Is having heterosexual feelings a choice?

[danwxman]

What is wrong with two adult consenting homosexuals satisfying their love for each other?

Nothing, except we are all wandering off the point of your original question.  Since none of us have reached agreement on anything, let's at least address the simple point that you and the majority of the gay community make:  "I was born with these feeling and therefore their not my fault, rather they are perfectly natural; therefore, they are wholesome."

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede the issue that homosexual desires meet the following criteria:
1) the desires are innate.
2) the stress and temptation brought to bear by the desire are not chosen by the individual.

But, my problem is the conclusion that a desire meeting those criteria can't be immoral, for I can name many desires meeting those criteria which are universally viewed as immoral.

My point is that "I was born that way, so deal with it" is a red-herring and easily debunked.  It may be such a fine sounding argument that the elitists on ABC's Nightline grab onto it and devote entire programs to the idea, but it doesn't take any more than a simpleton like me to expose it as a house of cards.

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

What is your point about it being "immoral"? Assuming you're not talking about that book, remember morality is subjective. What is immoral to one person is a way of life for another. My view is that it is not one's right to burden another with their morality.

My point about the "two consenting adults" is that you keep trying to compare homosexuality to beastality and child molestation. There is a huge difference between two adults who are of consenting age expressing their love for each other as millions of others do, and somebody who loves a child or an animal who CANNOT consent to the idea.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

That is not what I was saying....nevermind.

[opebo]

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

That is not what I was saying....nevermind.

I certainly agree that it doesn't matter one bit from whence come sexual preferences - choice or genetics, nurture or nature.  But you still haven't come up with any reason your sexual preference should be given precendence over someone elses, regardless of whether such preferences are innate or chosen. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

for your three questions.
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.

My argument does work because arson doesn’t have to be specified; it is simply an act stemming from an underlying motive that could be classified under hatred, or envy, or lawlessness, or etc.  In any case, the bible DOES address damage to property caused by fire:  Exodus 22:6 “If fire break out, and catch in thorns, so that the stacks of corn, or the standing corn, or the field, be consumed [therewith]; he that kindled the fire shall surely make restitution.”

I could invent a thousand ways to show my hatred for someone, but the individual acts don't have to be mentioned in the bible since they would simply fall under the category of hate.

(Notice I didn’t have to add a long list of caveats to prove my point about arson, I simply had to examine the motive.)

---

Now, let’s bring the argument full circle:

Since motive alone is proof that arson is immoral, does the good intentions of two homosexuals being in “love” purify their actions?

The answer can be found by substituting the homosexual subjects with a heterosexual brother and his heterosexual sister….If you think the “love” between a consenting brother and sister justifies incest, then I guess you would have no problem with homosexuality…but just be prepared to deal with the societal consequences reaped by incest.

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

[??????????]

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

That is not what I was saying....nevermind.

Yeah, that's usually the way I feel after a debate with him JMF. lol

[minionofmidas]

That has never been debunked...millions of people just didn't decide to lie about themselves.

That is not what I was saying....nevermind.

Yeah, that's usually the way I feel after a debate with him JMF. lol

LOL!

jmf is right in this case, though...that's really not what he was talking about.

But your arson mention is from the Old Testament, J. That won't do.
And far from all arson is committed due to hatred or envy (or covetousness, for that matter.) I'd want a theological definition of "lawlessness" before I can decide whether that captures it.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

When asked what the two greatest commandments from God were, what did Jesus say?

He said:

Love God.  Love others.

Once you've mastered that, then we can talk about how much of a sin homosexuality is.

[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?

[minionofmidas]

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

[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. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

(this is a continuation of the biblical branch of this argument)

And far from all arson is committed due to hatred or envy (or covetousness, for that matter.) I'd want a theological definition of "lawlessness" before I can decide whether that captures it.

In regard to lawlessness:  Submission to human law is commanded (Rom 13:1,3; Heb 13:17; 1Pet 2:13).  So arson is a sin simply because it is criminal activity.

---

But, going further (not that it is needed)…arson is just another form of vandalism.  And the motive of the vandal is to take control of another person’s property (a form of theft) in order to derive pleasure in destroying the possessions of others.

At least the normal thief steals in order to profit from his take (at least he makes some use of another’s property), but the vandals seek no profit (unless arson is committed against one’s own property in order to defraud their insurance company), they simply want to gain psychological power over people by spreading fear and anguish…..vandalism is a form of torture and therefore their motive is hatred.

----

But your arson mention is from the Old Testament, J. That won't do.

Actually my OT quote wasn’t even in the context of arson.  It simply addressed the need for restitution in the case of a fire accidentally getting out of control and destroying another’s property.  And restitution is a concept that is carried into the NT. 

The same is true in our society, which is the purpose of liability insurance.

But, like I said, I can invent a million ways to carry out my evil motives, but scripture doesn't have to name each way I invent, for my motives are going to fall into a standard set of categorized sins.  Men don’t invent sin, they simply invent ways of committing sin: “they invent ways of doing evil” (Rom 1:30).

[opebo]

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?

There is no way that love can either purify or impurify any sex acts, either hetero or homosexual.  This is because these acts are neither pure nor impure.  Any judgement made about the preferability of one sex act over another is purely subjective, and in fact the very concept of 'purity' is a nonsensical attempt to apply one's subjectivity to other individuals.   

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

[this the scientific branch of the argument]

There is no way that love can either purify or impurify any sex acts, either hetero or homosexual.  This is because these acts are neither pure nor impure.  Any judgement made about the preferability of one sex act over another is purely subjective, and in fact the very concept of 'purity' is a nonsensical attempt to apply one's subjectivity to other individuals.   

No, it is NOT subjective, for we can test the impact of such acts objectively:  Incest destroys a society.  period.

But, it seems you and I agree on three points:
1) "I was born that way" doesn't make it right
2) "We both consented" doesn't make it right
3) "But, we love each other" doesn't make it right

[opebo]

[this the scienfifical branch of the argument]

There is no way that love can either purify or impurify any sex acts, either hetero or homosexual.  This is because these acts are neither pure nor impure.  Any judgement made about the preferability of one sex act over another is purely subjective, and in fact the very concept of 'purity' is a nonsensical attempt to apply one's subjectivity to other individuals.   

No, it is NOT subjective, for we can test the impact of such acts objectively:  Incest destroys a society.  period.

But, it seems you and I agree on three points:
1) "I was born that way" doesn't make it right
2) "We both consented" doesn't make it right
3) "But, we love each other" doesn't make it right

I agree with those statements only because I don't believe in the existence of 'right and wrong'.  However I think the consent argument is the only useful one, simply from a practical standpoint.  While no kind of sex can be 'wrong', rape is worth preventing for the same reasons we try to prevent murder - nearly all of us can agree we would like to avoid being raped.  So we create the State, law, and the police to catch rapists. 

The strongest argument here is one of practical self-defense based on self-interest, not 'morality'.  One can certainly say that one's own rape is ones own business, and the business of one's bodyguard the State, wheras it is an enormous stretch to say that private acts between consenting individuals need your attention or the attention of the State.

As for 'destroying society', what nonsense.  Can you prove that?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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. 

I simply break the problem down logical parts. 

Their arguments all take the same form: 

“Act abc is ok because it contains traits xyz.” 

The traits xyz they point to are:
1)   “we were born that way”
2)    “we consented”
3)    “we’re in love”

So, since the traits xyz are their justification in equating an action to being ok, we can simply substitute actions that have the same traits in order to test their logic. 

At which point it is very easy to prove that, individually or collectively, these traits have nothing to do with making an action acceptable or profitable to human society. 

And their argument is exposed for what it is:  a red-herring.

[opebo]

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. 

I simply break the problem down logical parts. 

Their arguments all take the same form: 

“Act abc is ok because it contains traits xyz.” 

The traits xyz they point to are:
1)   “we were born that way”
2)    “we consented”
3)    “we’re in love”

So, since the traits xyz are their justification in equating an action to being ok, we can simply substitute actions that have the same traits in order to test their logic. 

At which point it is very easy to prove that, individually or collectively, these traits have nothing to do with making an action acceptable or profitable to human society. 

And their argument is exposed for what it is:  a red-herring.

Your opponents' mistake it to accept the idea that they need to justify their practices to intolerants.  A better argument would be - you have your type of sex, we have ours, and there is no reason to believe either is 'better' than the other.

As for applying the criteria of what is 'profitable to human society' to the judgement of individual acts - how absurd!  Nearly everything most people do, from sitting around watching TV to masturbating, or in fact any recreational activity fails this test.  Would you all like to see us regimented into society's idea of profitable activities as in North Korea or the military?  In fact most of what we do as autonomous individuals is purely for our own amusement, and to apply a standard of benefit to society is to deny our individuality. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As for 'destroying society', what nonsense.  Can you prove that?

The British Monarchy

[John Dibble]

As for 'destroying society', what nonsense.  Can you prove that?

The British Monarchy

Most European monarchies actually(the French had it bad, too), though society wasn't destroyed. Actually, in those cases where the monarch is just plain inbred, usually it was the case that the advisors would take the opportunity to seize power themselves and use the monarch as a puppet - society merely functioned differently, though usually not as well(not that monarchy is an all that great system in the first place). However, I think this is a poor example on how incests 'always' destroys society. If some redneck trailer trash do it, it really doesn't affect most of us. Even if incest was legal(and I'm not saying it should be) most people wouldn't do it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Your opponents' mistake it to accept the idea that they need to justify their practices to intolerants.

The whole thrust of the homosexual movement to become morally accepted. 

---

As for applying the criteria of what is 'profitable to human society' to the judgement of individual acts - how absurd!  Nearly everything most people do, from sitting around watching TV to masturbating, or in fact any recreational activity fails this test. 

You are being extreme.  Relaxation (TV, sports, etc) is healthy, IF done in moderation.  But 99% of people wouldn't tolerate the excuse:  my sister and I have sex, but only in moderation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Most European monarchies actually(the French had it bad, too

You mean I had the chance to call most of Europe "crackers" and missed the opportunity?! 

Man, I hate when that happens.

[opebo]

Your opponents' mistake it to accept the idea that they need to justify their practices to intolerants.

The whole thrust of the homosexual movement to become morally accepted. 

As for applying the criteria of what is 'profitable to human society' to the judgement of individual acts - how absurd!  Nearly everything most people do, from sitting around watching TV to masturbating, or in fact any recreational activity fails this test. 

You are being extreme.  Relaxation (TV, sports, etc) is healty, IF done in moderation.  But 99% of people wouldn't tolerate the excuse:  my sister and I have sex, but only in moderation.

Perhaps most homosexuals are deluded enough to accept the idea of an objective morality.  But I think their aspirations have been political, not 'moral'.  They have sought equal rights, not approbation by a lot of intolerants.  It is exactly like the civil rights movement - blacks didn't necessarily want to have anything to do with crackers on a personal level, nor did they believe said southern whites would stop hating.  Blacks merely wanted whites to loose their ability to utilize the power of the State to oppress non-whites, as they had done for generations.  

As for 'healthy' relaxation - why should society worry about what is healthy for mere individuals?  Shouldn't the profit of society as a whole be prioritized?  Isn't a TV-holic just as perverse and anti-social as a butt-bandit? (Probably more so in terms of sheer hours wasted).  
But speaking of healthy relaxation of a sexual nature, what is your view on masturbation?

[opebo]

As for 'destroying society', what nonsense.  Can you prove that?

The British Monarchy

Society won't be destroyed by a few more birth defects.  Lets respect the privacy of those siblings who are so inclined to boff one another as the see fit.  Perhaps to them it is worth a few club feet or underslung jaws in the succeeding generations - heck it didn't seem to do the Habsburgs much harm.  They managed to rule for centuries with plenty of inbreeding. 

Anyway, it is just an individual choice, with its own risks and rewards - I don't see how that can make it 'wrong'.  Interestingly, many animals mate with their siblings, or fathers with daughters. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Reason does not work with those who would justify incest. 

So I guess I'll just have to get use to being called "intolerant biggot" for not accepting siblngs who want to have sexual relations with each other. 

[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.