Honestly, does it really matter if there's a genetic base for this stuff or not? Why should we care what two consenting adults do, and how they choose to live their lives?

Does it really matter if homosexuality is a choice, or genetic?

6/10/2006 10:39:32 PM

It depends who you are arguing with.

6/10/2006 10:44:01 PM

No, it doesn't.

For one thing, there's a good chance that choice doesn't exist.

Quote :

"There's no freewill. I mean, I have no choice but to chose what I choose, to do as I do, to live as I live. Ultimately, we're all just robots programmed abritrarily by nature's genetic code."

6/10/2006 10:44:45 PM

Well, the nature of the universe is deterministic, but that's meaningless.

6/10/2006 10:50:52 PM

I quoted a cool movie. That's the point.

6/10/2006 10:52:11 PM

it matters to conservative christians. they might not want to question their beliefs.

6/10/2006 11:03:06 PM

Religion shouldn't matter either.

We're talking about government policy here, right?

6/10/2006 11:06:24 PM

Nobody has mentioned government policy so far.

6/10/2006 11:20:46 PM

blah blah blah more talk of gay things..

if youre wondering why christians think being gay is a sin, its right here...


1 corinthians 6 (from the kjv):


1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.



otherwise, stop being hypocritical, you keep saying crap like "why should we care how adults live their life.. blah blah blah," while at the same time telling us who think differently than you that we're wrong, you're right, and thats the way it should be.

take you own advice

6/10/2006 11:24:42 PM

^ Those lines also say "nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners...", but you don't see people fervently pursuing those sins as much as they do the gays.

The Christian's persecutions of gays isn't based in any logical following of the bible. They are simply cherry-picking parts of the bible to support their own emotion feelings. To be fair, everyone does it, the problem with those people doing it in this case is that they are trying to screw with the law and other peoples' lives for their own petty shortsightedness.


[Edited on June 10, 2006 at 11:30 PM. Reason : ]

6/10/2006 11:27:32 PM

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm going to assume you're trolling, but for the sake of those reading:

First of all, effeminate != homosexual. Second of all, you're singling out one of, in that particular list, ten groups of people. If you were to count out every person on earth who fit into at least one of those groups, you'd have about fifty people left.

6/10/2006 11:30:33 PM

Quote :

"Nobody has mentioned government policy so far."

Hmm. That makes this topic even less interesting.

So it's just about "how we feel" about gays?

Why?

6/10/2006 11:55:27 PM

No, it doesn't matter. I may choose to marry a man, or I may choose to marry a woman. Same thing, right?

I guess there are some people who place more emphasis on their basic understanding of practical biology though.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 12:04 AM. Reason : ddd]

6/11/2006 12:01:09 AM

The thread's purpose is to discuss feelings, and also government policy I suppose. Any and everything about it. Does it really matter in any capacity whether it's a choice or not?

Quote :

"otherwise, stop being hypocritical, you keep saying crap like "why should we care how adults live their life.. blah blah blah," while at the same time telling us who think differently than you that we're wrong, you're right, and thats the way it should be. take you own advice"

Hey here's the difference, asshole -- I'm not trying to legislate against your behavior.


edit:

Also -- why are you simply adopting Paul's prejudices? You would do better to use sources not written by Paul -- even those of us who won't buy the Bible as any form of reference consider the rest of "scripture" a bit more reputable than a pedantic bigot scribbling notes to his buddies.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

6/11/2006 12:21:55 AM

It matters if you have stupid religious beliefs. These types of religious folks are scared of the gays turning their kids gay. They are insecure because they know that their fictitious god won't do a damn thing to stop gay infiltration.

For a religious person, it's a huge shame to have a gay child. For their own sanity, they have to believe that it is a choice. Why would god curse them with a gay child???


[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 12:32 AM. Reason : In short, it is a coping mechanism.]

6/11/2006 12:28:06 AM

Quote :

"Hey here's the difference, asshole -- I'm not trying to legislate against your behavior. "

ah, but you are. you (apparently) are in favor of laws that would criminalize the discrimination against homosexuals in workplace, housing, etc.

for christians who take the bible literally, Paul exhorts them to "Flee fornication" (1 CR 6:18). but now you say that these christians must hire fornicators to work in their workplaces, to rent their rooms to them, to serve them in their restaurants -- your anti discrimination laws therefore make it so that everyone must allow them to bag their groceries, teach their children, put out their fires, walk their dogs, paint their houses, etc.

you are forcing the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda upon the good, god-fearing population of Amurrica.

Quote :

" Also -- why are you simply adopting Paul's prejudices? You would do better to use sources not written by Paul "

hello? paul IS scripture. paul is The Apostle. if anything in the entire bible is verifiably authentic, it is Paul. check out Nicea. 325 CE. perhaps you've heard of it? I mean hell, christians pay more attention to what Paul said, than what Jesus said. you dont see Christians giving everything they own to the poor, now do you?

Quote :

" -- even those of us who won't buy the Bible as any form of reference consider the rest of "scripture" a bit more reputable than a pedantic bigot scribbling notes to his buddies. "

if you wont buy the bible as any form of reference, what the fuck do you care which part of the bible is quoted?

and for you to call anyone a pedant, is the most amusing part of your entire post.

6/11/2006 1:29:44 AM

Oh shit, he said you like little children

6/11/2006 1:42:22 AM

did i?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pedant

[French pédant, or Italian pedante(French, from Italian) possibly from Vulgar Latin *paedns, *paedent- present participle of *paedere, to instruct, probably from Greek paideuein, from pais, paid-, child.]


hmmm. maybe so. sorry.




[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 1:50 AM. Reason : ]

6/11/2006 1:47:39 AM

Quote :

"ah, but you are. you (apparently) are in favor of laws that would criminalize the discrimination against homosexuals in workplace, housing, etc."

I suppose discrimination against criminals in the workplace, housing, etc would have to do more with whether it's an actual genetic condition or not. If it is, homosexuals would be considered a protected class. If it's just a behavior, then they wouldn't be, and private businesses would be able to exercize their backwards prejudice in any way they felt necessary, I suppose.

What I'm asking is if it really matters, or not? Do people want to actively legislate against a victimless activity? America is certainly a fan of victimless crime.

Quote :

"you are forcing the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual agenda upon the good, god-fearing population of Amurrica."

Not particularly. I'd be forcing the government (via legislation) to treat homosexuals the same as anybody else. Why should one union of consenting adults be smiled upon and another union be frowned upon? Religion? You need a better reason to prop that one up when you're making laws. Government is not supposed to support a religion, and it'd be a shame if it became a weapon that the religious right can use to enact its baseless prejudices (oh wait).

Quote :

"hello? paul IS scripture. paul is The Apostle."

Paul is a fucking asshole. He came into a budding religion late and decided to inject the poison of priesthood back into it. He's a total joke. He made a power grab that the gullible have fallen for time and time again for about the past 2000 years.

Quote :

"check out Nicea. 325 CE. perhaps you've heard of it?"

You mean the council that arbitrarily decided what was canon and what wasn't?

Quote :

"I mean hell, christians pay more attention to what Paul said, than what Jesus said."

It's a shame, seeing as Paul is a vitriolic bigot who has plunged the western world into who-knows how many baseless prejudices over the centuries.

Quote :

"you dont see Christians giving everything they own to the poor, now do you?"

It'd be more innocuous than using the guns and might of the government to serve their twisted view of morality.

Quote :

"if you wont buy the bible as any form of reference, what the fuck do you care which part of the bible is quoted?"

Because some parts can actually be argued as actual accounts of stuff. Paul was never there. His letters are basically hate-charged rants that are just that -- letters.

Quote :

"and for you to call anyone a pedant, is the most amusing part of your entire post."

The rules I am overly concerned with and the rules Paul was overly concerned with are quite different in nature.

6/11/2006 1:49:39 AM

[joke]

6/11/2006 1:49:57 AM

Quote :

"I suppose discrimination against criminals in the workplace, housing, etc would have to do more with whether it's an actual genetic condition or not."

huh? some criminal behavior could be considered has having genetic causality. Borderline Personality Disorder, for instance. but no one is (currently, seriously) calling for the criminalization of homosexuality. your argument is misguided.

Quote :

"If it's just a behavior, then they wouldn't be, and private businesses would be able to exercize their backwards prejudice in any way they felt necessary, I suppose."

again, you're making connections that aren't relevant. Religiousity, for instance, is a behavior. private employers are not allowed to prejudice against people for that behavior.

Quote :

"What I'm asking is if it really matters, or not?"

it matters to people who take the bible as literal and infallible.

Quote :

"Do people want to actively legislate against a victimless activity? America is certainly a fan of victimless crime."

today's special: red herring.

Quote :

"Not particularly. I'd be forcing the government (via legislation) to treat homosexuals the same as anybody else. "

i think it would be the government forcing the people. but thats semantics, i guess.

Quote :

"Why should one union of consenting adults be smiled upon and another union be frowned upon? Religion? You need a better reason to prop that one up when you're making laws."

marriage is a social and legal contract, and it exists independently of religion. religion can sanctify it or not, it up to the adherents of the religion. but the marriage license is granted and entirely regulated by the government. and in our representational democracy, our government reflects the will of the people. theoretically, anyhow.

Quote :

"Government is not supposed to support a religion, and it'd be a shame if it became a weapon that the religious right can use to enact its baseless prejudices (oh wait)."

strawman.

Quote :

"Paul is a fucking asshole. He came into a budding religion late and decided to inject the poison of priesthood back into it. He's a total joke. He made a power grab that the gullible have fallen for time and time again for about the past 2000 years."

highly opinionated assertation. what you lack in documentary evidence you make up for in undisguised vitriol.

Paul had a revelation from teh risen Christ on the road to Damascus where he was struck blind and heard Jesus speak to him. he then presented himself to the Christians at Jerusalem. The leaders Peter and James, the Brother of Jesus, appointed him as Apostle to the Gentiles.

Quote :

"(re Nicea) You mean the council that arbitrarily decided what was canon and what wasn't?"

Hardly arbitrary. some 300 bishops representing christian churches across the entire known world came together and hammered out a creed and a canon that was acceptable to all. It was pretty fucking amazing, actually.

Quote :

"It's a shame, seeing as Paul is a vitriolic bigot who has plunged the western world into who-knows how many baseless prejudices over the centuries."

ad hominem.

Quote :

"It'd be more innocuous than using the guns and might of the government to serve their twisted view of morality."

strawman and red herring. in one sentence. very nice.

Quote :

"Because some parts can actually be argued as actual accounts of stuff. Paul was never there. His letters are basically hate-charged rants that are just that -- letters. "

ad hominem.

Quote :

"The rules I am overly concerned with and the rules Paul was overly concerned with are quite different in nature."

but of course.

obligatory ->

6/11/2006 2:14:36 AM

AHA, I just realized how my earlier post has nothing to do with this thread topic.

6/11/2006 2:19:21 AM

Quote :

"huh? some criminal behavior could be considered has having genetic causality. Borderline Personality Disorder, for instance. but no one is (currently, seriously) calling for the criminalization of homosexuality. your argument is misguided."

No, what they're asking for is the denial of equal rights and services.

By thay way, barring the existence of a magical soul or some other coherent theory to explain "free will" (there are maybe a few that have promise), every action can be considered to have some causality. Does that mean we should have no justice system? Because actions might not have a root in "free will" doesn't mean we shouldn't punish people for their actions.

Quote :

"again, you're making connections that aren't relevant. Religiousity, for instance, is a behavior. private employers are not allowed to prejudice against people for that behavior."

No, there are protected classes. I don't believe homosexuality is one of them (this has been left up to the states I believe).

Quote :

"it matters to people who take the bible as literal and infallible."

Oh so what you're saying is, it shouldn't matter in public policy.

Quote :

"marriage is a social and legal contract, and it exists independently of religion. religion can sanctify it or not, it up to the adherents of the religion. but the marriage license is granted and entirely regulated by the government. and in our representational democracy, our government reflects the will of the people. theoretically, anyhow."

I'm not asking anybody to sanctify anything. I'm mostly concerned about equal rights for people of different persuasions. Just because the will of the people wants to dominate and deny a small minority equal rights does not mean it's "okay".

Quote :

"Government is not supposed to support a religion, and it'd be a shame if it became a weapon that the religious right can use to enact its baseless prejudices (oh wait)."

You claim this is a straw man. How exactly? How is this a mischaracterization of your argument so that it's easier to knock down? Something tells me you don't have a very good grasp of what straw man means.

Quote :

"highly opinionated assertation. what you lack in documentary evidence you make up for in undisguised vitriol."

Ah and any other take of Paul is objective? We're talking about a figure mired in inaccuracies.

Quote :

"Paul had a revelation from teh risen Christ on the road to Damascus where he was struck blind and heard Jesus speak to him. he then presented himself to the Christians at Jerusalem. The leaders Peter and James, the Brother of Jesus, appointed him as Apostle to the Gentiles."

Oh okay so what you're saying is, even if his experience was to be trusted (and wasn't just a story), it was DMT. Claiming shit like this is actually supernatural is like claiming near-death experiences are real. Come on, man. We can reproduce these things in controlled environment. There's literally nothing to this tripe.

Quote :

"Hardly arbitrary. some 300 bishops representing christian churches across the entire known world came together and hammered out a creed and a canon that was acceptable to all. It was pretty fucking amazing, actually."

Amazing only in the sense that somebody could be deified post-mortum for the benefit of the clergy. Christianity is a hijacked religion.

Quote :

"It's a shame, seeing as Paul is a vitriolic bigot who has plunged the western world into who-knows how many baseless prejudices over the centuries"

Ad hominem? You do realize that "ad hominem" isn't a fancy name for "insult", right? It would suggest I'm trying to unseat his logical arguments via an insult. What we're talking about aren't even logical arguments, they're appeals, they're religion. I think somebody's status as a notoriously dangerous bigot should be taken into account when trying to peddle a religion of "peace and love". Besides, what hatred in Christianity can you not trace back to one of Paul's prejudices?

God almighty -- I'm not even sure what to do about the next few things I was going to quote.

Claiming Paul had a shitty character is rather central to his validity as a "holy" figure. Besides, I argue that since he wasn't even present for the times of Christ, that his opinions are more or less as valid as anybody's opinion on Christ since. He just didn't know. He wasn't there. He had a bout of DMT on the highway and suddenly he's a fucking Christ expert? That's ridiculous.

Also -- let's go into the differences in the rules I'm a pedant over, and the rules Paul's a pedant over:

I'm completely, admittedly pedantic over taking a reasonable approach to learning and believing. It's why I make no judgement about meaningless shit like the existence of God -- people who are actually picky enough to hold my precise view are few and far between.

Paul is pedantic over arbitrary rules that usually involve the spread of pain, suffering, guilt, shame, and fear. He's into rules that prove harmful to peoples' minds either directly, or indirectly through what has become encouraged harassment. He has given people that want to twist Christianity to their own hatreds a wide open door -- because he shares many of those same ones.

I have no idea if you're just arguing the religious side to be the devil's advocate or what, but if you actually hold those opinions, it explains a lot about your aversion to reading and learning.

6/11/2006 8:20:57 AM

You know, I'll let you get the last word on this if you want, but I'd like to get the topic back on track.

Does it matter at all outside of a religious context? I'm assuming at least some of the people who oppose homosexuals aren't religious fundamentalists.

6/11/2006 9:16:40 AM

without reading the thread (well i read the first quarter but then it got wordy) id say it very well could. you have to draw the line somewhere as they love to say. if it is 100% definately a choice, its fine to let them fuck (they are humans so that aint THAT weird/gross), but marriage seems pretty questionable.

im all for gay rights, however, cuz im sure it is genetic or at least predetermined somehow (at least for 99.9% of them).

6/11/2006 9:31:08 AM

people joe_schmoe make christianity look bad. Sadly, there are far too many of them.


I believe homosexuality is a sin, but as noted before, it ain't like it's the only one. I mean, i'm a fuckin' drunk, so who the hell am I to judge? If dudes want to poke other dudes in the butt, it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care.

6/11/2006 10:46:51 AM

Quote :

"it doesn't affect me"

As long as you're not in prison.

6/11/2006 10:49:25 AM

Quote :

"The thread's purpose is to discuss feelings"

LOL THATS PRETTY GAY RITE THERE!1

6/11/2006 11:38:50 AM

As long as the gays arent interfearing or fucking up your life...why fuck up theirs?

I say just let them do what they want as long as they dont over-expose themselves to the public or have gay promotion rallies.

6/11/2006 11:40:51 AM

Quote :

"if it is 100% definately a choice, its fine to let them fuck (they are humans so that aint THAT weird/gross), but marriage seems pretty questionable. "

Why? Isn't a choice between two consenting adults just that? Either way, what's your rationale that a genetic foundation makes it okay, but a choice makes it not okay? Isn't the functional result the same?

Quote :

"I believe homosexuality is a sin, but as noted before, it ain't like it's the only one. I mean, i'm a fuckin' drunk, so who the hell am I to judge? If dudes want to poke other dudes in the butt, it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care."

You know, I don't agree with your religious beliefs at all, but at least you don't make it my (or other peoples') problem. I wish more Christians were like you.

Quote :

"LOL THATS PRETTY GAY RITE THERE!1"

OMFG GO BACK TO GBS LOL

Quote :

"I say just let them do what they want as long as they dont over-expose themselves to the public or have gay promotion rallies."

Why should that matter? I'm not being an ass, I'm actually curious why you think that should be "the line".

6/11/2006 12:07:01 PM

im saying ur like a kid screaming "IT'S ALL RELATIVE," which won't get us anywhere.

i'm saying that as a society we're always going to have to draw up lines on what we think is reasonable/rational/logical/whatever. obviously, as i said, having sex with other consenting human beings is perfectly fine given that they are certain age/mental capactiy/etc. we dont think having sex with animals is reasonable for a variety of reasons.

it really depends how you look at it as far as marriage is concerned. plenty would argue that we're rewarding heathy, child-bearing-possible relationships. if it is 100% a choice, you'd otherwise be promoting some random deviant behavior. at that point it would be obvious that the natural way of things would be to have a man-woman bond.

if you want to be all mushy and just look at it as a love connection than it really doesnt matter one way or the other from a non-religious standpoint.

6/11/2006 1:01:49 PM

For sure, I thought cyrion's profile would say "Sex : F"

6/11/2006 1:44:54 PM

So, as a bisexual, here's my view. It does matter that homosexuality is a choice. It does matter. First I want to make a case for the it's-a-choice side, because it was a choice for me, and then I'll tell you why I think we shouldn't sit back and act like it's genetic.

I wasn't born queer. I wasn't born straight either; I was raised straight. I was raised with the expectation that I would marry a nice girl. All the guys in here were raised that way, I'd bet. So I was straight until I thought about it hard enough, and now here I am.

Did you ever notice the trend today that women tend to be more bicurious than men? It's societal influence. Men and women wear pants, but men do not wear dresses. Boys and girls are told they can do anything, but boys do not play with dolls. And I know some girls who did indeed have action figures. Since the 70's women have been less conditioned to stick to their gender role, while men are still stuck in theirs. I don't have any statistics to quote, but you never saw two straight boys make out at a party for shits and giggles, and stay-at-home dads are not exactly revolutionizing domestic life.

If genetics has anything to do with it, I was born only with the option of liking the same sex. Now, I'm not completely gay and I don't know if you can just not have the option of liking the opposite sex. I haven't lived it and I don't understand it. I definitely do not understand bulldykes. *shrug*

Now, why does it matter? Because, societally, we need to be mature about homosexuality. To say that it's genetic is to align it with being blind or having four fucking arms. "Well he's a fine person, he was just born different from us, so we'll let him live his life." So it's a defect. So heterosexuality is still the "right thing." So we faithful can feel OK about our gay children because "it was an accident."

We should regard it as a choice, a choice that is a good one to make, because if we regard it as less than that we are selling homosexuality short.

Edit: Also, homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to hide behind "But I was born this way." Stick up for yourselves, you fucking faggots.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 1:57 PM. Reason : Yeah I said it. Believe you me, I can call a faggot a faggot.]

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 2:22 PM. Reason : clarifying with bold text]

6/11/2006 1:56:10 PM

Quote :

"Did you ever notice the trend today that women tend to be more bicurious than men? It's societal influence. Men and women wear pants, but men do not wear dresses. Men and women are told they can do anything, but men do not play with dolls. And I know some girls who did indeed have action figures. Since the 70's women have been less conditioned to stick to their gender role, while men are still stuck in theirs. I don't have any statistics to quote, but you never saw two straight boys make out at a party for shits and giggles, and stay-at-home dads are not exactly revolutionizing domestic life."

I'd imagine we encourage women to break out of their gender role because they were traditionally the weak little housewife. When they pushed for equal rights they didn't want all their daughters to be cutesy little eye-candy. There's still a component of that in today's gender roles, but not as prevalent.

The whole making out thing is pretty irrelevant as well. Guys have different ways to be attention whores besides making out with their friend. Over drinking or doing dangerous stuff is our equivalent. You don't see as many women getting in fights, riding shopping carts down hills, or binge drinking to show off.

For that argument I don't think it'd be fair to compare men and women.

Quote :

"Now, why does it matter? Because, societally, we need to be mature about homosexuality. To say that it's genetic is to align it with being blind or having four fucking arms. "Well he's a fine person, he was just born different from us, so we'll let him live his life." So it's a defect. So heterosexuality is still the "right thing." So we faithful can feel OK about our gay children because "it was an accident.""

well im no religious freak, but if homosexuality is genetic...so is heterosexuality. we don't talk about brown or blonde hair being the "defect." i understand it is a bit different, but to assume that saying it is genetic would mean that we'd liken it to multiple limbs is silly as well (though id hope you'd treat the 4 arm man equally as well).

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2006 2:14:52 PM

Quote :

"BobbyDigital: I believe homosexuality is a sin, but as noted before, it ain't like it's the only one. I mean, i'm a fuckin' drunk, so who the hell am I to judge? If dudes want to poke other dudes in the butt, it doesn't affect me, so I don't really care."

While I believe this is a more benign outlook than others, I'm also getting tired of this argument. From my point of view, if you're calling something a sin, you're judging it. You're saying if it's "good" or "bad," and that's judging. You might could draw a fine line between judging the sin and not the sinner, but even then, very fine...

Okay, on to the topic...

I think the original question is posed wrong. It's not choice or genetics; it's enviornment or genetics, or possibly both.

If we're to call it a choice, the argument goes something like this: "Well, I digs the ladies, but I also digs the fellas. Hmmm...I think I'll choose to be homosexual and have sex with the fellas." And that scenario of "choice" clearly involves the chooser being what we would describe as bisexual.

Very few people say, "Hey, I'm not attracted to men, but I think I'll choose to have sex with them." So, given that there's almost always an attraction of sorts at play, you can hardly describe it as someone "choosing" to be homosexual...unless we're arguing that someone can control who they are attracted to... (And I could see someone responding, "But, Bridget, I'm totally attracted to my girlfriend's sister but I'm not trying to get next to her." And I would respond, "Shut the fuck up, bitch. That's not the same, and you know it.")

But, even if it was a choice, no, I wouldn't give a fuck. Ultimately, a homosexual chooses a mate just like a heterosexual chooses a mate. And I've been to plenty of weddings where I've disagreed with the heterosexual match, but it's not really my business, is it?

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : sss]

6/11/2006 2:28:03 PM

Quote :

"I'd imagine we encourage women to break out of their gender role because they were traditionally the weak little housewife. When they pushed for equal rights they didn't want all their daughters to be cutesy little eye-candy. There's still a component of that in today's gender roles, but not as prevalent."

Yes. I think we're in agreement so far.

Quote :

"The whole making out thing is pretty irrelevant as well. Guys have different ways to be attention whores besides making out with their friend. Over drinking or doing dangerous stuff is our equivalent. You don't see as many women getting in fights, riding shopping carts down hills, or binge drinking to show off."

However, there are a lot more "lesbians until graduation" than there are "gays until graduation," and not all of them are doing it for attention-whoring purposes -- many keep it strictly private and one-on-one. But, how do you go about being an attention whore? You show what's different about yourself, so you will stand out. So the fact that they are bicurious gives them a new way to be attention whores -- otherwise they would have done it with skanky clothing anyway. And what's attention-whorable about a guy? "I can drink the most!" "I like to fight!" So I think you have cause and effect backward here.

Quote :

"well im no religious freak, but if homosexuality is genetic..."

and my argument is that it is not genetic...

Quote :

"...so is heterosexuality. we don't talk about brown or blonde hair being the "defect." i understand it is a bit different, but to assume that saying it is genetic would mean that we'd liken it to multiple limbs is silly as well (though id hope you'd treat the 4 arm man equally as well)."

That all depends on your perspective. If you live in Nazi Germany, most people think brown hair is a genetic defect. If you live in the Bible Belt, most people think homosexuality is a genetic defect. I'm saying that we shouldn't regard it as genetic because a) it isn't, insofar as I can tell, and b) I don't think I should be pitied, prayed for, or accomodated because I'm "special." I'm not.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 2:33 PM. Reason : clarity clarity clarity]

6/11/2006 2:31:56 PM

BridgetSPK: Yes, environment is perhaps a better word than choice. I think it hinges on whether you're talking about inclinations or actions... but yeah I feel that.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 2:37 PM. Reason : i edit every post ever btw]

6/11/2006 2:37:03 PM

Did I do a good job here...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: But, even if it was a choice, no, I wouldn't give a fuck. Ultimately, a homosexual chooses a mate just like a heterosexual chooses a mate. And I've been to plenty of weddings where I've disagreed with the heterosexual match, but it's not really my business, is it?"

?

Cause I totally think I kicked ass there, but I'm not sure.

6/11/2006 2:44:00 PM

Quote :

"But, how do you go about being an attention whore? You show what's different about yourself, so you will stand out. So the fact that they are bicurious gives them a new way to be attention whores -- otherwise they would have done it with skanky clothing anyway. And what's attention-whorable about a guy? "I can drink the most!" "I like to fight!" So I think you have cause and effect backward here."

this is just a different opinion. if you were actually different you wouldnt need to attention whore. plenty of ppl are just "generic" or have low self esteem, and thus feel the need to do something that they know others will give them attention for. making out and wearing said skanky clothes are one in the same and often are combined.

i dont doubt that ppl experiment in college as well, but those numbers are a little more difficult to measure. obviously in todays world guys arent going to be professing their "gay till graduation" fun.

Quote :

"I'm saying that we shouldn't regard it as genetic because a) it isn't, insofar as I can tell, and b) I don't think I should be pitied, prayed for, or accomodated because I'm "special." I'm not."

but again, i dont think ur special cuz you have X color hair either. you're always going to have nutjobs that think genetic traits are forms of weaknesses, but we can't let them act as our basis for science.

much like you are anti-predestination via genetics, I'm not a huge fan of the "you like this cuz you were told to" nuture argument (see also: pop music). im sure there is some level of combination, but i don't doubt that some type of genetic trait is part of that equation.

6/11/2006 2:45:46 PM

Quote :

"While I believe this is a more benign outlook than others, I'm also getting tired of this argument. From my point of view, if you're calling something a sin, you're judging it. You're saying if it's "good" or "bad," and that's judging. You might could draw a fine line between judging the sin and not the sinner, but even then, very fine..."

Well that argument makes you a hypocrite, since you're effectively judging me.

6/11/2006 2:58:11 PM

Quote :

""it matters to people who take the bible as literal and infallible.""

Everybody picks and chooses from it. Some just do it more than others.

6/11/2006 3:04:24 PM

Quote :

"this is just a different opinion. if you were actually different you wouldnt need to attention whore. plenty of ppl are just "generic" or have low self esteem, and thus feel the need to do something that they know others will give them attention for. making out and wearing said skanky clothes are one in the same and often are combined."

That's true, plenty of "generic" people do just want attention. This is hard to judge because, now, girls making out at parties is a popular practice. So, many of those girls who want attention just do what they heard these two other girls did, and they make out, even though they have no interest. But it was somebody else's bicuriosity that set the precedent. There's no precedent there for boys.

Quote :

"but again, i dont think ur special cuz you have X color hair either. you're always going to have nutjobs that think genetic traits are forms of weaknesses, but we can't let them act as our basis for science."

Right. But scientists don't make the laws or write the music or preach the sermons.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

6/11/2006 3:05:15 PM

Quote :

""it matters to people who take the bible as literal and infallible." Everybody picks and chooses from it. Some just do it more than others."

Not everybody listens to individual verses, if that's what you're saying.

6/11/2006 3:07:23 PM

Quote :

"BobbyDigital: Well that argument makes you a hypocrite, since you're effectively judging me."

I'm pointing out that you are, in fact, judging people while at the same time saying, "Who am I to judge?" It's a very convenient way to avoid facing the absurdities in your value system.

6/11/2006 3:53:41 PM

i'm not 100% sure how many of the posters/readers of this topic go to church or have attended church, but if the church you go/went to talks only about homosexuality being a sin, and nothing, you may want to try a different one. All sin,except one, is equal in the eyes of the Lord.


^ and also, Christians are not supposed to judge others, because that is not our responsiblility. That, however, is not a green light to condone anything and everything society does. It is our responsibility to show others the evil in their ways, while at the same time preventing a society from promoting such sin. I think a lot of people on here have a distorted view of Christianity and it's followers. Whether or not this is due to one extremist like gary, or some other bad experience, I don't know.

[Edited on June 11, 2006 at 11:16 PM. Reason : ]

6/11/2006 11:12:29 PM

Quote :

"people joe_schmoe make christianity look bad. Sadly, there are far too many of them."

thats funny. where have i *ever* claimed to be a christian?

because i'm not.

and you dont need me to make christianity look bad. christians do a fine job of that on their own.

6/11/2006 11:15:12 PM

Quote :

"BRIDGETSPK: I'm pointing out that you are, in fact, judging people while at the same time saying, "Who am I to judge?" It's a very convenient way to avoid facing the absurdities in your value system."

whoa. gg.

6/11/2006 11:18:50 PM

Quote :

"Not everybody listens to individual verses, if that's what you're saying"

if you believe that the bible is the "literal word of god" and is therefore "infallible", then every single verse is a literal and true nugget of fucking manna from heaven and you goddamn better well pay attention to them.

if you think that the bible is a collection of metaphorical stories, quasi-historical legends, and pious poetry from a pre-technological society that couldnt comprehend most natural phenomenon... well then take what you like and fuck off to the rest.

6/11/2006 11:26:03 PM

Quote :

"All sin,except one, is equal in the eyes of the Lord. "

which one is that? "Blaspheming the Holy Spook?"

6/11/2006 11:39:19 PM

does it matter? depends on who you ask.

in my not so humble opinion, it does kind of matter. if it isn't genetically encoded to be gay, then there isn't a direct biological imperative for performing sexual acts with members of the same sex. in that case, people do it to show affection or simply because they enjoy that behavior.

if there is not a genetic predisposition to being gay, i think people should try and avoid acts of gayness. because sex is a primer to procreation, i think a higher value should be placed on it. i think people need to show more discipline and self control than to just stick it in any hole that gets them off.

there are circumstances where people won't be able to help themselves even if they're not predisposed genetically to being gay. for example, prison love--if two men or women grow affectionate towards each other because they're so removed from the opposite sex. i would say its less worse if two people have actually decided to be lifelong partners and actualize the real meaning of commitment, but in modern reality lifelong partnership is fickle.

again, that's just my opinion.

6/11/2006 11:54:09 PM