Homosexuality- Does choice matter?

[DallasCowboys]

Hey all,

I was going through yahoo news (I think it was yahoo) the other day and there was some article about how Homosexuality is a choice. Now this idea of homosexuality being a choice never made sense to me but not in the way you think. I never understood why it being a choice matters. Who cares if you choose to be gay or if you are biologically that way. Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality? Nobody debates choice with regard to hetrosexual people or with regard to any other issue of preference. Am I missing something?

Thanks,

David C.

[Selene]

An excellent question.

I believe that much of this is rooted in the fact that the major religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam apparently have moral strictures on the act itself and have declared it a sin.

This reduced the "behavior" as a "moral" choice which made it discretionary.

Therefore, the behavior is choosing to live and act sinfully.

A...

best I can do on your question right now

[anthony]

Who cares if you choose to be gay or if you are biologically that way. Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality?

Thanks,

David C.

Why, indeed? Just when you think the issue is settled and forgotten, up it comes again. Adam's right, insofar as religion considers it a 'moral' issue, which permeates through to the irreligious too. For supposedly different reasons ("the metaphysical nature of man") the same goes for some Objectivists, sometimes.

I think it is most definitely a moral issue. It always is, when it involves one's own happiness, integrity and peace of mind. From personal observations, I would guess that early on one acknowledges gay tendencies in oneself, then at some point follows with an explicit moral choice.

[dldelancey]

It matters to some people because they feel they have a duty to minister to one another's everlasting soul.

[DallasCowboys]

It matters to some people because they feel they have a duty to minister to one another's everlasting soul.

This is one of my favorite answers I have ever gotten on OL. Simple and spot on.

[DallasCowboys]

Thank you all for the answers. From what I gather it generally comes back to religion. Is it because if homosexuality is not a choice then religion can't deem it sinful? And if that is the case what makes homosexuality so sinful as compared to other sins because in my opinion religious groups focus a lot more on homosexuality as compared to other sins such as lying or disrespecting your parents, but I could be wrong.

[dldelancey]

In Catholicism, homosexuality is a mortal sin. They believe you won't burn in hell for lying or disrespecting your parents, but you will for being gay. And yes, if one accepts that homosexuality is not a choice, then one must also accept that God intended for it to be so.

[Selene]

It matters to some people because they feel they have a duty to minister to one another's everlasting soul.

This is one of my favorite answers I have ever gotten on OL. Simple and spot on.

She has a brevity bonus in her contracts.

A...

[DallasCowboys]

In Catholicism, homosexuality is a mortal sin. They believe you won't burn in hell for lying or disrespecting your parents, but you will for being gay. And yes, if one accepts that homosexuality is not a choice, then one must also accept that God intended for it to be so.

Thank you that makes more sense but it leads me to another question. Why do they view homosexuality as such a bigger sin as compared to others?

[Brant Gaede]

This post has evaporated

Edited March 9, 2015 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CCSE/homosexuality-sin.htm

A. Basic Moral Principles

1. All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.
2. All unnatural sexual acts are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.
3. All sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins.
4. Sins are acts involving the intellect (knowing) and the will (choosing). An orientation is not, in and of itself, an act or a sin.
5. The homosexual orientation itself is intrinsically evil, but is not itself a sin.

“The Church recognizes that 'marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.' [CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, no. 2] Consequently, the Church does not support so-called same-sex 'marriages' or any semblance thereof, including civil unions that give the appearance of a marriage. Church ministers may not bless such unions or promote them in any way, directly or indirectly.”
(USCCB, Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination, Nov. 14, 2006, p. 20-21)

Interesting...if this individual is accurately stating the view:

From a Catholic point of view, one important cause of the homosexual orientation is personal sin. When an individual commits numerous sexual sins, in mind and heart, and perhaps also in body, these sins damage the human person to such an extent that their sexuality becomes distorted, even maimed, by their own sins. As a result, such a person develops thoughts and desires which are evil and abhorrent to God, but which might seem to be a part of the person's own nature (since these come from within).

[Romans]
{1:21} For although they had known God, they did not glorify God, nor give thanks. Instead, they became weakened in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was obscured.
{1:22} For, while proclaiming themselves to be wise, they became foolish.
{1:23} And they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of flying things, and of four-legged beasts, and of serpents.
{1:24} For this reason, God handed them over to the desires of their own heart for impurity, so that they afflicted their own bodies with indignities among themselves.
{1:25} And they exchanged the truth of God for a lie. And they worshipped and served the creature, rather than the Creator, who is blessed for all eternity. Amen.
{1:26} Because of this, God handed them over to shameful passions. For example, their females have exchanged the natural use of the body for a use which is against nature.
{1:27} And similarly, the males also, abandoning the natural use of females, have burned in their desires for one another: males doing with males what is disgraceful, and receiving within themselves the recompense that necessarily results from their error.

[dldelancey]

David, you're really testing me here! Let me be clear that I am not Catholic. What I know of Catholicism I have learned alongside my 10-year-old son because he attends a Catholic school and religion is part of the curriculum. In other words, I am no expert by any means. My knowledge is what you'd expect of a non-Catholic 4th grader who studies to the weekly tests. LOL! Myself, I was raised in tiny Baptist churches where one simply did not talk about homosexuality at all.

Catholicism defines mortal sins as those that are of a serious nature, and are committed knowingly and with the sinner's full consent. The serious nature part is covered by the Ten Commandments, and the Church has categorized homosexuality as an offense against the 6th, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." There is specific scripture they use to support that conclusion. If you are interested, I will try to find it, but a google search would probably turn it up for you.

I'm not sure this line of inquiry, though, is ever going to get you the answer you seek as it is all dependent on scripture and, in the case of the Catholic Church, on some higher authority's interpretation of that scripture. You could conceivably continue to question, "Why?" to every answer a priest could make until he finally falls back to... "because faith, my child."

Edited to add: Adam makes an important point that draws attention to something I clearly mis-stated. I said that according to Catholicism, being gay is a mortal sin which is not accurate. Rather, acting on being gay is a mortal sin. Which is maybe the crux of the thing?

[Selene]

The Onion weighs in on the penetrating question...

Marking what could be a significant change in the Catholic Church’s official stance on homosexuality, Pope Francis said Sunday, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” Here are some notable ways the Church’s views on homosexuality have evolved over the years:

Creation: God issues strict command for all of mankind to have irrational, destructive hatred for one another
33-2013: A few gay popes, presumably
761: The Catholic Church declares the one-time ‘Year of You,’ in which it encourages the world’s Catholics to just smile, be themselves, and overall have a blast, regardless of whom they love
1349: Mass population loss due to the Black Death forces the Church to temporarily allow gay priests, leper priests, boy priests, and horse priests
1825: Group of men who abstain from female contact in favor of spending their entire lives in the intimate company of other men once again insist that other people not do that
1870: Vatican affirms the doctrine of papal infallibility, which states that every pope is free to basically say or do whatever they want based on the current political climate
1924: Pope Pius XI famously declares that he would rather see the Church gradually lose influence and become virtually irrelevant in the lives of the world’s Catholics than have it accept homosexuality
1986: Pope John Paul II says he thinks homosexuality is a mortal sin; he’ll be a saint soon
2005: Archbishop Ennio Antonelli sees Pope Benedict XVI making out with some guy at a party and decides to just keep it to himself
2248: The largely marginalized and unpopular Catholic Church accepts that homosexuality is not a sin and gay and straight people alike are all God’s creations

And no one can deny that the Lord speaks directly to the Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/history-of-the-catholic-churchs-views-on-homosexua,33299/

[anthony]

Very smart! Hilarious! It'd be fun to see what the Onion makes of sharia law.

[Brant Gaede]

Very smart! Hilarious! It'd be fun to see what the Onion makes of sharia law.

Don't hold your breath?

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

Many people have addressed the religious angle but there's another reason why the "born this way" argument is seen as critically important, and unfortunately it comes down to politics.

I absolutely agree that the legal status of homosexuality should not be logically dependent on whether or not people are "born gay" (i.e. sexuality being biologically determined). If two members of the same sex decide to screw, or decide to get married, this act violates the liberties of absolutely no one else. If Rex and Pete get married, in and of itself this act does not initiate violence, fraud or coercion against anyone else. Therefore, it should be legally permitted, even if you believe its immoral.

I mean, the USA doesn't make apostasy illegal, even though pretty much every religion on earth considers apostasy to be an immoral action. By the same token, the morality of a sex act should have no bearing on its legality - the only question which is relevant to the issue of any act's legality is whether or not the act involves the initiation of force, fraud or coercion. This is why laws against rape (which by definition involves force, fraud and/or coercion) are justified but laws against consensual sex of any kind are unjustifiable.

But the above reasoning is libertarian reasoning, and unfortunately we don't live in a world where libertarian reasoning is widely accepted by everyone.

Most people, due to religion or really bad political-philosophy ideas (typically both), believe that the State's role is to ban immorality; both the left and the right effectively embrace the idea that the State is a tool of moral instruction and moral training for its citizens. They have different ideas about what "immorality" consists of, but they still embrace the idea that immorality should be the target of State censure (as opposed to the libertarian/classically liberal principle that only violations of individual rights should be the target of State censure).

This means that for gay rights activists, preaching pure political tolerance does not work, because most people do not believe in politically tolerating that which they consider immoral. Most people are not politically tolerant.

It also helps that some gay rights activists themselves are not politically tolerant - they don't always embrace the idea that the State should be restricted to banning rights violations. Instead, many gay rights activists believe that the State should ban immoral things, they just define "immoral" differently to how the homophobes define "immoral."

So the classical liberal argument from tolerance and individual rights does not fly consistently with either side of the debate.

This meant that gay rights campaigners had to come up with a different argument to use. Both sides generally accepted the premise that the State's role is to make people be moral, so the obvious tactic is to argue that sexual preference is an innate thing and therefore not a moral issue. Even in our mostly-Christian society, most people (remember that the average person is not educated in Christian theology) accept the premise that moral judgment can only be rendered upon things one voluntarily decides to do. Innate, unchangeable characteristics are commonly seen as amoral. As such, the "born this way" argument was the most effective argument that gay rights activists had at their disposal.

This is why so much effort is spent on substantiating the "born this way" argument (even though there are broad swathes of the Lesbian community who are political lesbians that do not accept "born this way" is true and instead accept a social-constructivist view of sexuality). It is the most persuasive argument when you're addressing a society that does not wholeheartedly accept a genuinely tolerant political philosophy.

If people cannot be persuaded to tolerate nonviolent acts which they believe to be immoral, the only alternative is to convince those people that the act one wishes to promote tolerance of is a moral or amoral act.

It should go without saying that I fully accept that homosexual desires and acts are themselves not immoral. If the person you want to shag is an embodiment of your values and worthy by your standards, then dancing the horizontal lambada with them seems perfectly moral to me as long as they render informed consent. Gender preference in sex partners is IMO just as amoral as flavour preference in icecream.

[anthony]

...most people (remember that the average person is not educated in Christian theology) accept the premise that moral judgment can only be rendered upon things one voluntarily decides to do. Innate, unchangeable characteristics are commonly seen as amoral. As such, the "born this way" argument was the most effective argument that gay rights activists had at their disposal.

Your analysis holds water, I think. I am not so sure though, that "born this way" is mostly seen as "amoral". Where does this place common and primitive prejudice, or bigotry? Remember that intrinsicism - 'the perfect soul' - still has sway as much as, or more than, choice, over the religious--and the secular. There are many homophobes among the Left. They just hide it better and hypocritically over-compensate, I think. So to be "born this way" is still seen as immoral, if not always voiced openly.

Activists should rather be asserting the individual's moral choice (and obviously his individual right) than relying over-much on the innate argument, in my opinion.

[Brant Gaede]

People who eat chocolate chip ice cream are evil. Vanilla? Amoral. Rocky Road? Heroes.

--Brant

I could go on, but I'd be put on moderation

[Selene]

This means that for gay rights activists, preaching pure political tolerance does not work, because most people do not believe in politically tolerating that which they consider immoral. Most people are not politically tolerant.

It also helps that some gay rights activists themselves are not politically tolerant - they don't always embrace the idea that the State should be restricted to banning rights violations. Instead, many gay rights activists believe that the State should ban immoral things, they just define "immoral" differently to how the homophobes define "immoral."

So the classical liberal argument from tolerance and individual rights does not fly consistently with either side of the debate.

Good points.

This article was in my e-mail today and it is extremely revealing as to what some folks think "empowerment" is.

Gay People Are Gods: Protecting LGBT Communities Is a Divine Right

This was the headline in the Huffington Post...it goes downhill from there...

I have a dream today that gay people and lesbians will have a vested and inalienable right to universal marriage equality backed by the power of law. Gay marriage is not only a civil right to be enacted by governments, but it is a fundamental human right bestowed by the almighty hands of God.

He makes that statement having talked about Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech...then, he calls for the establishment of a "gay Gestapo?" Really?

Today, in a major step towards fulfilling this lofty dream of social justice, I submitted an innovative proposal to the offices of California State Senator Mark Leno and California Assembly Member David Chiu.

My proposal calls for the creation of "California LGBT Police Departments" throughout the Golden State. These police departments, funded by the state, would be staffed exclusively by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender police officers. The goals of these proposed "LGBT Squads" are to better serve communities while minimizing troubling incidents of anti-gay violence.

I believe it is important for heterosexual people and homosexual people to love and respect one another regardless of sexual orientation or transgender identity. However, it is also vital for LGBT communities to wield police power backed by the force of law. In other words, we must not only demand "gay rights," but we must also demand "gay power."

Astounding proposal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-charles-hardie/gays-are-gods-protecting-lgbt_b_6748868.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

A...

[moralist]

Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality?

For exactly the same reason that people debate everything else... because the proponents of each view believe that they can convince the other to change their view. As far as I'm concerned, this is a commonly held fantasy, as only getting the real life consequences you deserve from your own actions possess the power to change your view. Short of that, you take what you chose with you to your grave.

Homosexuality is generally regarded by religions as a sin (except in some feminized leftist religions which celebrate it).

The original Hebrew definition of sin is to miss, to be absent. In application, it means to act without awareness. This is quite different from the contemporary definition which obscures the original intent by adding religious emotionality to it so as to dilute and obscure its wisdom.

The debate will continue to go round and round unresolved, for it is impossible to arrive at the truth by addressing homosexuality as if it was a cause, because in reality it is only an effect which is caused by something else.

Greg

[Reidy]

Yeah, like too many Barbra Streisand records in utero.

[Brant Gaede]

Why do people even debate this issue of choice with homosexuality?

For exactly the same reason that people debate everything else... because the proponents of each view believe that they can convince the other to change their view. As far as I'm concerned, this is a commonly held fantasy, as only getting the real life consequences you deserve from your own actions possess the power to change your view. Short of that, you take what you chose with you to your grave.

Homosexuality is generally regarded by religions as a sin (except in some feminized leftist religions which celebrate it).

The original Hebrew definition of sin is to miss, to be absent. In application, it means to act without awareness. This is quite different from the contemporary definition which obscures the original intent by adding religious emotionality to it so as to dilute and obscure its wisdom.

The debate will continue to go round and round unresolved, for it is impossible to arrive at the truth by addressing homosexuality as if it was a cause, because in reality it is only an effect which is caused by something else.

Greg

It's a sin for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual made possible by lying about his or her sexual orientation--that is, it's a sin to lie, especially to make a sin. Sin makes sin.

--Brant

[moralist]

Reidy writes:

Yeah, like too many Barbra Streisand records in utero.

More like Barry Manilow.

Greg

[moralist]

Brant writes:

It's a sin for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual made possible by lying about his or her sexual orientation--that is, it's a sin to lie, especially to make a sin. Sin makes sin.

...and round and round the endless debate goes.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

It's a sin for a homosexual to marry a heterosexual made possible by lying about his or her sexual orientation--that is, it's a sin to lie, especially to make a sin. Sin makes sin.

...and round and round the endless debate goes.

Greg

Most of it will stop when I start writing the Great American Novel.

--Brant

but I will entertain guests in my home every Saturday night for stimulating conversation, one of whom, hopefully married, will become my lover (this will be announced to the world; I don't care if it hurts the sales!)