasound check found she had no ovaries and no uterus but two small testicles hidden in the abdominal cavity. A chromosome examination, however, confirmed Zhang is actually a male.

Since Zhang has a vagina, it was not until the ultrasound exam that the couple learned "she" was a "he."

Zhang only has testicles but no other male organs, such as a penis, and other male characteristics.

She has female external genitalia and was reared as a girl.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm


If you had your way, what would you suggests this man does with his marriage?
When this happens, should these people's marriages just be dissolved?
Should he be forced to leave his partner and marry a women, even though he has a vagina instead of a penis and did not even know he was a man until this all happened.
Was being gay a choice for this person?

No matter what, I find it evil to not allow a fellow human to take part in something that I hold sacred for myself.
No amount of: "but, but, butt... they're gay" will suffice.

I support it.

If she is living out her life as a woman, and is in every way indifferent from normative feminine/womenly mannerisms, etiquette, dress, etc, and does not go around broadcasting that her genitals would classify her as a dude, then I wish her a happy life, as a her. The OT has issues with woman and men not conforming to the gender ideals of their sex, and it is purely because of the bisexual aspect of human nature.

What is troubling in the bible's eyes are what you broadcast publicly, and for a hairy stocky man to wear lipstick, makeup, and a dress, is a public revolution of the highest order. It is undoing the separate notion of man, and woman, while framing them as just "humans," and considering the current war on gender, 40 years from now when notions of he/she/him/her/man/woman/male/female/boy/girl/etc, are utterly meaningless, the sex of the person one is making love to will be of no concern, as it was in the ancient world, before Christianity created the rigidly male-female biased world we live in.

I'm fine when it's done as a joke, like boys dressing up as such for halloween, or men doing so at a football game. Because everyone clearly understands that one is doing so, as a joke, and not an extension of one's sexuality.

Sexuality is purely a cultural construct. You are 100% nature, so most men will mate with a woman, if not because of biology, then certainly because of society demanding that you do so as part of your gender role. But you are also 100% nurture, and will make love to which ever gender that those of your sex, community, or society as a whole, deems preferable. Preferable can trump biology.

[Clownboat]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Then you may as well give up on any laws about mandatory education. The same government which has decreed that all children are to be educated also has the right to determine what is or is not valid education.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Why? Are you afraid that an out of the closet gay teacher is going to corrupt our youth?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God. But we don't live in that world.

Your ideal world is one where homosexual couples would deny the validity of their own relationships and only espouse heterosexual marriage?

We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

None of the advocates for same sex marriage want to destroy marriage as an institution. We've had same sex marriage in Canada since January 2001. Heterosexual couples are still getting married; the divorce rate is not substantially rising; there are no indications that marriage as an institution is being destroyed, in fact, I am still happily married to an opposite sex partner and feel no threat to my marriage by the same sex married couple who live a few doors down. Please tell me what do you mean that they want to destroy marriage?

Gender is fluid, and there's a war to destroy biblically sourced gender roles. Gay marriage will only accelerate this.

We can only assess the full ramifications of the decision to allow Gay marriage, 4 generations down the line, when he/she/him/her/boy/girl/man/woman are meaningless labels, and the biblical preference has been fully uprooted from the cultural zeitgeist. If we fragment traditional notions of gender, but still continue to marry, and reproduce, then great. That would be romantic. But highly unlikely, given the current trajectory of Europe, and the secularized parts of the West.

If this is truly how you feel, please answer this real life scenario for me:


She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

An ultrasound check found she had no ovaries and no uterus but two small testicles hidden in the abdominal cavity. A chromosome examination, however, confirmed Zhang is actually a male.

Since Zhang has a vagina, it was not until the ultrasound exam that the couple learned "she" was a "he."

Zhang only has testicles but no other male organs, such as a penis, and other male characteristics.

She has female external genitalia and was reared as a girl.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm


If you had your way, what would you suggests this man does with his marriage?
When this happens, should these people's marriages just be dissolved?
Should he be forced to leave his partner and marry a women, even though he has a vagina instead of a penis and did not even know he was a man until this all happened.
Was being gay a choice for this person?

No matter what, I find it evil to not allow a fellow human to take part in something that I hold sacred for myself.
No amount of: "but, but, butt... they're gay" will suffice.

I support it.

If she is living out her life as a woman, and is in every way indifferent from normative feminine/womenly mannerisms, etiquette, dress, etc, and does not go around broadcasting that her genitals would classify her as a dude, then I wish her a happy life, as a her. The OT has issues with woman and men not conforming to the gender ideals of their sex, and it is purely because of the bisexual aspect of human nature.

I can't help but think you are being driven by an "ichy" factor.

My evidence is that you support the gay marriage above, and the only difference is because you would not know it because he looks like a woman.

Why was he created this way?
If god does not like homosexuality, why does he make so many?

What is troubling in the bible's eyes are what you broadcast publicly, and for a hairy stocky man to wear lipstick, makeup, and a dress, is a public revolution of the highest order. It is undoing the separate notion of man, and woman, while framing them as just "humans," and considering the current war on gender, 40 years from now when notions of he/she/him/her/man/woman/male/female/boy/girl/etc, are utterly meaningless, the sex of the person one is making love to will be of no concern, as it was in the ancient world, before Christianity created the rigidly male-female biased world we live in.

So, you find it OK to dictate using the Bible about who should be allowed to marry, even when dealing with people that find the Bible no more credible than the Qu'ran or Gone with the Wind?

Why not let them be who they want to be, and let your god sort it out in the end if that is to happen?

I'm fine when it's done as a joke, like boys dressing up as such for halloween, or men doing so at a football game. Because everyone clearly understands that one is doing so, as a joke, and not an extension of one's sexuality.

Fine, if it's a joke, but not fine if that is actually who you are? Got it.

Sexuality is purely a cultural construct. You are 100% nature, so most men will mate with a woman, if not because of biology, then certainly because of society demanding that you do so as part of your gender role. But you are also 100% nurture, and will make love to which ever gender that those of your sex, community, or society as a whole, deems preferable. Preferable can trump biology.

If this is true, then homosexuality is not a choice it seems. Agreed?

[marketandchurch]

Society should have no right to influence who a private school deems appropriate to teach its students. Whether its an art school, or a KKK-sponsored white's only charter school, a private school's business is its own.

Then you may as well give up on any laws about mandatory education. The same government which has decreed that all children are to be educated also has the right to determine what is or is not valid education.

That said, I support the employment of homosexuals in every facet of life, but I have reservations about k-12 employment, and any form of employment that has children as its focus. In our value-free education system, it is important for homosexuals to stay in the closet vis-a-vis their orientation, or choose another form of employment.

Why? Are you afraid that an out of the closet gay teacher is going to corrupt our youth?

In the ideal world, the sexuality of a person would not matter because both heterosexuals and homosexuals would vocally espouse the societal ideal, of male-female marriage, and male-female love, and heterosexuals loved their homosexual counterpart as equals, as they too are made in the image of God. But we don't live in that world.

Your ideal world is one where homosexual couples would deny the validity of their own relationships and only espouse heterosexual marriage?

We live in one where one side champions traditional marriage but doesn't know how to make its case for it, and the other side wants to destroy marriage as an institution, and destroy gender as well.

None of the advocates for same sex marriage want to destroy marriage as an institution. We've had same sex marriage in Canada since January 2001. Heterosexual couples are still getting married; the divorce rate is not substantially rising; there are no indications that marriage as an institution is being destroyed, in fact, I am still happily married to an opposite sex partner and feel no threat to my marriage by the same sex married couple who live a few doors down. Please tell me what do you mean that they want to destroy marriage?

Gender is fluid, and there's a war to destroy biblically sourced gender roles. Gay marriage will only accelerate this.

We can only assess the full ramifications of the decision to allow Gay marriage, 4 generations down the line, when he/she/him/her/boy/girl/man/woman are meaningless labels, and the biblical preference has been fully uprooted from the cultural zeitgeist. If we fragment traditional notions of gender, but still continue to marry, and reproduce, then great. That would be romantic. But highly unlikely, given the current trajectory of Europe, and the secularized parts of the West.

If this is truly how you feel, please answer this real life scenario for me:


She looks like a woman, acts like a woman and got married as a wife. But she couldn't bear children because she is actually a man.

A Jiangsu native who always thought she was a woman - and so did everybody else - actually had two hidden testicles, no ovaries and no uterus, devastating her life.

Her congenital anomaly was surgically removed, but she cannot bear children and a chromosome examination confirmed that "she" is actually a "he."

The case is one in 10,000.

An ultrasound check found she had no ovaries and no uterus but two small testicles hidden in the abdominal cavity. A chromosome examination, however, confirmed Zhang is actually a male.

Since Zhang has a vagina, it was not until the ultrasound exam that the couple learned "she" was a "he."

Zhang only has testicles but no other male organs, such as a penis, and other male characteristics.

She has female external genitalia and was reared as a girl.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/do ... 497556.htm


If you had your way, what would you suggests this man does with his marriage?
When this happens, should these people's marriages just be dissolved?
Should he be forced to leave his partner and marry a women, even though he has a vagina instead of a penis and did not even know he was a man until this all happened.
Was being gay a choice for this person?

No matter what, I find it evil to not allow a fellow human to take part in something that I hold sacred for myself.
No amount of: "but, but, butt... they're gay" will suffice.

I support it.

If she is living out her life as a woman, and is in every way indifferent from normative feminine/womenly mannerisms, etiquette, dress, etc, and does not go around broadcasting that her genitals would classify her as a dude, then I wish her a happy life, as a her. The OT has issues with woman and men not conforming to the gender ideals of their sex, and it is purely because of the bisexual aspect of human nature.

I can't help but think you are being driven by an "ichy" factor.

My evidence is that you support the gay marriage above, and the only difference is because you would not know it because he looks like a woman.

Why was he created this way?
If god does not like homosexuality, why does he make so many?

What is troubling in the bible's eyes are what you broadcast publicly, and for a hairy stocky man to wear lipstick, makeup, and a dress, is a public revolution of the highest order. It is undoing the separate notion of man, and woman, while framing them as just "humans," and considering the current war on gender, 40 years from now when notions of he/she/him/her/man/woman/male/female/boy/girl/etc, are utterly meaningless, the sex of the person one is making love to will be of no concern, as it was in the ancient world, before Christianity created the rigidly male-female biased world we live in.

So, you find it OK to dictate using the Bible about who should be allowed to marry, even when dealing with people that find the Bible no more credible than the Qu'ran or Gone with the Wind?

Why not let them be who they want to be, and let your god sort it out in the end if that is to happen?

I'm fine when it's done as a joke, like boys dressing up as such for halloween, or men doing so at a football game. Because everyone clearly understands that one is doing so, as a joke, and not an extension of one's sexuality.

Fine, if it's a joke, but not fine if that is actually who you are? Got it.

Sexuality is purely a cultural construct. You are 100% nature, so most men will mate with a woman, if not because of biology, then certainly because of society demanding that you do so as part of your gender role. But you are also 100% nurture, and will make love to which ever gender that those of your sex, community, or society as a whole, deems preferable. Preferable can trump biology.

If this is true, then homosexuality is not a choice it seems. Agreed?

When my feelings guide my reasoning, I am fairly open about it. They don't, however, factor in to anything I've written.

I do not support Gay Marriage. I never have, and never will.

Homosexuality is not a choice for most homosexuals. It cannot be. Given the ramifications of that choice, throughout history, it simply isn't worth the ostracization one faces from society, family, friends, etc. It's not worth losing your career over, being tarred and feathered, or killed over. So no, it is not a choice, I've never argued that it was a choice, and I never will.

That doesn't mean, however, that sexuality is fixed. There is a small part of society that were born homosexual, and will never be attracted to the opposite sex. Fair enough. But we don't define the fixed-nature of sexuality, based on what it is for a small group of society. No, we do so for what it is for most people, and the general rule is that people are whatever society prefers. If society deemed it appropriate for men to pleasure themselves from boys, while coupling with their wife only for the means of having children, then that is what men will do.

Gays and gay advocates have it wrong, when they say that sexuality is fixed, and Christians have it wrong, when they argue that sexuality is fixed. It isn't. We live in the world that Christianity has framed. If we traveled back before it, we will see a truer portrait of the human creature, and its sexually fluid nature.