"Homosexuality is a choice" and its paradox

[rexbeccarox]

Really the only really good reason I can think of, and this is just my opinion, is that parents invest a lot in their children, and the main payoff they hope for is grandchildren. Certainly, I would be disappointed if both my kids were gay, and my genetic line was wiped out. And I think ultimately, that's where the "morality" gets stamped on it-- elders generally coin moral rules, and elders generally want to see cute little kids running around but can't make them. Just brainstorming here.

What if both of your kids were straight and decided not to have children? What's the difference?

[bennyboy]

Really the only really good reason I can think of, and this is just my opinion, is that parents invest a lot in their children, and the main payoff they hope for is grandchildren. Certainly, I would be disappointed if both my kids were gay, and my genetic line was wiped out. And I think ultimately, that's where the "morality" gets stamped on it-- elders generally coin moral rules, and elders generally want to see cute little kids running around but can't make them. Just brainstorming here.

What if both of your kids were straight and decided not to have children? What's the difference?

Not much, if they actually stick strong to that resolution. Certainly, some perfectly viable straight people choose never to have children.

Since I believe being gay is usually an unchangeable fact of life, then an announcement that my kids were gay would make me think there was almost no chance that my genetic material would be continued. (I admit this is not necessarily true, but certainly, I'd see my genetic stock sinking pretty badly)

If they announced they didn't want kids, I'd be more hopeful: what people ARE doesn't change, but what they want to do can. And hetero couples are infinitely more likely to get pregnant by accident, and then decide for emotional reasons that they're going to keep it. I can't think of a scenario where a gay couple would accidentally produce a baby.

[FallentoReason]

Why are they being inconsistent? Well, they should ask themselves this: "have I ever had sexual feelings for the same gender?" If the answer is "no", then that means two things:

(1) oddly, homosexuality is a choice, yet *they* themselves are excluded from apparently being able to make said choice.

(2) if (1) is true, then it means for as long as they've known, their orientation was out of their control if they can't seem to ever have a sexual attraction for their own gender.

Okay, we understand this to be true, we know that this choice shit is kind of irrational, but I think you're missing the sheer power of theistic magical thinking.

I think the source of the logical disconnect here is that, to a theist this actually has nothing to do with sex at all, since most religions tend to treat any sexual activity the same way. No, to the people broaching this choice argument, the choice they're thinking of isn't heterosexuality vs homosexuality, it's piety vs sin. To them, the reason they haven't had any attractions to the same gender is because they are saved, they aren't afflicted with sin, they are strong enough to deny lust to the point that the devil won't even try to give them homo cooties.

Homosexuality being a choice, to them, has nothing to do with logic at all, it's simply a byproduct of their theology; homosexuality must be a choice because it's a sin, and all sins need to be, at root, choices, because they can't square the idea of god creating people with sinful natures.

It's the reason why, on the other hand, you've got the "love the sinner, hate the sin" folks, whose beef is mainly with homosexual sex, and have no issue with celibate gays; it's just a particularly bad variant of the larger sin of sexual pleasure, to them.

It's a good point you raise. I guess the OP can be adapted to accommodate for that, although it won't be a "universal" argument anymore like I wanted it to be:

(a) the person in question is a heterosexual and not a believer.

I fall into this category. I personally can't say that I've ever had feelings for another man as a recent ex-Christian (where sin can now freely roam in my life). Therefore, it seems like their theology doesn't apply to my own life and I can dismiss it as being false for me *personally*. Of course, the theist can't enter my mind and confirm that I'm telling the truth, hence why I can't universally refute their claim anymore.

What I can gather from this alternative is that "sin" is looking like a suss concept.

(b) the person in question is a heterosexual and a believer.

[insert doctrine] means that they are free from the nasty temptation of wanting to slip their ding dong into another man's bum. What I find troubling about this is that I can perfectly say that I *also* don't have that temptation, yet I outright deny their doctrine. From my p.o.v, it seems like whatever they claim to have which means they don't get tempted isn't actually *necessary* for not being tempted in that way. Therefore, I can personally come to the conclusion that their claim is, at most, dubious.

This alternative tells me that the thing driving away sinful thoughts is an unnecessary thing to have.

© the person in question is a homosexual and not a believer.

This is allegedly the case where the individual is choosing to sin since they are/aren't [insert doctrinal reason]. Sure, that's what their religion dictates, but I share half the qualities of this individual, yet I can't wilfully bring myself to sin in this way.

Again, from my p.o.v, it seems like what they claim just isn't adding up.

(d) the person in question is a homosexual and a believer.

I can't say I've met anyone like this before. If they exist though, the believer will most likely play their No True Scotsman card. I think for the purposes of this thread though, we can ignore this particular individual.


From the above, you can see that I have plenty of reasons to deny any sort of doctrinal reasons that account for homosexuality being a choice. Even if I tried, I can't sincerely sin in the way that a homosexual would, and that just doesn't make sense given that we're both sinners, generally speaking.

[bennyboy]

Sex, of any kind but rape, is a choice. The kind of sex you enjoy is not.

[FallentoReason]

Sex, of any kind but rape, is a choice. The kind of sex you enjoy is not.

And the kind this thread is concerned with is the latter. I strongly believe that's what constitues a homosexual - someone who for the majority of their life has enjoyed sex with the same gender. It's the only way I can rationalise why they'd do it.

[bennyboy]

Sex, of any kind but rape, is a choice. The kind of sex you enjoy is not.

And the kind this thread is concerned with is the latter. I strongly believe that's what constitues a homosexual - someone who for the majority of their life has enjoyed sex with the same gender. It's the only way I can rationalise why they'd do it.

There are other reasons. Spartans and modern Israeli elite soldiers (at least so I've been told by a Jew who claims knowledge) were encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior because celibacy was bad for focus. Another reason would be an irrational fear of women-- they might give you a hard-on right up until you actually had to have sex with one, and then insecurities could sabatoge your efforts. Another reason would be pure access: for example in prison. Another would be sexual dominance-- like a gang leader showing some new punk who's really boss.

[Cato]

Spartans and modern Israeli elite soldiers (at least so I've been told by a Jew who claims knowledge) were encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior because celibacy was bad for focus.

What a load of shit! Your Jew source is as likely to know about 'elite Israeli soldiers' as you are to give details about Navy Seals and Green Berets.

"I don't believe in God, but I'll fucking swallow whatever bullshit my local Jew says!!!"

What a schmuck!!!

[FallentoReason]

And the kind this thread is concerned with is the latter. I strongly believe that's what constitues a homosexual - someone who for the majority of their life has enjoyed sex with the same gender. It's the only way I can rationalise why they'd do it.

There are other reasons. Spartans and modern Israeli elite soldiers (at least so I've been told by a Jew who claims knowledge) were encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior because celibacy was bad for focus. Another reason would be an irrational fear of women-- they might give you a hard-on right up until you actually had to have sex with one, and then insecurities could sabatoge your efforts. Another reason would be pure access: for example in prison. Another would be sexual dominance-- like a gang leader showing some new punk who's really boss.

I'm talking about doing it and *enjoying* it like a heterosexual enjoys sex with the other gender. These are your everyday homosexuals, unlike a gang leader showing up the new punk...

[bennyboy]

Spartans and modern Israeli elite soldiers (at least so I've been told by a Jew who claims knowledge) were encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior because celibacy was bad for focus.

What a load of shit! Your Jew source is as likely to know about 'elite Israeli soldiers' as you are to give details about Navy Seals and Green Berets.

"I don't believe in God, but I'll fucking swallow whatever bullshit my local Jew says!!!"

What a schmuck!!!

Well, he is quite the scholar of things Israeli, and he lived there, and I've already said that was the extent of my knowledge about it. But you don't need to get bent out of shape, because it's just an example. The point is that there are many reasons why a man might engage in homosexual behavior.

---

There are other reasons. Spartans and modern Israeli elite soldiers (at least so I've been told by a Jew who claims knowledge) were encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior because celibacy was bad for focus. Another reason would be an irrational fear of women-- they might give you a hard-on right up until you actually had to have sex with one, and then insecurities could sabatoge your efforts. Another reason would be pure access: for example in prison. Another would be sexual dominance-- like a gang leader showing some new punk who's really boss.

I'm talking about doing it and *enjoying* it like a heterosexual enjoys sex with the other gender. These are your everyday homosexuals, unlike a gang leader showing up the new punk...

Who says that people who aren't born gay, but engage in homosexual activities, don't enjoy it? Maybe the gang leader gets a pleasant endorphin rush by showing his dominance. Maybe the guy in prison lets his guard down, and founds out that a hole is a hole, and orgasms are good. Maybe Spartan soldiers, who were fully expected to have sex with their teenage understudies, enjoyed it without guilt because of the lack of social stigma.

[That guy who asked questions]

I haven't ever really put much thought into this area of the theist vs atheist debate, but after a Christian friend shared one too many preachy photos/text about the topic on Facebook, I decided to engage in a discussion with him. I'm eagerly awaiting his response on what I think is quite a unique thought. I thought I'd also write it up here because, believe it or not, I really enjoy hearing the theist's p.o.v. even if I don't show it. Anyways, here goes:

Homosexuality is a choice, so the theist says. This means that, presumably, the person in question *willingly*... *willy*-ngly... ahem, *willingly* chose to sexually pursue the same gender, hence the "choice". What I find amusing is that if that's the case, then the theist is being inconsistent with what they know about *themselves* - rendering their belief that "homosexuality is a choice" internally contradictory. This means that to apply said belief externally to everyone else is just as contradictory.

Why are they being inconsistent? Well, they should ask themselves this: "have I ever had sexual feelings for the same gender?" If the answer is "no", then that means two things:

(1) oddly, homosexuality is a choice, yet *they* themselves are excluded from apparently being able to make said choice.

(2) if (1) is true, then it means for as long as they've known, their orientation was out of their control if they can't seem to ever have a sexual attraction for their own gender.

If they agree with both, then the only sensible conclusion to draw about homosexuals is that they weren't heterosexuals by default who turned homosexual. The theist himself should recognise this from their *own* inability to make that choice. What I particularly like though, is that for the theist to reasonably say that "homosexuality is a choice", it can only mean one thing: they themselves are attracted to both the opposite gender *as well as* the same gender. Because now the choice *is* there, and all it means to be heterosexual is that they are continually suppressing their sexual feelings for the same gender, thus not choosing homosexuality (and conversely, the homosexual obviously choosing not to suppress those feelings).

I will conclude by asking you fellow theists a question that fits your [presumably consistent] belief on sexuality:

Who was the last person of the same gender that you had a crush on?

I wouldn't call myself a theist because I am by no means religious and I actually hate religion, which may seem contradictory with me being a believer in Christ and a deist. However, my view is that homosexuality is both a choice and not a choice. For some, they may choose to be with the same sex and others may not have a "choice." We'd first have to determine if any of us have any choice at all in regard to anything. Example, Sam Harris has stated that our "will" is non-existent, that we are all just hardwired neurologically and every conscious "decision" made is a result of underlying unconscious biological programs. As if we were all merely just electrochemical machines.

I don't see this as the case, i'm not sure why exactly yet but I don't. I am heterosexual and I have explored an attraction to the same sex once, and concluded that I am by no means sexually attracted to any male (in the sense that I would desire sex with them.) However, I do notice what would be seen as an attractive male and appreciate the body of that individual and have also internally made comments on the unattractiveness of other males. I conclude that it is merely a way for me to compare myself to other males and determine my own level attractiveness. I don't think that homosexuality is a choice in every instance in every person but it can't be denied that in some it is very much a choice. It is irrelevant to their status as a human and I don't look down on any homosexual as if they are an "abomination." Also, I feel that anyone that does so and claims to be a "christian" is very much speaking against what should be his/her core belief. There's your POV. Hope it helps in whatever you're looking for.