Thanks. Some of us are woefully literal-minded. 
No she’s just an idiot in general. You can look her up if you really want.
I don’t know her, so this is just my WAG, but I suspect she’s the Radfem equivalent of those deeply closeted right wing preachers who have uncomfortable heterosexual relationships. She feels being with a man would betray her radfem ideals, so she’s forced herself into lesbian relationships. Again, just my WAG.
And anyway, that’s just an inlet the sea of her colossal wrongness.
I would say I was born straight. I have no memory of ever not finding girls pretty and wanting to be around them. All my early crushes were on girls. What changed around puberty was intensity and the number of girls I found attractive, not the gender I was attracted to.
I also have seen studies that suggest that homosexuality has something to do with the prenatal environment. Assuming that’s the case, then it would make sense conceptually to see sexuality as something you are born with but just don’t necessarily experience until you get older.
As a young teen, I actually would read guides on how to “pick up women.” And even they knew that “Attraction is not a choice.” Or, before they punched it up in later versions “Sexual attraction is not something someone logically chooses.” Granted, this was in the context of “You’re not going to be able to logically convince someone that they should be attracted to you.” But, still, even these guys already knew how it worked.
So I think the issue comes from just not thinking that homosexuality could possibly be the same as heterosexuality. Maybe from their own experience (being bisexual). Maybe from religious beliefs, thinking “God wouldn’t forbid it if you didn’t have a choice.” But they just didn’t see homosexual attraction as the same thing as heterosexual attraction.
Because, otherwise, the fact that it’s not a choice is obvious to everyone but those who just never experience romantic or sexual attraction. Heck, even they could probably tell just by the fact that they don’t rationally choose who they immediately click with in friends, and who they don’t.
I think this is the crux of the matter. In order for it to be wrong, there has to be a choice. If it’s not a choice, then it can’t be wrong, and that simply won’t do! We have to make sure it’s wrong and stays wrong, and the only way to do that is to insist that gay people are choosing to be sexually attracted to the same sex (whether or not they act on it). And if they are aroused by people of the same sex then they are sinful at their very core and the ONLY way to deal with it is to stomp down those inclinations, NOT act on them, pray that God heals you, submit to a conversion program, or some other B.S.
This is kind of the point of my OP.
It depends on which “people” and which societal stereotypes you believe. According to American stereotypes, it is common for males to be straight in college and gay later, but common, normal and in fact expected for females to be gay in college and straight later. If you believe the stereotypes, somehow getting a college diploma makes tons of people of any gender switch from “wanting to boink females” to “wanting to boink males”.
Does it happen sometimes that people’s preferences change? Sure. Does it happen that LTR-oriented bisexual people will have LTRs with partners of different genders at different times and find it easier to switch labels than to go into detail? Absolutely, considering both the reaction so many people have to the word “bisexual” (or “pansexual”, which most people won’t even recognize; thank you Dope) and that frankly that’s the business of nobody except the people directly involved. Does it happen that someone who was denying their preferences eventually wakes up? As well. I have no idea which is your friend’s case, but I’m reasonably sure it wasn’t the college diploma that flipped him.
I never chose to be attracted to men, yet I am. I also never chose to be attracted to tall, skinny guys with dark hair and dark features, yet I am. I also never chose to be attracted to smart guys who are creative, with a great sense of humor, yet I am.
There’s so much in life that we don’t choose, like favorite art or music. I’m sure there are reasons why we have these preferences, but they are subconscious, and not subject to conscious choice or alteration.
Like Annie-Xmas before, I don’t quite see what importance it holds. What if people did choose to be gay, would that somehow make it less acceptable? I’ve always thought it a rather weak argument “sorry, born that way”, like it’s regrettable but can’t be helped. Instead I’d propose to let consenting adults sleep with whoever (or no one) they want, whether it’s a choice or not, because it’s their bodies and not something that should concern us in any way.
To the OP: What kind of an answer are you wanting? Do you really want something different from your own belief? Ex. do you want someone to change your mind? Or do you want people to just affirm what you already believe?
I wanted a discussion, which I’m getting.
Participating in smart, literate, civil discussions on the SDMB is some of the most fun to be had on the internet, wouldn’t you agree?
Except that moral codes (particularly religious moral codes) routinely view acting on naturally occurring impulses and desires (sexual or otherwise) as sinful. Most of us believe such things. I don’t know why someone would view this issue as some sole exception to that general rule. (For that matter, it’s a curious reading of most theology to conclude that man is naturally free from sin such that man’s natural desires cannot be wrong or sinful.)
Which I guess causes me to re-ask my earlier question: who are these people who are claiming that homesexuals are “choosing to be sexually attracted to the same sex”? I’ve never met one.
Your point is subtle, but well-made. IOW, you’re saying homosexual attraction is just one more in a long (if not infinite) line of sinful impulses that flesh is heir to. The seven deadly sinful impulses, in fact. And homoeroticism is just another variety of the already-sinful generic human eroticism.
My point was not that there were people running around saying being gay was a choice, but that the implication was that in order for it to be a sin, you had to be choosing it. If it was an inborn thing, how could it be a sin? But what you’re saying is that in this worldview, many inborn impulses are big-time sins already (which is presumably why we needed JC to come and star in a Mel Gibson movie and do … something-or-other to fix things), so there’s no excuse and no escape.
Really interesting take.
I think the “choosing to be gay” comes from the concept of urge suppression. There is a lot of urge suppression in religious teachings.
Like yeah maybe you’re a male and attracted to some other male you know, but you should “choose” to ask a girl out rather than that guy.
Well, to be clear, I don’t find homosexual behavior to be sinful. But, the reason I asked who these people were who were saying what you impute to them is that there seems to me to be (at least) two intellectually consistent approaches here, neither of which require people to claim that sexual attraction is a choice.
The first is to say that people have various appetites or impulses. These are natural and not inherently sinful. But (for whatever reason) many of them will lead to sin if indulged or acted upon. Certain sexual desires fall into this category (both the obviously immoral but also things like lusting after women not your wife); but we can also observe non-sexually in the other “deadly sins”. In that context, saying that someone “chooses” to be homosexual (or “chooses” to be an adulterer) is to say that the person has chosen to indulge (at least mentally) their appetites and, often, to act upon them. You don’t need to deny the natural occurrence to the impulse to reach this conclusion. And, I think that this type of reasoning should be familiar to you regardless of your background (I would use various “appetites” that are uncontroversially viewed as “immoral” (and, thus, while natural, must be resisted and not acted upon) as examples, but I don’t want to be accused to equating them with homosexuality; which isn’t really the point).
The other approach (which is perhaps more clearly limited to Christian worldview) is what I think you’re describing (and attributing to me) and that is something more along the lines of accepting the sinful nature of man and the need for divine grace and salvation. This, we’re told, is why man cannot justify himself, but requires Jim Caviezel to save him. I was actually trying to make the first point. If only because I don’t think that the idea that being gay is a “choice” makes a whole lot of sense in the second scenario. But certainly the idea that a particular impulse is innate but also sinful fits fine.
One thing that probably is a choice is engaging in homosexual sex when you don’t actually have homosexual desire for other people. A common example is people in prison engaging in same-sex behaviors as a way to satisfy their inherent need for sexual satisfaction, affection, and intimacy. They may have no actual desire for the other person, but the pleasant physical and emotional feelings that come from sex and intimate contact with another person means they will engage in same-sex behaviors if opposite-sex opportunities are not available.
Some of the sinfulness designation of homosexuality in the Bible might have come from more of those kinds of behaviors. If men and women were generally in separate groups, then there may have been more same-sex sexual activities simply because there was only the opportunity for self- or same-sex sexual activities. It has nothing to do with loving or being attracted to the other person. The preference might be for someone of the opposite-sex, but if that’s not available, than a same-sex person is a viable alternative. So maybe the opposition in the Bible comes is from saving yourself for marriage, and that things like masturbation and premarital sex (whether same or opposite sex) are bad.
Sounds good.
Ok, I’ll give you my input.
I believe living out ones homosexual desires to be a sin and one should not do it.
Now lets compare that to another sin - adultery. It’s totally natural for a person to lust after a person other than their spouse. Should they act out on those desires? Well some in society say no but others say that the idea of monogamy is out of date and we should accept it. Also many people in past times allowed adultery plus its accepted in some cultures. So, if I go by what society and Hollywood say, its ok. Hollywood often has “marriages” that last only a few days or even hours. Some say thats perfectly ok.
So was it ok for a SIL of mine to cheat on her husband and leave him for another man? No. Frankly, I hate it. But I’m not called to judge her or put her down but to love her.
Same as I treat homosexuals.
I didn’t assume all the ideas you were presenting were necessarily your personal beliefs.
Fair enough.
But adultery harms people. It harms the spouse(s) and it harms the children in the marriage. How does a gay person having a relationship harm anyone?
You know what does real harm? when gay people lie to themselves and others and try to live out lives as straight people; they get in to heterosexual relationships with partners that end disastrously and they live every day as a lie.
You say that “living out ones homosexual desires to be a sin and one should not do it.” So gay people should be celibate and must live out their lives in loneliness? They never get to be in a loving, physical relationship?
I don’t think you have the right to decide that gay people can’t be happy. I also think that if you have a problem with gay people existing, then your problem is with their creator, not them.
You assume that a persons homosexual desires are all they are, that they are 100% gay (not bi), and that can never be changed.
You assume that they will be happy and find a fulfilling homosexual relationship. I’ve seen plenty of lonely gays and lesbians.
You assume they cannot learn to love a member of the opposite sex.
How is learning to not act on ones homosexual desires any different from not acting upon ones desires to seek opposite sex relations outside the marriage?
Is me being married but still being turned on by other women and not being able to act on them any different than a man with homosexual feelings not acting on those? Am I lonely and depressed because I cant act out my desires? No I’m not. But it would be if I let it.
Finally desires are like an appetite. If you feed on them thru pornography and such, they will only get stronger. If you remove those from your life the desires will lessen.