Is homosexuality a choice?

[_antishock8]

Furthermore, he tends never to actually read anything beyond frontpagemag.org, and a handful of other hardcore, borderline racist conservative publications. The fact that his "education," such as it is, has been derived almost exclusively from this kind of drivel, must necessarily render his arguments highly suspect.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... 8C7385CD42

I'm not sure how Front Page magazine is racist, nor is it drivel. When it highlights a very serious issue like Islamists debating how to "deal" with homosexuals:

“We should have deep repugnance to their acts and we must remind and warn them. Those who insist on this lifestyle, consider it legitimate and feel ‘gay pride,’ we should not associate with them and should not take them as friends. We should certainly avoid those people.”

Islamists go on to seriously debate how to kill homosexuals, whether beheading them is in accordance with Sharia or not.

I'm not very familiar with its other content, but it seems to me that it's doing the West a service by at least being a watchdog on Islam. Regardless, reading this kind of repulsive Islamist drivel puts the Mormon bigotry in perspective. I wonder if Mormons should share their electroshock therapy techniques with their Muslim friends? It might be a good interfaith bridge moment.

[_Mister Scratch]

I said:

I know of no movement abroad that proposes the prohibition of homosexuality, whatever that might entail.

Scratch then adds:

Abroad? Why look abroad when we can find anti-homosexuality movements right here at home---movements such as the LDS Church. And you know perfectly well what "prohibition of homosexuality" would "entail": no homosexual sex, no homosexual marriage, and, ideally, a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

This kind of amphibolous interpretation is hilarious both for its Marxian (Groucho) linguistic bedlam as well as the way in which it indicates Scratch's limited grasp of the English language. Actually, his usage is quite good, but his (her) range is limited.

Translation: Droopy doesn't have a substantive reply. D'oh!

So, am I therefore to assume that you support the right of gays to marry, and to have sex? Or do you agree with the Church's stance, which is to force gays to "choose" celibacy?

I support neither, because there is no "right" for heterosexuals or homosexuals to engage in either.

What? There is no "right" for heterosexuals to marry or have sex?

There is no doctrine or policy in the Church that "forces" homosexuals to be celibate. They are free to have sex and get married, as per there preferences.

This is a falsehood, of course. The "preference" of most gays in the Church would be to marry their partner of choice. But, they are prohibited from doing so.

What I find odd/ironic is this: Droopy continues to try and chip away at any explanations concerning the "causes" of homosexuality, and yet, in the end, there is no real or adequate explanation as to why the Church would condemn homosexuality in the first place. Thus, it doesn't make much sense why Droopy would be critical of it at all.

[_Ren]

Here are some links to analysis regarding the issues at hand here. Let's see how many on the pro-homosexual side here engage them substantively.

The trouble here - Coggins - is that you are only destroying a whole ream of strawmen here.

...I haven't seen anybody here claim that the initial 'state' of sexual attraction as an inborn function must equate to 'hard-wired' in the sense that it can never be altered. You are constructing that argument for us, and then calling us stupid for holding an argument that is not being made. If you're fooling people .via this tactic, then all power to ya. But I doubt it's very impressive to those who are actually following the conversation.

I don't believe homosexuality is 'hard-wired' in any rigid sense of the term. Even if the underlying 'drive' was hard-wired, it could still be overcome .via sheer will-power (at least by some). Anybody who knows that catholic priests who take on a vow of celibacy don't actually lose their sex drive already knew this.
Why do you think you are making any kind of philosophically meaningful statement by bringing such points up? Exactly who are you debating - except yourself?

And even the underlying drives are not 'hard-wired' - even by the evidence posted in the OP. You could only say they were 'hard-wired' if physical brain structure could not be altered over time - but there is clear evidence that physical brain structure CAN be altered over time. So the claim (that you are constructing out of whole cloth and projecting onto us no less) is bogus.

There are only TWO real, relevant questions here Coggins:

1. How difficult is it to willfully ignore / change underlying sexual orientation?
2. How reasonable is it to expect people to willfully ignore / change underlying sexual orientation?

Let's deal with question 1 first. There is clear data we can refer to in relation to question 1.
...and where can we go to find it? How about your own beloved NARTH...!


http://www.narth.com/docs/evidencefound.html

As for completely reorienting from homosexual to heterosexual, most respondents indicated that they still occasionally struggled with unwanted attractions--in fact, only 11% of the men and 37% of the women reported complete change. Nevertheless this study, Spitzer concludes, "clearly goes beyond anecdotal information and provides evidence that reparative therapy is sometimes successful."

So NARTH gets together a bunch people where:

*The study did not seek a random sample of reorientation therapy clients; the subjects chosen were volunteers.
* 97% were of a Christian background, 3% were Jewish, with an overwhelming 93% of all participants stating that religion was either "extremely" or "very" important in their lives.
* The majority of respondents (85% male, 70% female) did not find the homosexual lifestyle to be emotionally satisfying. 79% of both genders said homosexuality conflicted with their religious beliefs, with 67% of men and 35% of women stated that gay life was an obstacle to their desires either to marry or remain married.

...in short, working with a group of people who WANTED to rid themselves of 'homosexual tendencies', were Christians and had substantial religious motivation to do it (in other words, not a bunch of lazy, immoral lefty communists...) - the best the NARTH trial could report is that they managed to get the majority of the participants to 'act heterosexually' for a year. Anything more 'long term' than that was 'not common' - and of course the time scale of the study only covered 5 years. By their own results, people expecting to 'overcome their homosexuality' over a longer period than that would have even worse chances...


So - basically - asking a homosexual to 'be hetrosexual' is akin to asking someone to play a violin without making it sound like a cat, or climb Mount Everest, or write a new set of internet forum software.
...by all means, some people are of course capable of doing these things. But even a 'majority' or people? by NARTH's own studies, the clear answer is no - not on any long-term time scale.


So of course, the continual cry of 'choice' is correct. People can choose. But is it reasonable to ask people to make such a choice?
...is it reasonable to make writing a classical piece of music a 'moral requirement'? Most sane people would say not.
...is it reasonable to make climbing Everest a 'moral requirement'? most sane people would say not.

...is it reasonable to tell homosexuals that they only have two choices - 'climb everest' or deny themselves sexual love (according to their orientation)? Well, religious fundamentalists certainly think so... Thankfully, not all of us think that human-kind speak to 'God', nor that God cares how two consenting adults choose to love each-other.

Anyone who knows what it is like to live a lonely life should know what such a request means.
And those who DO know what loneliness is, and yet still ask it need to go to their nearest moral bank and make a large withdrawal. Pronto.

This is a religious argument Coggins. Don't pretend it's anything else. You are fooling no-one - except those already fooled.

[_Droopy]

For the sake of argument, let's say you're correct and that homosexual feelings are a choice, or that they change over time or whatever. Fine. Now how does that change whether we should make their relationships the same as heterosexual relationships in the eyes of the government? Really, this whole choice / not a choice thing seems irrelevant. I'm not gonna give kleptomaniacs a special status even if their problem has a genetic origin.

Nowhere do I recall ever claiming that homosexual "feelings", at least for some substantial number of homosexuals, is a choice, in a direct, conscious, causal way.

Whether we should alter and remake out of whole cloth the nature and understanding of marriage and family to suit the predilections of a tiny minority of sexual deviants is a matter of deep cultural and moral import, and whether or not homosexuality is biologically determined or within the realm of will is pertinent to the question because, within the precincts of leftist philosophy generally, all moral and value judgments are relative to circumstance and context. Hence, what is "right" for one may be "wrong" for another, and vice versa. If sexuality is biologically determined, then there is no ethical or moral argument that can be made for not extending the normative concepts of marriage and family to homosexuals or other sexual deviants, in any grouping or combination in a democratic political order except the resistance of the majority. But, as such resistance is nothing more that the morality of a dominant oversociety that can impose its relative moral claims upon the rest through overwhelming numbers, this appears as a gross injustice.

If, however, homosexuality is much more fluid and indeterminate than this (and all the evidence indicates that it is), then the destruction of the fabric of Judeo/Christian moral and social norms and the redefining of human sexuality in the name of a lifestyle within which such concepts have historically been self contradictory, and, indeed, until recently, rejected by many within that lifestyle outright, is questionable.

[Guest]

I haven't seen anybody here claim that the initial 'state' of sexual attraction as an inborn function must equate to 'hard-wired' in the sense that it can never be altered. You are constructing that argument for us, and then calling us stupid for holding an argument that is not being made. If you're fooling people .via this tactic, then all power to ya. But I doubt it's very impressive to those who are actually following the conversation.

This is, even if not stated in those precise terms, the position of most liberals here, the public consumption Gay Rights movement, and the mainstream media. It is hardwired and set genetically.

Quote:

As for completely reorienting from homosexual to heterosexual, most respondents indicated that they still occasionally struggled with unwanted attractions--in fact, only 11% of the men and 37% of the women reported complete change. Nevertheless this study, Spitzer concludes, "clearly goes beyond anecdotal information and provides evidence that reparative therapy is sometimes successful."



So NARTH gets together a bunch people where:

*The study did not seek a random sample of reorientation therapy clients; the subjects chosen were volunteers.
* 97% were of a Christian background, 3% were Jewish, with an overwhelming 93% of all participants stating that religion was either "extremely" or "very" important in their lives.
* The majority of respondents (85% male, 70% female) did not find the homosexual lifestyle to be emotionally satisfying. 79% of both genders said homosexuality conflicted with their religious beliefs, with 67% of men and 35% of women stated that gay life was an obstacle to their desires either to marry or remain married.

...in short, working with a group of people who WANTED to rid themselves of 'homosexual tendencies', were Christians and had substantial religious motivation to do it (in other words, not a bunch of lazy, immoral lefty communists...) - the best the NARTH trial could report is that they managed to get the majority of the participants to 'act heterosexually' for a year. Anything more 'long term' than that was 'not common' - and of course the time scale of the study only covered 5 years. By their own results, people expecting to 'overcome their homosexuality' over a longer period than that would have even worse chances...

You have a great deal of homework to do at NARTH and other websites, before debating this issue. No one there has suggested anything for reparative therapy other than results among a minority of those seeking change, all of whom are, of course, self selected. The APA has recently been much less hostile to the idea of reparateive therapy (as the empirical evidence and ethical considerations has forced them to be) and has welcomed further exploration in the field, reversing a historically hostile position. What this does show is that homosexuality, in contradiction to homosexual rights activist's claims, is seen by many as in conflict with their own values, which in many cases precipitates a search for strategies of change. That many other homosexuals, enmeshed in the homosexual sub-culture (including the "cruising" and bathhouse culture), might not be interested in such is not mysterious, for other kinds of psychologies.

So - basically - asking a homosexual to 'be hetrosexual' is akin to asking someone to play a violin without making it sound like a cat, or climb Mount Everest, or write a new set of internet forum software.

You have a great deal of homework to do. I'd get going, if I were you.

So of course, the continual cry of 'choice' is correct. People can choose. But is it reasonable to ask people to make such a choice?

If it is reasonable to perceive BDSM, the desire to have sex with multiple partners (at the same time), to role play, or to be sexually stimulated by children or animals, as ultimatle within the realm of free agency, then I see little barrier to thinking the same of homosexuality, which is, after all, really only a kind of sexual fetish, abiet one which has developed a complex sub-culture and social network around its practice (and learned how to grease the skids of the state).

[_Droopy]

So NARTH gets together a bunch people where:

*The study did not seek a random sample of reorientation therapy clients; the subjects chosen were volunteers.
* 97% were of a Christian background, 3% were Jewish, with an overwhelming 93% of all participants stating that religion was either "extremely" or "very" important in their lives.
* The majority of respondents (85% male, 70% female) did not find the homosexual lifestyle to be emotionally satisfying. 79% of both genders said homosexuality conflicted with their religious beliefs, with 67% of men and 35% of women stated that gay life was an obstacle to their desires either to marry or remain married.

...in short, working with a group of people who WANTED to rid themselves of 'homosexual tendencies', were Christians and had substantial religious motivation to do it (in other words, not a bunch of lazy, immoral lefty communists...) - the best the NARTH trial could report is that they managed to get the majority of the participants to 'act heterosexually' for a year. Anything more 'long term' than that was 'not common' - and of course the time scale of the study only covered 5 years. By their own results, people expecting to 'overcome their homosexuality' over a longer period than that would have even worse chances...

If our intrepid Phunk really understood much regarding the reparative therapy movement, he wouldn't have embarrassed himself by attempting to show a problem with the idea by showing self selection. Nobody is talking about forcing homosexuals into therapy, which would violate standard ethical norms within the fields or counseling psychology. All the movement claims, or has claimed, is that reparative therapy can be effective for those seeking change through such therapy. For those with little or no motivation to effect such change, no success in being claimed.

[_Sethbag]

Sexual orientation I believe is hard-wired in the same sense that the desire and impulse to eat is. It's possible for someone to starve themselves to death through sheer act of willpower, but can someone not feel hunger through sheer act of willpower? I don't know, but I doubt it, at least for most people. I suppose the mind could be trained not to feel it or something, but it would be like RoF's analogy of climbing Mt. Everest.

[_antishock8]

[_asbestosman]

If sexuality is biologically determined, then there is no ethical or moral argument that can be made for not extending the normative concepts of marriage and family to homosexuals or other sexual deviants, in any grouping or combination in a democratic political order except the resistance of the majority. But, as such resistance is nothing more that the morality of a dominant oversociety that can impose its relative moral claims upon the rest through overwhelming numbers, this appears as a gross injustice.

But the same hold true even if sexuality is NOT biologically determined, so your point is moot. Actually, even if some sexual deviance is indeed biological in origin, we can still prohibit it (pedophilia) when we judge it by the criteria of what rights are violated because of it (children should be protected from manipulation by adult predators).

If, however, homosexuality is much more fluid and indeterminate than this (and all the evidence indicates that it is), then the destruction of the fabric of Judeo/Christian moral and social norms and the redefining of human sexuality in the name of a lifestyle within which such concepts have historically been self contradictory, and, indeed, until recently, rejected by many within that lifestyle outright, is questionable.

Some societal norms should not be enforced by rule of law. Religion is one of them. Let people choose whether to believe in God. Let people choose what sort of sexual lifestyle they want (so long as they only do so with consenting adults). Again, I'm not for homosexual marriage, but I think government should get out of marriage entirely and only concern itself with the rights of children and parents without making government give a special stamp of approval to certain adult relationships.

[_Droopy]

Sexual orientation I believe is hard-wired in the same sense that the desire and impulse to eat is.

Of course you do Seth. But, then again that's what you believe about virtually all aspects of the human psych. Its the standard Dawkinoid default position in lieu of serious thought about the deep subjects involved outside of the tiny insular niche of the natural biological sciences.

It would be so easy to accept...it solves so many thorny problems that otherwise would require something like the Gospel to plow through...

But why go to all that trouble when you can just be an animal? Let us call upon Rousseau, Nietzsche, Hefner, Machiavelli, Hitler, Singer, and Dawkins to witness man the animal (and animals with rights).