A better question

[littlebillie]

"There's a big difference between race and sexual

behaviorlet's not confuse the two issues."

 

Big difference if the behavior is by choice, less of a difference if the behavior is NOT by choice, and no meaningful difference if the behavior is genetic.

 

That said, I'm sure it's nothing new here - can someone bring me up to speed on the different views for each position , and what the consensus seems to be?

[Rooster7]

All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner. This has been hashed out thoroughly in another thread. My memory fails me. Somebody please give us the thread title so we don't have to do this all over again.

[OldGreyEagle]

Try the thread on the Wisconsin employees Littlebille

[tjhammer]

Big difference if the behavior is by choice, less of a difference if the behavior is NOT by choice, and no meaningful difference if the behavior is genetic.

 

Rooster opines: All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner. This has been hashed out thoroughly in another thread.Rooster, I participated in all of those discussions in which this was "hashed out"... your memory really does fail you, because this was debated but certainly not to any conclusion. And it is a fundamental component to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of the issue.

 

As I believe NJ first eloquently stated: I believe God made a small percentage of his people to be homosexual, and quite possibly did so as a test of tolerance for all his people.

 

There is significant scientific evidence on both sides of the genetic debate. Consider for a second that evidence is inconclusive (because it is contradictory), so let's throw it all out for the sake of this point.

 

What evidence is left to consider whether homosexuals are such by choice or by the hand of God?

 

I can only state, as I have done so many times before on this forum, that I have never met a gay person who would tell you that they chose to be gay... not one. Many will tell you that they have felt gay as far back in their childhood as they can remember (the earliest feelings of sexuality). Most will also tell you that it was such a traumatic experience for them to first understand those feelings, then come to grips with them, that no person would consciously choose to go through that process. And many would tell you that the struggle against society (having to live closeted, be told that religion rejects you, be told that you are perverted or psychologically defect, be told that you're just weak and have an immoral "lifestyle") is hardly worth it if they had any choice in the matter. Finally, many who are gay would tell you they would choose not to be if they could (look at how many of the Christian "ex-gay" programs exist, and how they consistently fail). Can gays choose not to act on that orientation? Sure, just like you could choose not to have intimacy in your life. Can gays choose to live life contrary to their inate nature, sure, and some do. But the most stable people I know who are homosexuals have accepted the innate nature, accepted that it does not define their life or self-worth or value to society or God.

 

I'm not sure what evidence you can cite to support your case that homosexuality is just a behavior. It seems to me that any thing you would cite is just opinion. Of course you could say that all of my "evidence" above is also just opinion, but at least it is the opinion of people who are gay, not just looking in from the outside with no real ability to relate.

[littlebillie]

"All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner."

 

are you also hetero by choice? you don't really say above. did you choose the orientation? or did you grow into it? or were you trained into it? or - well, again, was it just a choice?

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

How broad of a scientific poll have you conducted? Have you ever asked pedophiles if they chose to be attracted to children? I'll bet you dollars to donuts that pedophiles did not make a conscience decision to be attracted to children. Yet, I'm also willing to bet that you condemn their behavior. How come? Please try to remain consistent with your original pretence of "choice". Now, I know where you are about go...a natural tendency would be to point out the victimhood of the children. That's a fair direction, but it ignores the fact that the pedophile did not have a "choice" about his orientation. What if the child was a willing participant? Does that make the pedophile any less sick?

 

What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you.

 

Am I a heterosexual by choice? Hmmm. Interesting question. Can't really say. I guess I'll have to give you that one.

 

Okay TJ...I refuse to disappoint you. I know you're waiting for this reference. Just so there's no mistake about it...I do believe God designed us to be heterosexual. Furthermore, I honestly believe that anyone who truly seeks God will know the behavior is wrong. That should give you enough ammo for a while. REGARDLESS, I also believe there is plenty of physical evidence that more than suggest homosexuality is a perversity.

[tjhammer]

How broad of a scientific poll have you conducted?Not too broad, and hardly scientific. As I said in my post, I've never met or heard of a homosexual who told you they were such solely by choice. Have you?homosexuality can be equated to pedophiliaYou can't equate homosexuality to pedophilia any more than you can equate heterosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is immoral. Victimhood of the child is inherent. This is a repetitive red herring you use to try to condemn gays by associating it with disease or criminality, both tactics that have been debunked decades ago.That's a fair direction, but it ignores the fact that the pedophile did not have a "choice" about his orientation.My position on the morality of gays is not based solely on the fact that it is not a matter of choice, and to juxtaposition your question back at me as such is misleading. I suggest that this is a fundamental matter of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the debate, but certainly not the only fundamental consideration. Without associating homosexuality with any other activity, I've yet to hear a single argument in months of debate as to how society is harmed by the existence of gays.

 

Frankly, I'm worried with the genetic argument. If it is scientifically concluded that gays are genetically such (not a far fetched idea given the recent advances in genome research), I'm concerned that some people (perhaps not you) would STILL reject that God made gays, and would instead start to treat it purely as a "disease" to eradicate (like muscular dystrophy). Such is the zealous opposition and singular perspective of those who fear or hate a person or activity that differs from their own, for no reason other than the fact that it differs.What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you.Another repetitive argument to which the response is always "Are you suggesting that any sex or intimacy that does not result in procreation is perverse and wrong?" and the subsequent answer is always missing.Am I a heterosexual by choice? Hmmm. Interesting question. Can't really say. I guess I'll have to give you that one.So your sexuality is "wired" into your being, but gays are just "behaving badly"? I do believe God designed us to be heterosexual. Furthermore, I honestly believe that anyone who truly seeks God will know the behavior is wrong.And I respect your belief and right to hold the belief. I don't know why you refuse to respect my belief in God and that this is not His will.I also believe there is plenty of physical evidence that more than suggest homosexuality is a perversity. Is it perverse to you and your life? Sure. Is it perverse to many in the world (in that it differs from the "norm" and less than 10% of the population is gay), sure. But is it immoral? Other than what your God and your Bible and your opinion state, I've yet to hear a logical argument to support the immorality of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

tj,

You want to see evidence that homosexuality is immoral. Where is the evidence that says it IS moral?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[tjhammer]

It is your assertion (and the assertion of BSA National) that gays are immoral. The burden is upon your to back that statement with any sort of fact (without invoking your God or your Bible or your opinion). I've read every contribution that you have personally made to this debate, Evmori, and I've never known you to go beyond "it's wrong because I say so and God told me to believe that". If nothing else, you're consistent. But I'd like you to think a little harder and see if you can reach beyond that singular perspective.

 

I see homosexuality as neither moral or immoral, just like heterosexuality is neither moral or immoral. Some of the actions or either homosexuals or heterosexuals can be judged for morality, but their sexuality in and of itself, and most of what they do in the privacy and intimacy of their relationships, cannot be judged for morality. There is no way to do so.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[littlebillie]

"What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you."

 

 

Studies of overpopulated non-human systems (most famously, rats from "psych 101" :-) show a marked increase in homosexual behavior. Studies of overstressed non-human systems. Studies of the bonobo shows lots of unstressed, non-population related homosexual contact.

 

When we are directed to nature, and challenged to find homosexuality, we do. I assume the conclusion is acceptance and/or tolerance? The lessons of nature would suggest that..?

[Rooster7]

Studies of overpopulated non-human systems (most famously, rats from "psych 101" :-) show a marked increase in homosexual behavior. Studies of overstressed non-human systems.

 

First, I believe the key word in your statement is "non-human". If you want to expand my reference to include the entire animal kingdom, then you're opening the door to every behavior known to man. The fact that you can find certain behavior in nature (i.e., rats) doesn't make it natural or moral. I was referring to the basic biology of human procreation. When one recognizes the functional purpose of sex, or to be specific - human procreation, it is plain to see that homosexuality is a perversity.

 

Second, what does "overstressed" mean? I have an idea. Could it be that the "researcher" introduced the rats to some very overcrowded living quarters? Did the researcher artificially create extreme circumstances to induce a behavior in lab animals that he/she wants to normalize? If I am correct, one can make an argument that cannibalism is natural as well. After all, rats have been known to resort to that behavior when they are "overstressed".

 

TJ, you refer to pedophilia as a "red herring". On the one hand, you trumpet homosexuality as normal because you claim no one can show you scientific evidence that it is not. However, you do not show the same consideration to pedophiles. What if the child is consenting? Where is your scientific basis for the perversity of pedophilia?

 

Every breath we take, we come closer to knowing the truth. Every breath we take, we come closer to meeting God. When that day comes, there will be no more debates. If homosexuality is a "test" from God (as some folks have suggested), then I stand confident that the test is not about "tolerance". The test is not whether or not one is willing to "accept differences in others", rather it's whether or not one is willing to submit and serve a Holy and righteous God. Whatever you do and say today will affect you tomorrowthat's just common sense. To the extent that it's within my power, I intend to walk a path today that I can be at peace with tomorrow. Using that standard, I am convinced that God condemns homosexuality and calls for his people to speak out against it.

 

Scientific proof? Yes, the mantra of the immoral and desperate. If the prerequisite for an immoral act is the identification of a victim aside from the perpetrator, then many behaviors can and would be justified as moral. Having sex with your food would have to be considered as acceptable as any other behavior. Have you considered sexual relations with the dead? Hey, if she was your lover in life, why not the afterlife? How about sex in public places? At the very least, you could open an "adults only" club. Prostitution? Hey, a woman should be able to make a living as she sees fit, right? Repeat the mantra of "scientific proof" and let your mind wandergo ahead it's easyyou can justify many, many behaviors.

[tjhammer]

On the one hand, you trumpet homosexuality as normal because you claim no one can show you scientific evidence that it is not.I'm not looking for scientific evidence. In fact, I have even distanced myself (in the post a few up from this) from the scientific/genetic argument. All I've asked, which is consistent for months, is for you to prove your assertion that homosexuality is immoral, and do so without forcing your God, or your Bible, or your opinions on to me and my organization (my Scout troop).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Rooster7]

Studies of the bonobo shows lots of unstressed, non-population related homosexual contact.

 

That's interesting. So, they did a study on some rare pygmy chimpanzees in Zaire. Isn't it strange that these chimpanzees are on the threatened species list? Was it complete non-sense when the origin of the AIDS epidemic was attributed to monkeys in Africa? Hmmm. I really don't know.

 

Sowe should decide whether or not a particular behavior is moral by studying chimpanzees to see whether or not they subscribe to that behavior? I thought the evolutionists proclaimed that we evolved from these guys? If we are the evolved specifies, why do we need to ask them?

 

Perhaps, what's really wrong with the human species is that we ask too many questions. Maybe we should be more open-minded. We're too judgmentaltoo discriminating. Love everyone. Love everything. If it feels good, do it. Be your own God.

 

Perhaps, I should bow out of this conversation. I think I have reached my quota of free thought and expression.

 

[Rooster7]

TJ,

 

I'm not looking for scientific evidence. In fact, I have even distanced myself (in the post a few up from this) from the scientific/genetic argument. All I've asked, which is consistent for months, is for you to prove your assertion that homosexuality is immoral, and do so without forcing your God, or your Bible, or your opinions on to me and my organization (my Scout troop).

 

In essence, this statement is proclaiming that BSA should not have any moral principles that could possibly have religious roots. I think that supposition is ludicrous. So, only atheist can determine BSA's moral code? Otherwise, people of faith would be "forcing their religion on you". Sorry, whether you like the roots of BSA's moral code is irrelevant.

 

Whether BSA is a dictatorship by committee or a democracy is also irrelevant. It's currently their moral code. The fact that my faith teaches me that BSA has it right does not mean BSA needs to change their stance (legally or morally). I'm entitled to agree with them. BSA is entitled to subscribe to a set of moral principles. They do not have to explain their roots or justify those principles. Members are free to join or resign as they see fit.

 

As for your pretence of proof, I answered that in my last post. I'll make a deal with you. When you can show me the moral difference (in terms of perversity) between a homosexual and a man that "enjoys his food", I'll continue this debate. They're both "victimless", but they're both perverse. Do you think you can convince us that having sex with food is normal or at least acceptable? You don't need proof. God has given us everything we need to know.

[littlebillie]

Hi, R7 - a few points...

 

 

1. Apes are not monkeys. Monkeys are not apes. And the green vervet had probably not indicated that it wished to be hunted as a food source by and for humans!

 

2. The bonobo is indeed threatened - mostly by human encroachment. To hold this against it seems a little too self-servingly pat and regardless, it's lasted THIS long as a species, right up to right NOW, so whatever it's style is seems to have worked until humans decided to take over their habitat!

 

3. Odd, isn't it, how folks challenge you to look to nature for models, but when you do so, other folks say that nature isn't valid.

 

4. Not sure what the question about Africa per se is supposed to be, but I hope its not about any human population? Could you clarify?

 

5. EVOLUTIONISTS say that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from chimps. Anti-evolutionists, tho', say that evolutionists say other things.

 

Hope this helps clear up a few things!!!