|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Being Gay
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
Some wonders/ questions on 'being gay', from an ignorant libertarian :
~ I'm all for legalising gay marriage, and making it as accessible as possible in places of worship etc ... In fact, it really is a 'dead horse' for me, already - next stop, polygamy, I say ... but:
~ Surely gay folk do themselves no favour by going along with the now-obligatory assumption that they were 'born that way'? I've never come across one shred of good scientific evidence, to that effect. I prefer the opposite sex, but that doesn't mean I was 'born straight' either ... I was just a baby then, and sex meant as much to me then as politics or beethoven or the england football team - which is to say, nothing at all. Particular experiences, within context of the culture I have been landed in, may have shaped certain options/paths for me since then, of course. To the extent to which I have exercised my choices, and developed my interests, then I am happy enough now to accept certain labels. More to the point, I am happy to champion the merits of certain things over other things ... Now that would be a kind of 'gay pride' that I could applaud ~ I would love to see my gay friends and acquaintances be bold about it, and say, 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option': There would be plenty of evidence to support that, for sure (eg, higher educational levels among gay folk than straight, I expect). Or do gay folk really feel that in their hearts, and are just trying to be non-controversial and concilliatory?? I note that a key argument invoked by the UK politicians back in 1967 for the legalisation of homosexual acts was that they should not be criminal, as they were comparable to a 'disability'. Is that really the best we can do?? I think of my father's generation saying something like, 'Ahhh, bless, they can't help it, poor loves, they were born like that' - What's enlightened or dignified about that??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some interesting stuff there. I can see that for gays it must have been very irritating to be told that they had chosen to be gay, especially as many seem to feel the opposite. And in addition, this idea of choice has often been used by the religious to tell gays that they are sinful, and should just pull their socks up, metaphorically, and become straight!
I certainly don't feel that I chose to become straight, but I suppose such subjective introspections are not very valuable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Some wonders/ questions on 'being gay', from an ignorant libertarian :
~ ... - next stop, polygamy, I say ... but:
It would certainly be a return to some of the ancient forms of mattiage in the Bible.
quote:
~ Surely gay folk do themselves no favour by going along with the now-obligatory assumption that they were 'born that way'? I've never come across one shred of good scientific evidence, to that effect. ... 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option': There would be plenty of evidence to support that, for sure (eg, higher educational levels among gay folk than straight, I expect). Or do gay folk really feel that in their hearts, and are just trying to be non-controversial and concilliatory?? I note that a key argument invoked by the UK politicians back in 1967 for the legalisation of homosexual acts was that they should not be criminal, as they were comparable to a 'disability'. Is that really the best we can do?? I think of my father's generation saying something like, 'Ahhh, bless, they can't help it, poor loves, they were born like that' - What's enlightened or dignified about that??
1. I on the other hand have never come across any good evidence to suggest I wasn't born this way.
2. I don't know if anyone is quite so clear cut about it being nature-nurture with there being several factors to a full-flowering of the homosexual life.
3. I would have to dig out my old statistics but unfortunately I don't think your belief about higher educational level amongst gay people is held up by the statistics with hte opposite normally being true that theere were fewer (as a percentage of measured/guessed at gay population) in higher education, successful at school (although there are so many factors which will influence this including the schools ethos, teaching staff and when the kid comes out).
4. Whilst I find it disgusting to think about homosexuality as a disability, you are quite right that there was a view to this effect, and unfortunately it perseveres in some doctors that are out there - although without going through Hansard I'm not sure that that was the key point being made in the argument to decriminalise... It may well be that it was an argument that some could use to publicly justify their actions...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
catalyst
Apprentice
# 17436
|
Posted
NEWSFLASH:
Marriage existed before the Bible was written.
It existed in cultures that never heard of the God of Abraham.
--------------------
To challenge and be challenged, that is the rub.
Posts: 6 | From: Dallas Tx | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by catalyst:
NEWSFLASH:
Marriage existed before the Bible was written.
It existed in cultures that never heard of the God of Abraham.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) never ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Sorry I couldn't resist the sarcasm...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Homosexuality was written up as a psychistric disorder in the American medical compendium DSM until about a generation ago.
We are still living with a lot of tribal memories, stories and customs.
OTOH, a lot of the "native" groups recognised more than two sexualities. Being "gay" was recognised by, for instance, some of the North American native tribes, identified as "two-spirited".
And the Hindus as described here seem to have understood the whole"gay" thing from pre-Christian times.
Parenthetically, I am quite sure that anyone who has travelled in various South-East Asian countries will have noticed that cross-dressing is a significant part of the bar/prostitution business, which would not be the case if there were not a market for the implied services.
So I don't think you can get away with saying gayness is new or unusual or unnatural. Alexander of Macedonia, among others, would have pretty negative comments about that!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... I would love to see my gay friends and acquaintances be bold about it, and say, 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option'...
Hands up: who chose to be heterosexual because they believe it to be the SUPERIOR option?
Anybody? Nobody?
Okay, let's try again: who thinks that anyone who would say "I am ______ because it's the SUPERIOR option" is probably an insufferable prat?
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
as usual, xkcd has it!
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is there any credible study that has actually, you know, asked gay people whether they can remember at any point deciding to be gay? Or that has asked straight people if they at any point decided to be straight?
I have never heard tell of anybody who relates that at some point in their past, they realized there were two options, and freely and consciously chose one or the other.
Well I suppose that's not quite correct; there are people who will say they decided to be straight after living like gay people for a while: people in those "healing" ministries. I would be interested in asking them at what point they decided to be gay before that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Feel free to read the entire Wiki article, but here is the synopsis.
quote:
Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors, especially with regard to early uterine environment.
A quick Google search might show you the scientific evidence which has been eluding you.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
If you're looking for scientific evidence you might try reading the recent work of Simon Levay.
Historically, the medicalization of homosexuality was an early 20th century effort to decriminalize homosexuality by claiming it was a medical condition. Not the best claim, but better than life in prison or death. Unfortunately the result of pointing out biological causes was to have the homophobes compare it to alcoholism.
In reality, there's no proof that all homosexuals are gay from the same causes. It could be genetic, or womb environment or birth order, or just cultural fashion. It could be an exclusive behavior or a part time hobby.
None of this should matter.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
There is a good deal of evidence that homosexuality (or heterosexuality, for that matter) is not a single thing, but is a pattern of behavior that is the end result of several possible causal paths. There's also a lot of evidence to suggest that it is more fluid (especially in women) than we like to acknowledge.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well I suppose that's not quite correct; there are people who will say they decided to be straight after living like gay people for a while: people in those "healing" ministries. I would be interested in asking them at what point they decided to be gay before that.
I always think of the Will&Grace episode, 'Girls, Interrupted' (S.2 I think...) when I hear about 'healing ministries'...
To start the study, I never chose to be gay, nor did I choose not to be straight...
[ 29. December 2012, 09:14: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
... I would love to see my gay friends and acquaintances be bold about it, and say, 'Yes - this is my chosen lifestyle - and you know, we think it's the SUPERIOR option'...
Hands up: who chose to be heterosexual because they believe it to be the SUPERIOR option?
Anybody? Nobody?
I tried to choose to be heterosexual for around 17 years, believing it to be the superior option.
Which is pretty much why I tend to find any idea of choosing to be fairly stupid. If choosing was actually involved, surely I would have been straight by now. I had no desire to be gay whatsoever.
Also, ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) at glockenspiel for describing being gay as a 'lifestyle'.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One spin-off from the idea of homosexuality as choice has been the idea of gay conversion therapy, now thankfully banned by nearly all the professional associations in the UK. I've never met anyone who practices this, but the various anecdotes about it seem to show an unprofessional attitude, that is, assuming that homosexuality is wrong in some way, and seeking to correct it. If this is coupled with some kind of religious view of being gay as sinful, then this has lost touch with the normal idea of psychotherapy - and this is why it has been banned. For example, if I worked with someone who was having an adulterous affair, I did not proceed on the basis that they were wrong.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... For example, if I worked with someone who was having an adulterous affair, I did not proceed on the basis that they were wrong.
Sorry. No. It may be that it's counterproductive to tell an adulterer that they are wrong, or if they are just a work colleague, whether their morals are any of our business, but that doesn't avoid the fact that adultery is cheating on someone, betrayal, wrong.
It would be a tangent to take this any further. I would hope no one would even try to argue otherwise. Furthermore, it remains so, irrespective of what view one holds on the ethics of homosexuality.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
Does that change anything? I can see a therapist might conclude that telling an adulterous client that what they are doing is wrong might impair the counselling process. I also don't know enough about therapy to know whether it's a bad practice to let the client transfer moral responsibility for their conscience on their therapist, rather than take responsibility for it themselves. But that doesn't make adultery OK. It is still cheating on someone and betrayal, whether one says anything about it or not.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
Does that change anything? I can see a therapist might conclude that telling an adulterous client that what they are doing is wrong might impair the counselling process. I also don't know enough about therapy to know whether it's a bad practice to let the client transfer moral responsibility for their conscience on their therapist, rather than take responsibility for it themselves. But that doesn't make adultery OK. It is still cheating on someone and betrayal, whether one says anything about it or not.
The therapists I have been engaged with would be horrified if a client tried to shift their responsibility away from themselves when it is their fault... not very conducive to the healing process I wouldn't have thought... part of therapy is about accepting the wrong done and working towards fixing it...
You are very right on adultry, it falls foul of the commandment "to love" which IMO includes within it avoiding doing harm to others.
[ 29. December 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In reality, there's no proof that all homosexuals are gay from the same causes. It could be genetic, or womb environment or birth order, or just cultural fashion. It could be an exclusive behavior or a part time hobby.
None of this should matter.
I think this is right. The scientific evidence is rather patchy and inconsistent. No consensus body of work has emerged that pins down the causes of homosexuality.
The best evidence is the evidence given by the majority of people that they feel unable to influence their sexual orientation by simple volition.
To ask how we can "prove it isn't a choice" is a rather odd formulation. The usual formulation in scientific investigation would be to say "what is it?" and if one started to ask specifically if it might be a choice, then the question would be "do we have enough evidence to prove it is a choice?".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Enoch, I believe quetzalcoatl is talking about 'working with someone' as a patient in psychotherapy, not talking about 'working with' a colleague.
Yes, I should have made it clearer. If you feel compelled to tell a client that they are morally in the wrong, then you should not be working as a therapist, I would say, at least with something like adultery, and certainly with homosexuality.
There are well-known areas where this is not true, for example, in the case of child abuse, but then most therapists would be obliged to disclose this to other professionals in any case, and the police.
Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. This has been quite an issue in the psychoanalytically based therapies, since many analysts used to have negative views about gays, and for example, would not allow them to train. But this is diminishing I think.
[ 29. December 2012, 14:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
#1. All humans are sinful, but in any case,
#2. Sin is not a medical condition requiring treatment, notwithstanding Scriptural medical metaphors.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
Where can I find a Chapter of Userers Anonymous?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In reality, there's no proof that all homosexuals are gay from the same causes. It could be genetic, or womb environment or birth order, or just cultural fashion. It could be an exclusive behavior or a part time hobby.
None of this should matter.
I think this is right. The scientific evidence is rather patchy and inconsistent. No consensus body of work has emerged that pins down the causes of homosexuality.
The best evidence is the evidence given by the majority of people that they feel unable to influence their sexual orientation by simple volition.
To ask how we can "prove it isn't a choice" is a rather odd formulation. The usual formulation in scientific investigation would be to say "what is it?" and if one started to ask specifically if it might be a choice, then the question would be "do we have enough evidence to prove it is a choice?".
(There's nothinig like starting by quoting yourself to feel like you didn't articulate it properly the first time :-) )
Not only are there a variety of causes, it's not a simple binary attribute. Just as marriage isn't about just procreation and property inheritance, people can be bisexual, or change orientation over time. The best analogy are biological chimeras. There are peole who have both xx and xy chomosone in different parts of their body. While most people tend to have a single orientation and choice of chromosone, it's not a hard and fast rule for everyone.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'm probably being incredibly thick, but introducing chimerism as "the best analogy" really isn't helping me...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
'You must not attribute my yielding to sinister appetites.'
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Going a bit o/t, in any case, but I don't see how anyone can work therapeutically with gays if they see them as sinful. ...
Wouldn't that equally apply to adulterers and usurers? And if not, what's the difference?
'You must not attribute my yielding to sinister appetites.'
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
It should be attributed to non-sinister appetites?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I think an analogy with a biological and chromosomal phenomena is rather begging the question, since we don't have any understanding of how genes might make you gay or bisexual.
I think you were better off with the first quote, actually.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
The comparison with chimera was not to say that behavior is necessarily driven by chromosones, but that some people contain multitudes. Strict division lines do not necessarily map to reality.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aelred of Rievaulx
Shipmate
# 16860
|
Posted
Like Orfeo says.
Though, having finally been forced to face what my unchosen preference was (after thirty years of marriage and a lot longer than that trying my damndest to like girls), I have to say that, now I feel like I am me at last, it does feel superior for me!
Choosing? My very early prepubescent "fascinations" were all towards men. I felt drawn - and certainly there was no active choice to feel homosexual attraction. All my active efforts were in the other direction - the only trouble was that, while they might have seemed to work I was, I think, a "situational heterosexual", rather in the way that heterosexual men can be "situational homosexuals" in prison or on ships and so forth.
Take the effort away, and the unchosen, and inconvenient truth was there waiting to be found - I was gay!
--------------------
In friendship are joined honor and charm, truth and joy, sweetness and good-will, affection and action. And all these take their beginning from Christ, advance through Christ, and are perfected in Christ.
Posts: 136 | From: English Midlands | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
.... I was, I think, a "situational heterosexual", rather in the way that heterosexual men can be "situational homosexuals" in prison or on ships and so forth.
By that definition, I'ma situational parent but not a situational sibling.
Choice, then - if that (the above) is how you define your sexual attraction.
Despite a lot of work to the contrary no one has proven the existence of the so called gay gene.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Some wonders/ questions on 'being gay', from an ignorant libertarian :
~ Surely gay folk do themselves no favour by going along with the now-obligatory assumption that they were 'born that way'?
I believe "God makes men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women"
I suppose in common parlance this comes out as 'born that way', but it is a theological not a scientific statement.
If this is a correct belief, then the church will catch up in God's good time.
If it is incorrect, God is merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
What is the cause of heterosexuality ?
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
I believe "God makes men who are attracted to men and women who are attracted to women"
I suppose in common parlance this comes out as 'born that way', but it is a theological not a scientific statement.
If this is a correct belief, then the church will catch up in God's good time.
I don't agree, and think that might be bad theology, but for a quite different reason.
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
True, we cannot at the moment of conception choose what personalities we would like them to have, but this is a job which God delegates to us. Because of original sin, some aspects of that will be fantastic, some mediocre and some flawed, but it varies from one person to another which bits are more and which bits less of each.
I don't think we are entitled to say, "God decided that X would be gay, Y would have acne, Z would be deaf and Jessica Ennis would be a great athlete".
quote:
If it is incorrect, God is merciful, slow to anger and abounding in love.
That is definitely good theology and I'd agree has largely been left out of this debate.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Despite a lot of work to the contrary no one has proven the existence of the so called gay gene.
It is very, very dangerous to hang any kind of conclusions, particularly religious or moral/ethical, on what science has not yet done. What C.S. Lewis says about basing our apologetic on what science has "shown" applies double to what science has not shown:
quote:
We must be very cautious of snatching at any scientific theory which, for the moment, seems to be in our favour. We may mention such things; but we must mention them lightly and without claiming that they are more than 'interesting'. Sentence beginning 'Science has now proved' should be avoided. If we try to base our apologetic on some recent development in science, we shall usually find that just as we have put the finishing touches to our argument science has changed its mind and quietly withdrawn the theory we have been using as our foundation stone.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is there any credible study that has actually, you know, asked gay people whether they can remember at any point deciding to be gay? Or that has asked straight people if they at any point decided to be straight?
I have never heard tell of anybody who relates that at some point in their past, they realized there were two options, and freely and consciously chose one or the other.
I have. But they tend to identify as bisexual and then for one reason or another (monogamy, culture, et cetera) have decided they are monosexual and the bisexuality was a 'phase'.
And they're quite rare in the bisexual-identified community.
(For the record, I never chose to be bisexual. One of my earliest memories of sexuality is utter confusion along the lines of, "Wait, we have to pick one gender and stick with it? WHOSE STUPID IDEA WAS THIS?")
(and since some of you might not know me very well, hello, my name is Spiffy and I am a bisexual of the serial monogamy variety when I am in a relationship, who's been happily single for so long I don't even care to keep track of how long it's been.)
[ 31. December 2012, 22:10: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
True, we cannot at the moment of conception choose what personalities we would like them to have, but this is a job which God delegates to us.
My nephew and niece had recognisably different personalities by their respective first birthdays. I'm sure they can make certain choices in their lives, but some parts of their personality are pretty much hard-wired.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Enoch: quote:
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
Unless you're making a very obvious biological point here, I can't see how that verse is relevant to this discussion.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Enoch: quote:
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
Unless you're making a very obvious biological point here, I can't see how that verse is relevant to this discussion.
I am making a very obvious biological point.
I'm also saying it has a profound theological significance which is different from widely expressed theological opinion which many people take for granted - which is why I cited the passage.
[ 01. January 2013, 10:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] "Wait, we have to pick one gender and stick with it? WHOSE STUPID IDEA WAS THIS
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
Scream if you all wish, but that is precisely the reason why I can't see how 'bisexual' can be a legitimate lifestyle, or one which the rest of us, whether straight or gay, should be expected to take seriously.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Where to start. Screaming perhaps?
Let me point out that bisexual is no more a lifestyle choice than homosexual or heterosexual. Within each orientation lifestyle choices such as promiscuity, open relationships, serial monogamy or life-long partnership are available.
Which combinations ought to be taken seriously and why?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
What's meant by being 'taken seriously', in any case; and why is it important??
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Being "taken seriously" might be a matter of life or death to someone whose orientation is out of line with the local cultural prejudices.
But, of course, the need to quibble about exact definitions allows one to avoid having to deal with the actual issue - just as the church does.
The fact that gays (more often) and lesbians, transgenders and transsexuals have suffered beatings, isolation, loss of job opportunities and general bad outcomes might make some slight difference to some of the posters here if they actually applied the Second Great Commandment.
It doesn't fucking matter if it is a choice or hardwired: THEY ARE GLBT. What you want them to be is totally irrelevant, however many words wyou want to parse. Get over it.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
glockenspiel
Shipmate
# 13645
|
Posted
I didn't really want to stray into theological waters, myself - although of course others are free to do so - It just seemed to me that there were certain 'lurking' dangers to installing a particular (apparently benign) working-assumption as to how these 'non-mainstream' preferences arise - and it seems to me that such an assumption has been 'installed' in many institutions.
So, just briefly on associated problems with the Church ~
As an example: Mr A: 'But God made me this way - so why not just accept that?' ... Mr. B: 'Ok, we'll accept that - and now we'll incorporate it into a package of 'disordered states' under the heading of Original Sin'. Result = Stalemate.
Posts: 1258 | From: Shropshire | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Jn 1:13 strongly suggests that it is our parents who make us and we who make our children.
True, we cannot at the moment of conception choose what personalities we would like them to have, but this is a job which God delegates to us. Because of original sin, some aspects of that will be fantastic, some mediocre and some flawed, but it varies from one person to another which bits are more and which bits less of each.
I don't think we are entitled to say, "God decided that X would be gay, Y would have acne, Z would be deaf and Jessica Ennis would be a great athlete".
Psalm 139:13-14, on the other hand, suggests quite the opposite: "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well."
This is actually quite interesting though, in the context of the points about original sin that have been made. If
a) God forms our inward parts, and knits us together in the womb; and
b) A link is demonstrated between the uterine environment and sexual orientation, or something along those lines; then
c) Gays are exactly as God intended them to be.
Now the question of choice is an attempt to throw out premise B, and label homosexuality as a sinful choice. You're attempting to throw out premise A, and perhaps categorize homosexuality as part of the brokenness of a fallen creation.*
But if God really does knit us together in the womb, that "original sin" approach doesn't quite work.
* Apologies if you're not, personally, taking that stance; someone could pick up your point and make that argument, though.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
[QUOTE] "Wait, we have to pick one gender and stick with it? WHOSE STUPID IDEA WAS THIS
Exactly. You chose to ignore choice and made the alternative decision to self identify as bisexual.
If you are monogamous when in a relationship, you've made a choice - either same sex or opposite sex.
But that doesn't stop you being bisexual. You may well still fancy people of the other gender to your partner, but not act on that attraction. I remember being with friends, 2 couples (male/female) where both women and one of the men identify as bisexual and so all four commented on the fanciability of women at one point. LEft me a bit cold as Idon't really get the fancying thing (of either gender).
Equally if someone is celibate it doesn't stop them from being gay or straight if that's who they fancy although they are not acting on it (or indeed being bi, or asexual)
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Can one shoose to be asexual? that is, can one choose to not be attracted to other persons in a sexual manner? Or is this something innate?
Of course, proving an absence of feeling is a bit tricky.
Or is the question irrelevant because no-one is upset about that orientation?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
