(April 22, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: If for the sake of argument, we take as given that people cannot change their sexual orientation that does not mean people must engage in the behavior.

Ok, you try being straight and not having sex, or any type of relationship, your entire life.

This is exactly what religion tells gay people to do. "You Must be celebate for God to except you".

The thing you don't realise, as someone I'll assume is straight, is that hiding your sexuality and not having any kind of companion ship, is incredibly draining on your mental health. Asking someone "go without intimacy" is a very big ask. It's not fair.

As Esquilax already pointed out, there is also more to being gay than anal sex. There are many gay men who are actually repulsed by the thought of it too, and have no desire to partake in it. They are still gay, in that they are still sexually and/or romantically attracted to other men, but they do not have a desire for anal sex. It does exist, I've actually dated a guy who felt that way.

(April 21, 2015 at 11:58 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(April 21, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

Go ahead.  Try to have sex with another man, fucking dumbass.  Then you can tell us if choice was truly involved.  

And how do you know that I haven't? Before I became a Christian of course.

---

Esquilax – “...one could equally say that the natural function of human genitalia is to provide pleasure, considering they're filled with nerves dedicated to that purpose.”

And why do you suppose that sex is pleasurable other than to motivate people to procreate.


Esquilax – “...that function determines the moral dimension of their use is... well, to begin with it's an is/ought fallacy, since what something is in no way determines what one ought to do with it. “

Not so because the physical facts about various things have assigned value to the extent that they are linked with something of essential value. For example, everyone to greater or lesser degree values their life. Therefore those actions that contribute positively to their life, such as using their faculties in accordance with nature, is considered what one ought to do. Your argument of convenience actually works against you. Since you consider living organisms, including humans, complex electro-chemical reactions, then you have no basis for attributing value to one physical system over another.

Esquilax – “...Homosexuality is more than sex, and certainly more than anal sex...”

Did I say otherwise? What were the words I used, oh yes, ‘psychological disposition’ and ‘proclivities’. That covers a pretty wide range I would say.

(April 22, 2015 at 7:29 pm)coldwx Wrote: Identical twins manifest difference in height, weight, fingerprints, etc that can be formulated in the womb due to factors such as placental connection.  These are not choices, but are not genetic.

Sure, and if concordance was high but not perfect, I'd accept the argument that people are born gay, but occasionally a factor such as placental connection causes different amounts of hormones or some such to get to each baby. But the concordance is low. In the largest studies, it's single digits. Recall also that the comparison being made is to skin color, for which the concordance is near 100%.

Quote:While I agree with the argument that the science is far from settled regarding a "gay gene", this does not correlate to SSA being a choice.  I get the feeling that you are not necessarily arguing that it is a choice, just that it is not buried in genetics.

Some of my opponents propose a false dichotomy: either a person is born gay, or that person necessarily makes a distinct conscious decision to be gay. There's middle ground which they'd like to keep off the table.

(April 21, 2015 at 8:04 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(April 21, 2015 at 6:53 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: You mean like believing that practicing homosexuality isn't a choice? An here I was thinking that people could choose with whom they did and didn't have sex . Silly me.

(April 21, 2015 at 7:03 pm)One Above All Wrote: "Practicing homosexuality"? You mean being attracted to people of the same sex? No, it's not a choice.

The reason people state a blanket statement of it not being a choice is because it's one of their main defenses against the religious right. If they stated that it was a choice for many individuals (I can't determine whether how many homosexuals could choose to partake in relation with the opposite sex), the religious right could then use that information against them stating it was their choice to sin.
If there was no religious or other opposition to homosexuality, you wouldn't see people going around saying that it's not a choice.

Of course you would because it is a fact.   Who we are attracted to is not a matter of choice.

---

(April 21, 2015 at 11:55 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Alcoholics cannot stop being alcoholics but they can stop drinking. They have a choice. Some people may find themselves attracted to the same sex but that doesn't mean they must engage in same sex sex.

That's true, but so what?  What adults do with each other is none of your fucking business.

---

(April 22, 2015 at 9:58 am)alpha male Wrote:

(April 22, 2015 at 8:30 am)One Above All Wrote: Wrong. The actual conclusion is that, if there's a genetic factor, it's minor.

Agreed.

Quote:Being born with it doesn't make it 100% (or even 1%) genetic.

The fact that identical twins have a higher rate of concordance than fraternal twins indicates that there is a genetic factor, but as you note, it's minor.

I agree that fetal development is more than just genetics, if that's your point. But, identical twins not only share the same genes, they share the same womb at the same time. So, what factors are you proposing that work on one twin, but not on the other?

No, they do not have identical environments ever.  Fetal development is driven by chemistry - the chemical environment of each cell, and that is constantly changing.

(April 22, 2015 at 10:13 pm)Mezmo! Wrote: Esquilax – “...one could equally say that the natural function of human genitalia is to provide pleasure, considering they're filled with nerves dedicated to that purpose.”

And why do you suppose that sex is pleasurable other than to motivate people to procreate.

Sure, I acknowledge that we're both drawing lines there, only my point was that you hadn't given a reason for why you'd drawn your line so narrowly, when a broader notion of what constitutes the purpose of genitals is equally true. The difference between us is that when I drew my line, I knew I was being arbitrary.

Besides, our sexual desires and drives aren't tied to our procreative drive either; people don't get aroused only when they want a baby, in fact it's often the reverse. If you want to talk about purposes and the realities of our sexual nature, there's plenty more in favor of "sex is for pleasure," than there is for "sex is for babies." We're still ignoring the naturalistic fallacy in what you're arguing, but there it is; what you're saying isn't even the best possible fallacious argument to be made.

Quote:Esquilax – “...that function determines the moral dimension of their use is... well, to begin with it's an is/ought fallacy, since what something is in no way determines what one ought to do with it. “

Not so because the physical facts about various things have assigned value to the extent that they are linked with something of essential value. For example, everyone to greater or lesser degree values their life. Therefore those actions that contribute positively to their life, such as using their faculties in accordance with nature, is considered what one ought to do.

Or, in other words, people's lives have value because everyone values their lives. Do you have any other circular arguments to trot out?

There are, of course, reasons why people value their lives, first and foremost among them being the simple reality of the discussion; those who don't value their lives generally aren't around to contribute to the conversation in the first place. In order to have positions on values, one must be alive, after all.

But your argument is trivially simple to rebut too, as again, the physical facts regarding sex are broader than the procreative act you want to focus on; sex, and the physical intimacy it brings, are efficient means of bonding. Sex is pleasurable, if you want to go visceral. It's psychologically and physiologically beneficial. It is more than just procreation, and you fundamentally know that, because you made sure to list "conjugal love," among the reasons to have sex. You've just decided, arbitrarily and without presenting any justification, that the only conjugal love that counts is the one you like. I don't understand why on Earth you think that should be a sufficient argument.

Quote:Your argument of convenience actually works against you. Since you consider living organisms, including humans, complex electro-chemical reactions, then you have no basis for attributing value to one physical system over another.

Yeah, I'm not going to respond to strawmen. You don't get to tell me what my position is, and then demand that I dance to your tune. Either respond to what I'm actually stated as thinking, or don't respond at all. But you don't get to lie.

Quote:Esquilax – “...Homosexuality is more than sex, and certainly more than anal sex...”

Did I say otherwise? What were the words I used, oh yes, ‘psychological disposition’ and ‘proclivities’. That covers a pretty wide range I would say.

Interesting that you cut out the rest of that sentence, which explains precisely why I went there. I guess quote mining isn't beneath you either.

Since I've had a vasectomy, am I in the "gay/worthless" category too?

No cake for me?

It's very important to punish evil misuse of genitals with cake denial.

(April 22, 2015 at 7:57 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: As Esquilax already pointed out, there is also more to being gay than anal sex...

I'm glad to know this as I doubt my aging rump would stand up to the mechanical stresses.

In Egypt an object like the nTr, a wooden rod ornamented with a spur at one end and the whole wrapped tightly with linen, is a fetish. So is a mummified crocodile. As a fetish is an object of veneration or worship, is being gay a form of worship as the thread title proposes? Unlikely as you need not worship in order to pop a boner if you're a guy. Rather you'd have to be gay first then worship the fact later. While Father Darwin has indeed tied sex urges to the procreative imperative, He's done so indirectly: The creature blushing with desire need not be aware the act will lead to spawn, and in fact there existed human societies known to anthropologists where the 9-month connection wasn't made.

I'm with Esquil...through the human medium of culture we have expanded our world of sexual sensation to give it meanings which can be entirely unrelated to layette and crib. I'm inclined to believe contrary to the gay party line that developing homosexuality may well involve elements of conscious choice. However, we can make choices as early as age 2 before we even have a concept of free will, nor can an element of choice imply that sexuality is easily reversible once it has developed. Decisions conscious or not often lead to being committed to the path chosen. That's true of certain cigarette smokers who can't seem to stop despite knowing their condition will kill them. It should be more true of a fundamental part of our makeup like sex, which we explore very early on.

(April 23, 2015 at 11:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Since I've had a vasectomy, am I in the "gay/worthless" category too?

No cake for me?

It's very important to punish evil misuse of genitals with cake denial.

Oh no, Chad listed "conjugal love" as a natural reason to have sex, it's not that he's against sex for pleasure... he's just arbitrarily deciding that gay sex doesn't count somehow, and is apparently hoping that if he just palms that card and walks by it really quickly, nobody will notice.

Well, either that, or he just doesn't have an actual reason to exclude gay sex from that list...

(April 23, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Well, either that, or he just doesn't have an actual reason to exclude gay sex from that list...

Inconceivable!

You, pro-gay advocates, are missing the point entirely. I am responding to the charge that opposition to homosexual behavior is akin to bigotry. That gets thrown around a lot, but is completely ignorant as I showed earlier. I advocate natural law, not only with respect to the issue at hand, but for a whole range of moral issues, like adultery and incest. You guys disagree. We both hold sincerely held beliefs. Disagreement over sincerely held beliefs is not bigotry.

In order for an opinion or action to qualify as bigoted it must be unfair. Gender is inherently subjective and involves beliefs about one identity based on desires and feelings. The charge of bigotry does apply when people choose to associate with only with like-minded individuals. It is fair (though not necessarily wise) for a Bible study group to exclude non-believers and it is fair for an Ultimate Frisbee team to oppose someone that vocally insults the game. It is also fair for attendees to a conference on biblical marriage roles to not welcome advocates for BDSM relationships. In contract to this, it is unfair to hold unfavorable opinions about and discriminate against people based simply on outwardly observable biological facts, like skin color or sex.

Likewise it not bigoted to hold unfavorable opinions or discriminate against people because of actions in which they freely engaged and for which they were entirely responsible. It is fair (though not necessarily wise) to exclude remarried coupled from a dinner-club because the other members consider second marriages adulterous. Nor is it bigoted to consider some voluntary behaviors morally wrong or harmful. It is fair for a Christian-based crisis pregnancy center to advise women against having abortions. It is fair (though not necessarily wise) to make and enforce laws prohibiting behavior that is a society considers harmful to self and others. The justification for such laws may be incorrect but they are not prejudiced against people simply because of immutable biological facts over which they have no control. They could in theory observe the law, even if they disagree with it. I have lots of laws with which I disagree, like prohibition against marijuana, but I now, as an adult, comply with that law even though I previously enjoyed and probably still would enjoy getting high.

Nearly everyone on your side take traditional opinions (not all of which are religious) about homosexuality personally. I can understand that because it is an affront to your strongly held beliefs about gender identity and pronounced feelings. In the same way people of faith have strongly held beliefs about their religious identity and inclinations toward certain spiritual experiences and consider gay-positive advocacy offensive. Again, these are differences of opinion. Those opinions may be uninformed, stupid, and even disrespectful, one way or the other, and reasonable people can disagree, but any comparison between opposition to homosexuality and race/sexism is nothing more than ignorant hyperbole.

---

(April 23, 2015 at 1:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 23, 2015 at 11:37 am)robvalue Wrote: Since I've had a vasectomy, am I in the "gay/worthless" category too?

No cake for me?

It's very important to punish evil misuse of genitals with cake denial.

Oh no, Chad listed "conjugal love" as a natural reason to have sex, it's not that he's against sex for pleasure... he's just arbitrarily deciding that gay sex doesn't count somehow, and is apparently hoping that if he just palms that card and walks by it really quickly, nobody will notice.

Well, either that, or he just doesn't have an actual reason to exclude gay sex from that list...

The earthly conjugal love between a man and a woman corresponds with the spiritual union of the male and female principles.