• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is sexuality a choice?

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Not everyone follows that God or even believes in him, or this so-called sin. I certainly don't, so for me there's no sin.
That mentality is something all non-Christian should adopt, and remain strong to Christians that we aren't sinners, sin doesn't apply to us, and we aren't shackled by it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This is the new thing I learnt today.
There is a good movie with Alan Alda, and the band played on, that is about the outbreak of HIV and the quest for answers about it. Including its actual origins and when they realized it's not exclusive to gay men.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Dean-Farris-by-Mike-Lewis-D85_0874.jpg


Ivonne-Wierink_146750768-1984x878.jpg

Back Peddling and Cherry picking?

Back peddling, sort of, as you are helping me refine my thoughts on the matter. Especially regarding identifying the problem. This is what discussions are for.

Cherry picking? No. There is a clear difference between your examples and me saying that homosexuality is a Psychological or genetic disorder. As I said, your examples do not prevent the people from performing the action that certain parts were designed for. Homosexuality does. Clear difference.

Also, to add, I just thought of this now, your examples are choices a person makes. If they are equivalent to homosexuality, then that could imply that homosexuality is a choice. So not good examples to use if you support sexual orientation being a choice.

Meaning of disorder:

noun
noun: disorder

  • Medicine
    an illness that disrupts normal physical or mental functions.
    plural noun: disorders
    "skin disorders"
    synonyms: disease, infection, complaint, problem, condition, dysfunction, affliction, malady, sickness, illness, ailment, infirmity, disability;
Homosexuality disrupts normal sexual functions therefore it is a disorder. I would also add that the sexual attraction is involuntary, so even bisexuality and various other sexual acts like bdsm might be considered a disorder (how is THAT for back peddling?)

Furthermore, I am thinking that maybe one has to be conditioned mentally regarding sexual orientation, such as the conditioning that happens when many who watch porn escalate in their sexual tastes to more extreme tastes. So sexual orientation can be molded and shaped maybe?

Also, it is all well and good to discredit my points, but the only way you can do that is by analytically breaking down my points, rather than showing me images that really don't prove anything.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I would be a fool to let some other fools define God for me. And doubly so if I found their definition untenable.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
There is a good movie with Alan Alda, and the band played on, that is about the outbreak of HIV and the quest for answers about it. Including its actual origins and when they realized it's not exclusive to gay men.
You're referring to And the Band Played On. Good movie, but the movie and the book it's based upon are very outdated (which is understandable since the book came out in 1987). It has the Patient Zero theory where that French-Canadian flight attendant introduced HIV to America, which was disproved long ago.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
...your examples do not prevent the people from performing the action that certain parts were designed for. Homosexuality does. Clear difference.

Incorrect. Whether a heterosexual couple can make babies is not the issue here. The issue is why would a heterosexual couple want to use their reproductive parts for anything other than reproduction. That indicates a clear misuse of them according to your logic.

Also, to add, I just thought of this now, your examples are choices a person makes. If they are equivalent to homosexuality, then that could imply that homosexuality is a choice. So not good examples to use if you support sexual orientation being a choice.

Wrong again. Heterosexuals also make a choice to have sex or not. Heterosexuality or homosexuality as orientations and attractions are not a choice.

Homosexuality disrupts normal sexual functions therefore it is a disorder.

Not so. My man parts work just fine. I just don't use them to make babies. Just as heterosexual couples don't use them at times to make babies. Is heterosex for its own sake, without procreating a dysfunction? There are probably thousands of men who have children, having had sex with women, but are gay. Does it mean the men enjoyed the sex? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't. So how could I do it? Fantasizing, sufficient stimulation just to get the job done. Why would I do it? Maybe I want a child and there is a woman willing to bear me a child. Maybe she wants a child and has an attraction for me.

Furthermore, I am thinking that maybe one has to be conditioned mentally regarding sexual orientation, such as the conditioning that happens when many who watch porn escalate in their sexual tastes to more extreme tastes. So sexual orientation can be molded and shaped maybe?

Not necessarily so. I didn't see gay porn until well after I knew I was gay, becoming attracted to and aroused by other men. I would wager real money that other gay men will say the same thing.

Sex is not solely Man + Woman = Babies.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I have not addressed it as a moral question. (Morality changes from one person to the next)

What I addressed was:



It is harmful to the body. It increases mortality rate. It increases frequencies of disease. To say it is not harmful is to deny scientific evidence
Lots of things are harmful. Being a movie stunt person, or a race car driver, or working in the circus, or in construction. Eating too much of the wrong foods (take a look at the American obesity statistics, and bear in mind that obesity is both very harmful, and most often a matter of pure choice). Taking drugs without a prescription can be harmful. Taking drugs even with a prescription can have harmful side effects. Letting children play outside can be harmful. Everybody owning guns has definitely been very harmful many times, and has certainly increased the mortality rate.

I could list thousands of thing that are harmful, that increase the mortality rate, and that people do every day. You are focused on a single one. Why is that, Ken?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Then why is it not considered such by every major medical, psychiatric, and psychological organization?

I just checked this out:

When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder

In 1973, APA Removed Homosexuality From List of Mental Illnesses | Human Rights Campaign

This is the reason though:

“We will no longer insist on a label of sickness for individuals who insist that they are well and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness.

Homosexuals do not negatively affect their surroundings, their social environment or themselves. Therefore there is no reason to classify them as such since it seems that something only gets classified as such because it has negative consequences.

My argument stems purely from the "software" not matching the "hardware". I don't think anybody would disagree with me on that as well as some who are sexually abused becoming homosexuals after the abuse.

I would say though that the in some cases homosexuality is the result of something negative, therefore this is an indication that it is a disorder:

https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Nope, if you're going to suggest that we legislate the matter then you'll have to prove that 'sin' is a thing. God's law is something that, as far as can be objectively ascertained, is made up by an ancient barbarous culture of humans.

Nope. Faith is the fundamental way for humans to reach a truth of any kind. That's how humans reach long past by history books written as human testimonies and for later humans to believe with faith. The same applies to God's truth!

Sin and Law are well defined in the Bible which is in the form of human testimonies, that is, the only way for truth of this kind to convey. Unless God chooses to show up by breaking the covenant between God and men. Such a covenant specifies that men in majority will in the end rely on faith to be saved. God thus has to hide behind. Then the only way remains for God's truth to convey is for His chosen witnesses to write down testimonies for the rest of humankind to believe with faith. It is the same route how humans get to historical truth by means of history books. Shall there be a truth, this is the only way!!!
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Nope. Faith is the fundamental way for humans to reach a truth of any kind. That's how humans reach long past by history books written as human testimonies and for later humans to believe with faith. The same applies to God's truth!

Sin and Law are well defined in the Bible which is in the form of human testimonies, that is, the only way for truth of this kind to convey. Unless God chooses to show up by breaking the covenant between God and men. Such a covenant specifies that men in majority will in the end rely on faith to be saved. God thus has to hide behind. Then the only way remains for God's truth to convey is for His chosen witnesses to write down testimonies for the rest of humankind to believe with faith. It is the same route how humans get to historical truth by means of history books. Shall there be a truth, this is the only way!!!
Faith doesn't grant any special knowledge or wisdom.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Faith doesn't grant any special knowledge or wisdom.

In the very contrary, all human knowledge is in the form of faith!

That's why you don't need evidence before you are certain that black holes exist! 99.99% humans don't need evidence to get to this piece of truth!!!
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Incorrect. Whether a heterosexual couple can make babies is not the issue here. The issue is why would a heterosexual couple want to use their reproductive parts for anything other than reproduction. That indicates a clear misuse of them according to your logic.
The sexual parts were designed for pleasure but also for reproduction. Not allowing one of those is a disorder.

This does clarify the additional point I made in the previous point as being wrong. Using the organs for pleasure apart from reproduction is what they are made for, therefore using them purely for pleasure wouldn't make it a disorder.

That being said, if ones sexual orientation prevents them from being sexually attracted to a woman then it would be a disorder as a man wouldn't be able to have sex with her and reproduce.

The problem with that reasoning is that what if a man is attracted to some women and not others or vice versa?

Wrong again. Heterosexuals also make a choice to have sex or not. Heterosexuality or homosexuality as orientations and attractions are not a choice.
Which is my point. I was talking about orientation which isn't a choice, your points about fellatio and anal sex was are choices which do not affect sexual orientation.

Not so. My man parts work just fine. I just don't use them to make babies. Just as heterosexual couples don't use them at times to make babies. Is heterosex for its own sake, without procreating a dysfunction? There are probably thousands of men who have children, having had sex with women, but are gay. Does it mean the men enjoyed the sex? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't. So how could I do it? Fantasizing, sufficient stimulation just to get the job done. Why would I do it? Maybe I want a child and there is a woman willing to bear me a child. Maybe she wants a child and has an attraction for me.
Just to clarify: My points are not whether one chooses to make babies or not. It is about whether if they wanted to make babies, would they prevented from doing so because of sexual orientation. If a gay man can get an erection through natural means, which is being attracted to the opposite sex, then he is not truly gay, he would be bisexual. If he has to trick his mind into doing so or use viagra or something so that he can make a baby with a woman, then that is a disorder.



Not necessarily so. I didn't see gay porn until well after I knew I was gay, becoming attracted to and aroused by other men. I would wager real money that other gay men will say the same thing.

Sex is not solely Man + Woman = Babies.

I agree with you. I was too black and white in my statement, as that would disagree with my statement that there is a genetic aspect to some cases. I should rather say that some are conditioned.

There is proof of the conditioning:

https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/

Also make rape in prisons are an example. I don't know any studies on it, but using a prison gang here in Cape Town as an example, because of sexual repression in prison (no women around) some prison members engage in homosexuality for sexual release. It is also a part of initiation and some men turn homosexual after the abuse. The guy in the video below doesn't consider himself gay even. (disturbing content) :

 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Incorrect. Whether a heterosexual couple can make babies is not the issue here. The issue is why would a heterosexual couple want to use their reproductive parts for anything other than reproduction. That indicates a clear misuse of them according to your logic.



Wrong again. Heterosexuals also make a choice to have sex or not. Heterosexuality or homosexuality as orientations and attractions are not a choice.



Not so. My man parts work just fine. I just don't use them to make babies. Just as heterosexual couples don't use them at times to make babies. Is heterosex for its own sake, without procreating a dysfunction? There are probably thousands of men who have children, having had sex with women, but are gay. Does it mean the men enjoyed the sex? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't. So how could I do it? Fantasizing, sufficient stimulation just to get the job done. Why would I do it? Maybe I want a child and there is a woman willing to bear me a child. Maybe she wants a child and has an attraction for me.



Not necessarily so. I didn't see gay porn until well after I knew I was gay, becoming attracted to and aroused by other men. I would wager real money that other gay men will say the same thing.

Sex is not solely Man + Woman = Babies.

My discussion with you is making me think more and making me aware that sexual orientation cannot be a choice. Evidence shows that in some cases it can be conditioned through environmental factors and trauma, but those aren't choices.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I just checked this out:

When Homosexuality Stopped Being a Mental Disorder

In 1973, APA Removed Homosexuality From List of Mental Illnesses | Human Rights Campaign

This is the reason though:

“We will no longer insist on a label of sickness for individuals who insist that they are well and demonstrate no generalized impairment in social effectiveness.

Homosexuals do not negatively affect their surroundings, their social environment or themselves. Therefore there is no reason to classify them as such since it seems that something only gets classified as such because it has negative consequences.

My argument stems purely from the "software" not matching the "hardware". I don't think anybody would disagree with me on that as well as some who are sexually abused becoming homosexuals after the abuse.

I would say though that the in some cases homosexuality is the result of something negative, therefore this is an indication that it is a disorder:

https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/
It's really important to you that it be a disorder, isnt' it? Does it make you feel better about yourself to denigrate others?

If the medical community (who ought to know at least a little something) don't call it a disorder, why do you feel such an urgent need? Are you smarter than all of them put together?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
To engage in sex is always a choice. To WANT to is, well ... written into the bio-program, for most of us. Apart from that, I really don't see an issue. Who does what with whom is their own business, and I very much doubt 'God' thinks or cares about it at all.
 
Top