No straight person thinks being gay is a choice

[Jake]

Something which has always really bothered me is when self-proclaimed "straight" people, usually homophobes, claim that gay people need only choose to behave correctly, that they can simply choose not to act on their "sinful" urges. Now, I'm straight, and believe me, there is no way I could force myself to enjoy sex with another man. It's just not conceivable. And so I believe gay people when they tell me that they could never choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

So if a "straight" person believes being gay is a matter of choice, aren't they gay? Or bisexual? I've heard homophobes say things like "Everyone has urges, but only sinners choose to act on them." This just screams closeted homosexual. No, not everyone has those urges. Actual straight people must know it isn't possible to choose to be gay. You're delusional if you're truly straight, that is you have NO attraction to members of your sex, but you still insist that you could choose to enjoy gay sex if you were a sinner.

(And don't even get me started on the fact that it doesn't matter whether or not it's a choice, because there's no such thing as "sinful" sexual behavior.)

Your thoughts?

[Yusef]

In my opinion, high level of kindness sends one toward homosexuality!
Therefore the homosexuality be appeared through very high level form of kindness, pureness
especially this times!!
because there is no or very low level of jealousy, lie, arrogance between two sexy persons than two natural persons
Maybe I'm wrong here

[Jake]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

What I am contesting, in this thread, is the assertion that "no straight person thinks being gay is a choice". The way you have defined the terms, as related to desire and not behavior, is rather prejudicial.

I know the origin of the words, but today they are used to describe sexualities, not behaviors. That's simply the reality of how they are defined. Anyone using them differently should explicitly state the modified definitions they are using so as to avoid confusion.

Whether desires are always genetic and can not be developed is highly speculative.

Even if they are developed, they are clearly not developed in everyone, and not by choice. No matter how someone becomes gay, there are still some people who cannot alter their desire for people of the same sex, and some people who cannot alter their desire for people of the opposite sex. There isn't choice in the matter. Even those who claim to be converted to heterosexuality still have homosexual urges. There are instructors who claim to be ex-gays who now convert other gays to heterosexuality. These instructors sometimes become aroused while touching their students, but they claim it's completely natural for anyone to become aroused while touching another person, no matter the sexes of the people involved. Clearly there are some people who will always be gay, no matter how hard they try to be straight.

People have genetic propensities, but the assertion that propensities justify behaviors is a hedonistic philosophical tenet, not a fact.

Yes, people have genetic propensities: desires they cannot change. That was my original point, that people who are truly straight must know they could never become gay, so their claim that homosexuality is a choice is false. And as for your assertion that propensities do not justify behaviors, you're correct. However in this case there is no evidence that being gay is harmful, unethical, or immoral by common standards, so it is hardly fair to ask those with a propensity to be gay to simply ignore their own, natural sexuality.

There are many without genetic propensities that develop behaviors through the means of desensitization.

Do you have some specific examples?

In short, you are attempting to silence all opposition by simplifying the rather complicated interaction between nature and nurture.

All you've said so far is that being genetically gay is no excuse for acting gay, and that some people develop homosexuality through experiences. You've provided no evidence for the latter, and even if it is true, the fact remains that those people are still gay and so far most people who try to convert to heterosexuality fail. Why are you opposed to acting on homosexual desires? What evidence is there that this behavior is harmful?

[Yusef]

All you've said so far is that being genetically gay id no excuse for acting gay

I say the same thing

What evidence is there that this behavior is harmful?

The kindness which two gays bring together; Maybe in the future their wives can not bring!! Therefore they wont enjoy their own life with their wives as before did..
* If there isn't any believe to God, and marriage; Well, How can the generation be continued!?
Second, How do you know in the future scientists discover its harmful!!??

Qur'an says: "..God Will Ask everyone depend on his position[genetic, place, family, wisdom, health, depression...]"
of course one who was born in the China is better than me whom was born in the Middle East!
of course in a rally with the target Egypt, one and me have arrived to Iraq. One who has started from Korea is better and high level than me who have started from Iran!
Therefore one who is genetically gay, but doesn't act gay, he's higher rank than one who hates gay genetically and doesn't act that.

The prophet Muhammad said: "..in the future males and females make themselves enough together. Men make themselves look like women. and women too..."

I understood these about homosexual people:
- someone are children of Satan and Jinns and genetically love sex, sin, dirty(word of Islam) mentioned before
- someone love there be kindness so much among all people(I personally was, also experienced several of them)
- someone were in freedom and would love to exprience any thing Especially the things which are forbidden! (as mentioned before)
- someone have depression and it makes them romantic, and to astray and think to the things out of wisdom

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 30 by bluethread]

What I am contesting, in this thread, is the assertion that "no straight person thinks being gay is a choice". The way you have defined the terms, as related to desire and not behavior, is rather prejudicial.

I know the origin of the words, but today they are used to describe sexualities, not behaviors. That's simply the reality of how they are defined. Anyone using them differently should explicitly state the modified definitions they are using so as to avoid confusion.

Wiktionary:

sexuality (countable and uncountable; plural sexualities)

that which is characterized or distinguished by sex
sexual activity
the concern with, or interest in sexual activity
sexual potency
sexual orientation
sexual identity, gender
sexual receptivity



sinful (comparative more sinful, superlative most sinful)

Full of sin; wicked; iniquitous; unholy.
Containing or consisting in sin; contrary to the will of a god, goddess, gods and/or goddesses.
Of or relating to sin; sinny.
Morally wrong.
Evil.

So, stipulated.

Insisting that a secondary meaning that was established for political reasons have primacy based on a clarity argument is sophistry and sophistry for the sake of a political agenda is:

propaganda (uncountable)

A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people.

It is too bad that the this was permitted with regard to the word "gay" in the latter 20th century. I contend that the confusion comes not from using a definition that was put in place for clarity, but from redefining terms for the sake of political obfuscation.

[Jake]

[Replying to post 34 by bluethread]

You'll also notice that the list of definitions you've provided includes "sexual orientation" and "sexual identity, gender". When sexuality is used to mean "sexual activity" it isn't used to describe a certain person's sexual activity. Example: "Don't let my son watch that movie, it contains too much sexuality." When you refer to "a person's sexuality", most people interpret that to mean sexual orientation. And you still haven't provided evidence of this political motivation behind the modern definition of sexuality.

But I care less about arguing over the origin of the words we're using and more about my other questions and arguments, which you have yet to respond to. My last post contained only three sentences about the definition of the words. My other points are much more important.

[bluethread]

But I care less about arguing over the origin of the words we're using and more about my other questions and arguments, which you have yet to respond to. My last post contained only three sentences about the definition of the words. My other points are much more important.

Well, than let me restate the OP for the sake of clarity. It appears that you are saying, no person who is exclusively attracted to the opposite sex thinks that being attracted to the same sex is a choice. Is there anything incorrect in that understanding?

[Jake]

That's correct.

[bluethread]

Ok, is it not possible to be exclusively attracted to the opposite sex and have that exclusive desire expanded by choice to include cucumbers and/or dishrags through association with members of the opposite sex?

[puddleglum]

Something which has always really bothered me is when self-proclaimed "straight" people, usually homophobes, claim that gay people need only choose to behave correctly, that they can simply choose not to act on their "sinful" urges. Now, I'm straight, and believe me, there is no way I could force myself to enjoy sex with another man. It's just not conceivable. And so I believe gay people when they tell me that they could never choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Choosing not to act on sinful urges means simply choosing to abstain from sex. Anyone who is gay or anyone who is straight but not married must not engage in any kind of sexual activity at all. Some gays do make this choice.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... d-waiting/

Everyone has desires to do things that are against God's laws and all of us must choose whether to obey God or to obey our desires. The only difference between gays and anyone else is in the kind of temptations we experience.

[Goat]

Something which has always really bothered me is when self-proclaimed "straight" people, usually homophobes, claim that gay people need only choose to behave correctly, that they can simply choose not to act on their "sinful" urges. Now, I'm straight, and believe me, there is no way I could force myself to enjoy sex with another man. It's just not conceivable. And so I believe gay people when they tell me that they could never choose to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.

Choosing not to act on sinful urges means simply choosing to abstain from sex. Anyone who is gay or anyone who is straight but not married must not engage in any kind of sexual activity at all. Some gays do make this choice.

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... d-waiting/

Everyone has desires to do things that are against God's laws and all of us must choose whether to obey God or to obey our desires. The only difference between gays and anyone else is in the kind of temptations we experience.

Ah, but the difference is that , according to the Christian religion, a straight person can marry the person they love, and have all the sex the two of them desire.

And, you are demanding abstinent from gays.

All because one person had some sexual hang ups, and you took his opinion for the 'word of God'.