Do you believe being gay is a choice

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant.

Can one learn things without some volitional element?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not arguing that there isn't a spectrum either. I'm just saying that idea that the vast majority of gays made a conscious decision to be gay belies all empiric evidence that I am aware of.

Completely disagree. Your evidence is not emperical and is most certainly anecdotal. Furthermore I refuted your point by drawing upon a comparison group that you have conveniently ignored.

[woot]

Originally Posted by tooblue

“Just about every animal is bisexual to some degree” is a woefully ignorant statement especially just following the denunciation of the inherent binary nature of sexuality in the animal kingdom.

Animals, other than the human animal are incapable of knowing or understanding that they may be trying to copulate with a male or female of their species at the instinctively appointed mating periods of their existence. Instinct to mate governs their actions, not sexual preference. Humans are the only animals on the planet that engage in sexual activity randomly and for reasons in addition to the perpetuation of the species.

Therefore continual bisexuality and homosexuality in humans is due to a conscious choice on the part of the human, because the desire to mate is not purely instinctive but rather a deliberate act.

Actually, it is you that is ignorant. Your words might apply in some cases, but most definitely not all. There is great evidence that certain animals know exactly what they're doing when engaging in homosexual acts, and there is little evidence that any animal actually understands the correlation between sex and offspring. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but try to get a refund.

Your last paragraph is objectively false.

Thanks for trying.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/...ng_smith.shtml

I don't really see how this is applicable. Rumors may have abounded, but if in interviews the person in question claims they're living a chaste life, and the spirit doesn't guide (or the interviewer doesn't follow the prompting) him to question him on it, how is that tolerating the act?

Granted, I was in no way going to read that entire post, so I may have missed something in my quick skim.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.affirmation.org/memorial/...ng_smith.shtml

They didn't need the long list of historical accounts to prove this guy was gay. Just with the picture, it's pretty obvious.

I don't know how much choice there is in sexual preference. But anyone who has lived very long has seen plenty of observations of SSA where choice didn't seem to come into play.

1. There seems to be a genetic component where some males have feminine traits from age one.
2. Early sexualization by a male partner always messes with a kid and frequently they develop SSA issues.
3. Other environmental issues like an overbearing mother or missing father, whatever, I don't know the specifics but those seem to be frequent also in developing SSA.

None of these were choices for the person.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Spaz

I don't really see how this is applicable. Rumors may have abounded, but if in interviews the person in question claims they're living a chaste life, and the spirit doesn't guide (or the interviewer doesn't follow the prompting) him to question him on it, how is that tolerating the act?

Granted, I was in no way going to read that entire post, so I may have missed something in my quick skim.

would it bother if you the current President of the church were released due to recent homosexual acts?

I think I can safely say that it would bother many members, and they would wonder how such a thing could come to be.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

would it bother if you the current President of the church were released due to recent homosexual acts?

I think I can safely say that it would bother many members, and they would wonder how such a thing could come to be.

It would bother me if the President of the Church were released for any purpose, but yeah, it would bother me if he were released for that. It would also bother me if he were released for adultery or pedophilia, as I expect the Prophet to exercise some self control.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I don't think there is a genetic cause, but I do think sexuality is mostly beyond one's control. A combination of genetic and early formative experiences (beyond one's control) probably explain most of it. The rest can probably be chalked up to the cognitive reinforcement that comes with the sense of self that is constantly being constructed and reconstructed through behaviors and reasoning.

I do think people's sexuality has a range within which it can shift. Not all homosexuality is the same, and neither is all heterosexuality. Homosexuals are often keenly aware of this fact, heterosexuals are less likely to be so.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by KiteRider

One of the challenges to determining if sexual preference is a choice is that there is so much political and social pressure to strongly identify one way or the other. The gay agenda becomes more legit if gayness is not a choice, so there is a strong incentive for people with even a sleight preference for the same sex to strongly self-identify as homosexual. Likewise there is a strong tendency, especially in macho and religious groups, for men (women I have known don't seem to get so wound up about all of this) to strongly self-identify has heterosexual, even if their preference is only sleight. It makes me wonder what the sexual-landscape would look like in the absence of such strong political/social influence. I imagine it would look very different.

Someone else made the point that in the animal world, sex is about procreation cycles. I can't speak for all of the animals, but I recently watched the Nova episode called Ape Genius. It made the point that in a certain species of ape (Bonobos?) that all members of a group are friends with benefits. The apes have sex with each other, male/male and male/female, as a way of dealing with stress. I don't know how much we can infer from that, but it suggests to me that the smarter the species, the more complex the issue of sexuality.

Someone else made the point that there is a difference between sexual preference and sexual acts. I agree with that, but it doesn't seem to be very helpful for advancing gay rights (if that was your point). I prefer grapes to oranges, but I enjoy them both. If I had to choose between being marooned on two islands, one with only grapes, and the other with oranges and mangoes, I would choose the island with more variety, even though I prefer grapes. Some of you are pointing out that the binary presentation of the issue is a problem, and I would agree with that adding that I don't think we can understand the true range of human sexuality in the political and social environment we live in today.

But as an issue, I have to side with those who would expand rights to gay couples. This seems like an area of rights that can be safely expanded without any real harm to innocent outsiders (unlike legalization of pedophilia and arguably bestiality). If in doubt, try it out, and check out the results. Gay marriage has now been legal for a long time in some places. We can look at the data and see if it is causing the harm that some (mostly religious people) claim. I don't claim expertise here, but so far I have heard nothing that would suggest that gay married couples have any more serious problems than heterosexual married couples. If there are benefits to extending those rights, and no significant harm to society, than we ought to expand the realm of what people can do, rather than restrict it.

I saw a nature show on monkeys where they said these kind of monkeys had sex like on average once every eight minutes or something. They had sex with everyone, like you say, more often hetero but also homo. They greet friends with sex. Makes you wonder what the workplace would be like if humans were like that.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I don't think there is a genetic cause, but I do think sexuality is mostly beyond one's control. A combination of genetic and early formative experiences (beyond one's control) probably explain most of it. The rest can probably be chalked up to the cognitive reinforcement that comes with the sense of self that is constantly being constructed and reconstructed through behaviors and reasoning.

I do think people's sexuality has a range within which it can shift. Not all homosexuality is the same, and neither is all heterosexuality. Homosexuals are often keenly aware of this fact, heterosexuals are less likely to be so.

Stated much more succinctly than my awkward prose. Thank you.