Sexual Orientation is not a Choice

glassjester

Well-known member
It's not spreading. The percentage of the population that is homosexual is between 3% and 7% and is fairly steady at that number. It wont spread past that as people with a heterosexual orientation are not interested in becoming homosexual.

I didn't say homosexuality was spreading. "Orientationalism" is spreading. It didn't exist before 1860. Now everyone believes it. That, I would say, is about as much spreading as possible.

And "heterosexuality" is as dangerous as "homosexuality."
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
I didn't say homosexuality was spreading. "Orientationalism" is spreading. It didn't exist before 1860. Now everyone believes it. That, I would say, is about as much spreading as possible.

And "heterosexuality" is as dangerous as "homosexuality."
You are objecting to the use of descriptors. Sexual orientation has existed since mankind was created. We know this from the fact that God made homosexual activities a sin a very long time ago. In 1860 a new term was added to our lexicon. A new term in no way changes what God has said about the immorality of homosexual sex. Just like calling abortion a reproductive right does not change the fact that it is killing an infant.
 

gcthomas

New member
I think it is destructive, spiritually and socially, for people to identify themselves by their desires.

People have always identified as (heterosexual) husbands and (heterosexual) wives. The homosexuals want NOT to be treated differently to based on their sexuality.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Modern society forces people to choose an orientation by which to define themselves.

"You must have a sexual orientation. Everyone's born with one!"

This is new. Never has this happened in history. You won't find that in ancient writings, including the Bible. Heck, you won't even find that in writings from the early 1800's.

And this is a harmful belief.

Has sexual depravity (of all "orientations") not increased since the inception of this idea?
 

glassjester

Well-known member
People have always identified as (heterosexual) husbands and (heterosexual) wives. The homosexuals want NOT to be treated differently to based on their sexuality.

The terms "husband" and "wife" identify people by gender (which we are born with, and does not change), not desire.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Modern society forces people to choose an orientation by which to define themselves.

"You must have a sexual orientation. Everyone's born with one!"

This is new. Never has this happened in history. You won't find that in ancient writings, including the Bible. Heck, you won't even find that in writings from the early 1800's.

And this is a harmful belief.

Has sexual depravity (of all "orientations") not increased since the inception of this idea?
No, it hasn't. It has always been there. It is just becoming more visible now. Just as it was when Rome fell.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
From Against Heterosexuality by Michael Hannon:

The original orientation essentialists could not even offer a principled reason to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality, the linchpin of their position. Left with nothing but inherited sensibilities and arbitrary fiat, their heteronormative measure failed where its procreative predecessor had succeeded for centuries, in offering sound reasons for rules.

Philosophical failure has damned the orientation enterprise throughout its existence. Because the inadequate heteronormative standard left opposite-sex instances of lust entirely untouched, sins previously considered mortal—such as masturbation, pornography, fornication, contraception, and male-female sodomy—were progressively tolerated. Yet with all those injunctions lifted, understandably, it began seeming inconsistent and thus prejudiced to keep insisting on same-sex sodomitical proscriptions.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
No idea why you would come to that conclusion. I have never said that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle for a Christian.
I noticed that you added "for a Christian" at the end of that sentence.

Does this mean you believe that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle for non-Christians?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Like that sort of thing doesn't happen....



Link to article - Man Marries Pillow


wpid-article-1268130775880-08a44469000005dc-332310_636x513.jpg

I didn't say that bizarre instances of people becoming attached to inanimate objects doesn't happen but rather the nutty assertion of GO that we can train ourselves to fall in love with cornflake packets etc...
 

glassjester

Well-known member
What's it to me if a dude falls in love with a pillow?

Nothing. It's his problem. But that's the point, right? That is a problem for him. Does this habit of his not express an extreme failure in love of God and neighbor (sin)?

The example illustrates the fact that people can and do train themselves to "fall in love" with just about anything. That doesn't mean he's just expressing an inborn "orientation." It doesn't mean he can't help it, and couldn't have chosen otherwise. He could have.

Once society defines a person by his desires (he's not a pervert, he's a "pillowsexual," right?), they not only legitimize it; they lock the person into their supposed "identity."
 

shagster01

New member
Nothing. It's his problem. But that's the point, right? That is a problem for him. Does this habit of his not express an extreme failure in love of God and neighbor (sin)?

The example illustrates the fact that people can and do train themselves to "fall in love" with just about anything. That doesn't mean he's just expressing an inborn "orientation." It doesn't mean he can't help it, and couldn't have chosen otherwise. He could have.

Once society defines a person by his desires (he's not a pervert, he's a "pillowsexual," right?), they not only legitimize it; they lock the person into their supposed "identity."

Same with religion, right?
 

glassjester

Well-known member
Same with religion, right?

What's the same? That people identify as Christian? Sure.

Identity has many facets, doesn't it? I could say the same thing about a person's name. We identify by our names, don't we? So I guess names are the same as religion. Wait, no. That's ridiculous.

I'm not saying it's harmful for a person to have identity; I am saying that it's harmful for people to define themselves according to physical desires. It's especially dangerous to convince people that their particular tastes are "inborn" and their preferences for one sexual partner over another mark some sort of immutable "orientation."

Tastes change, and it is up to us to guide them, with our own choices.

It would be harmful to allow my dietary habits to define my identity. It would be harmful for my sleep habits to define my identity. Sexual habits are no exception to this.
 

oatmeal

Well-known member
That's interesting. I knew by the age of five what my *partner preference* was.

So anyways, is your solution for gays to remain celibate and alone or marry someone of the opposite sex so they will both live in misery?

Sin is sin, get saved, Romans 10:9-10 and come to the knowledge of the truth, I Timothy 2:4 and any sin can be overcome.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Sin is sin, get saved, Romans 10:9-10 and come to the knowledge of the truth, I Timothy 2:4 and any sin can be overcome.

Which really doesn't answer the question ...

No one questions whether or not a homosexual OR heterosexual can remain celibate for the rest of their lives. The concern, for those with compassion, would be the emotional turmoil of being alone based solely on the expectation of others.
 
Top