Obama's church buddies on his new gay marriage stance

[Annik]

Honest question here, could you explain the difference between heterosexual feelings and homosexual feelings for me (or provide a link)? The idea of there being separate types of feelings for homosexuality and heterosexuality does not jive with my personal experience at all, so I'm a bit thrown as to what you mean.

I completely get that there are sexual feelings. I'm aware that I feel them toward some very small percentage of women. I just don't understand how these feelings are any different than those of homosexuals. Why are my feelings not the exact same as theirs, even though we are attracted to different people?

For instance, I think there is a definite feeling of pleasure for me when seeing a can of Pepsi. I understand that some people get that same feeling when seeing a can of Coke. I do not, however, believe that there are separate Coke-feelings and Pepsi-feelings.

(As a note, I would consider myself someone who chooses Pepsi over Coke. For what it's worth.)

I said you were mixing together having feelings and acting on them. You misunderstood my post.

I have never seen any evidence of this, and last I heard there still wasn't any. Do you have links handy to any studies that support your claim? I honestly don't keep up all that well since I consider the choice/not a choice debate rather trivial, so I easily could have missed new studies.

Please refer to my earlier post in this thread. I have quoted some articles.

Ah, we were arguing different things. Your view sort of takes the power away from having choices at all, though.

Going back to my Pepsi vs. Coke argument, you can say that I don't get to choose which flavor I have a preference for. Therefore, when it comes to choosing whether I drink Coke or Pepsi, there's really no choice at all. I will simply reach for the one I prefer without choosing, assuming that my preference is strong either way (strict hetero- or homosexual), grab whichever I prefer at a given time (bisexual, simplified for sake of argument), or grab a Faygo (filthy, filthy Juggalo). Any semblance of choice is illusory, though, since I'm unable to control my preferences.

I think that argument is a reasonable one, but I don't believe it fairly represents the human experience. We definitely feel as if we have choices, so saying sexuality is not a choice, but other similar experiences are, feels entirely contradictory. I'm completely with you if you want to view it from the perspective that choices are illusions. I just don't think defining things in those terms is very useful for discussion.

Do you choose to have heterosexual feelings? No. The same applies to homosexual feelings. This argument that homosexuality is a choice is a silly one considering we have about as much control over our sexual preference as we have over what gender we're born as. We simply can't help it. It's not something you can wish away or change your mind about. Saying sexuality is a choice is like saying that being born with blue eyes is a choice.

Let's run with your Coke/Pepsi argument. You might like Pepsi, even though the majority like Coke. In fact, people get made fun of for drinking Pepsi, it's the Devil's Drink. You try and drink Coke, but it's too sugary, too syrupy. You really, really want to like Coke, society gives you every incentive to like Coke, but you just can't do it. Your taste buds aren't like Coke drinkers. You just like Pepsi more.

Now, obviously, homosexuals are those who like Pepsi. Choosing to be homosexual in a hostile society is not something people regularly do. People get married and have kids, all while trying to suppress these feelings. They don't just go away, no matter how much one wants them too. Because it's not a choice. People go through desperate 'Pray Away the Gay' camps to try and rid themselves of their sexual identities (which do not work), they kill themselves because they think something is wrong with them, they lie to themselves and eventually break down when they realize that they can't run away from themselves.

Homosexuality as a choice is as outdated and ignorant as homosexuality as a mental disorder.

[Jinkies]

Do you choose to have heterosexual feelings? No. The same applies to homosexual feelings.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding or ignoring my previous post, but I agreed with this sentiment there, assuming what you mean by "heterosexual feelings" and "homosexual feelings" are sexual preferences.

Let's run with your Coke/Pepsi argument. You might like Pepsi, even though the majority like Coke. In fact, people get made fun of for drinking Pepsi, it's the Devil's Drink. You try and drink Coke, but it's too sugary, too syrupy. You really, really want to like Coke, society gives you every incentive to like Coke, but you just can't do it. Your taste buds aren't like Coke drinkers. You just like Pepsi more.

Now, obviously, homosexuals are those who like Pepsi. Choosing to be homosexual in a hostile society is not something people regularly do. People get married and have kids, all while trying to suppress these feelings. They don't just go away, no matter how much one wants them too. Because it's not a choice. People go through desperate 'Pray Away the Gay' camps to try and rid themselves of their sexual identities (which do not work), they kill themselves because they think something is wrong with them, they lie to themselves and eventually break down when they realize that they can't run away from themselves.

If you're going to run with my comparison, I'd prefer if you didn't run it straight to Crazy Town at the first opportunity. Why are you bringing all that religion into things? Again, I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring what I said or if you're misunderstanding it, but what you're saying here has no relation to what I've said at all. All of that religious baggage you're bringing with you has no relation to an argument on what constitutes a choice.

Please read my previous post again and try not to bring your own views of what I'm saying into it. I was comparing one kind of choice (Coke vs. Pepsi) with another (hetero- vs. homosexuality). My point was that saying homosexuality is not a choice, but that picking between other options in a similar situation is a choice, is contradictory.

Homosexuality as a choice is as outdated and ignorant as homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Persecuting homosexuals is ignorant, though calling it outdated would be a stretch. Being shitty is timeless. Considering homosexuality a choice is simply something you disagree with.

I feel like I was extremely clear in my earlier post, but I'll go over it again here. You are not able to choose what you have a preference for, be that Pepsi, rice, or penis. You are still able to choose what you do about that preference.

If I hand you a Coke and a Pepsi, are you able to choose which one you will drink? If your answer is yes, then I would like you to explain to me how this situation is fundamentally different from human sexuality.

If your answer is no, then I'd guess there's a fair chance you think choices are illusory (as I do). In that case, it's not fair to say that sexuality is not a choice, since what you really mean is that nothing is a choice. While that's my view, I consider it ultimately useless to the human experience, since we clearly feel as if we are making choices in life.

To that end, I consider the "choice" between Coke and Pepsi to exist. To humans, it does. When given options, we sometimes honestly feel that we are actively choosing between them. Not all choices feel that way, though, since the choice of jumping off a cliff or eating a candy bar has one option almost no one would take.

I also view sexuality to be a choice in the same way, as it operates under identical principles to the Coke/Pepsi or rice/bread choices. I'll continue to stick with that unless someone shows some sort of evidence that sexuality is fundamentally different than other human preferences. As of yet, there is nothing to point in that direction.

For some reason, many people feel that it's okay to persecute homosexuals if sexuality is a choice. This is not my position any more than persecuting people who choose Coke is my position. I simply see no convincing argument that sexuality is different from all other human experiences.

Edit: I just realized that part of this conversation is likely us talking past each other. If your view of homosexuality simply includes preferences, but not actions, then we don't disagree there at all.

[Annik]

If you're going to run with my comparison, I'd prefer if you didn't run it straight to Crazy Town at the first opportunity. Why are you bringing all that religion into things? Again, I'm not sure if you're purposely ignoring what I said or if you're misunderstanding it, but what you're saying here has no relation to what I've said at all. All of that religious baggage you're bringing with you has no relation to an argument on what constitutes a choice.

Please read my previous post again and try not to bring your own views of what I'm saying into it. I was comparing one kind of choice (Coke vs. Pepsi) with another (hetero- vs. homosexuality). My point was that saying homosexuality is not a choice, but that picking between other options in a similar situation is a choice, is contradictory.

I was merely using the persecution homosexuals face to illustrate that saying homosexuality is a choice to be ridiculous, because very, very few would choose that kind of life and then follow it to the bitter end. It's not my fault that the majority of people who are anti-homosexual are religious. "Devil Drink" was most just a phrase, much in the way weed is the "Devil's Plant".

Persecuting homosexuals is ignorant, though calling it outdated would be a stretch. Being shitty is timeless. Considering homosexuality a choice is simply something you disagree with.

I feel like I was extremely clear in my earlier post, but I'll go over it again here. You are not able to choose what you have a preference for, be that Pepsi, rice, or penis. You are still able to choose what you do about that preference.

If I hand you a Coke and a Pepsi, are you able to choose which one you will drink? If your answer is yes, then I would like you to explain to me how this situation is fundamentally different from human sexuality.

You can choose to go against your sexual preference, although it does not change your sexual preference. If I am a homosexual man and I am only sexually attracted to men, I could still sleep with a woman. That does not make me any less homosexual. The difference between what soda you like and who you're attracted to... There really is little difference. However, you can love Pepsi and still drink Coke. You can prefer Coke and still drink Pepsi. This will not change which you'd rather have. If we say that Coke is a man and Pepsi is a woman (and we still assume I am a homosexual man), I would want to drink Coke, even if I am drinking Pepsi. You cannot decide on which flavor appeals to you more because of your biology. Choosing to drink one or the other is another matter entirely. I think this is where we are miscommunication. You can be homosexual without ever having slept with the same sex. You can't choose who you're attracted to any more than you can choose what tastes your tongue prefers.

You can choose to ignore your preference and in this way, choice is maintain. There is always some form of choice and the choice for homosexuals is if they should act on their feelings. Our current society is demonizing homosexuals for acting on their feelings (the nature of these feelings is not choice), which I believe to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with being true to yourself.

If your answer is no, then I'd guess there's a fair chance you think choices are illusory (as I do). In that case, it's not fair to say that sexuality is not a choice, since what you really mean is that nothing is a choice. While that's my view, I consider it ultimately useless to the human experience, since we clearly feel as if we are making choices in life.

There is always choice. Everything in our lives essentially boils down to "Do or do not". Sexual preference is not really as much a part of this conscious process, though. The reason being is that our biology (coupled with sociological factors) assigns these. The choice is if one should act on them or not. You must pick either do or do not.

To that end, I consider the "choice" between Coke and Pepsi to exist. To humans, it does. When given options, we sometimes honestly feel that we are actively choosing between them. Not all choices feel that way, though, since the choice of jumping off a cliff or eating a candy bar has one option almost no one would take.

I also view sexuality to be a choice in the same way, as it operates under identical principles to the Coke/Pepsi or rice/bread choices. I'll continue to stick with that unless someone shows some sort of evidence that sexuality is fundamentally different than other human preferences. As of yet, there is nothing to point in that direction.

For some reason, many people feel that it's okay to persecute homosexuals if sexuality is a choice. This is not my position any more than persecuting people who choose Coke is my position. I simply see no convincing argument that sexuality is different from all other human experiences.

Edit: I just realized that part of this conversation is likely us talking past each other. If your view of homosexuality simply includes preferences, but not actions, then we don't disagree there at all.

Your edit got it right, although I did not notice it until I had already written all of that (so I'm posting it anyway!). There is always a choice of action, but preference... not so much.

[Jinkies]

I was merely using the persecution homosexuals face to illustrate that saying homosexuality is a choice to be ridiculous, because very, very few would choose that kind of life and then follow it to the bitter end.

It's cool that we agree, I just feel the need to point out that this particular argument in not a logically sound one at all. People are not known for making optimal or even safe choices. You can look at pedophiles for a rather extreme example of people choosing to do something that has extreme negative ramifications and is almost universally reviled.

Edit: I'll also note that pedos really got the short end of the stick as far as sexual preferences go. I feel sorry for them, but, you know, not sorry enough to want them to keep living.

[Annik]

It's cool that we agree, I just feel the need to point out that this particular argument in not a logically sound one at all. People are not known for making optimal or even safe choices. You can look at pedophiles for a rather extreme example of people choosing to do something that has extreme negative ramifications and is almost universally reviled.

Pedophilia is a preference, just like heterosexuality. The difference there is lack of consent and the victimization of children. Pedophiles can go their whole lives without touching a child. I think "child rapists" would be a more appropriate term. A lot of times, these urges manifest into compulsion or there is an apathy to the recourse of their actions. These child rapists should not be compared to homosexuals so much as other rapists.

Although I'll admit that wasn't the most solid point.

[Jinkies]

Pedophilia is a preference, just like heterosexuality. The difference there is lack of consent and the victimization of children. Pedophiles can go their whole lives without touching a child. The think "child rapists" would be a more appropriate term. A lot of times, these urges manifest into compulsion or there is an apathy to the recourse of their actions. These child rapists should not be compared to homosexuals so much as other rapists.

Although I'll admit that wasn't the most solid point.

For further clarification to anyone in this thread, when I refer to sexuality (or pedophilia, etc.), I am referring both to preferences and to actions. I thought that would be clear after my last few posts, but evidently it was not clear enough. This is one of the problems with words having multiple accepted definitions, so there's not much I can do about it.

[Annik]

The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.

[Jinkies]

The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.

Actually, according to dictionaries, you totes can. I don't feel the need to argue whether dictionary definitions and common usage are good enough reasons to use words as I'm using them, though, so I'll stay out of further discussions on that particular topic.

[Hovik]

The problem is that you can't lump them together like that. They're separate things.

Actually, according to dictionaries, you totes can. I don't feel the need to argue whether dictionary definitions and common usage are good enough reasons to use words as I'm using them, though, so I'll stay out of further discussions on that particular topic.

Uh, no. Just no. Neither dictionaries nor usage agree with you. How are preferences and actions denotatively the same to you?

[Jinkies]

I don't get why you're disagreeing so fervently with reality here. You may not agree with the definitions given by dictionaries, but you're completely wrong to claim that the definition I use is not there at all. Did you even check before saying that?

Reference.com
Merriam-Webster

I could keep going, but these were just the first two results on Google. Note that I actually read them before making a claim as to what they contain. Truth and accuracy are a tad easier to achieve that way. Feel free to keep making faith-based proclamations as to what information various books contain, though. I always enjoy getting arguments not based on any sort of evidence from other atheists.