Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 16:11:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
314 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > ? I don't get this. Why? What doctrine? What parts? Changed how? I just
> > don't see anything that poses a threat to any doctrine any more than if
> > people found the "evil" gene. I mean, if people have the "evil" gene, does
> > that suddenly excuse their being evil? (Sorry to associate 'gay' with
> > 'evil', but from the religious perspective I think Kirby's referring to, I
> > think it applies)
>
> The Holy Bible directly refers to homosexuality more than once as a sin.
And? What has to change? What part no longer works? I mean, what if we
discover the "cheat-on-your-wife" gene or the "stealing" gene? What if we
find out that people are genetically predisposed to behaving in this way?
Are they any less "evil" as deemed by Christianity? I mean, isn't it up to
the person to "overcome" or "not act on" their instincts in Christianity
anyway? Aren't gay's already ostracized from most Christian sects as being
sinners? What does it matter they're genetically more likely to 'sin'?
> I wish your example is how things actually work. Unfortunately, without
> enforceable laws for protection, a minoriy will always be abused or
> neglected. However my point is that the homosexual community already seems
> to be treated as a minority group. They are currently attempting to change
> several laws to include homosexual clauses (I don't know where to start
> researching the lawsuits).
Exactly my point. The homosexual community is *already* considered a
miniority group. What difference does it make where it stems from?
> However, if the homosexual community is such by choice, what need for new
> laws other than what already exist for freedom of choice?
How about marriage laws? Why do we restrict based on sex? Why should we not
change those laws? Or do you agree that we SHOULD change those laws? Again,
how does whether it's choice or not change anything at all? If we discover
that it's genetic, THEN should we change the laws?
> > Let me ask one more thing. Define "by choice". Putting it in such words is
> > kinda-- insulting, I think. I'm not sure how I'd put it, but I assume that
> > you mean something along the lines of "it's psychological", and that
> > "theoretically", a good psychiatrist and/or drugs could make someone who's
> > gay become straight? I assume you DON'T mean that gay people just
> > consciously decided one day "Gee, I think I'll be attracted to people of my
> > gender from now on". Is that safe to assume what you mean by "by choice"?
>
> How is it insulting? Don't you think that people have some measure of
> control over their lives?
So, ok, you agree with my explanation of your definition? Assuming you do,
let's go to claustrophobia. Genetic? Let's assume no. Let's assume it's
psychological. Let's say Bob as a baby was frequently locked in a suitcase
to contain his crying. As a child his parents put him in a closet. He's 30
now. And claustrophobic. He has to go into a closet to get something. He's
terrified. Does he have a "choice"? If you sat there and told him "Y'know,
it's all mental. You can CHOOSE not to be scared," do you think he wouldn't
be insulted/offended? Bob probably knows perfectly well that it's mental.
Doesn't mean he can control it. Saying "it's a choice" makes it sound
conscious. Saying "it's psychological" sounds less conscious. And telling
people that they're making conscious decisions when they're not is-- well--
offensive.
Does it mean he can't be cured? Does it mean that he can't make progress if
he goes to a thearapist? And couldn't he conceivably do the same on his own?
Sure. Is it easy? No. Will people always figure out how? Certainly not.
(That's why we have therapists, isn't it?) Here's the interesting part for
me. Most psychological blocks/issues? You can help to eliminate with
therapy. People *can* overcome things like claustrophobia, psychotic
killing, depression, etc. All mentally. But never once have I heard of
anyone who 'turned straight'. I *have*, however, heard of gay people who
still have gay urges but who don't act upon them because of their belief in
Christianity and the like. Still gay? Sure. But controlling themselves
within what they believe to be right.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) Yes, if any of your above examples become reality, then the Bible is thereby proven falacious. The Bible is an instruction for Christianity and includes a code of conduct. The Bible should not be used as a source of social reform, but as a (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) A simple internet search for "gay gene" will give you all the information you're asking for plus some. (...) The Holy Bible directly refers to homosexuality more than once as a sin. (...) I wish your example is how things actually work. (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
