• 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?

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
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?
I'm sure you have a point... but I'm missing it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I'm sure you have a point... but I'm missing it.
You typing on a keyboard can give you carpal tunnel syndrome. Are you out preaching of the possible dangers of that? You're obviously not avoiding using them to keep your own self safe.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You typing on a keyboard can give you carpal tunnel syndrome. Are you out preaching of the possible dangers of that? You're obviously not avoiding using them to keep your own self safe.

Ok... so what you are saying is:

Smoking may cause cancer but, since everything has possible dangers, who cares?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Nope. It isn't important to me at all whether it is a disorder or not. I don't care either way. I do care about where the facts and the discussion lead to. I see it purely as an intellectual discussion.

I don't see it as denigrating others. I question things whether people like it or not. And I want the answer to make sense. In order to understand one must ask questions whether tough or not. Asking questions so that I can understand and get other peoples thoughts on matters does make me feel good. And the fact that I have changed my mind just this afternoon on whether homosexuality is a choice or not because of asking these questions and stating my thoughts on the matter makes me feel damn good. This is one of the main reasons why I joined this forum. If people can convince me that it isn't a disorder conclusively by addressing my reasoning then that will make me feel even better. :)

I looked up the definition of what a disorder is. The link I check up about the APA gave this reason for why they don't consider homosexuality a disorder:

“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."

The reason they don't consider homosexuality a disorder is because homosexuals think they are well and it doesn't impair social effectiveness. They didn't consider it from the point that I was making and until I see that they considered that I will still think it is a disorder until I see the proof that they took that into consideration or someone can convince me otherwise.

And regarding being "smarter than them all being put together" this is what the first article said: "5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it." So it wasn't a unanimous decision by a long margin.
All right, fair enough. I shall give the matter more thought.

To warn you, my thought will be along the lines of those ways in which we humans differ in how we use and/or enjoy the faculties and resources that we naturally have, and whether or those uses may be seen as "properly ordered" or "disordered."

For example, we humans have the ability to hear sound waves in the air, and to interpret those sounds in many different ways. One of those ways is in music, and there is evidence that music has been a part of human life for a very long time. Some people are actually born with extraordinary gifts, such as "perfect pitch," while others are quite "tone deaf." Most, of course, have neither perfect pitch nor are they tone deaf. Now, it is also true that many people quite enjoy music, some don't like it at all, and there is a wide variety in what sorts of music people like.

So, then I might ask myself this question: are these all reasonable variants on a single faculty, or might one or another be called "properly ordered," and the rest "disordered?" In my case, there is definitely music that I am passionately fond of, and other forms that make me cringe. There are others who have little interest in music of any kind. Is one of us "disordered?" Is it me?

Now, of course, you might not be interested in this question, because it's not nearly as interesting as who is sleeping with whom, but it remains the same sort of question.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Nope. It isn't important to me at all whether it is a disorder or not. I don't care either way. I do care about where the facts and the discussion lead to. I see it purely as an intellectual discussion.

I don't see it as denigrating others. I question things whether people like it or not. And I want the answer to make sense. In order to understand one must ask questions whether tough or not. Asking questions so that I can understand and get other peoples thoughts on matters does make me feel good. And the fact that I have changed my mind just this afternoon on whether homosexuality is a choice or not because of asking these questions and stating my thoughts on the matter makes me feel damn good. This is one of the main reasons why I joined this forum. If people can convince me that it isn't a disorder conclusively by addressing my reasoning then that will make me feel even better. :)

I looked up the definition of what a disorder is. The link I check up about the APA gave this reason for why they don't consider homosexuality a disorder:

“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."

The reason they don't consider homosexuality a disorder is because homosexuals think they are well and it doesn't impair social effectiveness. They didn't consider it from the point that I was making and until I see that they considered that I will still think it is a disorder until I see the proof that they took that into consideration or someone can convince me otherwise.

And regarding being "smarter than them all being put together" this is what the first article said: "5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it." So it wasn't a unanimous decision by a long margin.
We have had decades of research into homosexuality showing that it is harmless in of itself and part of a normal and natural spectrum of sexuality. It's as healthy as heterosexuality. In fact, male homosexuality has been linked to having female relatives with more offspring. So it's actually women having more kids than others who are creating gay men. You're stuck in the past and seem to think it's just some political agenda, as if the research agrees with you - it doesn't.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok... so what you are saying is:

Smoking may cause cancer but, since everything has possible dangers, who cares?
There is no way to smoke in such a fashion that reduces cancer risk to minimal. There is with sexual activity of all kinds. The danger is, as with heterosexual sex, many partners and lack of protection, std protection and not using lubricant for rougher styles of sex. None of these things are inherent to homosexuality so it's not really comparable. My buddy Eugene in a long term monogamous gay relationship is in no more danger than I am.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There is no way to smoke in such a fashion that reduces cancer risk to minimal. There is with sexual activity of all kinds. The danger is, as with heterosexual sex, many partners and lack of protection, std protection and not using lubricant for rougher styles of sex. None of these things are inherent to homosexuality so it's not really comparable. My buddy Eugene in a long term monogamous gay relationship is in no more danger than I am.
So hope you are right.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Ok... so what you are saying is:

Smoking may cause cancer but, since everything has possible dangers, who cares?
Smoking has a very high risk of wrecking your health. Getting in a car also comes with a risk. Everything comes with risks. The real question is how great of a risk? Regular exercise most likely won't hurt you, but on rare occasions it can aggravate heart conditions and be fatal.
 

Guitar's Cry

Disciple of Pan
In my opinion it is not even moral question. It is essentially about what is reasonable. Gay sex is just not reasonable. It is misuse of body parts, shows that person doesn’t understand the purposes of different parts of body. It could be compared to that person tries to eat through his ear, because it is also hole in the head.

Nerve endings are designed to be stimulated.

Here's the thing that bothers me about this argument: who cares? Yes, my penis is there for urinating and semen delivery, but it is also designed to send extremely stimulating sensations that change my body's chemistry in very pleasant ways that increase my enjoyment of life.

As long as I am not harming anyone, who really cares what I do with my penis?
 

Shakazuluuuuu

Deist I guess what that is
I'm interested to hear the views of those who think sexuality is a choice - specifically in response to these questions...

1: did you choose to be heterosexual?

2: could you choose to be homosexual? Remember, just choosing to have gay sex doesn't make you gay. You have to be attracted to the same sex. That's kind of how it works.

If you answered no to either of these, then sexuality isn't a choice. If sexuality isn't a choice, then in what world can anyone be justified in sending gay people to hell?

Another part of this topic is the whole HIV/Aids thing as a punishment. Why would an all powerful god create a pubishment for a specific group of people, that also harmed people outside of that group? Also, why would he bother? Surely he could just send em to hell when they're done, what difference does it make?

To me, its obvious that either God doesn't exist or he's a raging hateful buffoon... Imagine Hitler, but with an IQ of about 31.


The world weens. Keep your chin up and watch you six.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
Nope. It isn't important to me at all whether it is a disorder or not. I don't care either way. I do care about where the facts and the discussion lead to. I see it purely as an intellectual discussion.

I don't see it as denigrating others. I question things whether people like it or not. And I want the answer to make sense. In order to understand one must ask questions whether tough or not. Asking questions so that I can understand and get other peoples thoughts on matters does make me feel good. And the fact that I have changed my mind just this afternoon on whether homosexuality is a choice or not because of asking these questions and stating my thoughts on the matter makes me feel damn good. This is one of the main reasons why I joined this forum. If people can convince me that it isn't a disorder conclusively by addressing my reasoning then that will make me feel even better. :)

I looked up the definition of what a disorder is. The link I check up about the APA gave this reason for why they don't consider homosexuality a disorder:

“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."

The reason they don't consider homosexuality a disorder is because homosexuals think they are well and it doesn't impair social effectiveness. They didn't consider it from the point that I was making and until I see that they considered that I will still think it is a disorder until I see the proof that they took that into consideration or someone can convince me otherwise.

And regarding being "smarter than them all being put together" this is what the first article said: "5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it." So it wasn't a unanimous decision by a long margin.


Well, suggesting it is a disorder is simply untrue in the same way that suggesting that heterosexuality is a disorder.

The fact is, almost 6000 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from that list. So it is not considered a disorder. End of.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
In my opinion it is not even moral question. It is essentially about what is reasonable. Gay sex is just not reasonable. It is misuse of body parts, shows that person doesn’t understand the purposes of different parts of body. It could be compared to that person tries to eat through his ear, because it is also hole in the head.

In which case, your mouth is designed from drinking, breathing and eating. I sincerely hope you don't give or receive oral, because that would be unreasonable.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
All right, fair enough. I shall give the matter more thought.

To warn you, my thought will be along the lines of those ways in which we humans differ in how we use and/or enjoy the faculties and resources that we naturally have, and whether or those uses may be seen as "properly ordered" or "disordered."

For example, we humans have the ability to hear sound waves in the air, and to interpret those sounds in many different ways. One of those ways is in music, and there is evidence that music has been a part of human life for a very long time. Some people are actually born with extraordinary gifts, such as "perfect pitch," while others are quite "tone deaf." Most, of course, have neither perfect pitch nor are they tone deaf. Now, it is also true that many people quite enjoy music, some don't like it at all, and there is a wide variety in what sorts of music people like.

So, then I might ask myself this question: are these all reasonable variants on a single faculty, or might one or another be called "properly ordered," and the rest "disordered?" In my case, there is definitely music that I am passionately fond of, and other forms that make me cringe. There are others who have little interest in music of any kind. Is one of us "disordered?" Is it me?

Now, of course, you might not be interested in this question, because it's not nearly as interesting as who is sleeping with whom, but it remains the same sort of question.
Actually, my discussion on this thread has lead me to think along the same lines. Your questions are appropriate because they get down to the crux of the issue.

Why wouldnt we call a person who doesnt like music disordered in that area? I guess it is because we dont see it as being a detriment to them functioning normally in society. Maybe they are disordered but we dont care because it doesnt affect us?

I personally think that the music point falls under variation on a single faculty. If we dont apply that to sexual organs then is that because of culture and religion? Or is there some other agenda involved?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
We have had decades of research into homosexuality showing that it is harmless in of itself and part of a normal and natural spectrum of sexuality. It's as healthy as heterosexuality. In fact, male homosexuality has been linked to having female relatives with more offspring. So it's actually women having more kids than others who are creating gay men. You're stuck in the past and seem to think it's just some political agenda, as if the research agrees with you - it doesn't.

Ironically you are stuck in the past regarding my stance on this. :p

check out my posts after this one.

You have a good point though.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Well, suggesting it is a disorder is simply untrue in the same way that suggesting that heterosexuality is a disorder.

The fact is, almost 6000 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from that list. So it is not considered a disorder. End of.

So, i have already moved passed the point that you are making.

My stance when writing the above post was that heterosexuality is the natural baseline sexual orientation as proven by our sexual organs, and other orientations are deviations.

I was just shown proof that sexual orientation has a genetic link and further thoughts and information has lead me to believe that secual orientation is a grey area.

Also just because the majority say something doesnt make it true, as is evidenced in history. It is there arguments that have to be scrutinised which is what I did.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I'm not sure if I would go as far to say most people are bi, but if not for the stigmas I am certain most people would not be "firm heterosexual." (or homosexual) Still preference towards one or the other, but open to either.

They aren't fragile glass dolls. Patronizing them, however, is far worse. Stupidity is one thing, "you can't handle this and it will make you uncomfortable" is awhole other thing,

Agree with your first point.

Regarding your second point: have you ever been in a situation where your criticism of something has caused a person to think of committing suicide? I have regarding another topic so I dont feel comfortable discussing something unnecessary which could contribute to that.
 

Dan Mellis

Thorsredballs
So, i have already moved passed the point that you are making.

My stance when writing the above post was that heterosexuality is the natural baseline sexual orientation as proven by our sexual organs, and other orientations are deviations.

I was just shown proof that sexual orientation has a genetic link and further thoughts and information has lead me to believe that secual orientation is a grey area.

Also just because the majority say something doesnt make it true, as is evidenced in history. It is there arguments that have to be scrutinised which is what I did.

My apologies. I hadn't read that far down.

Also, you're right about the appeal to majority thing - that's fallacious.
 
Top