Choices

Remove all ads!

Fel, Vulnerability to a certain sin is not a condemnation to commit that sin. That's the point I've tried to defend this thread.

 

However, many animals also exhibit homosexual behavior, even in species where culture and upbringing are not present. This raises a question: if sexual orientation is genetic in animals, how would humans be an exception?

 

... with yourself.

 

@Fel:
1: yes, it would be simpler
2: I don't remember arguing this in the past, but I may have, I certainly believe it is a possibility
3: If you ever stop asking questions, the universe will explode, so please don't

@Chimera:
Those that exibit such behaviour do so to enforce superiority, and some evidence shows that it lowers the virility of the subjected male, so this is not really 'sex'.

 

The reasons may vary among species, so "enforcing superiority" does not apply to all cases.
How relevant is virility for classification of behaviour as sexual? If male homosexuality among humans lowered the virility, would it be "not really sex" either?
And where does it place female sexuality?

[ April 14, 2006, 23:48: Message edited by: Chimera ]

 

But the point is that Humans have the ability to reason. I'm defending a higher vision of humanity.

LMAO.

 

Humans having the ability to reason does not indicate that there are no genetic factors determing the sexual orientation.

 

@NOG: I did not claim that pheromones are the only factor. I said they are the most important one, because the brain decides subconciously if the genes of two people would make a good combination in potential children.

Looks are the first criteria. Almost always. But they are not important in getting to know another person after one of the two made the first step.

The character is important for creating a stable and lasting relationship. Not for sex. There are a whole lot of relationships out there that do not work because the two partners have no matching characters. But ask a couple after a year of living together if the other persons character was really important to them in the first months of their relationship. You will almost always get a 'No', because they spent most of their time together in bed.

As far as homosexual 'nurturing' of bodily reactions: Do you remember the time when you started getting interested in the opposite sex? How was it?


@Gnarff: No, it is no brain defect. It is a predetermined reaction of your brain because your body is build this way, out of one or another reason. You can maybe say it is a genetic defect or the outcome of some abnormal hormone level in the mothers womb. But no brain defect.

And please stop trying to extend your morals on the whole of mankind again. It may be part of your life to learn to overcome sin, but it is not part of everyone's.

The ability to reason does not stop the single biggest urge for human beings: The drive to procreate. It is build in, and some people need to satisfy it in another way than other people. As long as the act of satisfaction does happen in a consensual way, there should be no problem. Anyway, it is not your concern.

 

Homosexual intercourse does not cause impregnation, therefore the drive to procreate is thwarted by that action. Since it is something in the brain, by that logic it is a defect.

I apologize, I'm so stupid, of course they're freaks. LMAO. I'm sorry I could not get through that with a straight face. I will not accept that people are condemned to a particular course of action. You're saying that because something inside one's brain is not "normal", they're condemned to a particular course of action even though it does not make them happy, I will not buy that.

Further, I am required by my faith to speak. Remaining silent may also constiture sin. If you don't like it, then don't read my posts.

 

It is a brain defect only if it's cause lies in the brain. Since this is not the case, it is no brain defect.

First: I am not saying something about "condemnation". I said that gays are build as they are, and nothing can change this, even if they choose to remain chaste.

Second: There may be homosexuals that are not happy with their sexual orientation. These guys and girls have certainly the right to try and do something against this, even if it involves brainwashing.

But there exist enough of them who are happy with their lives, and who would be very unhappy if they would suppress their feelings. Which would be quite unhealthy.

The baseline is: No one has the right to tell them what to do. Not even you. And that is why your constant bouts of proselytization are so damn annoying.

 

But didn't you, in an earlier post, say that it was a reaction in the brain?

So this is a denial of freedom to choose their action...

I have answers for that if they'd care to listen. That is where faith comes in...

Ultimately, they will answer to God for their sins, but I honestly believe that a clean conscience, a family and the kniowledge that you are doing that which is morally right outweighs the happiness that they believe that they feel. I also believe that the way I advocate is healthier in the long run.

Actually I have the right to say it, but I can't force them to do as I say. That does not relieve me of the obligation to speak.

 

It is the middle of the night for me so I won't say much.

Because Gays and Lesbians are so vocally, vehemently and, yes, brutally condemned and persecuted I feel that I have a right and an obligation to speak out on their behalf. We are not just talking about a sexual act but love. Strong, passionate love. The desire to have a partner who is compatible and not just a shadow of what one really wants.

A true homosexual does not choose to be homosexual but simply is. I am not discussing and am not interested in discussing unusual circumstances that may lead one to engage in a homosexual sex act. That is not the same thing.

Good night all.

 

Yes, but the cause lies elsewhere.

No. It's what they are. They are born this way.

No one stops you. Just don't feel offended if they don't heed what you say.

For whom?

You have the right to speak up, but you don't have the right to tell anyone what to do. As long as you spread your believes as the only acceptable alternative, you are trying to tell people what to do. Even worse: If you speak about sin and judgement, you drive in the old lane of religious blackmail. That can be seen as an attempt to force someone.

 

Any who would do as I council. From the perspective that God created heaven and Earth as well as our bodies and souls, I regard Him as the highest authority on their care. It makes sense that if we obey, it will be healthier for us. Think of the Bible as an owner's manual for our body and soul.

I present them as the best alternative. To not sin as opposed to sinning and then having to live with guilt and (for such greivous sins as we're discussing here) the pain that comes with it until you have repented.

Not blackmail, but a warning of the consequences of sin.

God does not send people to hell, they walk in themselves. We are not forced into sin, but choose to take those actions. Likewise, God does not force us to Heaven. He wants us to return, has opened the gates for us to return, but we have to walk in. He has given us the Bible and other scriptures to enable us to find our way there.

 

Gnarf, you keep repeating what your faith demands of you, but fail to see how that is of no relevance to anyone outside of your faith. Please, stop being so selfimportant. Frankly, no one cares. And the more you stomp your feet like a peevish child the less you will be heard.

All you accomplish is coming off as an annoyance, and that religious people cannot be taken serious, being so narrow-minded. How does that help your ends, I wonder. A poorly rendered service to your god indeed.

 

My sincerest apologies. I shant complain finding Alley thread after Alley thread clogged by aggressive Mormon sect ideology again.

 

Gnarff, allow me to try to state it another way. No one is arguing (I hope) that the ultimate decision of how to express one's sexuality is not up to that person. Such a statement appears so self-evident that it doesn't merit discussion. However, while you make the decision of who you sleep with, you don't make the decision of who you are physically attracted to.

To illustrate this, I didn't decide to be attracted to my wife. I did decide to have sex with her. See the difference? The pheremone arguement is that gays are attracted via subliminal scents of members of the same sex, instead of the opposite sex. Regardless of whether or not you believe this, it is hard to argue that attraction to someone is not spontaneous, and be no means is it a purposeful, deliberate action. Acting on this is a choice. So your actions are not predetermined in any way. However, you don't have much choice as to who you are attracted to, and in that sense you are at the very least predisposed, but not predetermined, to act in a certain way.

[ April 18, 2006, 21:48: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

But that's what I seem to be seeing in this thread. They are trying to tell me that homosexuals have less choice in the matter than heterosexuals do.

Actually, I haven't been to far off that myself. Attraction is a double edged sword however. One one edge, it is a good thing, leading prospective spouses together to get to know one another and perhaps even marry and reproduce. On the other edge, it is a dangerous threat to our souls. This is the case where the object of our attraction is that which is forbidden. I've been stating that homosexual attraction falls into this category, but let's go with something more easily understood and less controversial--another man's wife. I can easily be tempted sexually with a married woman, but I would be expected to resist this temptation. Is it therefore wrong to ask someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex to resist that temptation?

I think that that point has been lost repeatedly in this thread. I think that where I've ruffled feathers is calling that attraction temptation, and giving in to be sin...