Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

How can people think homosexuality is a choice?

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    There's a difference though. Religion education is about making people aware of religion. We are already aware of homosexuality, we don't need to be told how we should feel about it.

    Do people really need to be told that Muslims exist? I imagine it would be a piss take when there is a sizeable number of Muslims in some towns and cities like Slough and Bradford. Most, if not all, RE classes teach the mainstream religions. They never teach the smaller sized ones, like Buddhism, Jainism, Druidism etc. And they never teach philosophy in schools the way they teach religion. It's just one way of teaching everyone about the mainstream faiths.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    If you would like me to extend a charitable reading of your arguments, perhaps you would do the same for Adam?

    You oversimplify his argument - completely ignoring the distinction drawn between desires and acts - and also miss the salient point (which I feel must be deliberate); that the largest Christian Churches all adopt the same stance and it is only a few extreme sects who believe homosexuality is a choice or that it can be cured.
    Please quote what I've written and tell me what charitable reading of my arguments are you doing.

    I do not ignore the distinction. Again, please quote a single instance where I ignore the distinction between desires and acts. I have used homosexuality to mean homosexual desires and whenever I wanted to refer to acts I explicitly mentioned homosexual acts.

    I do not consider myself with what the Church's official dogma is. I accept that the official dogma of the Church (both the Orthodox and the Catholic) is that homosexuality is not a choice. I.e. that homosexual desires are not chosen but that homosexual acts clearly are.

    His original argument was that he knew (by inference - i.e. without any actual data) that most Christians believed homosexuality (again, homosexuality = homosexual desires, when I am talking about homosexual acts, I explicitly mention the word "act") not to be a choice because most Christians are Catholics or Orthodox and the Catholic & Orthodox Churches teach that view (that homosexuality is not chosen).

    My view was that you can't make that inference. Just because the official teachings of the the largest Churches are that homosexual desires are not chosen, you can't infer that most Christians followers of these churches believe that (which is what his original argument was). I gave an example of American Catholics not believing that homosexual acts are sinful (54% of them don't) when the official dogma is that they are. If he was correct, this shouldn't have been the case.

    He tried, for reasons I can't quite understand, to say that I said or even implied that this means that somehow the Church dogma has changed. I just don't know what does that have to do with what we were discussing. Namely, what Christians, Catholics and Orthodox, believe. Completely independent questions which I didn't try to connect. In a word, he's strawmaning me to feel good about himself.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gales)
    I'm happy to hear that, it means you'll never live in the UK. Happy days! :woo:
    This honestly just mde my day
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SoberFox)
    Please quote what I've written and tell me what charitable reading of my arguments are you doing.

    ...

    His original argument was that he knew (by inference - i.e. without any actual data) that most Christians believed homosexuality (again, homosexuality = homosexual desires, when I am talking about homosexual acts, I explicitly mention the word "act&quot not to be a choice because most Christians are Catholics or Orthodox and the Catholic & Orthodox Churches teach that view (that homosexuality is not chosen).

    My view was that you can't make that inference. Just because the official teachings of the the largest Churches are that homosexual desires are not chosen, you can't infer that most Christians followers of these churches believe that (which is what his original argument was). I gave an example of American Catholics not believing that homosexual acts are sinful (54% of them don't) when the official dogma is that they are. If he was correct, this shouldn't have been the case.

    He tried, for reasons I can't quite understand, to say that I said or even implied that this means that somehow the Church dogma has changed. I just don't know what does that have to do with what we were discussing. Namely, what Christians, Catholics and Orthodox, believe. Completely independent questions which I didn't try to connect. In a word, he's strawmaning me to feel good about himself.


    His original argument was this:

    (Original post by adamrules247)
    I doubt very few Christians would try and claim that homosexual urges are a choice but they'd argue that homosexual actions are a choice (in which they are technically correct).
    Everything else, whether these doctrines are universally held, whether that affects their validity etc. is superfluous to his argument.


    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Well it's the official teaching of the Roman Catholic CHurch that makes up over half of all of Christianity and also the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches which make up the next largest group. On those figures alone my point is proved correct. My point would better be put as a minority of Christians believe that homosexual urges are a choice but my point still stands.



    (Original post by SoberFox)
    So to sum up:

    1. The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church do not teach that homosexuality is a choice.
    2. Catholics and Orthodox Christians make the majority of Christians.
    3. 100% of the Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe whatever their Churches teach.
    Therefore the majority of Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a choice.
    Therefore only a minority of Christians believe that homosexuality is a choice.

    I deny that point 3 is correct. In fact, the majority of Catholics do not really believe in the official teachings of the Church. They do not, for example, regard homosexual acts as sinful. 56% of American Catholics belive that homosexual relations are not sinful. Is that the "official teaching" of the Church?

    Point 3 appears to be your sticking point, and yet nobody has claimed this apart from you (If I might be so bold - find me the quote where anybody makes the claim that that is the case or that Adam's point depends on universal adherence). The simple fact is that no data exists on this subject for most of the Catholic world because it is only in Europe and America that Liberal Catholicism has any theological influence. In the rest of the world the Catechesis is more strict and disagreeing with the church is not an option.

    Try finding a copy of Kaufman's "Why you can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic" in Spanish or Filipino
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)





    Point 3 appears to be your sticking point, and yet nobody has claimed this apart from you (If I might be so bold - find me the quote where anybody makes the claim that that is the case or that Adam's point depends on universal adherence). The simple fact is that no data exists on this subject for most of the Catholic world because it is only in Europe and America that Liberal Catholicism has any theological influence. In the rest of the world the Catechesis is more strict and disagreeing with the church is not an option.
    Yes he did kind of make that point. He says
    the official teaching of the Roman Catholic CHurch that makes up over half of all of Christianity and also the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches which make up the next largest group
    If he doesn't think that 100% of the people included in these groups believe what their Churches tell them (and especially regarding homosexuality) then he can't claim that "only a minority of Christians believe that homosexual urges are a choice". What if 60% of the Catholics disagree with their Church on the matter of homosexual desires being chosen? I already mentioned almost 40 million Catholics (the Americans) who do not agree with the official teachings of the Church with respect to homosexual acts being sinful. I dunno which other group does not and that's why I want to see the numbers. Not assertions. That's what I asked him in my first post (although admittedly not in the most polite way possible) and that's why I asked him again later on adding that:

    To be clear: I was simply asking for data. I do not take either view but your argument was fallacious.
    Try finding a copy of Kaufman's "Why you can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic" in Spanish or Filipino
    I do not think that those Catholics who disagree with the Catholic Church are not Catholic. What does this have to do with anything?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    ....

    Point 3 appears to be your sticking point, and yet nobody has claimed this apart from you (If I might be so bold - find me the quote where anybody makes the claim that that is the case or that Adam's point depends on universal adherence). The simple fact is that no data exists on this subject for most of the Catholic world because it is only in Europe and America that Liberal Catholicism has any theological influence. In the rest of the world the Catechesis is more strict and disagreeing with the church is not an option.

    Try finding a copy of Kaufman's "Why you can disagree and remain a faithful Catholic" in Spanish or Filipino
    I wonder if you saw this video;
    MSNBC says Catholics Support Gays and Lesbians


    (I sort of assume people have seen this as I've posted it on a couple of threads over the last few weeks)

    You also said the main sticking point might be item 3 "3. 100% of the Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe whatever their Churches teach." which is clearly nonsense when you've looked at the polling data, and some of the most radical is contained in that video.

    They have a relationship with God, they use the church for community and as a public show of their faith, but aren't dumb enough to believe everything that is taught.

    Now, one quick bit of poll data, just as a teaser.

    Most UK Catholics support abortion and use of contraception
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-2083291.html

    Here's another
    Majority of American Catholics support transgender rights
    http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today...sgender-rights

    Survey: Most US Catholics support gay rights
    http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/03/24...rt-gay-rights/

    If you look at Evangelical Christians, a poll of 17,000 for the Evangelical Alliance.
    http://www.eauk.org/snapshot/21st-ce...angelicals.cfm
    said that majority of Evangelical Christians did not think homosexual feelings were wrong.

    Some of this stuff is pretty surprising really - it's not at all like the impression some people try to give of religious followers hating all gay people.


    ps. Nearly forgot, when you said "In the rest of the world the Catechesis is more strict and disagreeing with the church is not an option.", how does this relate to Brazil ? Strongly Catholic, but very tolerant of people who are gay as a society.
    • 12 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I hope PA never legalizes it. If they do I'll move to Texas or the south pole.
    The poor gay penguins.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    The poor gay penguins.
    Indeed, but is it selfish that I'd much rather the penguins suffer than have him move to the UK and I'd be in the same country?
    • 12 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Indeed, but is it selfish that I'd much rather the penguins suffer than have him move to the UK and I'd be in the same country?
    Well, he wouldn't be able to vote here. Since there's hardly anybody living on the South Pole, he'd have a lot of power.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, he wouldn't be able to vote here. Since there's hardly anybody living on the South Pole, he'd have a lot of power.
    It's not 'poor gay' anything. I don't hate gays. Anyways, it'd be poor usa for legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Also, penguins can't get married, I don't care about penguins so I wouldn't care about stopping them from marrying.

    I don't like your sig btw.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It's not 'poor gay' anything. I don't hate gays. Anyways, it'd be poor usa for legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Also, penguins can't get married, I don't care about penguins so I wouldn't care about stopping them from marrying.

    I don't like your sig btw.
    Grow up. :rolleyes:
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    It's not 'poor gay' anything. I don't hate gays. Anyways, it'd be poor usa for legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Also, penguins can't get married, I don't care about penguins so I wouldn't care about stopping them from marrying.

    I don't like your sig btw.
    Damn, guess penguins and us gays have something more in common than just being awesome, who'd have ever thought it. And yes, poor USA for taking a huge step towards equality - how damaging that would be for a country!

    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Well, he wouldn't be able to vote here. Since there's hardly anybody living on the South Pole, he'd have a lot of power.
    Hmm, I didn't think of that - god, he could turn it into one giant empire for homophobes :/ Right, maybe we should just invite him to a nice out of the way cottage, then surround it with gay bars and the like so he never leaves the house in case he comes into contact... Trap him in a house and save the penguins, win/win situation if you ask me
    • 12 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    I don't like your sig btw.
    I guess you would prefer to join in the dancing, but well, it's the most I can do over the internet.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Hmm, I didn't think of that - god, he could turn it into one giant empire for homophobes :/ Right, maybe we should just invite him to a nice out of the way cottage, then surround it with gay bars and the like so he never leaves the house in case he comes into contact... Trap him in a house and save the penguins, win/win situation if you ask me
    Good plan, gay kiss-in outside DYKWIA's house





    Seriously, I've been thinking further on all this over the last few days, while I've been away from the thread, and I've come to the following conclusion: being gay wasn't a choice, but I would still choose it, and why the hell shouldn't I? I might not have back when I was a troubled teenager, but I'm not that any more and I know how happy I can be being gay, falling in love with another man, and so on. I wouldn't give it up for anything.

    Just look at that picture, that's something that I want in my life, for a guy to look at me like that and kiss me like that. Fortunately, I have it People should be free to entertain the possibility that that's what will make them happy, and if they decide it will they should be just as free to seek it out.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    x
    Cute pic
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Id and Ego seek)
    Cute pic
    The credit goes to google I'm afraid. I was going to put one up of me and the boyfriend, but he's not out to everyone and I didn't want to cause him upset.

    My actual point, which on re-reading I failed to make, was that it doesn't matter if it's a choice. At least, it doesn't matter to me, because I would still choose it and there is no justification for saying that I shouldn't.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    Good plan, gay kiss-in outside DYKWIA's house

    Seriously, I've been thinking further on all this over the last few days, while I've been away from the thread, and I've come to the following conclusion: being gay wasn't a choice, but I would still choose it, and why the hell shouldn't I? I might not have back when I was a troubled teenager, but I'm not that any more and I know how happy I can be being gay, falling in love with another man, and so on. I wouldn't give it up for anything.

    Just look at that picture, that's something that I want in my life, for a guy to look at me like that and kiss me like that. Fortunately, I have it People should be free to entertain the possibility that that's what will make them happy, and if they decide it will they should be just as free to seek it out.
    Haha, I took a break from this thread from a few days and came back to find it had taken a massive turn to a debate on Catholic theology :/ I'm so happy I finished with the semi self-hating phase from a year or two ago, it's like a massive weight off my shoulders to be happy in the fact that I like girls

    It shouldn't matter that it's with the same sex, I mean love is a good thing regardless of gender surely; I want someone whose going to make me happy, who I can fall in love with and that just isn't going to be guy and while that confused/annoyed etc me for a while, I think of all the beautiful girls there are out there and I'm glad

    Argh, you lucky pup, very jealous of you to find someone, but happy for you at the same time haha - guess I shouldn't get too down, I am only 18 (and seeing as I'm not fully out yet, it's hardly surprising!!)

    Yeah, we wouldn't even need to build gay bars, just build a massive circle of bilboards with photos on like that surrounding his house - excellent and much more cost effective too
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gales)
    Grow up. :rolleyes:
    I'm a person too.

    (Original post by Jester94)
    Damn, guess penguins and us gays have something more in common than just being awesome, who'd have ever thought it. And yes, poor USA for taking a huge step towards equality - how damaging that would be for a country!
    No, I care about gay people just as much as everyone else. Not allowing them to marry is partially for their own good. Also, I can't tell male penguins from female penguins so how would I tell if they were gay?

    Hmm, I didn't think of that - god, he could turn it into one giant empire for homophobes :/ Right, maybe we should just invite him to a nice out of the way cottage, then surround it with gay bars and the like so he never leaves the house in case he comes into contact... Trap him in a house and save the penguins, win/win situation if you ask me
    Wouldn't that be abuse? I thought britain was supposed to be super tolerant.

    I see most people on this forum are from cities, so I think it would be best to avoid them to find like minded people. I doubt the whole of britain likes gays.

    (Original post by mmmpie)
    ...
    Can't you put that stuff in spoiler quotes?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)

    1.) i believe people are inherently a/pan/bi/? sexual but to varying degrees. that means the percentage breakdown differs for all of us. I believe that sex doesnt have to = gender .. meaning we have an outer shell and an inner shell.. not everybody's is in synch/according to heteronormative prescription but i never let any of that stop me from just .. 'being'

    2.) = how we are (consciously/latently) psycho-socio-culturally prescribed to behave, taking 1.) into consideration

    3.) = realising there's a field called anthropology, psychology, sociology.. if individuals can in general, seek to understand themselves and live mindfully and responsibly that would be ideal and impact society in a nice way

    4.) realising that 3.) is a way of life and that it's normal and expected to harbour confusion, resentment, and dislike towards alternative ways of life that seem to threaten us on a psychological, financial, institutional, ethnological etc level. Bonus points to those who are willing to grapple with this constructively to make their way to being the embodiment of 5.)

    5.) 'understanding', 'pluralism', 'progressiveness', 'intercultural sensitivity' &/ an amalgamation of cultures would be an the ideal macro level outcome, and not at all foolish to predict especially @ globalisation.. (tho Hollywood and lack of exposure might get in the way..). Should we wear Hogwarts-Housey badges with space for multiple colors, % breakdown and symbolic codes (as opposed to having our physical features, passport, gender, bling bling, and religion be the automatic markers..)? Will that make for an adequate identifier and invite mutual respect and mutually beneficial relations? or will some nitwit like Voldemort or heck, even a Joe Common, come and **** things up, especially since it's not like it hasn't happened before.. Will this encourage people who are simply alike to group together? I mean.. that's what happened at my boarding school< and supposedly makes anthropological sense...

    6.) rinse, repeat 1-5. It'll likely take some time.. I mean.. we'd need a massive overturn of the legal system, amongst other things (like a multidisciplinary, intercultural education curriculum.. I don't mean 'international school' style that sort of has one exist in a kind of socioeconomic & culturally homogenous bubble but caters oh so lovelily to the 'job market' #oh hai commodification of education!)

    7.) realise that things aren't too shabby in 2012, unlike in various other time periods.. maybe we'll have cause to be idealistic after all..

    8.) profit! and maybe I should start a religion.

    9.) What are the foreseeable pros and cons of 1.) to 6.)? Hmmm...

    ^ Was just about to change that to 'a/bi/pan/?'-sexual before I realise that somebody replied! LOL & yup yup yup @ "no predetermined preference, but that preference comes to be expressed through choice/actualisation". Is there a name for this, like a proper psych/phil term?!

    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    Thinking differnece would involve a focus upon which parts of the relationships were uncommon; things like tony having a foot fetish, rob being a vegetarian and steve being obsessed with Pink Floyd. And from these uncommon strands it would allow one to investigate not why Jeff has dated 3 men and is therefore a homosexual, but why Jeff has dated these three people specifically (and why they broke up) and would allow one to think in terms of Jeff's future possibilities as being unlimited by previous typification.
    Hey yo..

    I've done some thinking about all this since I last contributed to the thread..

    I more or less understand that point of Deleuze's that you mentioned:

    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    "when you label you disable". By trying to define sexuality and identity in the way these disciplines do they attempt to 'fix' the concept, which is often not helpful in the slightest. Concepts are consistenly differenciating themselves as the networks of tensions that support them shift balance and what might work as a definition of identity at one point in time would seem completely farcical in another.

    And so, I maintain the solution I proposed:

    (Original post by a_stitch_in_time)
    Should we wear Hogwarts-Housey badges with space for multiple colors, % breakdown and symbolic codes (as opposed to having our physical features, passport, gender, bling bling, and religion be the automatic markers..)? Will that make for an adequate identifier and invite mutual respect and mutually beneficial relations?

    but with addendums..


    Basically, have 2 badge-colour wheel thingy.. one on each side (left, right).. One showing the breakdown of one's beliefs in general.. and the other, blank unless in the presence of another during which it'll flash areas of (greatest) similarities in strong shades and areas of conflict, faded .. but yeah, it's gonna take some mojo of a tech!! We can also like have an inbuilt mechanism thing that sends jolts to us (but 1 step before that would be the flashing of areas of conflict) when we're very near unconstructive conflict. And should we persist, we'd then get transported to like, the other person's past... be a viewer like Harry was with Tom Riddle. Cool huh? .. not sure if it ought to be limited to some voyeuristic experience or extended to include experiencing the actual inner emotions of the person.. hmm. that could be like, level 3.

    Oh, and the colour wheel spectrum thing is by no means static..it'll always update itself and like, people can have the option to view the 'history of last saved changes' if there's been a significant number of them. Otherwise, just a simple hologram kinda thing.

    (Original post by ThePhilosoraptor)
    Concepts are consistenly differenciating themselves as the networks of tensions that support them shift balance and what might work as a definition of identity at one point in time would seem completely farcical in another.
    O yeah and what u said about Deleuze got me thinking about the anthropology of semiotics and philosophy of language. I mean, the premise for language in the first place is to 'label' right? which is related to human nature then.. so.. hmm..

    oo & take a look at this (on suicide of gay rutgers student tyler clementi): http://tinyurl.com/7sh4n76

    relates to criminal law and social media which i think makes for interesting developments to look forward to in my field.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jester94)
    Haha, I took a break from this thread from a few days and came back to find it had taken a massive turn to a debate on Catholic theology :/ I'm so happy I finished with the semi self-hating phase from a year or two ago, it's like a massive weight off my shoulders to be happy in the fact that I like girls

    It shouldn't matter that it's with the same sex, I mean love is a good thing regardless of gender surely; I want someone whose going to make me happy, who I can fall in love with and that just isn't going to be guy and while that confused/annoyed etc me for a while, I think of all the beautiful girls there are out there and I'm glad

    Argh, you lucky pup, very jealous of you to find someone, but happy for you at the same time haha - guess I shouldn't get too down, I am only 18 (and seeing as I'm not fully out yet, it's hardly surprising!!)
    The actual liking boys thing was never a problem itself, it was always the wider implications: how would my friends react? my family? would I get HIV? could I still have children somehow? would I get bullied? etc. etc.

    If I'd have had some decent information to go on, half those concerns would have disappeared straight away because they come from fear and ignorance. It's a sad truth that what so many young LGBT people are fearful and ignorant of is themselves.

    (Original post by DYKWIA)
    Can't you put that stuff in spoiler quotes?
    The picture? I could, but I see no need to: it's not pornographic, it's not even all that risqué, and it did illustrate my point.
Updated: February 26, 2012
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.