Which is exactly why the question is pointless except in a purely academic sense. In my case, I struggled for years with the question, “Why am I like this?” and “Why would God have made me wrong?” I eventually came to the conclusion that I never made a conscious choice to be gay, and I simply could not live my life happily as a straight man.
And I still stayed in the closet for about 5 more years. Because it really does come down to behavior. What finally made me comfortable with being gay was the realization that there’s nothing inherently “wrong” about being attracted to or intimate with another person of the same sex, or for that matter, having gay sex. The behavior that I do think is “wrong” for me – promiscuity, random hook-ups, shallow and loveless relationships – is still wrong for me, whether I’m gay or straight, and that is the behavior that I can choose not to participate in. Once I realized that, I was finally able to see that being gay is just not that big a deal and doesn’t have to take over everything you do, and it doesn’t have to change who you are. And then I could come out and grace all the fine people of the SDMB with countless tales of my personal revelation.
The intent of comparing homosexuality to alcoholism (at least, as I interpreted it) was to say that even if an alcoholic chooses not to drink, he’s still an alcoholic. Just as a gay person who chooses to be celibate is still gay. That’s true, but that’s where the analogy stops. The behavior of an alcoholic – excessive drinking and over dependence on alcohol – is harmful behavior to himself and his family, friends and coworkers. The behavior of a gay person – having relationships with people of the same sex – is harmful to absolutely no one; instead, it’s beneficial to the people involved and the children they might want to raise. (I know “rear” is the correct word there, but I prefer not to use it in this instance).
I still don’t know what causes homosexuality. I don’t personally believe that it’s purely biological, and I don’t believe that it’s purely psychological or sociological. Maybe, someday, people will find out what the cause is. When that happens, I’ll say, “Hmm, interesting,” and then go on living my life like I always have.
By the way, as to why homosexuality being a choice is important (to respond to the OP) for political purposes, it is in large part because of whether it would then be a “protected class” for legal purposes. It makes it much easier to put legal protections in place akin to race based protections against discrimination if it is innate as opposed to choice.
I’m getting the feeling no one read my first post! I thought about bringing this up again. There are actual legal implications directly associated with the answer to this question.
I disagree. A priest could find teenage boys sexually attractive and not act on it. Behavior is the act that follows the desire. It is not automatic.
Societies have always held human behavior to a standard of propriety that makes people comfortable. Those standards change over time. Homosexuality represents a behavior that is a departure from the social norm. By that, I mean it is perceived as abnormal by heterosexuals (who are the majority). It was treated as a mental illness until recently. What changed that status was a simple sea change in the definition of what constitutes illnesses of the mind. Mental Health Organizations have separated themselves from the task of trying to define abnormal behavior requiring treatment. Mental illness is now defined as behavior that is harmful to individuals or to those around them.
That still leaves societies with the burden of how to define what is acceptable behavior (in essence, what is normal). In the past, religious guidelines have formed the basis for a majority of these conditions. That continues today but the influence of religion has weakened its grip.
Laws regarding social behavior have changed substantially over the past 50 years and they will continue to do so. It would be impossible to list all the ways behavior is legislated in Western Culture but in the case of marriage, it is the single union of 1 man and 1 women. This has been challenged over the years with polygamy. Society has repeatedly said this behavior is not recognized as a legal marriage. Those laws held through the 19th century when communes were popular. Marital laws are further defined by age limits (regardless of parental consent). Other cultures have different standards and they too will evolve over time.
I don’t think human beings will evolve beyond the need for social structure in the foreseeable future. Altering the tenets of marriage to include same sex unions will require an acceptance of homosexuality as normal behavior by the majority of the population. If this behavior is biologically driven then the hot-button issue to follow will involve a parent’s right to choose the sexual orientation of their children through genetic engineering. JM2C. Something to think about.
No, I saw it, but like you, noticed that you and maybe a couple of others came even close to touching on the original question. So after I took my shot at the raging debate in this thread that isn’t the question, I thought I would be decent enough to reiterate what you said.
That’s not nearly as much fun, however, as discussing whether God will smite one of us, or whether he should (which is really probably sacrilege in its own right, as who are we to attempt to think as God thinks (of course it is probably sacrilege to anthropomorphize God and even think of him/her/it as "thinking)).
By the way, don’t actually expect anyone to read what you post around here. Much more fun to ignore everything that explains something and hone in on the things that you either support or want to rabidly attack.
Interestingly, going back to SolGrundy’s comments about where the analogy of homosexuality vs. alcoholism starts and ends, alcoholics and drug addicts are in a protected class now, to a certain extent, thanks to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Discriminating against someone with a substance abuse problem when it comes to hiring/job retention or housing can easily run afoul of the law. No one can deny that the pathway to addiction begins with the choice to begin using whatever substance is in question, a choice which is often not even lawful.
The same applies to those who are physically disabled even when their conditions are due to their own dangerous, reckless or even criminal behavior. Someone whose spine was severed when they were driving drunk must be accomodated just as someone suffering from multiple sclerosis.
Yet those who identify as homosexual only have protections in the rare municipalities where anti-discrimination statutes have been passed, even though being gay can have absolutely no impact on someone’s ability to perform on the job (while substance abuse or disability certainly can) or their suitability for housing, etc. (Not even discussing the issue of marriage and the rights which go along.) Those who like to tout the “it’s a choice” rhetoric rely upon that to justify that dichotomy.
This is true. However, Christian teaching, following Matthew 5:27-29 has long held that sin does not attach when the act is committed, but long before, when the intent is formed. This is why any Christian church which holds to the idea that gays aren’t sinning so long as they’re celibate is advancing a hypocritical double-standard that only serves to present a way for them to either oppress gays (especially gay believers) or finger-point them as wretched sinners when they do something like form long-lasting, loving relationship. (Perfect example: Bishop Gene Robinson)
Or that keeps them in line, properly subjugated. Not every societal requirement keeps people comfortable (“Damnit, I really want to have sex with you before we’re married, but what if anyone else knew? But it’s just so hard! This is such torture!”).
You missed a qualifier or two in there. For one, not all (not nearly all) heterosexuals perceive homosexuality as being abnormal in any but a statistical (as opposed to scientific/moral/etc.) sense.
It is still treated as a mental illness in some places, but it has not been labeled as a mental illness by the APA since the 1970s. If you take a look at the difference between the DSM and the DSM II, I believe you will find lack of inclusion of homosexuality in the second but mention of it in the first.
I object strongly to the notion that what is not normal is ipso facto deemed unacceptable, whether as deemed so by society or otherwise. I am interested in respected social science writing agreeing with the notion that “acceptable behavior [is seen as,] in essence, what is normal.” Of even more use would be that same writing using the above key words in the same way we use them, since not all social sciences use words identically to how they are used in common parlance; take anxiety, for example.
First we’d have to get past the notions that sexuality=behavior or that behavior determines sexuality;) On the other hand we have the opinions of the 50s and 60s, during which time a plurality, if not a majority, saw interracial/“mixed” marriage as being unnatural/[insert choice religious phrase]. Now this is not so much the case.
MHO is that by the time it is possible to select features in a future child, much of the stigma currently attached to alternate sexuality will be removed or lessened to a trivial existence. Granted, I am not in the relevant medical field, so anyone who has any sort of information on what progress is being made in selecting a child’s eye color/etc. is free to show me my ass:)
Without addressing your response point-by-point, I think you missed the point of my post entirely. Public standards of behavior exist because people want them to exist. Western Society has evolved to the point that nobody cares what happens behind closed doors. That is different than legitimizing polygamist or gay marriage as an institution.
Intent is different from desire. I can look at a 16-year-old girl and be attracted to her but never intend to act on it because I deem it immoral, abnormal, or socially unacceptable. These are all driving forces behind laws regulating behavior.
Actually, much of the science world now believes that the pathway to addiction truly begins with a genetic predisposition to it. I agree that the addict would not be an addict were she never to try drugs/alcohol, and perhaps that even those predisposed to addiction can probably stop after the first few drinks/hits/lines/whatever, and that there is therefore some element of choice involved. However, when it comes down to it, drug addiction (from here on out when I say “drugs” I include alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc.) is not a choice. You can conduct a simple experiment to determine this: poll the people around you to determine how many drink any alcohol, and then determine how many of those people fit the classic definitions of addiction (cravings/withdrawals, inability to stop or reduce substance use, withdrawal from family and friends, alcohol causing problems in their lives, etc). All of those people made the choice to initiate use, but only some are addicts. None of them chose to become addicted (negligence is not choice). The same dynamic is at work in the world of illegal drugs, but the same experiment will be difficult to run because, due to the act being criminalized in most of the world, moderate users won’t stand up and make themselves heard, for fear of prosecution or (at the least) ostracizing. I say this as somebody who has made the choice to use various legal and illegal substances, including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine (among others). None of them have caused problems in my life. I experimented with cocaine and methamphetamine and stopped using both of them as easily as I started. I recently successfully cut down on my use or ceased use of every drug. I have never experienced a craving or withdrawal, have never withdrawn from family or friends to use or acquire drugs, and only make drug decisions that I know will not interfere with my life or cause others or myself to come to harm. A lot of my friends are in similar circumstances and have done similar things. Out of probably several dozen drug users I know (some online, some IRL), I can think of about six or seven addicts. That is to say, I know many people who have chosen to initiate substance use, but few who have become drug addicts. That, and the fact that much of the scientific world holds the view that drug addiction really only happens to people with genetic predispositions, seals the deal in my book unless or until greater evidence to the contrary arrives: drug use is a choice and drug addiction is not.
No, you’re wrong. Read it again. Dr Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The cause of the evangelicals’ protest is the Dean of Alban, who is a celibate gay man.
I’m surprised that no one has said yet that saying the “love the sinner, hate the sin” line is equivalent to saying;
“You are obviously not destined to enjoy romantic human love in your lifetime. It’s the way God made you. Obviously, the destiny meant for you by the Creator was one devoid of sexual pleasure and companionship.”
Is there any other “way of being” or lifestyle where we have the authority tell this to someone else? Obviously it is ethical to choose celibacy for oneself, but are there different circumstances (other than homosexuality) where we are justified in this kind of dictatorship over the lives of others?
It’s applicable to heterosexual people who never find a partner to marry and want to follow certain churches’ guidelines. Clearly not translated to secular law however. Why is gay marriage railed against when Jesus is pretty clear that divorce and remarriage is immoral, and that is clearly legal??