Homosexuality a choice = heterosexuality a choice?

Great Debates
1

I’m missing something about the idea that being homosexual is a choice.

Presumeably when people say this they mean being homosexual versus being heterosexual. That is, the choice is which of these two things to be.

But I’m a heterosexual and I don’t remember making any choice. Do other heterosexuals as a rule remember deciding to be that way, and I just forgot?

Or is there some logical structure that lets one side of the spectrum be a choice and the other side not be a choice? I mean, there is a logical problem with that, isn’t there? A logically flawed argument no matter what assumptions you make?

2

Are you right-handed or left-handed? Could you change it if you really, really tried? Would it be worth the effort if you did? That’s an orientation.

It’s said that John Lennon had some gay dalliances, but ultimately decided not to make a career out of them. He had a choice. I get the feeling that Jaye Davidson, by contrast, had no serious choice in the matter of his sexuality. And most gay or bisexual men fall somewhere in between.

Orientation and behavior are different issues. Orientation is involuntary, behavior is entirely voluntary. I wouldn’t hold anyone’s orientation against him, but I’d need a lot of convincing that 20+ sexual partners a year (for any orientation) was a biological imperative.

3

Well, remembering my stance from evangelical days, I think the train of thought went something like this…

1.) Heterosexuals do NOT choose because God made them that way.

2.) Homosexuals DO choose because they’ve been influenced by ________ (fill in the blank with environment, someone ‘converted’ them, they hate women/men, they were raped, and on and on ad naseum) and since the Old Testament declares the sexual act for them to be a sin, then if they absolutely have to stay that way due to circumstances, then God can deliver them by allowing them to remain abstinent or making them ‘straight.’ (See all the debunking and hype about so-called “Ex Gay” ministries. It’s incredibly eye opening.)

3.) Hi, Opal! <---- I’ve always wanted to do that, but don’t think I ever had. :slight_smile:

4.) That’s about the only rational there is and most don’t give it any thought beyond that (and it’s icky, wrong, “unnatural,” immoral, yadda, yadda, yadda) and it destroying everything. I’m sure you know the many claims that it was behind the 9/11 attacks, it’s God’s punishment via AIDS, that was the fall of Rome.

And you know, back in the day, no one ever suggested to me to try the reverse theory. I never went, “Well, duh! I didn’t choose to be straight, it just happened. Therefore, it must be the same way for them!!” or realized that no one would just decide such a difficult life, where they’re very humanity is questioned, they can be beat or murdered for no other reason than their orientation or they’re simply made to be social outcasts, pariahs or even third class citizens. Amazing that doesn’t come up more often (or at all). I can’t imagine how hard it must be to keep going, hold your head high and focus on the positive if people think you’re evil, don’t deserve to live, will molest their children and burn in hell. My heart continually goes out to them.

Hope that helps, from at least one former fundamentalist’s perspective.

4

Don’t look for bigotry to make sense, Napier. Some people do sincerely believe that all sexual orientations are a choice, but these people don’t generally consider any of the options to be a “wrong choice”. Those who believe that homosexuality is the wrong choice would probably argue that heterosexuality is a sort of default state (the “natural” sexual orientation), so anything else is an unnatural choice made possible only by free will. However, this doesn’t hold up to reason. First, even if one need not choose to be heterosexual, if homosexuality is a choice open to everyone then surely one must choose not to make that choice in order to remain heterosexual! Secondly, if homosexuality is an unnatural perversion, that suggests something that’s not a free will choice open to everyone but rather the result of some sort of unusual circumstances or disorder.

Now, I don’t doubt that many of the same people who feel that homosexualty is a sinful choice would say that both my objections are actually true. If they encountered someone who tried to tempt them into homosexuality they’d choose to remain heterosexual because anything else would be sinful. But I think most of those who’d be able to resist the temptation to “choose” homosexuality would have to admit that they didn’t really find the prospect very tempting at all. This makes it rather different from most other behaviors considered sinful, such as dishonesty or violence, which could seem appealing to anyone in the proper circumstances. So those who actually find homosexuality too tempting to resist must be somehow different from those who resist it easily because they don’t find it tempting at all. Perhaps they’re badly brought up or sick in the head. But is it really a choice, then?

The argument that homosexuality is a sinful choice doesn’t make a lot of sense unless one assumes that the person making the argument has actually felt but resisted temptation towards homosexuality. Now, I’m not saying this is actually the case, although it’s probably true for a few people. No, I think that in general the argument just doesn’t make a lot of sense.

5

Homosexuality is called ‘unnatural’ because it goes against the moral theories of certain groups in the early Middle East, and also in other areas of the world. Since there are humans who are naturally oriented towards members of the same sex, and since homosexuality is observed in non-human animals, that is, in nature (and is especially common in primates, especially those perverted bonobos), it cannot logically be called ‘unnatural’.

It also cannot logically be called a choice. Homosexual orientation most likely forms in the same way as heterosexual orientation; as a person undergoes puberty, they begin to develop sexual attraction towards members of the same sex, and may have certain attractions towards members of the same sex before puberty as well. It is not a choice that someone would make, considering the persecution and difficulty they would be likely to face if they made that choice.

Only a belief that some people are inherently immoral or sinful in such a way that they would make this choice would allow some people to ‘decide’ to be homosexual. For example, the original Sodomites were unrighteous and therefore must have chosen to become homosexual. Note that Biblical understanding of homosexuality treats it as a method of sexual gratification and not as an orientation to which some people are naturally inclined. It is indeed possible that an otherwise heterosexual person would choose to partake in homosexuality for physical gratification (as in prisons, for example), but that does not mean that people who have a homosexual orientation made a choice in the matter.

Heterosexuality is the natural orientation of the majority of the human population. If those who do not accept that homosexuality is a natural orientation for a minority would consider their own orientation to be analogous, they would perhaps become more accepting.

6

I’ve never been able to figure out the “unnatural” thing. I mean, we’re born with Original Sin and concupiscence, right? Sinfulness is an intrinsic human property which only Jesus’ self-sacrifice can save us from, correct? So, if being gay is sinful, isn’t that perfectly natural?

7

Yes, but somehow homosexuality is different. Nothing in the Bible would suggest that it is particularly or unusually offensive to God; at the very least, it is no worse than fornication, idolatry, adultery, thievery, coveting, alcoholism, revilery or extortion (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). There is a ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ attitude, but outright persecution by Christians is generally limited to gay people, at least out of the list above. Alcoholism, for example, is clearly a choice, yet Christians do not consider alcoholics to be vile, unnatural and unusually sinful. Other sins, such as lying, are generally considered minor, although it’s clear in the Bible that a) all sins are vile to God and b) all sins are forgiven by the belief in Jesus’ sacrifice (as stated in John 3:16), except perhaps for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (which is clearly defined in Matthew 16). Thus, if a gay person believes in Jesus and does not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, he will be forgiven of any sinful acts he might do. In rigorous Christianity, however, a person who is heterosexual and never commits a single sin – except for telling a few lies – he will be damned. I guess Christians want to minimize the sins committed by a given person (provided they’re on the list of sins to be minimized; some of them are fine). But, according to the Bible, any sin is grounds for damnation, and any and all sins, including homosexuality, murder and genocide (with the aforementioned exception) can be forgiven by Jesus’ sacrifice.

This must mean that opposition to homosexuality by Christians on religious grounds must either be because they have misunderstood these grounds, or that they oppose homosexuality for a different reason, and use their religion to justify it.

8

It’s b.

9

I can’t believe I hadn’t thought of this till now, but I’m sure someone’s pointed out that:

– In order for it to be a “choice”, it has to be at least somewhat tempting for you
– Anti-gay bible thumpers believe it is a choice
– What does that tell you about their likely temptations? :smiley:

(tongue in cheek, of course, but it’s a cute syllogism.

10

I don’t think alcoholism is “clearly” a choice. Medical evidence suggests that some people are predisposed towards alcoholism. This doesn’t mean they can’t help it; people must obviously choose to begin drinking, and choose to drink heavily, before alcoholism can develop. But many alcoholics seem to have a certain genetic weakness that makes this more likely.

Of course, this makes alcoholism even more closely analagous to homosexuality, provided we accept the premise that both are sinful states of being. Sure, some people say it’s not a choice, they were born that way. They’re still sinful, and although people can’t change the way they were born they can choose to stop committing sinful acts. But you’re right, the Christian attitude towards alcoholics seems to be that (in theory if not always in practice) they deserve help, sympathy, and encouragement on the path to righteousness, not that they are revolting and worthy of nothing but scorn and contempt. So why the difference, especially considering that alcoholism seems to have a much more negative effect on the individual, his or her family, and society at large?

I have two ideas. First, that some Christians see homosexuals as not merely sinners but unusually bold and unrepentant serial sinners. Thieves and alcoholics and such aren’t generally “out and proud” about their sins. This makes a certain degree of sense, but doesn’t explain why mainstream Christians and even many fundamentalists go so easy on those who commit adultery and other forms of fornication. There are sex-based sins just like homosexuality, and they’re clearly big “no-nos” in the Bible. They’re addressed much more often and in much more detail than homosexuality, and adultery even makes the Big Ten of sins. Yet pre-marital sex is considered perfectly normal these days, divorce and remarriage are common, and while adultery is still considered bad it’s not especially shocking. Why focus on the small minority of “out and proud” homosexuals when there are so many heterosexuals who are “out and proud” about their fornication?

That brings me to my second idea: it’s a lot easier to throw stones at people for sins you’ve never even wanted to commit than it is to face up to your own sins. It’s a lot easier to win people over to your side if you are condemning acts they’ve never so much as considered engaging in, rather than things they’ve done or wanted to do. Homosexuals make a convenient scapegoat just because they’re a small minority group. This flies in the face of what Christianity is supposed to be about, but it’s understandable in a petty, cowardly kind of way.

11

Roches said:

You’re kidding, right? “No worse than than fornication, idolatry, adultery, thievery, coveting, alcoholism, revilery or extortion” ? Tell me if those don’t get God hacked off, what does?

In the cite you provided, Paul finished those verses by saying that those committing those acts wouldn’t inhereit God’s kingdom. That certainly appears to be directed towards the sinner.

Persecution (I’m not sure how you define that…) is not right, certainly among Christians. However I don’t remember thieves and extortioners being welcomed with open arms by anyone…

Cite? No it isn’t. I think it’s fairly well established that children of alcoholic parents are exponentially more likely to become alcoholics. (even factoring for socializing factors), It’s even been mapped out in brain scans.

Mis-applied. Christ accepted our sins, and redeemed us from the sinful state we were in due to Adamic sin. He didn’t give us a license to mock that sacrifice by defying his requirements. 1 Cor 6:9,10 makes that case----- you simply can’t use Christ’s sacrifice as a “Get out of Hell Free Card.” Jesus himself made it clear that there were expectations for those calling themselves Christians. He also made it clear that actions mattered. (Matt 7:21-23)

Cite? Huh?

Huh?

Cite?

Are you absolutely sure what you meant to say here? You directly say that homosexuality is a sin, and before the cringing is in full swing you link it qualitatively with murder and genocide.

There are many posters here who maintain that the bible makes absolutely no condemnation of homosexuality. You’re saying however that homosexuality is a sin and right up there with murder and genocide. (But it’s cool. Christ has your back)

I’m guessing that Diogenes et al won’t be rushing to defend the assertion as written.

As to the OP, I’m of the opinion that homosexuality is NOT a choice. And, I can’t speak for “Christians.” I’m speculating that they think that extortion, drunkenness, thievery etc are indeed offensive to God, and probably take God at His word. YMMV.

12

Lamia said:

Interesting point. Either it’s sin, or it ain’t. If it is a sin, it really is analagous to alcoholism, and the homosexual shouldn’t be treated any different than the alcoholic. Of course, there is much disagreement, on both sides of the point, as to whether it is a sin or not, or whether the bible definitively condemns it.

Even more interesting. It is hypocritical, in the extreme, (imo) to condemn homosexuality while implicitly (and most often explicitly) condoning adultrey and pre-marital sex. And it would seem that many Christians are extremely hypocritical on the subject.

I agree in large part, and your points are well made.

One side of the argument however, is that homosexuality shouldn’t be condemned because other sins, like adultrey and fornication get a free pass. The inverse of that argument, of course, is that rather than “defining deviancy down” (i.e. ‘legitmizing’ homosexuality because of the pervasiveness of adultrey etc and it’s apparent acceptance in society) but to hold the adulterer/fornicator to the same standard as the homosexual. Of course, that implies that homosexuality is a sin—not a universally accepted fact.

But if homosexuality is a [biblical] sin, it is as compelling an argument (if not quite difficult as a practical matter) to raise the expectations of the hetero as it relates to moral sexual matters, than lowering the expectations for the homosexual because of the prevalence of sins by the heteros.

13

As a retired physician and a heterosexual, there is no question in my mind that homosexuality is definitely genetic in origin with an occasional exception.

I personally, a happily married man could care less if 2 men or 2 women legally married.

BUT, this country was founded with many traditional principles. In the past 50 or more years, we have watched the country turn into drugs, sex, and media supporting this. The hay rides and singing by a fire pit which were so much fun when I was a kid has essentially disappeared.

People who are against homosexual marriages or homosexuality in general feel rightly or wrongly that marriage is one tradition that should remain as part of the fabric of our country and they stand steadfast in their beliefs.

They feel that the next step will be a man and his horse, 2 men and one woman or 10 women etc. will break through this traditional matrix if it is changed to include homosexual marriages.

14

I’ve been hot on women since I can remember… so not much of a choice there. I doubt gays have it differently. I understand why people might think gays are “icky”… its a bit for me. Now trying to stop them from having happy lives is a totally different matter.

As for the unnatural aspect… I do think gays are “unnatural”. I think my liking anal sex with my girlfriends is “unnatural” too. I’ve done plenty of “unnatural”. So I guess “unnatural” between consenting adults is healthy.

Now if you want to discuss what is Sick ! Then we should talk about celibacy… monotonous monogamous… pedophiles. Sex is life… if your sex is boring you aren’t living enough.

15

the raindog:

It’s a list of sins which I assume Paul thinks are equal to being among ‘the effeminate [or] the abusers of themselves with mankind’, since none of those groups can inherit the Kingdom of God. What I mean is that homosexuality is not pointed out as being a uniquely sinful thing, a sin to be avoided above all others. Anti-gay Christians tend not focus as much on the covetous and the revilers as they do on the effeminate.

Right, the genetic predisposition. It’s still more of a choice (in that it involves free will) than homosexuality, though. For example, many people who drink excessively are able to stop drinking; few, if any, people with homosexual orientation have been able to change their orientation. (I hope this statement will not be open to argument in this thread.)

I see how Matthew 7:21-23 might apply but it applies to false prophets while the Corinthians verse applies to more worldly sins. Right after the list of types of sinners, 1 Cor 6:11 seems to suggest that all these sins would be forgiven. The rest of the chapter is an admonishment against ‘sins against one’s own body’. So, yes, it’s clear there and elsewhere that actions matter, but also that they can be forgiven. It is crucially important here to understand that the biblical authors did not understand homosexuality as an orientation involving loving relationships; they saw it as a manner of self-gratification, like adultery or fornication.

Chick, Jack T., Opera omnia. (But especially the one with the kid who gets a Chick tract and dies in a car accident before he reads it, and goes to hell.)

I said ‘according to the Bible’, and implied ‘as taken literally by certain evangelicals’. Thus I grouped homosexuality, murder and genocide together as things the Chick-tract God is willing to send people to hell for, along with telling lies and going to the wrong house on Halloween. By no means am I saying what I believe. I do not myself believe that homosexuality is sinful or wrong, and I do realize that it can be argued that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality but rather homosexual activity for the purpose of physical gratification or dominance (as it was practiced then, not necessarily now).

The general points I was trying to make were that I believe that a) sexual orientation is not chosen, b) religious oppositions to homosexuality do exist but do not necessarily apply to homosexuality as it is today and do not sufficiently explain opposition by religious groups to homosexuality, and c) there must therefore be some other reason why dedicatedly anti-gay Christians are motivated to oppose homosexuality viciously. It may be gratifying to think that they oppose it because they feel ‘tempted’ themselves, but I don’t think that’s always true. In many cases the real basis for opposition to homosexuality is hatred and intolerance, and religion is used as a justification. This can be explored by attempting to justify slavery biblically; it was done extensively in the past, and I believe that modern opposition to homosexuality may be viewed in a similar way at some time in the future.

16

I’m going to dispute the notion that one doesn’t choose to be any alcoholic. Many years ago, a fellow I knew used to routinely knock back a six-pack of beer with his buddy after work. Then, one day, he realized that all the men on his father’s side of the family were alcoholics and decided that was a road he didn’t want to go down. Last I heard, he still drinks occaisionally, and I have seen him drunk, but he had not become an alcoholic. I can think of some other people I know whose parents were alcoholics but who chose not to become one themselves. Speaking from my own experience, I can remember being severely depressed, desperate for the pain to end, and considering using a bottle of wine to drown my sorrows. What stopped me from doing that was my own awareness that, if I did so once, it would be easier to do so a second time, then a third time, and my life was screwed up enough without adding the problems and expense of being an alcoholic to the mix.

CJ

17

[Bolding mine]

Siege, I’m guessing that you do not have experience with many Alcoholics, but particularly with Alcoholics Anonymous or Al-Anon. The frequency of how often someone gets drunk it not an indicator of whether someone is an alcoholic. There are alcoholics that only deink at business functions, or only in bars. There are alcoholics that do not get drink very often at all. If a person is unable to handle alcohol responsibly—to the point of drunkeness—they are likely an alcoholic. (That is a simplified statement–the reality of it is obviously a bit more complicated)

You have seen this man drink, and you’ve seen him drunk, but you have no idea as to whether he is an alcoholic. None. And this includes what he might have told you. (Many alcoholics live in a stste of denial) I don’t know this man but if he has a history of alcoholic abuse, and it is prevalent in his family, and he still drinks now (even occasionally) to an excess, he is probably an alcoholic. The stereotype of the skid row, out-of-control drunk is not an accurate [comprehensive] representation of alcoholism.

In the end, it is true that alcoholics do not choose their plight.

18

I am sure quite a few Christians do believe that the bar on heterosexual behavior needs to be raised. Many have been quite active in discouraging pre-marital sex among teens, although I haven’t heard much about the sins of pre-marital sex among adults. Adultery and divorce are criticized, but more on the grounds of being bad for the family than being inherently sinful. Still, I suspect we’d hear more about bringing back the ol’ scarlet “A” if such opinions weren’t sure to be unpopular in modern society.

There are “born again virgins”, but they seem to have an easier time of it than homosexuals who join up with those “ex-gay” ministries. For one thing, they’re treated with nowhere near the same level of hatred and contempt, even before deciding to become born again. And even setting aside reports that some of these ex-gay ministries engage in psychological and sometimes physical abuse, they’re after more than just getting a promise of celibacy out of the people they’re supposedly helping. Born again virgins just have to give up sex until they marry, “ex-gays” are supposed to change their whole orientation…and then presumably not act on it until they’re married.

There doesn’t seem to be much logic behind this, so once again I can only come back to the idea that homosexuals are simply the easier scapegoat. When heterosexual fornication was less socially acceptable and homosexuals were stuck in the closet things were different, but times have changed.

19

Roches said:

I see your point. Homosexuality is not pointed out as a “special class” of sin to be ‘avoided above all others.’ But in the end, it is to be avoided. Your point about covetousness and revilers are well taken.

Not by me.

True. King David was a murderer. So was Paul. Jesus counted among his followers tax collectors and prostitutes. As sinful humans we need forgiveness as we will make mistakes, and some of us will make big mistakes.

Of course, those followers promptly stopped their sinful conduct once becoming followers of his, right?

I’m reasonably sure you can’t cite any of this, but even then it makes no difference. You are once again identifying homosexuality as sin “like adultery or fornication.” But the biblical admonition is to avoid those sins; to struggle against them if necessary. And to the extent there are failures in that struggle, Christ’s sacrifice and willingness to forgive are available to us. But no where in the bible is there a license to embrace those sins. On the contrary, while the bible doesn’t expect perfection and has provisions for those who stumble, there is ample evidence (Like 1 Cor & Matt and many others) that there is judgement for those who willingly take a course that embraces sin.

I missed the implication. Sorry.

I don’t know anything about Jack Chick, or his god. Of course there are many, many, many Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin and don’t know or care about Jack Chick.

Cite?

Agreed.

Huh? What is “homosexuality as it is today?” I know some thoughtful Christians who can make a fairly compelling case about their views using the bible as the basis for their views.

There is no biblical basis to be “vicious.” It would be unChristian. One can be [personally] opposed to homosexuality without being vicious.

The “tempted” thing may be gratifying, but it’s nonsense.

Among those who oppose homosexuality there are surely bigots and haters and other knuckleheads. Among supporters of homosexuality there is a similiar proportion of knuckleheads.

It may be true that hatred and intolerance are tha basis “in many cases.” But be careful to not use the wide brush when doing the detail work, ok?

20

All sins are forgiven by Jesus’ sacrifice. The work of the Cross covered all sin(s) for all time: past, present and future (see Hebrews 10:12) “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God…by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men…the wages of sin is death.”(Romans 3:23; 5:12; 6:23)

It isn’t “sins” that condemn humans, it is rather this “sin” that entered into the world through Adam, and is passed on to every human, that does. “Sins” and “sinning” are simply the natural result of this condition.

The remedy for sin is Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary**–“God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” ** (2 Corinthians 5:21)

This “righteousness of God” is **“unto all, and upon all them that believe…” **(Romans 3:22)

The operative word here is “believe.” God’s righteousness (in Christ) is available (unto) all, but only applied to (upon) “them that believe.” Believe what? That Christ died for our sins…and was raised again for our justification." (1 Cor. 15:3,4; Romans 4:25)

Specific sins, whatever they may be (see Romans 1:29-32), aren’t what condemns folks, because, “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound…”.(Romans 5:20) What condemns them is refusing to believe and admit what they are–sinners–and simply trusting Christ and what he did on their behalf at Calvary. The sin of unbelief (refusing God’s free offer of reconciliation and salvation) is the only unforgivable sin.

Does this issue to those who have accepted this offer a “license to sin?” No, of course not: “…Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid…” ( Romans 6:1,2). Sin’s consequences are equally effectual in this life for saved and unsaved alike. Nevertheless, if one has have believed on Christ, and accepted what he did for them on the Cross, he/she cannot be put back under condemnation for sinning, because–by the receiving of God’s offer–they have been made free from the penalty of sin (Romans 6:7, 22)

And this, my friends, is the matchless grace of God.