Sorry extreme liberals, but homosexuality IS a choice

Some hateful and fearful people would turn THAT back, if they could figure out how to do it.

 

What "science" are you talking about? You leftards keep parroting science like it's some magic incantation that makes opposing arguments go away. Science is ambiguous on a lot of subjects including this one. I think you're type is hateful, just to show how useless it is to characterize your opposition as motivated by hate. I see a lot of hate on your side, especially when chain restaurant presidents express their personal views on a topic. You all on the leftisphere have no room to preach on the subject of hate.

 

Double. Please Delete.

 

Do I understand you right? I'm hatful for leaning towards those scientific theories that support a view on homosexuality, which does not condemn it as "ungodly" and "immoral"? Even if you don't believe it, those theories are supported by more than a few studies. But does one really need studies to leave people alone and acknowledge their wishes for same rights as everybody else? You still haven't answered my question why you think that homosexuals deserve the attributes "immoral" and "ungodly".

 

American's in the field of anything that starts with psy are in a field of conflicting and under-established theories that conflict with other fields of science. To be blunt, a lot of things are called disorders and treated by DRUGS that are indeed not disorders at all. ADHD, ADD, Autism, disorders or different, for many situations people with these disorders are better equipped to handle problems than your normal healthy mind. Mental health does not equal social conformation. This being said it is more likely that homosexual tendencies are a viable coping mechanism embedded in genetic make up to prevent overpopulation, rather than some "disorder". Quite frankly i don't believe in "disorders" anyways. Nothing that is not suppose to exist exists, proposing that this is the case is foolhardy at best by any school of belief.

 

You still don't understand. One's sexual preference is innate-like the colour of your eyes; it's something you are born with and have no choice in.
That, in itself, is not any kind of proof that one's sexual preference is a choice you make. Choosing, as a heterosexual, not to engage in homosexual activity is again not proof that it is a choice.

 

Oh, so you do finally get it. 'What felt natural', (a statement you agreed with). It feels natural to feed myself when I'm hungry; it feels just as natural to be attracted to the same sex if one is gay or lesbian.

 

'Judge not, lest ye be judged'. If you're bringing your god into the argument, then one can only assume you live by your god's teachings. Don't be a hypocrite. (This isn't rocket science...)

 

Hetera/Homo-sexuality refers to what sex people are attracted to, not what they choose to do.
If someone who is attracted to girls, and for any reason other than being attracted to men has sex with a guy (say, being threatened at gun point) then that doesn't make the man gay.

Saying that a man who isn't attracted to men but has sex with one is gay, is comparable to saying that someone who doesn't like the taste of apples but takes a bite of one is somehow a fan of apples - it's completely retarded logic.

 

Hey hey think about it...

comparison between the number of men to women is very different. women now outnumber men, 7:3. Dont you feel pity? number of men was small, then you're with a man? then with whom the women? ~_~

 

Ah OK...the problem with my original post was clearly the title of it. What I should have said is that homosexual activity is a choice.

 

Ah ok. I guess we're in agreement then.

 

That would render your argument completly trivial, since every action is bound by choice. It's the matter of what leads to choice and if the choice of abstinence is a solution to the so called "problem" that could save it. Nevertheless I don't think it would make anything you've written more valid, but at least less trivial.

 

I understand your OP, and I agree with it in part. BUT homosexuality is an orientation, which is not a choice, as you have said. The act of homosexuality is. They are not the same thing. One is the orientation, the other is the act. That said, I see what you mean, and I lot of people may not agree with you, but you are correct.

 

That still doesn't address the point of the thread in the first place. I don't think anyone who recognises homosexual orientation as in any way intrinsic would deny that actually acting on it is a choice.

 

I think you've got a few things mixed up here. Human sexuality is a fairly flexible tendency, it manifests itself in many ways. And here, just to underline your point about consensual behaviour, I'm assuming right the way through this that the sexual behaviour I'm going to bring up is consensual. People can be - broadly speaking - heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. People of various sexual persuasions will express themselves sexually through the behaviour which they feel is true to themselves. Heterosexuals will seek sex with heterosexuals, homosexuals with homosexuals and bisexuals with anyone they bloody well choose (as Woody Allen said, if you're bi you've got twice the chances of a date for Saturday night). And heterosexual and homosexual and bisexual people like having multiple partners at the same time as well. I'm not going to go further in to the recesses of human sexuality because I don't want to be prurient, but as anyone out of puberty for a while knows, it's quite interesting.

I think what you're arguing is that some people should not be allowed to express their sexuality. If that is your argument, then I agree with you. Some people shouldn't.

The tricky bit is to work out who should be punished if they express their sexuality. So, who should be punished?

 

The level of Pseudo Science the Radical Secular Left has utilized to somehow "Prove" homosexuality isn't a choice is astonishing. Look, I have no clue whether you are born gay or not. What I do know is that it's not really anyones opinion to decide. Some "expert" cannot prove it, rather it's part of a wider agenda that wants to impress upon Republicans that they're being Immoral (Like Democrats were to African Americans up until 1964) by not supporting gay marriage.

The issues are so different it's astonishing. Yet, the Democrats continue to align themselves with this far left issue that alienates the Conservative members of their own party. The Harry Reid, Palosi, & Obama academic elitist ideas. It's Killing their Coalition.

 

The level of Pseudo Science the Radical Secular Left has utilized to somehow "Prove" homosexuality isn't a choice is astonishing. Look, I have no clue whether you are born gay or not. What I do know is that it's not really anyones opinion to decide. Some "expert" cannot prove it, rather it's part of a wider agenda that wants to impress upon Republicans that they're being Immoral (Like Democrats were to African Americans up until 1964) by not supporting gay marriage.

The issues are so different it's astonishing. Yet, the Democrats continue to align themselves with this far left issue that alienates the Conservative members of their own party. The Harry Reid, Palosi, & Obama academic elitist ideas. It's Killing their Coalition.

 

Now who would argue that Republicans are behaving in an immoral manner for not supporting gay marriage? I don't know if I've read that anywhere here and if I did I'd be ready to say it was a pretty silly argument. And I'm secular and on the Left. Republicans are simply behaving like ********s. Got nothing to do with morality.

 

I never once claimed that one's sexual preference was a choice. Straw man.

LOL! Feel free to explain how choosing is not making a choice.

 

I never didn't get it.

That's correct.

 

I could easily decide to accept the proposition. How is that not a choice?

I never claimed they were. Instincts are tools that one uses in order to make a choice regarding his or her actions.

 

That sexual orientation isn't a choice should be obvious to everyone who has one. We've all been attracted to someone who, for whatever reason, we'd very much prefer we weren't and plenty of homosexuals have been pushed in to so desperately wanting not to be gay that they choose to be dead instead.

It would be relatively straight forwards to demonstrate sexual orientation were a choice though. You'd just need to choose to change your sexual orientation. It would be a simple experiment to indentify the difference.

Just to avoid confusion, you do appreciate that there is a difference between "not born gay" and "choose to be gay".

This is a world-wide discussion. Most people involved couldn't care less about US partisan politics. Most have their own unwanted political influences to deal with.

 

I and many others have tried to explain this to you people for a long tme......Being gay is about sexual attraction, not the act of haivng sex.

You can be celebate your entire life, but still be attracted to a member of the same sex, and you are still gay.

 

Alan Turing. The British Parliament is thinking about expressing its regrets as to how he was treated. I'm sorry but that's (*)(*)(*)(*) weak. The bloke topped himself because he was pinched for being gay. A genius who did himself in because the state attacked him over his sexuality. And here was a bloke who probably saved thousands and thousands of lives with his code-breaking work. FFS you anti-Gay types, get over it, human sexuality is flexible and imaginative and should only be criminalised if someone is being hurt. Apart from that, go and bother someone else if you have to. Moralise about gambling or something if it it turns you on. Just leave people who love without harm alone.