I'll use my ice cream comparison. Since I like ice cream, damnit.
You don't choose what ice creams you instinctively like more than others, no more than you choose what gender(s) you're attracted to.
You can choose to eat ice cream you don't like, but you won't be happy. You'll hate every minute spent consuming it.
You can choose to ignore your sexual preferences, and you won't be happy. You'll hate every minute spent that way.
Or you can choose to enjoy ice cream you like, and be happy doing what is natural to you.
Or you can choose to recognize your sexual preferences, and you'll be happy doing what is natural to you.
Your preferences are genetic.
What you do about them is the only choice involved.
Add a comment above
Top Opinion
-
Archer ~ The Limit Break of... 2012/08/09 02:04:29
This is why we need the ability to change our vote... just once, if nothing else. =\
Homosexuality is just as much of a choice as having brown hair. You can disguise your hair as another color and eventually force it to be a color, but none of those others colors would be natural.
If you are born homosexual (Yes, we DO know the genetics behind it) then it is entirely possible for you to become heterosexual. You would not be following your natural instincts anymore, but it is possible. For example, brainwashing is one way of doing it. Altering your body chemistry is another. none of these methods, however, are natural.
Homosexuality is not a 'natural' choice, but a forced one, which I don't consider a choice at all.
I suggest looking it up. It is a fascinating read. ^_^
I don't really think that the question is the right one being asked though. Rather why does anyone else care what someone else does when it harms no one.
-Why was homosexuality illegal in all societies and countries (except for Ancient Rome and Greece) until the 1910s.
These societies knew the destructive and detrimental nature to immoral actions; immorality cost Rome and Macedonia their extensive empires.
How's that for your "morality"?
-True, however, once the public learned of their immoral lifestyles and corruption, they turned against the government and allowed the Visigoths to conquer and destroy Rome.
"However, Rome started to fall apart after converting to Christianity."
-Incorrect, while the Western Roman Empire was lesser in Christian population and collapsed, the Byzantine Empire was almost entirely Christian in population and prospered for another millennium.
"How's that for your "morality"?"
-How's that for your history lesson?
Also christianity did contribute to a tremendous loss of knowledge as it motivated people to burn books and destroy libraries such as the library of Alexandria. It also motivated the Spanish to destroy much of the knowledge of the Maya by burning their books. So basically if it was not for christianity we all would have more knowledge and be more advanced.
-The Byzantine Empire wanted to be separated from the Roman Empire's corruption, greed, and immorality; it allowed them to last 1000 years longer than the other half that was less Christian.
"much of the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Muslims soon after Islam was founded. The Byzantine Empire did last for about a thousand years but it shrank to the point of that it really only took of Greece and Asia Minor."
-Eventually, but all empires collapse eventually. I doubt the United States will last a full 1000 years.
"Also christianity did contribute to a tremendous loss of knowledge as it motivated people to burn books and destroy libraries such as the library of Alexandria."
-Citation needed.
"It also motivated the Spanish to destroy much of the knowledge of the Maya by burning their books."
-Not to be disrespectful to the Mayan people, but Spanish knowledge, technology, and civilization was far more progressed; that's why they were so easily able to defeat the Mayans.
"So basically if it was not for christianity we all would have more knowledge and be more advanced."
-If Christianity didn't exist, the Roman Empire would have never expanded under Constantine I (there would have never even been a ...
-The Byzantine Empire wanted to be separated from the Roman Empire's corruption, greed, and immorality; it allowed them to last 1000 years longer than the other half that was less Christian.
"much of the Byzantine Empire was conquered by the Muslims soon after Islam was founded. The Byzantine Empire did last for about a thousand years but it shrank to the point of that it really only took of Greece and Asia Minor."
-Eventually, but all empires collapse eventually. I doubt the United States will last a full 1000 years.
"Also christianity did contribute to a tremendous loss of knowledge as it motivated people to burn books and destroy libraries such as the library of Alexandria."
-Citation needed.
"It also motivated the Spanish to destroy much of the knowledge of the Maya by burning their books."
-Not to be disrespectful to the Mayan people, but Spanish knowledge, technology, and civilization was far more progressed; that's why they were so easily able to defeat the Mayans.
"So basically if it was not for christianity we all would have more knowledge and be more advanced."
-If Christianity didn't exist, the Roman Empire would have never expanded under Constantine I (there would have never even been a Eastern Half of the Empire), all of Rome would have collapsed from corruption and instability much sooner, Europe would have never (or have been greatly delayed anyway) built structured governments that built great empires that accumulated technology, knowledge, and systems of enlightenment. Without Christianity, there would have been no Isaac Newton discoveries (he managed to make discoveries thanks to the Churches contributions), which means no calculus, physics, and astronomy. Without Christianity, Europe would have plunged into Anarchy and Chaos where no scientific knowledge would have ever been gained; if you're fighting to the death with your neighbor over food to provide for your family, you don't have any time for scientific discovery.
Actually the Western half of the Roman Empire was more extreme in terms of religion as they did things such as born people at the stake in the name of religion. The Eastern half of the Empire lasted longer in part because they were less extreme in terms of religion. Also the Empire split because it was too big to manage and not because it one half of it was immoral.
"'Also christianity did contribute to a tremendous loss of knowledge as it motivated people to burn books and destroy libraries such as the library of Alexandria.'
-Citation needed."
These are some sites to look at
http://www.straightdope.com/c...
Christians destroyed the temple that housed part of the library of Alexandria
http://www-history.mcs.st-and...
Christians murdered a famouse female intelectual because she was an intelectual because science and mathmatics symbolised paganism to them.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/chris...
Christians destroyed books written by Pagans and suppressed knowledge.
"-Not to be disrespectful to the Mayan people, but Spanish knowledge, technology, and civilization was far more progressed; that's why they w...
Actually the Western half of the Roman Empire was more extreme in terms of religion as they did things such as born people at the stake in the name of religion. The Eastern half of the Empire lasted longer in part because they were less extreme in terms of religion. Also the Empire split because it was too big to manage and not because it one half of it was immoral.
"'Also christianity did contribute to a tremendous loss of knowledge as it motivated people to burn books and destroy libraries such as the library of Alexandria.'
-Citation needed."
These are some sites to look at
http://www.straightdope.com/c...
Christians destroyed the temple that housed part of the library of Alexandria
http://www-history.mcs.st-and...
Christians murdered a famouse female intelectual because she was an intelectual because science and mathmatics symbolised paganism to them.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/chris...
Christians destroyed books written by Pagans and suppressed knowledge.
"-Not to be disrespectful to the Mayan people, but Spanish knowledge, technology, and civilization was far more progressed; that's why they were so easily able to defeat the Mayans."
The spanish may have overal been more advanced than the Maya but there were probably some books that had some knowledge they did not have and they could have gained more by translating the books into spanish than they could have by burning them but do to christianity they were motivated to burn the books instead.
"-If Christianity didn't exist, the Roman Empire would have never expanded under Constantine"
The Roman Empire was basically remained the same size after constantine as it was before.
"all of Rome would have collapsed from corruption and instability much sooner,"
Actually it probably would have lasted longer do to the way the christians burned books and split the Empire in two.
"Europe would have never (or have been greatly delayed anyway) built structured governments that built great empires that accumulated technology, knowledge, and systems of enlightenment."
There is no reason that Europe could not have formed the Empires it did without christianity. Europe could have formed empires for different reasons than they did and given the book burning of the christians world empires probably would have developed sooner without christianity as the mediteranian would have had more knowledge. In fact christianity prevented European countries from conquering each other so if it was not for christianity there might have been a more powerful empire the size of all the European Empires combined.
"Without Christianity, there would have been no Isaac Newton discoveries (he managed to make discoveries thanks to the Churches contributions), which means no calculus, physics, and astronomy."
People around the Meditaranian made scientific and mathmatical discoveries long before christianity and they probably would have continued to make new discoveries had christianity did not exist. If not Isaac Newton someone else probably would have made the same discoveries as Newton even if christianity had never existed. The discoveries may have been made in a different way and by someone else and funded by someone else without christianity but there is no reason they could not have been made without christianity. In fact less knowledge would have been lost without christianity so people might have discovered calculus sooner without christianity.
"Without Christianity, Europe would have plunged into Anarchy and Chaos where no scientific knowledge would have ever been gained; if you're fighting to the death with your neighbor over food to provide for your family, you don't have any time for scientific discovery."
Europe did plunge into Anarchy and Chaos after the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed and part of the reason it collapsed was because the christians destroyed many of the books that contained knowledge. Without christianity there probably would have been more scientific discoveries in Europe and not less.
-The Eastern half was known for higher Church attendance, larger Church donations, more respectful relations with the Church, and a higher Christian demographic.
"Also the Empire split because it was too big to manage and not because it one half of it was immoral."
-There were a variety of reasons, including the slightly different forms of Christianity in the two regions (iconicism versus anti-icon), but immorality was one of the main reasons.
"http://www.straightdope.com/...
-This website admits, "Now to your question: How did it come to an end? We don't know exactly--in fact, we know very little about the library's history." One of the website's theories was that Julius Caesar did it, and he preceded Christianity in the Roman Empire significantly.
"http://www-history.mcs.st-an...
-True, however the website conveniently neglects that Hypatia of Alexandria was a well known enemy of the Church and she was killed based on her insulting letter attacking Christianity to a cleric now only known as Peter. You can argue that the mob didn't have a legitimate right to kill her, but it was based on her strong anti-Christian pers...
-The Eastern half was known for higher Church attendance, larger Church donations, more respectful relations with the Church, and a higher Christian demographic.
"Also the Empire split because it was too big to manage and not because it one half of it was immoral."
-There were a variety of reasons, including the slightly different forms of Christianity in the two regions (iconicism versus anti-icon), but immorality was one of the main reasons.
"http://www.straightdope.com/...
-This website admits, "Now to your question: How did it come to an end? We don't know exactly--in fact, we know very little about the library's history." One of the website's theories was that Julius Caesar did it, and he preceded Christianity in the Roman Empire significantly.
"http://www-history.mcs.st-an...
-True, however the website conveniently neglects that Hypatia of Alexandria was a well known enemy of the Church and she was killed based on her insulting letter attacking Christianity to a cleric now only known as Peter. You can argue that the mob didn't have a legitimate right to kill her, but it was based on her strong anti-Christian personality.
http://www.askwhy.co.uk/chris...
-Again, this part is pure theory. The website states, "Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is difficult to prove…" Let's say they actually did destroy and ransack the Pagan Libraries; what information would small undeveloped villages have that the Byzantium empire need?
"there were probably some books that had some knowledge they did not have and they could have gained more by translating the books into spanish"
-I don't see what kind of knowledge contained in those books would have been helpful. In the end, destroyed literature from an undeveloped civilization is nothing but complete speculation to attempt to figure out what would be in it.
"The Roman Empire was basically remained the same size after constantine as it was before."
-Okay, but I was talking about its Christian expansions, the Byzantium Emperor Justinian I made huge territorial gains during his reign. He was specifically noted for his dedication to the Christian faith and Church.
"Actually it probably would have lasted longer do to the way the christians burned books and split the Empire in two."
-So if I remove the one thing that re-stabilized the Roman Empire and gave it new purpose, it would have lasted longer? The Roman Empire was in great decline between Emperor Augustus and Emperor Constantine the Great; it would have collapsed very quickly. Also in the Eastern half, Christianity was the cornerstone of its politics, decisions, and structure.
"There is no reason that Europe could not have formed the Empires it did without christianity."
-On the contrary, Christianity was so widespread that it was the one thing that people could set aside their differences and unite under. Without Christianity, these people had no common beliefs, values, or purposes. Christianity gave them a common goal.
"Europe could have formed empires for different reasons than they did"
-Eventually, but short term, they had nothing else in common.
"given the book burning of the christians world empires probably would have developed sooner without christianity as the mediteranian would have had more knowledge."
-First and foremost, that isn't "given;" it's only speculated theories that serve political opinions. Secondly, I again challenge what would a less developed civilization offer in knowledge?
"In fact christianity prevented European countries from conquering each other so if it was not for christianity there might have been a more powerful empire the size of all the European Empires combined."
-Christianity only created peace and stability to these countries, so that they could focus on technological advances instead of warfare with their own kind. That's why Europe was the scientific leader of the world, from 1600 to 1948.
"People around the Meditaranian made scientific and mathmatical discoveries long before christianity"
-Only because they existed before Christianity did. The Mediterranean civilizations never understood advanced mathematics and complex science.
"they probably would have continued to make new discoveries had christianity did not exist."
-They stopped making scientific studies once Greece was plunged into many civil wars. The Mediterranean civilizations have yet to make another great discovery since ancient Greece.
"If not Isaac Newton someone else probably would have made the same discoveries as Newton even if christianity had never existed."
-Who would have funded him then? Scientific research was independent from government aid until WWI.
"The discoveries may have been made in a different way and by someone else and funded by someone else without christianity but there is no reason they could not have been made without christianity."
-That's very hypothetical and speculative, but it's hard to say if anyone would have ever had something similar to Newton's great intellect.
"In fact less knowledge would have been lost without christianity so people might have discovered calculus sooner without christianity."
-Sorry to break it to you, but that's not a logical argument. That's like saying the United States would learn a lot about science and mathematics if we looked in an Afghani library. Scientific discoveries aren't made by undeveloped countries faster than developed countries.
"Europe did plunge into Anarchy and Chaos after the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed"
-However, Christianity extended the life of the Roman Empire and allowed new civilization to rise in Europe, live more peacefully with each other, and become the world's scientific leaders from 1600 to 1948.
"and part of the reason it collapsed was because the christians destroyed many of the books that contained knowledge. Without christianity there probably would have been more scientific discoveries in Europe and not less."
-Pagan books from ancient civilizations wouldn't have aided the scientific process. Without Christianity, we'd probably be many centuries of technology behind. Without order, structure, internal peace, and power, we wouldn't have been able to make the same scientific advancements as fast as we did.
-So we should completely disregard the lessons of history? I am supposed to ignore the facts of why the Macedonian Empire and the Roman Empire collapsed (Lack of morality, rejection of religion, and prevalence of sexual immorality) when we are beginning to emulate them so closely. It's ironic that you call Christianity the source of ignorance, when your argument is that we should be ignorant to the lessons of history.
"we know more than people in the past."
-So explain to me why we, in our supposed "enlightenment," illegalized marijuana, increased the drinking age, while legalizing some forms of sexual immorality, the murder of babies, and the suppression of religion? What good have these changes done for our society?
What new "knowledge" justifies these poor changes in legislature?
"If something is trully worth banning we should not need to resort to the argument that it use to be illegal to support our argument."
-I don't think that is the only reason why homosexuality should be banned, but for everyone who is history illiterate, I think it's important to explain that our elders for 99% of history knew homosexuality was immoral.
If we have "improved," what great argument do we have to justify the illegalization of marijuana? What great argument do we have to legalize homosexuality while illegalizing bestiality, pedophilia, and incest?
For most of history it is not as if every society was against homosexuality but whether peoples oppinions on homosexuality varied from culture to culture meaning some cultures accepted it and others did not. The Hebrews did not accept it but the Greeks and the Romans did. Before the spread of christianity and Islam Abrahamic Monotheism was not the dominant set of religions but was just a tiny minority in Palestine and most people practiced different forms of polytheism and not all of these forms of polytheism banned homosexuality.
Here's my proposal to those who think that being homosexual is something you choose. Choose to be it for a month, two weeks, hell, even just 24 hours. If it is a choice, and simply a choice, you'll have no problem with doing so, because you're not cowards who can't accept that people just might be slightly different, yet at the same time eerily similar to you.
-People have been doing such things commonly since the 1960s, or do you consider piercings and tattoos genetic?
In the 1960s, homosexuals had the definition changed to signify that there was no choice involved for political gain, but I still use the real meaning of the word.
Everyone chooses who they have sex with; nothing stops the person from having normal intercourse or abstinence. I don't see why they should have any less accountability or personal responsibility than anyone else. Do you?
In order for someone to BE a homosexual he or she must be ATTRACTED exclusivly to the same sex. We don't choose who we are attracted to. Therefore homosexuality isn't a choice.
Years ago people thought that mental disease was a result of demonic posession. But that "definition" changed as society evolved. It's called progression.
So if you want to be willfully ignorant to the actual definition of a sexual orientation, that's your choice.
-Only in the political definition. The real definition is the same as it was 3960 years ago.
"You can try to deflect all you want by saying that people choose who they have sex with; it doesn't change what a sexual orientation is. Sexual orientation isn't an action, it's a feeling."
-Their actions are what determines who they are, not their "feelings." Their lifestyle choice is obviously a choice; they have alternatives that they could choose.
"Therefore homosexuality isn't a choice."
-Based on your definition anyway. You must still admit that the homosexual lifestyle is completely a choice though.
"But that "definition" changed as society evolved. It's called progression."
-That's what the Nazis claimed when they "proved" all of Hitler's racial superiority beliefs. They forged "evidence" that proved their government's "discoveries." Was the false Nazi propaganda "science" progression too?
Here's what the question is really asking, "If you have homosexual feelings, are you therefore justified acting on those feelings because you have those feelings?"
The answer is no. People have plenty of feelings they can't control. How many mothers have the feeling to kill their kids? Plenty do but just because they have those feelings isn't justification. Pedophiles have sexual feelings toward children. If they commit the crime of pedophilia should their defense be, "Well, I had those feelings so therefore I was justified in my behavior!" BULL! No they shouldn't. And no, I'm not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals. I'm talking about sexual attractions.