Is having heterosexual feelings a choice?

[angus]

tough call.  but I can honestly say I did not make a conscious decision that lisa simpson is an authoritarian/leftist bitch.  It was always very clear to me that she is.  Not a choice, just some feeling that I was born with.  I think sexual orientation is very much the same way.  On the other hand, lack of creativity and copycat posting is very much a choice.  It's like the guys who invented that Tiger energy drink, or the guys who made the little fish with feet that says Darwin in the middle, or the guys who invented Pepsi.  They'd have been good ideas if they were original, but the fact that it was so obvious that they stole another's idea, and sold it as though it was original makes them posers and copiers and lackers of originality.  A more interesting question is:  do people who only take a slight twist on the original threads of others choose to be slackers, or are they born that way?

[angus]

nice retort, man. 

I'll stop now.  don't want to go down in flames.  peace.

[angus]

Jmfcst, what do you do with homosexuals, then?  I understand you're not a bigot, and you're one of the most logically consistent posters on this forum.  but the question that I've always had for those who are certain it is wrong to lie down with men is:  If a man isn't into women, and if, by the laws of leviticus, not allowed to lie down with men, then must he accept a life of solitude and loneliness?  Is the god of Israel and Muhammed and father of Jesus so determined to ensure that Man remains true to his own heterosexual image that no mercy can be shown to the ones who don't fit well into that mold?  Or doesn't homosexuality, as I think I understand it, exist?  Is it just a passing man-lust that can be cured with either therapy, love, or stoic acceptance of the laws of the One True God of all men?

[angus]

fair enough.  but, here's food for thought.  back when I was living in Arlington, I had two close personal friends who were gay.  one was out and one was not (well, he thought he wasn't anyway, but he wasn't fooling anyone).  They took me to mass at a place called Cathedral of Hope in Dallas.  It claims to be the largest gay christian church in the USA.  This was years ago.  '92ish, maybe.  Anyway, the minister was gay, the ushers were gay.  most of the congregation was gay.  But you didn't have to be gay to go there.  Anyway, as you might imagine, much of the sermon typically dealt with sexuality.  Now, mind you, these are serious Christians.  I was more of a neutral observer, I suppose, being neither gay nor particularly religious, but the whole experience was rather uplifting.  Let me provide you the website link to their official position on homosexuality just for thought.  you needn't feel obligated to comment, but some of it doesn't quite square with your interpretation.  again, I'm not looking for a fight, but I just thought you might find this information interesting, in particular from the Epistles of Saint Paul.

http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.php

I do agree with you that we're all in the same boat in so many ways.

[angus]

Angus, does it seem odd to you that the bible's over-riding objection to Sodom is different than the objection of your friends, even though they claim to be "serious Christians"?

well, yes and no.   I do believe they were good and decent people who just wanted to work and live and play and do good deeds like everyone else.  I can't comment on their objectivity or their religious value systems, other than to say they were, like you, very much into living in a way that they felt was consistent with the teachings of Christ. 

I recognize the possibility for different interpretations, not only of the Jewish and Christian holy texts, but also of the Qur'an, the tripitaka, or any other, and I'm not sure I agree in the notion of absolute universal value systems.  The thing is, with the possible exception of supersoulty, no one can debate you on theological matters because you always win.  Not because you're intrinsically right, but because it is so hard to keep up with your ability to call to mind any verse and chapter at a moment's notice.  The Dayton, Tennessee school board should have had you, instead of William Jennings Bryan, as their council when they tried Scopes. 

No, you don't need to continue.  there's a lot to digest there already. 

[angus]

yes, I think it is a bit more complicated than that.  I doubt that their omission stems from ignorance.  Mine, maybe, but not theirs.  I'm just saying your idea of "perversion" and their idea of "perversion" and anyone's idea of "perversion" doesn't have to be the same thing.  I think that's the central problem here.  It's not clear to me that "sexual immorality and perversion" doesn't mean rape, or attempted rape.  Sure, opebo put it crassly, but also accurately, when he stated that your unwillingness to accept that your standard interpretation of morality may not be the only valid viewpoint out there.   Five people can pick up a 3500 year old document written in Hebrew, or an 1800 year old document written in Greek, and even if they could read those languages, they might still take home five different messages, none of which is necessarily any less valid than any other.  Superimpose upon that a reliance upon Elizabethan English and you get even more room for interpretation.  I'm not sure what God had to say about any of this, but I think that if a loving, merciful God exists, I have a hard time believing he cannot accept ten percent of the human population for no other reason than homosexuality.  I really do.

[angus]

I don't think you get it. The bible is irrelevant in this conversation. We are talking science.

Sorry, I was using you to talk to angus since he is ignoring me.

I am not!  not, intentionally anyway.  lots to do.  new son.  new semester.  but those are weak excuses.  Shouldn't start what I can't finish. 

Like Lewis Trondheim, I always like reading these theological threads and am glad you're back, but I have a hard time debating you on these.  So I was going to try to light a fire and sneak away hoping a more patient and better informed poster would pick up the slack.  None has, so I'll give it another go.

for your three questions.
1.  Again, I'm no expert, but as I recall the first three are pretty much the same, the fourth is a bit different in some respects, and I'm not aware than any of them claim to be all-encompassing.  In fact, this exact point was settled some time back on this forum, as I recall.  Not between you and me, but between you and another poster.  I take it on both your authority that they do not make such a claim.
2.  Of course not, but it doesn't logically follow that just because that's (maybe) true for witchcraft then it must also be so for homosexual desire.  Arson may not be mentioned, but we can agree that arson is a great wrong against another, thus, in your view, against God.  Correct?  But taking a sip of tea isn't mentioned either, and you'll admit that it is perfectly fine to take a sip of tea.  So this argument won't work.
3.  Maybe so, I can't really get inside their heads.  But if it is possible that they are picking and choosing in order to suit their ends, then you might be as well.  And if it really is misinterpretation or ignorance on their part, then you (as you are also a man, and subject to fatigue, fallability, and misinterpretation) might be as well.

also, to your question about satisfying desires, you can't really equate the desire to, say, steal, which is specifically forbidden (as I understand it) in the old testament, with homosexuality and witchcraft, which (by your own admission) is not.  Not necessarily because it isn't specifically mentioned (also that), but because sins have degree, do they not?  So, while I agree that it is not OK to go around satisfying your desire to, say, beat to a bloody pulp a man who wronged you, it may be ok for two consenting adults to express their love physically.  While you may not agree with me about homosexuality being perfectly permissible, you have to admit that you do not equate the satisfaction of any one desire with the satisfaction of any other.  Didn't this come up before as well?

[angus]

also, to your question about satisfying desires, you can't really equate the desire to, say, steal, which is specifically forbidden (as I understand it) in the old testament, with homosexuality and witchcraft, which (by your own admission) is not.

I think you meant New. All of them are explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament.

I'm glad you think that 

the sad truth is that I'm in way over my head.  I'll sneak away quietly now...

[angus]

But if you feel that incest is a perversion not justified by any amount of “love”, then you can see my point.

yes, I can agree to that in all cases.  but I need to think about the analogy a bit before I can respond regarding the homosexual love.  Again, I think you're trying to put the act of homosexuality in a class with greater wrongs.  Surely, we can agree the incest cannot come from Love.  But can you really say for sure that two gay men cannot feel the kind of love you feel for your wife?  I know that's not your point, in fact, on the contrary, you suggest that since Love doesn't purify incest, then it might not purify Gay Love either, but as long as we're on the subject, I can't accept such a bad analogy.  Do you really think God doesn't distinguish between the degree of sin for incest or rape, and consensual gay sex acts?  Can you synthesize an argument, outside the Book, for a just, merciful god who won't discriminate between incest and homosexuality?  And if not, how is the analogy helpful?

[angus]

He's referring to consensual incest, not to rape, though...

yes, I know, and in a real sense, it's "gotcha!"  Jmfcst is sharp that way.  Mostly I'm just buying time so I can think of a good counter-argument. 

[angus]

born that way

there's the rub (pardon the pun).  yeah, although I don't think that I have used that phrase myself, I do think that sums it up for me.  Bush knows they were born that way.  I know they were born that way.  My friend from Arlington knows he was born that way.  But you say that's irrelevant, and clearly show why it would be, if[/i] we all bought into the same universal absolute moral standard. 

That's a big if.