# sexuality and choice: a metaphor and a god question **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588 "2001-01-24T18:26:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/81 "2001-02-08T15:56:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmkeller \* > **Ah, don’t worry about it. It comes up from time to time, I guess you just missed it last time it did. I, myself, am somewhat surprised that pldennison seemed so indignant about it in my defense.** Hey, I don’t need the Evil SDMB Atheist Squad getting a worse reputation than it has already! Just watching out for No. 1, here. I try to use the word “deity” rather than offend anyone or screw up, personally. > [@](#): > > Off-topic…just for the record, it’s not two full weeks of menstruation. The Jewish law is that the couple must wait a full week after the last sighting of blood (and then immerse in a Mikvah-pool) before resuming relations. Um, I know that(anyone who menstratuates for two full weeks, please see your OB/GYN). I was making a joke. In my house, it’s: “Are you done yet? Woohoo!” > [@](#): > > “The second group is told they can never engage in a trade, unless they are willing to accept one-seventh less revenue and risk losing customers to those who do work on the Sabbath. The third group is told they can never eat, unless they eat something they do not like.” OK, you got me on the phrasing; it’s a fair cop. The second one, though, I think you’re still off on, unless you’re positing that pork is the only thing they like and they don’t like any other foods. Which of course they would never know unless they had already eaten pork. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/82 "2001-02-08T16:41:58Z")
> [@](#): > > I think people need to lay off Esprix. In every gay-related thread, there is someone commenting on Esprix’s wild times in San Diego. Esprix is dedicated to safe sex, the tricking is consensual, and he is giving other men at least a little affection and comfort in a lonely world. Your first sentence is probably true, and the rest of it he’s made clear. I would hope, after nine months of my saying that I refuse to judge, don’t find gay sex sinful (at least _per se_) and am quite fond of **Esprix** as a person, had stressed the first point in the same post, and accompanied my reference to him with a winkie-smiley, he would take it as **exactly** the same sort of teasing that I gave my foster son when he told me about sleeping with four different girls at a New Years Eve party. But your basic point, that **Esprix** ’s sex life is not for us to judge and people should stop harassing him about it, is in my mind very much on target. I just wanted to clarify that I was not hopping on the bandwagon in that remark, just dropping a teasing remark to a man I consider an online friend. ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/83 "2001-02-08T19:53:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*And I think you can love another man in accord with what He has to say about it. Though every time I try to debate a conservative Christian on the subject, one of two things happens: either he quits posting to the thread, or he quotes the Scripture as though how he reads it is the only possible way to understand it. > \*\* There’s some scriptures that are pretty clear in their meaning, though it’s not impossible to make them appear to mean something else. Ask **goboy** , at least he has the honesty to state exactly what the Bible says, as he did up there in his post on this Thread. If someone doesn’t agree with what the Bible says, he should throw the thing out rather than try to work around something he doesn’t like in it. Why try to argue what the Bible says if you don’t believe it anyway? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2001, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/84 "2001-02-08T22:46:01Z")
> [@](#): > > There’s some scriptures that are pretty clear in their meaning, though it’s not impossible to make them appear to mean something else. Ask goboy, at least he has the honesty to state exactly what the Bible says, as he did up there in his post on this Thread. > > If someone doesn’t agree with what the Bible says, he should throw the thing out rather than try to work around something he doesn’t like in it. > > Why try to argue what the Bible says if you don’t believe it anyway? Wow, what a profound statement! Let me see. If we take Goboy’s quotations at face value, then obviously any person who “lies with another man as with a woman” is to be put to death. And any good Christian should participate with vigor in doing so, knowing he’s doing the Lord’s work. Of course, this means that if you have a brother who dies childless, immediately after the funeral you must take the widow to bed and keep at it until you father a son on her to carry on his name. And it requires us to ignore Paul’s repeated comments that we are free from the Law, or Jesus’s command to love every other man as one does oneself – unless you feel you too should be stoned. Or let’s turn to the New Testament. “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders …will inherit the kingdom of God.” Okay, let’s take a hypothetical example. A young man – let’s call him “Bill” – finds himself erotically aroused by other men. Being a good Christian, he tries to avoid any such stimulus, and even falls in love with and proposes to a woman. But, his sexual orientation not being a choice, he cannot rid himself of his evil desires. Clearly despite his taking Christ as Lord and Savior, baptism, and the whole nine yards, he is a “homosexual offender” who is not going to inherit the Kingdom. As for Romans 1, it’s extremely clear in context that the desire for other men (or women for other women) is God’s **punishment** for having turned from Him. If you bother reading more than the one verse, that is. And would you believe that **not one man** at the church my wife and I attend has _ever_ kept Paul’s clear injunction to “greet one another with a holy kiss.” And I’ll bet they don’t at your church either! Obvious sinners!!! At least they do do that at the MCCs. :rolleyes: What I’ve been trying to say is that sometimes **what looks like clear directions is not** and you need to take the whole Bible as guidance, not pick out specific passages you don’t like. Or perhaps when you get through condemning the gays, you’ll start in on the bankers, the exploiters of the poor (like people who rent apartments at 50% of their tenants’ net income), and so on. And is there a one of us who can honestly say that he loves the Lord with all his heart and soul and mind and strength and every other person as he loves himself? Or refrains from judging anyone else? I surely try. I don’t always succeed. And on the presumption that “Why try to argue what the Bible says if you don’t believe it anyway?” was addressed to me, along with the rest of the post, neither do you. The God in whom I believe, who loved the world enough to send His only-begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life, doesn’t condemn people for what they cannot change. He has very stringent rules. But they’re simple to learn. See the paragraph beginning “And is there…” just above. What does seem to have ticked Him off is the people who broke out the Bible of His day and used it to condemn others. I think there is a lesson there, for anyone who cares to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Snark\_Hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snark\_Hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark_Hunter)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/85 "2001-02-09T00:33:42Z")
**Polycarp** , attempting to prove that there are passages in the Bible that shouldn’t be taken at face value or that shouldn’t be understood without context, (correct me if I’m misinterpreting you, Poly), wrote: > [@](#): > > Or let’s turn to the New Testament. > > “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders …will inherit the kingdom of God.” > > Okay, let’s take a hypothetical example. A young man – let’s call him “Bill” – finds himself erotically aroused by other men. Being a good Christian, he tries to avoid any such stimulus, and even falls in love with and proposes to a woman. But, his sexual orientation not being a choice, he cannot rid himself of his evil desires. Clearly despite his taking Christ as Lord and Savior, baptism, and the whole nine yards, he is a “homosexual offender” who is not going to inherit the Kingdom. Poly, I’ve tried to stay out of this current debate in an endless cycle of threads regarding homosexuality, but I just wanted to point something out. The verses you are quoting, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, would seem to indicate that those who have committed the sins enumerated will _never_ inherit the kingdom of God. However, in the very next verse, it says: > [@](#): > > **11 And such were some of you:** but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. So the Bible does give homosexual offenders (and other sinners) an “out”: if they (we) repent of our sins and keep the commandments, we can be forgiven and overcome our weaknesses. The way I interpret these scriptural quotes is, if we **remain** offenders instead of repenting, we will not inherit the kingdom of God. It’s not what you’ve done or what weaknesses you have–Jesus can cure and heal those–it’s what direction you’re headed and, ultimately, where you end up that counts. I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably say it again: homosexual **feelings** , IMHO, are not sinful if not acted upon. It’s the homosexual **behavior** that is sinful. That’s my understanding of it. But I’m not condemning people for engaging in homosexual behavior; I’m just saying that the behavior itself (extra-marital sex) is what can damn you if you don’t repent. Saying that a behavior will damn someone is not the same thing as condemning them for said behavior. The former is a statement of fact (as I see it); the latter is an unwarranted judgment. We are to forgive ALL men, no exceptions. Let God do the judging. In no way do I condemn anyone for having homosexual orientation, including myself. And I don’t think God does either. There are certain things over which we have little or no control. We’re here to overcome the world and our weaknesses, not to be automatically condemned just because we are attracted to individuals of the same sex. It’s simply a weakness that we must eventually overcome, whether in this life or in the next, and we need to rely on Jesus to heal us if our own struggles cannot free us from such weaknesses. His grace is sufficient to save us, after all we can do. ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/86 "2001-02-09T00:50:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > Are you just playing Devil’s Advocate or arguing a position you believe in? If you are playing Devil’s Advocate, we can stop here. Does it really matter what I personally believe? Neither you nor Hastur can apparently find any flaws in my argument, yet he insists on hurling insults based on his narrow minded, irrational liberal views. If my line of argument is faulty point it out. If it isn’t then Hastur can refrain from his insults. This is GD on the SDMB. Surely it’s the strength of an argument that matters in the fight against ignorance, not someone’s personal beliefs. Belief in the affirmative or negative case has no bearing on performance in a debate. If Hastur finds my arguments disturbing because they confront his small-minded belief system the he can move on and take his ignorance elsewhere without flinging insults. For a ‘person’ who just wishes to live in peace and tolerance he has displayed a profound lack of tolerance for the beliefs of others. > [@](#): > > I need clarification on your veiws. I have seen no one but you state that homosexual desires were compulsive, and no one but you state that _heterosexual_ desires were compulsive.(unless I missed something, if so, I apologize in advance) Ahhh, it’s so refreshing to find reasoned argument and an attempt at establishing some facts. OK so lets clear some things up. Compulsion: an irresistible urge to behave in a certain way, especially against one’s conscious wishes: he felt a compulsion to babble on about what had happened. Compulsive: resulting from or relating to an irresistible urge, especially one that is against one’s conscious wishes: compulsive eating. Resist : try to prevent by action or argument Note that neither definition of compulsion/compulsive requires one to act against ones wishes for something to be compulsive, only that it be irresistible, ie not able to be prevented by action or argument. Note also that I said that sexual _desires_ are compulsive, not taking part in sexual acts. Since a desire is a mental/emotional thing and physical I assume you accept I must be talking about mental/emotional behaviour. Nor did I say that ‘all’ homosexual or heterosexual desires are compulsive, only that everyone seems in agreement with the compulsion idea for at least some individuals. If homosexuality is a choice then the whole analogy in the OP falls down so I won’t even get into that. So having clarified some things lets look at this quote from yourself: > [@](#): > > Homosexuals cannot choose to be straight anymore than you, Gaspode, can choose to be gay Which clearly states the sexual orientation cannot be chosen and is therefore not able to be resisted. You yourself clearly do not believe that if someone resisted (ie tried to prevent by action) that they could choose their mental behaviour regarding sexuality. Therefore you have yourself stated that both homosexual and heterosexual desires are compulsive. Correct me if I’m wrong here. or these from Smaft > [@](#): > > Yes, but sex with someone you love is more than simply a “preferred pleasure”. You seem to be trivializing homosexual relationships > Both heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex drives > I don’t think anyone’s said non-homosexuals are not tempted Seems pretty clear to me that Smaft is stating that homosexuals and heterosexual are equally driven by these desires, just as Hastur said. From Cmkeller > [@](#): > > the temptations and personal struggles that non-homosexuals could be equal, in the mind of the tempted person, to the temptation of homosexual sex. > But do you think that I don’t understand such temptation? Do you think I wasn’t attracted to my wife before we were married Doesn’t sound like it’s within the ability of this individual to negate these desires by action. Certainly he can choose not to take action on those desires, but the desires themselves result from something irresistible, ie the sexual urge. White Raven > [@](#): > > Hormone driven straights I assume White Raven isn’t implying straights can control their hormones by action. If not then the drive (read desire) is irresistible. Speleophile > [@](#): > > But what you find attractive and pleasing in that regard is almost surely decided by things other than conscious choice after a weighing of options And by extension can’t be controlled by action. Straycat23 > [@](#): > > Ever met one of these poor guys who has decided to remain celibate for life rather than to give into ‘primal urges?’ In other words the desires remained, even after (presumably) an attempt to overcome them with both thought and action. Aryandlover [quote] some people feel compelled… to do them > [@](#): > > Compelled, ie resulting from compulsion. There are plenty of other examples there **Spooje** but I hope you see my point. Having clarified this do you actually see any flaws in my argument that homosexuality is illegal and a mental illness? > [@](#): > > And please, no insults. No, no insults **Spooje** While you’ve noticed that I don’t mind hurling them, I only do so in retaliation. In case your wondering my comment about your possible social problems stemmed from your elevation of an individual who had just launched a personal attack on me with no justification. I took offence to that. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > [Moderator Hat ON] > Gaspode, blatant direct personal insults are not appropriate in this forum. Don’t do this again. > [Moderator Hat OFF] \*\* Duly noted, and I apologise. I’ll take it to the Pit next time. I am having a bit of a hard time understanding how comments like “the mental anguish and trauma they are put through by people like you who wish to demonize them. “ don’t qualify as blatant personal insults. Is it acceptable to say these things only if phrased a question? ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/87 "2001-02-09T06:24:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > **Or perhaps when you get through condemning the gays, you’ll start in on the bankers, the exploiters of the poor (like people who rent apartments at 50% of their tenants’ net income), and so on.** If you will show me where I have been “condemning the gays”, I will apologize for it, but I haven’t been, and won’t be. The OP asked for opinions on the subject from a Christian viewpoint, that is the reason I gave mine. Mostly, I stay clear of the subject. I don’t understand myself, why so many outspoken Christians seem to focus on a few ways of life, or a few sins, singling them out for their soapbox rantings. If we start condemning people then we are no better than the pharisees and hypocrites. I’ll tell you something though. None of that changes what the Bible clearly says. The Bible was never written to change with the newest wave of thought. The Bible was also never meant to be read and interpreted only by Scholars, although it is meant to be studied diligently. One has to either accept what it says in its entirety, or reject it. To answer your accusation, I know what the Bible says, I have never been one to “pick out specific passages” and reject the ones I don’t like. Your comment about ones sexual orientation not being a choice is your opinion. Is one who is born with a physical deformity Gods will, or is it the result of something else? Is it Gods will that I get gloomy in the Fall when it starts getting dark earlier? Was I born that way? Finally, something else “ticked off” Jesus. It was when the “religious” people of the day, took scripture and twisted it, to make it say what they wanted it to, for their own profit or comfort. The more I read of the SDMB, the more I think all theological questions, or mentioning of God and the Bible should be left off, as it seems NOTHING ever gets accomplished by bringing these things up. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/88 "2001-02-09T09:48:58Z")
**Gaspode** , I’m afraid that I do care what your personal beleifs are. IMHO, if _you_ don’t believe your argument, then I can see no point to debating it. I believe in mine. I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, not a sin, not morally wrong, not sick and really not so different from heterosexuality. To argue with someone who won’t tell me what he or she believes(who is seemingly just arguing for argument’s sake) is counter-productive. Your argument that homosexuality is a crime according to God is valid if the Bible is the unerring word of the Supreme Being. I don’t believe that it is. I think a lot of people added their own views to that book, falsely claiming divine inspiration. Your argument that homosexuality is a mental illness is interesting, but heterosexuality would also fit under your definition of mental illness, as you have said. Love is madness, I guess. So, **Gaspode**. What do you believe? ---
**Author:** ![Gaspode](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/aeb1de/32.png) [@Gaspode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaspode)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/89 "2001-02-09T11:16:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spooje \* > **Gaspode** , I’m afraid that I do care what your personal beleifs are. Understandable. I guess that’s what makes the SDMB community work so I suppose I was a fair sort of prick for not answering your question. For the record I don’t have any problems with homosexuals whatsoever. > [@](#): > > IMHO, if _you_ don’t believe your argument, then I can see no point to debating it. How about the point of addressing the OP? > [@](#): > > I believe in mine. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in my argument as presented. It’s internally consistent and totally in keeping with the facts. It’s just the facts that I dispute. > [@](#): > > I believe that homosexuality is not a choice, not a sin, not morally wrong, not sick and really not so different from heterosexuality. I believe everything is a choice, from social status to sexuality and beyond (yeah I’ve got some strange beliefs). I don’t believe in sin and have varying beliefs in right and wrong in the sense you seem to be applying the terms. Homosexuality isn’t even part of the equation for right and wrong. I don’t believe homosexuality is sick. I do believe what I said about its categorisation as a mental illness being culturally defined. Homosexuality seems very different to heterosexuality to me on a lot of grounds, not necessarily better or worse, just different. > [@](#): > > To argue with someone who won’t tell me what he or she believes(who is seemingly just arguing for argument’s sake) is counter-productive. I wouldn’t have thought so if the argument is sound. Darwin didn’t really believe in natural selection initially, but his reasoning was strengthened by defending it nonetheless. Just because I don’t believe something doesn’t make it wrong or illogical, any more than my belief in something makes it right and logical. Similarly if I can’t see a hole in your argument, and it runs counter to my belief then I must rethink my own ideas. That’s very productive. Whether you believe in your argument or not is irrlelevant for this purpose. The only time I can see argument being more unproductive if one of the proponents doesn’t personally beleive what she is arguing is if you are attemting a conversion. You’re not attempting a conversion are you? > [@](#): > > Your argument that homosexuality is a crime according to God is valid if the Bible is the unerring word of the Supreme Being. And as I have said several times, this is something the OP presupposes unless you have access to some other source of the word of God. Ignore this and there can be no discussion of the analogy. > [@](#): > > I don’t believe that it is. I think a lot of people added their own views to that book, falsely claiming divine inspiration. Amen > [@](#): > > Your argument that homosexuality is a mental illness is interesting, but heterosexuality would also fit under your definition of mental illness, as you have said. Actually I said no such thing. I merely pointed out that all sexual desires were compulsive. That’s not the same as a mental illness. Many things are compulsive, such as nutritional appetite, but never considered a mental illness. Mental illness is defined society, not by science/medicine. > [@](#): > > Love is madness, I guess Yeah, I wouldn’t argue that, but I wouldn’t want to be cured of it either. Dig them endorphins baby. Groove on that crazy emotional bonding, man. > [@](#): > > So, **Gaspode**. What do you believe? Nah you don’t really want to know, it’d make your head spin. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/90 "2001-02-09T13:26:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaspode \* > \*\*I believe everything is a choice, from social status to sexuality and beyond (yeah I’ve got some strange beliefs). I don’t believe in sin and have varying beliefs in right and wrong in the sense you seem to be applying the terms. Homosexuality isn’t even part of the equation for right and wrong. I don’t believe homosexuality is sick. I do believe what I said about its categorisation as a mental illness being culturally defined. \*\* I will, of course, agree that it’s categorization _is_ culturally defined. Our culture seems to be having a bit of a tug of war over the changing of that definition. But here’s the part I get hung up on. > [@](#): > > I believe everything is a choice, from social status to sexuality Social status as a choice will have to be a topic for a later time. But sexuality (as in preference, which is a term I don’t like, not practice) as choice is what I want to ask you about. Are you saying that at some point in development we choose which sex we are attracted to, either consciously or unconsciously? Or are you saying that someone could, as an adult, consciously change their sexual preference? Or a third option that has not occured to me yet? Here’s why I ask. I’m heterosexual. I couldn’t for the life of me see being attracted to another man, sexually. They just don’t do nothin’ for me. In my mind, a homosexual would mirror that. They couldn’t for the life of them see being attracted to the opposite sex. Opposite sex just don’t do nothing for 'em. What, in your view, am I missing?(for the moment leaving cultural constraints aside) ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/91 "2001-02-09T14:30:21Z")
I disagree. “Its a weakness which we must overcome”. Most gays would not agree with that. The behavior is a sin, not the feelings? So gays must never have sex their entire lives, and thats okay? Most gays will not agree with that either. 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/92 "2001-02-09T15:48:37Z")
**Gaspode** : > [@](#): > > I am having a bit of a hard time understanding how comments like “the mental anguish and trauma they are put through by people like you who wish to demonize them. “ don’t qualify as blatant personal insults. Is it acceptable to say these things only if phrased a question? [Moderator Hat ON] No. Questions like, “Are you a fucking moron?”, “Are all your brain cells deceased?”, “Do the worms that crawl through your rotting dead brain make your ears hurt?” and so on would receive a reprimand as well. However, claiming that one person is demonizing other groups of persons is not directly equivalent to calling a fellow poster a “cretin”, “maggot”, “dolt,” etc., etc., as you did. It may be a legitimate point to mention it when other people may be demonizing their opponents (I make no official judgment as to whether such judgment is _correct_, of course), but it is not a legitimate debate tactic to simply call a fellow poster a cretin, maggot, and dolt. If you have further questions, please either email David and me directly or start a Pit thread–extensive discussions of moderator actions and rulings do not belong in Great Debates. Thanks. [Moderator Hat OFF] ---
**Author:** ![Snark\_Hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snark\_Hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark_Hunter)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/93 "2001-02-09T15:48:38Z")
**Vanilla** wrote: > [@](#): > > I disagree. > “Its a weakness which we must overcome”. > Most gays would not agree with that. I realize that. For me, though, it will always be a weakness, not a lifestyle. Others may feel differently, but that’s my take on the issue. > [@](#): > > The behavior is a sin, not the feelings? > So gays must never have sex their entire lives, and thats okay? > Most gays will not agree with that either. > 2 cents. Hey, I’m not the sex police. People can and will have sex with whomever they want, and I have absolutely no say in who they choose as their partners. For me, celibacy is a temporary answer, not a permanent solution. I don’t intend to have SSA all my life, but obviously I’m always going to have it to some extent unless I’m healed of it. Celibacy is my personal decision. Other people’s decisions will vary. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/94 "2001-02-09T15:55:49Z")
“lifestyle”. uh oh…bad word… ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/95 "2001-02-09T16:52:18Z")
**Randy** : First, let me apologize for the “you” – it was intended as more generic, but unfortunately was clearly in context directed at you. No, you have not condemned gays. You have simply asserted that the Bible has to be taken as it is, and cited **goboy** ’s quoting the portions condemning gay behavior with approbation. And you have missed my point. I love the Bible, and study it regularly. And in my misbegotten youth I majored in English language in college, and learned something of how the meaning of words mutates with time. “Nice” once meant “precise, delicate” as in “a nice distinction.” _ **"What the Bible clearly says"** _ is what you **think** it clearly says. It **must** be read in context and with a feel for the times. There’s an OT quote which curses “those who lie down with dogs.” “Dogs” was a euphemism for homosexual prostitutes at the time; it’s not condemning Timmy sleeping with Lassie on the foot of his bed! And when I read a multichapter list of condemned cultic acts of Baal worship in Leviticus, and in the middle of it are verses about forbidden sexual practices, many of which we know from extra-Biblical sources to have been cult practices (“screw the priestess of the corn goddess, in order to bring fertility to the crops”), and the prohibition of man/man sex is in there (and we know that there were male temple prostitutes in the temples of Baal and Astarte), it appears that the condemnation was in the context of engaging in that form of sex because to do so would be to worship Baal and Astarte rather than God Himself. Just as there is certainly no inherent sinfulness in anyone, even a church, displaying a five-pointed star upside down, but it has come to symbolize Neopaganism (and apparently Satanism as well) and it would therefore be inappropriate and sinful to do so as a Christian. Again, Paul’s shopping list of sexual sins in 1 Corinthians seems to be geared to indulging one’s lusts rather than using sex for the purposes God gave it – the production of children and the bodily celebration of marital love. And lo and behold “homosexual offenders” is smack dab in the middle of that list. D’you suppose it’s _just possible_ that what the writers of these passages were condemning is not the particular act of sex between men, but the idea of indulging one’s lusts, and that a David/Jonathan style relationship that goes beyond physical display of affection to actual sexual activity is **not** what they’re talking about. > [@](#): > > Your comment about ones sexual orientation not being a choice is your opinion. Wrong. I have **no right** to an opinion. Neither do you. It’s a reiteration of the universal statement of gay people regarding what they have observed in themselves. Of all the gay people I have known, in real life and online, there is exactly **one** person who believes it is possible for him to change, and he is well aware of the long hard task he has set for himself. He posted above on his views; I wish him well in his quest. > [@](#): > > Is one who is born with a physical deformity Gods will, or is it the result of something else? “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Feh. > [@](#): > > Finally, something else “ticked off” Jesus. It was when the “religious” people of the day, took scripture and twisted it, to make it say what they wanted it to, for their own profit or comfort. Oh, absolutely. My wife and I are both very much disturbed by Biblical minimalism. We are substantially more irritated by people who use the Bible as weapons for their own self-righteous judgmentalism over other people for whom Jesus died and about whose lives they have absolutely no clue. I presume from your last post you are not one of them, Randy, and it would be nice to hear you say, affirmatively, as much. **Snark** : Read it. We have a disagreement over a minor point. Most conservative Christians don’t make the distinction you and I do between orientation and act – the **whole thing** is condemned, and the person with it. I, frankly, disagree that you are obliged to celibacy. However, that is your decision, and may God grant you the grace of the Holy Spirit to do what is truly His will. What has concerned me in the past is your apparent self-deprecation on account of your orientation. You seem to be dealing with that much better. Given your outlook, I would like to see you at a point where you could notice a comely young man dressed minimally, feel the stirring of desire, and think to yourself, “God made me as I am, and I can appreciate his beauty, and my sex drive is His gift, but so is the strength not to act on the desire I feel.” At that point I would be happy with your choice. Until then I fear you are torturing yourself. And that is honestly said in brotherly love. {fixed bold. --Gaudere} [Edited by Gaudere on 02-09-2001 at 11:02 AM] ---
**Author:** ![Randy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2acd7d/32.png) [@Randy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/96 "2001-02-09T18:15:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\* > > _ **"What the Bible clearly says"** _ is what you **think** it clearly says. It **must** be read in context and with a feel for the times. > > ## There’s an OT quote which curses “those who lie down with dogs.” “Dogs” was a euphemism for homosexual prostitutes at the time; it’s not condemning Timmy sleeping with Lassie on the foot of his bed! > > people who use the Bible as weapons for their own self-righteous judgmentalism over other people for whom Jesus died and about whose lives they have absolutely no clue. I presume from your last post you are not one of them, Randy, and it would be nice to hear you say, affirmatively, as much.\*\* Apology accepted for the “you” thing. I still _mostly_ disagree with your thinking though. “Dogs” in the Bible, represents different things. None good. Paul told Timothy “beware the dogs”. He didn’t mean homosexuals in that case. False Prophets, demons, evil workers, “Dogs” meant all those things. I understand where you’re coming from. Paul said “all things are lawful, but not all things are profitable”. If all things are lawful, then we can cheat on our wives, we can practice drunkenness, we can steal and murder. So he clearly didn’t mean “all things”, I personally think he meant that we can be forgiven for all things, or not be condemned under the old law, if we look for forgiveness. He also said that the “Law” is for the lawless. Paul, however, also told us, to be sober, not to use the grace of God as an excuse for sin. Jude says that some have turned the grace of God into lasciviousness (probably spelled wrong). So theres a line. That’s the **reason** we can’t take one verse or passage and make a doctrine out of it. I don’t like self-righteous people either, and I’ve known plenty of ‘em. I hope I’m not one of them. I don’t think following a biblically set moral code makes someone self-righteous. Like I said before, I pretty much stay clear of the argument, but if I’m asked what I believe, I’m not going to “try and get along”. Jesus said He didn’t come here to condemn. You have kinda’ already touched on the fact that His big problems came from the religious people of the day, not the sinnners. I can live with the fact that everyone, even every Christian doesn’t agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Snark\_Hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snark\_Hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark_Hunter)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/97 "2001-02-09T18:51:42Z")
**Polycarp** wrote: > [@](#): > > Snark: Read it. We have a disagreement over a minor point. Most conservative Christians don’t make the distinction you and I do between orientation and act – the whole thing is condemned, and the person with it. That’s a shame, really. What, do they think that homosexuals are a different species or something? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater… > [@](#): > > I, frankly, disagree that you are obliged to celibacy. However, that is your decision, and may God grant you the grace of the Holy Spirit to do what is truly His will. Thanks. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the physical act of homosexual sex being sinful or not, I guess. > [@](#): > > What has concerned me in the past is your apparent self-deprecation on account of your orientation. You seem to be dealing with that much better. Two words: [Evergreen International](http://www.evergreen-intl.org/). Their website is teaching me that I need not despise myself for having SSA. > [@](#): > > Given your outlook, I would like to see you at a point where you could notice a comely young man dressed minimally, feel the stirring of desire, and think to yourself, “God made me as I am, and I can appreciate his beauty, and my sex drive is His gift, but so is the strength not to act on the desire I feel.” At that point I would be happy with your choice. Until then I fear you are torturing yourself. And that is honestly said in brotherly love. I appreciate the concern, but I’m okay. It’s those darn half-naked joggers in the summer that give me problems! Otherwise I just avoid locker rooms and porn and I’m pretty much fine. I don’t think there will ever be a time when _some_ kind of sexual reaction will not have an effect on me when I see a “minimally dressed” man, but I’m learning to control this reaction and avoid situations and places where I would see that kind of thing. It’s hard to change, but it’s possible. Love ya, Poly! ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/98 "2001-02-09T21:18:57Z")
Its not possible to change.IMHO. And Why would you want to? I don’t think you have a “choice” in the matter. Go on, its okay, Really. Theres a nice guy for you out there, just waiting, probably. ---
**Author:** ![jumblemind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4bbf92/32.png) [@jumblemind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jumblemind)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/99 "2001-02-09T21:41:24Z")
Perhaps you can help me here, **Poly**. Here’s the problem I have with the “feelings vs. action” debate on the degrees of reproachability of homosexuality. Jesus seems to have been very specific in identifying thoughts and actions as equivalent. Thus, if one has a hard enough time with urges–say, being aroused by a man jogging in tight shorts–one should go so far as to pluck one’s eye out to keep from seeing things that cause these urges. Can this be explained by context? It just doesn’t seem to be in line with everything else. And if this is true, **SH** , you’re in a right bloody mess. ---
**Author:** ![Snark\_Hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snark\_Hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snark_Hunter)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2001, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588/100 "2001-02-09T21:55:16Z")
**Vanilla** wrote: > [@](#): > > Its not possible to change.IMHO. > And Why would you want to? Oh, I believe it’s possible. Why would I want to? Rose, you know I’m LDS, and you’re aware of LDS teachings concerning SSA. Nuff said. > [@](#): > > I don’t think you have a “choice” in the matter. > Go on, its okay, Really. > Theres a nice guy for you out there, just waiting, probably. I didn’t have much of a choice in determining my orientation, but I _do_ have a choice in determining my behavior. No, it’s _not_ okay. Do you realize that you’re telling me to commit a major sin that would cause me to be extremely miserable? No thanks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sexuality-and-choice-a-metaphor-and-a-god-question/51588.md?page=6)