Homosexuality is a Choice(Not!)

[Cody]

Time for me to chime in here!

For me when people say "well its the environment they grew up in that caused them to be Homosexual"

I completely 100% with all my heart disagree with this quote.

I grew up in a Christian family, they were taking me to church every Sunday in the morning and at night since I was a baby.
So right away I was learning about god and etc etc. My home was a very strict home. We lived off the land(sort of). So as you can see, I lived in what you could say "the usual republican family" home. Anyway I just wanna share a story with you guys.

When I was about 4, I was in preschool.
I even remember I had my own little group of friends, it was about 2 girls and 1 guy(so 4 of us all together). We always played together. Our parents were convinced that we were going to be best friends for life. Anyway even in preschool I remember that I liked my friend Ethan(the other guy) more than I liked the other girls(most people will give the usual response as of course you would "bond" with a guy more than a girl at that age), But at an early age, of course we kids know about love and crushes. We see it in the movies/commercials/Advertising, its in our instincts and I can tell you, I had a crush on him.

Anyway we all ended up going to the same elementary school for kindergarten. They even placed us all in the same classroom. I'm 5 now. That year I knew I had an attraction to guys. I knew something was different(cause you know you would see in the movies a guy and girl fall in love) and I knew I didn't want that. I didn't even have a crush on girls, I wasn't repulsed by girls either, in fact that year I had more girl as friends then I did guys. I just knew I didn't wanna be with a girl. Anyway Ethan my friend, I really liked him that year. Like I wanted us to hold hands(I knew back then if you held hands people in the classroom thought you two were a couple) I mean I think speak for a majority of people here that when you were a young age, that there was a symbolism that you had a crush or were interested in a class mate, whether it be holding hands or hugging each other(different kids have different things, but back when I was 5, if you held hands, parents thought it was cute and commented like "awe they would make a cute couple" etc etc. So one day in gym, I asked Ethan if he wanted to hold hands. He said yes. LOL I got in the MOST trouble I think ever have by a gym teacher.
He yelled at us asking what we were doing(at the time I thought we were in trouble for doing a tag lesson wrong or something.) My teacher quickly intervene as she knew what we were about to get yelled at for(I didn't quite figure this out until my late teens) Anyway, we didn't hold hands after that, we played tag. So At that age I knew I really liked Ethan. Like off the movies liking someone. Anyway 1st grade was my first time that I think I wanted to kiss ethan, never told him or did it though but I remember I had the urge, the attraction to do so. I moved after I finished 1st grade.

OH let me remind you, I had no idea what homosexuality was or what it was meant to be gay. So I was never taught that it was a bad or good thing. So How could I have an attraction to a male at that age if I was never taught/or it was spoken of around me? Exactly, I believe I was born gay.

I could go on and on about me at a younger age having an attraction to males, I mean I didn't think about a guy sexually until i was in 3rd-4th grade. But I've always been attracted to males in an emotional and physical way.

In 6th grade is when I knew what gay/homosexuality was, only because at youth group they were saying how you were going to hell for it etc etc(same ole bullshit) and I remember a boy at our school was being called gay.

In 7th grade I came out and its been a beautiful life since.

If anyone's interested I wouldn't mind sharing some of my experiences coming out gay. Its been a hell of a ride.

[ElmosWorld]

You had lessons on playing tag?

[Alma]

For me when people say "well its the environment they grew up in that caused them to be Homosexual"

I completely 100% with all my heart disagree with this quote.

Lets just change the word and send it back to the people who hate homosexuals.

"well its the environment they grew up in that caused them to be HOMOPHOBICS"

In many ways, and times that is truth

I grew up in a home of 4th gen Christians. They were conditioned to believe what they believe. And anyone who didn't feel the way they did was going straight to Hell. And of course Homosexuals were on gods "Hate list". Yes they said "god hates gays". And yet I'm Bi and was not conditioned to be that way.

And cody I totally understand your story. It almost gave me Déjà vu a few times.

[Lucifer]

Not sure how to incorporate that in with my religious beliefs at the moment, but i'm working on that. Maybe think of it as a family curse of old? /halfjoke

That's the easy part. First, reread the story of Sodom. It wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality, it was destroyed because of the excesses of the rich, which happened to include sexual excesses of all kinds.

Second, remember that Jesus brought a message of love to the world, and what else is homosexuality than a label for how some people love each other?

Jesus was a liberal, I'm sure he'd want gays to marry if he actually existed.

[Phytotron]

I agree that the lifestyle is a choice....

I appreciate that you came around on the nature, literally, of homosexuality. But, dude, what "lifestyle?" What'd I just say a couple posts above yours? Really, what do you think "the (gay) lifestyle" means and entails? Second question rhetorical, first and third actual.

[Side note: "The Lifestyle" is the modern euphemism for swinging. Of course, that's kinda stupid, too; it's not really a full lifestyle. Though it does remind one of Jerry's "orgy guy" speech. Goddamnit, that scene slays.]

Not sure how to incorporate that in with my religious beliefs at the moment, but I'm working on that.

If you think about that for two minutes, you'll realize that you answered your own question. You're always reinterpreting and rejiggering your religion to conform not only with your beliefs, but with reality. Choosing what's literal and what's figurative, what's meant to be taken in archaic historical context and what's meant to be timeless, and so on. You gave just such an example recently here.

Now, think about it a little longer, and you'll understand what I mean when I say that there are as many interpretations of the Bible, as many versions or denominations of Christianity, as there are people who profess to be Christians. Eventually you'll realize that if the Bible was really written by God, then you gotta lotta 'splain t' do, Lucy, because none of it makes sense. But if it was written (variously cobbled together and plagiarized over time, really) by man—and I do mean men, as women clearly had no input in its conception—for pre-literate, ignorant, backward people (even for their time) in a very specific time and place, then it all makes perfect sense. And then you can disabuse yourself of all that stuff and realize that your world won't collapse. That life still has meaning. That you can still have moral standing, even more so. That you can still experience transcendence like you do down on the Ocoee.

We lived off the land (sort of). So as you can see, I lived in what you could say "the usual republican family" home.

You mean you grew some of your own food? What's Republican about that?

But at an early age, of course we kids know about love and crushes. We see it in the movies/commercials/Advertising, its in our instincts and I can tell you, I had a crush on him.

Yeah, I don't think commercial pop culture teaches us that. Certainly, pop culture can influence our attitudes at any age, including the type (not gender) of person we're attracted to. And these days crass sexualization is getting targeted to younger and younger ages; "slutty" baby tees and whatnot. But that's these days. Sure, pop culture may teach us the word "crush" and certain cultural conventions, like holding hands or rubbing noses (maybe that's what you meant?). But it doesn't teach the feeling itself. That attraction is certainly instinct, even when it's pre-sexual. Love and romantic attraction aren't just about sex.

Read old books that predate even the industrial revolution, you'll find descriptions of youngsters in puppy love. Remember, almost the entirety of homo sapiens existence, a person was lucky to hit 25. It makes sense, from an evolutionary perspective, that those feelings would be present from a young age as we learn to navigate society, before the instinct to actively mate kicks in. Like I said, children spend their time learning to be better kids, not adults. My own first experience with rejection was in the first grade, heh. I had a crush, my first, on this girl who I still think was one of the prettiest girls/women I've ever known. We had a class dance at the end of the year, and she danced with this other boy. I walked over and, imitating one convention I did learn from pop culture, asked "may I cut in?" That boy, who was a good bit taller, looked down at me and said all snobby, "nnno." Damn, ow. Meanwhile, this other girl had a crush on me, so I danced with her. Got me first kiss from her that day, too.

[Cody]

We lived off the land (sort of). So as you can see, I lived in what you could say "the usual republican family" home.

You mean you grew some of your own food? What's Republican about that?

I grew up in a Christian family, they were taking me to church every Sunday in the morning and at night since I was a baby.
So right away I was learning about god and etc etc. My home was a very strict home. We lived off the land(sort of)

I meant that entire paragraph, my bad. It's just to me it seemed like a type republican home.

[Phytotron]

No, I realise you were referring to the totality of the upbringing. I'm just wondering about the inclusion of that one element. These days, Republicans are supportive of some of the worst aspects of our national food policy—giant monoculture agribusiness, corn subsidies, feed lots, Wal-Mart, etc.. Growing one's own food, sustainably, is generally considered "progressive" now, even though it's a partial throwback.

[Clutch]

Though it does remind one of Jerry's "orgy guy" speech. Goddamnit, that scene slays.

Hah, that and this entire thread has reminded me of the "Not that there's anything wrong with that" episode. Classic

[ItzAcid]

Not sure how to incorporate that in with my religious beliefs at the moment, but i'm working on that. Maybe think of it as a family curse of old? /halfjoke

That's the easy part. First, reread the story of Sodom. It wasn't destroyed because of homosexuality, it was destroyed because of the excesses of the rich, which happened to include sexual excesses of all kinds.

Second, remember that Jesus brought a message of love to the world, and what else is homosexuality than a label for how some people love each other?

Jesus was a liberal, I'm sure he'd want gays to marry if he actually existed.

That's another thing i'm thinking about. From reading, one might find that Jesus doesn't necessarily condone the behaviors, he just accepts them. At one point in the bible it specificially talks about condoning, in the use of sanctioning/approving, but where is the line between the two. Regardless, love needs to be shown. Bah, why can't we still have multiple words for love as in the past? (This is kind of in reference to love the sinner, hate the sin)

Phyto, I still take the bible as truth and it was God's intended message. Misinterpretations are sure to occur in any situation, as are other discrepancies in beliefs, but for me, it's still valid. Regardless of any varying denominations or beliefs, I feel that good deeds all go towards the same cause, while negatives go towards the opposite. C.S Lewis made obvious that he believed the same in his last book of the Narnia series . Not arguing that it's true, just stating where my beliefs are at the moment. I can say that since i've become more open minded and a good deal less condemning, life's a lot better. Ocoee reflections are much more beneficial now Still have a lot of room for improvement, but oh well.


edit: Oops, missed the first and third questions . By lifestyle all I mean is openly committing to being gay. This being juxtaposed to closet cases that are too ashamed to come out their whole life. which is still very sad. Sorry if the whole C.S Lewis thing was vague and hard to understand, i'll clarify in the morning when i'm not writing lab reports/dozing off haha.

[Mecca]

Super long post that I agree with.

Thank you. +1

in that sense, I agree that it isn't a choice. I think that sexual orientation slowly develops as you grow up, not that you're literally born with it, it's dependent on the circumstances you're born in. Maybe there are some specific genes or testosterone-related similarities that are shared by all heteros or all homos, but these things can change and mutate over time.

We never talked about anyone's orientation.

It's not a easy subject to bring up, but that's the first place to start if you want to make informed decisions. I think once you get comfortable talking about sexuality, you'll find that pretty much every gay person you meet always knew they were gay, even when they were little kids well before puberty and sexual interests.

^ This.

I always knew I was different in some way. I also knew some of my friends were different like me. When I learned about sexuality in middle school, I was like "Well, that explains a lot...".

most homosexuals I know have parents which make me think I would have become homosexual too if I would have had these parents

[chrisd]

That's another thing i'm thinking about. From reading, one might find that Jesus doesn't necessarily condone the behaviors, he just accepts them. At one point in the bible it specificially talks about condoning, in the use of sanctioning/approving, but where is the line between the two. Regardless, love needs to be shown. Bah, why can't we still have multiple words for love as in the past? (This is kind of in reference to love the sinner, hate the sin)

I have been arguing against the idea of multiple loves and "love the sinner, hate the sin" on these forums before. I really think this idea has it completely backwards. I do not just disagree that there are/should be multiple forms of love. I actually disagree that there exists a whole host of emotions. Well, they do exist, but the more important distinction is that there are emotions that are based in love and emotions that are based in fear. These clearly have very deep roots, dating from even before the existence of humans. Emotions based in love feel good and make us want to go towards something/somebody and emotions based in fear make us want to get rid of the thing that excites these emotions in us. One way to become a more developed human being is to chose one of these two as being more in accord with the nature of reality over the other. I.e., chosing the light side or the dark side. To me it seems clear that all major religions of the world are not very developed in the sense that they mix a great deal of fear into the message of light they claim to be spreading. We might be tempted to conclude that Jesus' original message is one of light but what can be read in the Bible still seems rather mixed to me.

Actually, I have been thinking of asking any christian who wants to convince me of anything to ask them if they have already sold all their belongings and given the money to the poor. If they haven't, I'd request that they first do that before they start lecturing me. Sounds like a good deal to me.... What do you think? Seriously, I am so totally sick and tired of people who think they are better than me.....

edit: Oops, missed the first and third questions . By lifestyle all I mean is openly committing to being gay. This being juxtaposed to closet cases that are too ashamed to come out their whole life. which is still very sad. Sorry if the whole C.S Lewis thing was vague and hard to understand, i'll clarify in the morning when i'm not writing lab reports/dozing off haha.

I think the word "gay lifestyle" should be taken out en shot. It really does not mean anything. A lifestyle can be "monogamous", "partying", "dating", "polyamorous", "non-sexual", "promiscuous" and so on. All people regardless of their sexual nature can subscribe to any of these life styles at any point in their lives.

[Phytotron]

edit: Oops, missed the first and third questions . By lifestyle all I mean is openly committing to being gay. This being juxtaposed to closet cases that are too ashamed to come out their whole life. which is still very sad. Sorry if the whole C.S Lewis thing was vague and hard to understand, i'll clarify in the morning when i'm not writing lab reports/dozing off haha.

I think the word "gay lifestyle" should be taken out en shot. It really does not mean anything. A lifestyle can be "monogamous", "partying", "dating", "polyamorous", "non-sexual", "promiscuous" and so on. All people regardless of their sexual nature can subscribe to any of these life styles at any point in their lives.

Alright people, look:

Lifestyle: The manner in which a person or group lives. That means everything: Interests, pastimes, work, possessions, beliefs, diet, routine...everything about how one lives one's life. It's not solely or even primarily about what kind of sexual behaviour one engages in. You playing an online video game all the time? That's part of your lifestyle. What does being gay or straight, or monogamous or promiscuous, or completely asexual, have to do with playing video games? Nothing. (Well, it might preclude a sex life, but that's beside the point.)

Another thing. Sinewav mentioned the "effeminate male." Now, I know he knows that not all gay men are effeminate (or, the corollary, that all lesbians are "butch"), and that wasn't his point. But a lot of people still believe that stereotype—not only the demeanor, but associated interests and behaviours. Fact is, there are a lot of straight males who are into gardening, antiquing, interior design, dance music and broadway musicals. And there are a lot of gay men who like beer, sports, hard rock, are slobs, and...whatever other stereotypical "regular guy" stuff. There are plenty of straight women who like sports and trucks and flannel, and there are plenty of lesbians who like frilly things. (And I don't mean the stupid, fake drunk "omg let's be bi-curious for tonite lolol" chicks at clubs.) Again, lifestyle is not dependent on sexuality or sexual behaviour.

There is no such thing as a "gay lifestyle."

Misinterpretations are sure to occur in any situation, as are other discrepancies in beliefs, but for me, it's still valid. Regardless of any varying denominations or beliefs, I feel that good deeds all go towards the same cause, while negatives go towards the opposite.

But that's just the thing. By what measure do you determine what's correct and what's misinterpretation? And how do you determine what are good and negative deeds? The Bible is no help there. And as it's supposedly the literal word of God, whatever some theologian or apologist says should be irrelevant, right? So what are you left with?

Actually, I have been thinking of asking any christian who wants to convince me of anything to ask them if they have already sold all their belongings and given the money to the poor. If they haven't, I'd request that they first do that before they start lecturing me. Sounds like a good deal to me.... What do you think?

Yep, you should.

"Take no thought for the morrow," the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth. Care not to clothe or to eat, no investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your family, not worry about construction, about investment, of planting and saving seed for the crops, about anything in the present worldly life because the end times are around the corner, in your lifetime. Take no thought for the morrow, just follow Jesus.

Oh, there's also Mark 16:17 & 18 - "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

And you want to talk about C.S. Lewis? "Christ either deceived mankind by conscious fraud, or He was Himself deluded and self-deceived, or He was Divine. There is no getting out of this trilemma. It is inexorable." "I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

Volley.

[sinewav]

Now, I know he knows that not all gay men are effeminate ... and that wasn't his point.

Exactly. I've indulged in affirming stereotypes to drive home the point that holding on to these exaggerations does nothing to help the argument against homosexuality, as they are completely vacuous.

[ItzAcid]

Misinterpretations are sure to occur in any situation, as are other discrepancies in beliefs, but for me, it's still valid. Regardless of any varying denominations or beliefs, I feel that good deeds all go towards the same cause, while negatives go towards the opposite.

But that's just the thing. By what measure do you determine what's correct and what's misinterpretation? And how do you determine what are good and negative deeds? The Bible is no help there. And as it's supposedly the literal word of God, whatever some theologian or apologist says should be irrelevant, right? So what are you left with?

That's primarily why I don't care overly much for organized religion, in reference to misinterpretations. I think the caretaking/mission role that church bodies take in communities is great, but the various interpretations and denominations only divide people. Also, the hierarchy inside the church and condescending, or hypocritical, way that some Christians act does nothing but alienate people. I also like that it allows one to surround him or herself with people of similar beliefs and faith if desired. Anyways, I feel that the bible is more intended to be interpreted on a individual basis. Then again, I don't necessarily think that the individual "discoveries", if you will, should be spread throughout the public. Sure, many people do in excitment and run out trying to "win people over". I'd rather witness by actions, not mere words. Hand a person the bible and let them interpret it how they will. I don't like reading what various theologian or apologists say, for the most part. I'd rather interpret it for myself. I have different emphasis on certain topics, biases, and past experiences than the given theologian might, thus different conclusions. As for "good" and "negative" deeds, I always consider it this way. If someone feels something is wrong, yet does it anyway, that's bad for them on an individual basis. This applies also to feeling someone should do something good, yet doesn't. "Bad" also varies from one culture to another, in my opinion, as there are many unique norms. A "good" action is something someone feels they should do, and does it. Anything in between is neutral and basic functions of life that don't have moral implications.

^ That is no specific doctrine or formal in any manner. It's just how I feel about it and attempt to explain some discrepencies, such as a child who is raised with stealing as a way of life and survival. If they grow up with it, and don't feel that it is wrong, then how can it be a "sin"? Bad/sin/negative is on an individual basis, in my opinion.

Out of curiousity, was that quote from C.S Lewis from when he was a proclaimed atheist, or a proclaimed Christian?

Ahhhhhh, getting off the topic of homosexuality and in to more religion. My bad

Edit: Yeah, I was definitely off on the lifestyle thing. I'll give you a +1 for me not using that the right way. Should have been more specific, as I meant the sexual aspect of life.

[Lucifer]

If you want to read the bible as the word of god, you have to read the ENTIRE bible, including the texts that were intentionally left out, suppressed, and/or destroyed.

Oh wait, you can't get those, because they were suppressed and/or destroyed.

If I were to accept that the God Hypothesis were true, I still could not accept the bible, because its history is one of political deception and destruction. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, you need to spend some quality time on wikipedia (follow the citations if you need to).

In any case, on the subject of effeminate males, I just thought I'd throw out that 100% of cross-dressers who do it because they enjoy it are heterosexual males.