SueFriendly wrote:
My big sister was the same way - lesbian, but in a long-term relationship with a man (turns out they both had the same taste in women). Could I figure it out? Nope. Did I care? Nope. They were happy, neither was hurting themselves or the other (nor me), and it really wasn’t any of my business. (They’ve since broken up, and she’s dating women now.)
Go Friendly, it’s your birthday, go, go, go, go! 
Esprix
Grim_beaker, your comparisons of homosexuality to homicidal tendencies and alcoholism are disingenious, misinformed and cowardly. What next - do you assume we’ll go ahead and justify pedophila and rapists, too? beakerfx made some of the most obvious arguments. If you don’t like homosexual sex, no one is asking you to participate. You can even state that you don’t like it or agree with it, but don’t rationalize it in such a haphazard, inane way - saying your feelings are based on religious grounds is quite sufficient.
Hardly “another issue” - I think it strikes very near the heart of it. You are assuming all deists are Christian, when they most certainly are not, and not every perception of god thinks that he/she/it thinks homosexuality is wrong. If you’re going to argue the Christian point of view, feel free, but don’t drag other religious institutions into it that don’t necessarily agree with what you have to say.
Your black and white view of the world is quaint, but hardly relevant. Tell me, why do you care if someone is homosexual or not?
Esprix
I think that some of you have missed pepperlandgirl’s point. She finds homosexual acts distasteful. That would be a normal part of being a heterosexual, I should think. If she didn’t, then she would probably be bisexual or gay. But she’s not.
I find watersports, Roman showers, etc. distasteful. That does not mean that I am a Bible-thumping Nazi, does it?
I didn’t see Pepperlandgirl say that homosexuals should have their rights taken away, or that they were horrible nasty people with a sinister agenda to drag America into Hell.
She only stated her personal preference as to what she would rather do/not do in the privacy of her own bedroom.
I know that sexuality can be political, but it should only be so if the owner of said orientation chooses for it to be.
Along the lines of the nature of what is natural, I’d like to post a little something Manda Jo posted in the original “Ask the Gay Guy!” thread:
Basically, it doesn’t matter if it’s a choice or not - limiting someone else’s freedom to choose is wrong.
Esprix
In response to Esprix:
I assume nothing about homosexuals.
I realize that no one is asking me to participate in homosexual sex. I also did not state my opinion about homosexuality since it is irrelevant to the point I was attempting to make. Hopefully I’ll be able to clarify that point(s) further in this post.
I did not say my feelings were based on religion. My post specifically addressed a line of reasoning which, if applied universally to genetic dispositions, would include some behavior which our society generally deems inappropriate.
Statement A: “God made me with a specific sexual orientation towards other people of the same gender. Since I feel that it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else it must be ok.”
Is subtly different in wording from…
Statement B: “God made me with a specific sexual orientation. Therefore homosexual behavior must be ok.”
but with completely different ramifications.
I can understand a person using statement A as a reason for their stance on homosexuality. Using statement B however opens a whole new can of worms. If you intended statement A but inadvertently communicated Statement B, fine, it is an understandable position. If you really intended statement B then you must agree that all genetic dispositions are ok regardless of the consequences.
Let me also note here that I did not bring up God in my earlier post (or this one) in order to back an opinion with a religious context. I only brought up God since He is used specifically in a (usually misleading) line of reasoning I hear quite often from people.
I am not assuming all deists are Christian. I mentioned Christians as an example since they are easily identifiable and since different Christian denominations disagree on homosexuality.
My point in the latter half of my first post was that if you accept a deity (be it God, Buddha, Ra, whatever) with a higher moral authority then mankind AND that deity exists AND that deity has unequivocally decreed that homosexuality is wrong, then it is.
I somewhat agree. My views are irrelevant to you. However they are relevant to those people who I have influence with.
Did I say that I did? I don’t have any illusions about the impact of my action (or inaction) on homosexuality. My entire post was intended merely to point out 2 things. If my post was less than clear in this intent then that is my fault. To summarize those 2 points were:
The use of Statement B (see above) is misleading and probably not the true intent of the person using it. If it is not the true intent then the person must take care to qualify that statement to differentiate it from their opinion on other genetic dispositions.
If a higher moral authority (not necessarily the traditional Christian God) than man exists (whatever that authority is) and it has unequivoically decreed that homosexuality (or any other thing for that matter) is wrong, then it is. If no higher moral authority exists then nothing is truly wrong and what we perceive to be wrong is simply a manifestation of culture and one’s personal experience.
Grim Beaker
“I think that some of you have missed pepperlandgirl’s point. She finds homosexual acts distasteful. That would be a normal part of being a heterosexual, I should think. If she didn’t, then she would probably be bisexual or gay. But she’s not.”
I have to disagree here. Lesbians have oral sex, no? I don’t find that distasteful. In fact I can go as far as to say that I enjoy the hell out of when a boyfriend is kind enough to go there with me. The idea of women doing it is not distasteful, just different. I am not bisexual and have no desire to have sex with women at this point, although as I said before, I have found women attractive.
Anal sex may be distasteful for some, but I have heard of or known many heterosexual couples who have anal sex. Although it is not something I hope to partake in, I don’t think of it as distasteful.
I have heard explicit details of gay sex from my best friend Kenny, and it does not gross me out. It’s just different from what I like.
Different strokes for different folks, right?
I truly believe what I stated earlier - that people are simply afraid of what it different and therefore struggle to suppress it.
Esprix, you do rock. Very articulate and thought-provoking. Thank you! 
**
I think that some of you have missed pepperlandgirl’s point.**
I got her point, but she completely misunderstood mine. She mistook debate as personal attacks. I was hoping that my previous post would have settled any misunderstandings, but apparently it didn’t.
I have no problem with someone finding me distasteful.
I don’t even care that she views us as non-noble creatures who are unwilling to sacrifice a little happiness and marry the opposite gender. However, I do care if someone takes that distaste into a voting booth. It’s very important to me that I be able to have a partner considered a part of my family. Is there anything wrong with wanting to be able to call the most important person in my life “family” and have the law agree? I’m not asking for the government to promote homosexuality, just to take a nuetral position, since more than anything it’s a religious issue.
I find brussel sprouts distasteful, but I don’t deny people the chance to eat 'em, see what I’m saying?
And yes. I’m aware she didn’t mention voting, but I thought it was a relevant topic in light of the recent developments in Vermont.
**I find watersports, Roman showers, etc. distasteful. That does not mean that I am a Bible-thumping Nazi, does it?
**
Well, since I find the idea of watersports distasteful as well and I neither biblethump nor Heil Hitler, I guess it doesn’t make eitehr of us Biblethumping Nazis.
I’m going to have the Gay Guy if he knows anybody who likes watersports, because I certainly don’t. That sounds like something Paul Cameron either made up or inflated the numbers.
**I didn’t see Pepperlandgirl say that homosexuals should have their rights taken away, or that they were horrible nasty people with a sinister agenda to drag America into Hell. **
Neither did I? Could you quote someone who accused her of saying that?
**
She only stated her personal preference as to what she would rather do/not do in the privacy of her own bedroom. **
Well…she did express her view beyond that. She did say that homosexuals should make sacrifices and do the right thing and marry someone of the opposite gender. However, that’s just her opinion, so I didn’t take offence to it.
**
I know that sexuality can be political, but it should only be so if the owner of said orientation chooses for it to be.
**
Well, people of the opposite orientation coughTrentLottcough see it as political as well, so I’d hardly lay all politicizing on homosexuals.
Oh, and I see your point. You think it’s natural for a heterosexual to find homosexuality distasteful. I have no problem with that. I have tried heterosexuality and found it distasteful.
I didn’t. I laid it on the people who were implying that pepperlandgirl’s personal preference was political, when she was trying to insist that it was personal only and that she was not about to “take her opinion into the voting booth”.
I’m bisexual, by the way. And I think Christianity is a load of dung created by fields and fields of sheep with vacant, rolling eyes. So that’s where I’m coming from. But I thought people were pounding pepperlandgirl a little hard.
As many of you may or may not know, I am LDS (Mormon). Because of this I have been struggling to voice my opions throughout this thread, regarding what I have been taught.
Please don’t think I’m a sheep, and I can’t think for myself. I carefully studied and evaluated this sight, and I believe everything that is being said.
I don’t expect any of you to believe it, however, I expect you to read it and understand where I am coming from in this debate.
Thanx to Flinx for siting this in another thread.
It’s by Dallin H. Oaks, who is one of the highest authorities in the LDS Church.