Nerdfighters

You already know what most people will say.

Far right: Yes. It is a difficult choice, but can be overcome. There are bad things to being gay, but some people live with it the way geeks live with ridicule because of their strangeness that they could change.

 

Far left: No. You can't choose who you fall in love with. You're just born that way. Why would someone choose to be teased, rejected and alienated by society and their loved ones?

 

Well, to be fair to the right, some people, like geeks or weirdos, don't care about being teased or bullied or rejected because of the things they like. Even straight couples are willing to be teased or rejected because of their choice of a partner, but it's for love, right? Then again, is there really such a thing as true love at all?

Maybe it's just physical. Let's be honest, being gay or straight depends mostly on sex. If you fall in love with someone online then find out their not th gender you like, you probably wouldn't want to be with them the same way you did before.

For all we know, we do choose who we fall in love with. We make decisions about how to interperet our feelings, how to react to a person's actions or thoughts, when judging something they do or believe in, those are all little choices. Bu are they really what make us fall in love with people?

 

But it's true, if you want to love someone, why make it someone you're family or friends would reject you for? Why pick someone you can't have kids with or marry?(If that's what you want)

 

In Chrsitianity, the Bible says at least three times that being gay is wrong. But the only reason it would be wrong is if it's a choice, because sin is about disobeying God's will and rejecting the truth of his law and words. You can really only go against God's law by choosing to reject or go against it, like choosing to steal or choosing to ignore Jesus once you've heard the truth, or choosing not to even try to be a better person. So how can something be a sin if you don't choose to do it? (please no religious bashing from any sides in this discussion) Many christians who don't support being gay say that it's a hard thing to overcome but can be done, but how many gay people do they know that have actually stayed celibate or gone straight?

 

Main questions wiht this issue: Is it a choice? Can you choose who you fall in love with? Why or why not?  If it is a choice, why would you choose to be gay at all?

EDIT: If you have anything directed specifically at me, the one posting this, I'm not going to read it. The discussion is mainly for other people who wanted to discuss it, and I lost track of the comments months ago anyway.

Tags: choice, christianity, debate, gay, opinion

Views: 31486

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No, being gay is not a choice. It's in your genes.

Proof?

Whatever gene it is, It's a recessive gene.  Twins are more likely to be gay if they have a gay sibling. LBQ persons often have a grandparent (in the closet) or great-aunt or uncle, and/or aunt uncle or cousin who is also LBQ.  It seems to skip and hop, like blue eyes in brown eyed families.

Also, even considering the possibility of uterine hormone influences rather than genes, the person is still born that way.  And even considering post natal environment,  the environment interacts with the genes and hormones.

So it's a natural biological state;  inherited from 'straight parents'.

There is also an evolutionary advantage to having non-heterosexual relatives, noted in more than one social species.  The non-heterosexual relative has time to acquire resources for the family unit that the parents do not.  That is to say, having a gay aunt or uncle means your mum or dad can spend more time nursing you and so on while that relative gets food and so on, and the material welfare of the family expands. This provides an advantage that families where all members produce offspring do not have.  This adaptation may have occurred in social species quite some time ago, long before humans became humans; it would account for why it's not just a human trait.  It also leads to the idea that being gay is a recessive gene;  or involves a gene not specifically coded for sexuality but is recessive in how it is expressed (for example, intergenerational hormone changes).

Not sure if these things have been covered but at present anthropological performance theory suggests that gender is  performative, that cultural ideals and expectations define our gender or the expression of that gender and yet at the same time our expression or performance of gender defines and creates those cultural ideals, expectations and stigmas...so its a cycle and we redefine our ideologies of what it means to be gay or straight or bisexual or anything in between with each turn. An important distinction must be made between that of sex and of gender. Gender is the cultural characterisitcs decided by a certain society in order to classify the feminine and the masculine into disticntly separate and opposing yet inextricably linked categories. Sex is merely biological categorization. Because of this gender can be observed to vary over space and time. In some societies it can be seen that the 'men' have characteristics thought largely by the western world as feminine. At one time in history androgyny was seen as god-like. In some societies heterosexuality could be seen as a choice and not a birth right as men from a young age in a tribe in PNG (The Etoro, or Edolo) partake in homosexual behaviour only to settle later on in heterosexual relationships untraumatized due to it being expected normal behaviour in the social context. So doing homosexual acts doesn't make you gay just as much as doing heterosexual acts doesn't make you straight so why does it matter so much whether its a choice or not. Its not the flu you can't catch it. Even if it is a choice much like religion should people be stigmatized just because they chose the road 'less traveled by.' People have to stop looking at gender and sexuality with our western world's rigid classifications. Firstly there could exist different types of gay people some that become gay later in life due to experiences had or born at birth due to biological or hereditary circumstances or homosexuality could be a mixture of both nature and nurture. There is no definate answer but why should gay people have to excuse and argue over a simple matter of equality, a golden rule exalted in every religion and philosophy... to treat other people like you'd like to be treated.

^ win

The following is a very nice outline to the Christian perspective on homosexuality. I'd encourage you all to read this if you want to understand.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2011/10/18/how-i-wish...

I read it, and my response is simple.

This is a clearer expression of Christian ideas about sex. But let's be clear here.  If he does not want a gay marriage, he doesn't have to get one.
Sex outside of marriage is not illegal.
Sex inside marriage is not illegal.
Gay sex is, in many places, not illegal.
To deny gay persons the same rights as non gay persons, is discrimination.
If sex inside marriage is morally preferred, and not allowing gay persons to marry is discrimination, then the Christian choice should be obvious: allow gay marriage.
Instead, it's Christians who are blocking the marriage equality process.  This man claims it's not strictly a gay hate thing, well, if that's true, then why do using the standards of his argument suggest that it is?

This is a clearer expression of Christian ideas about sex. But let's be clear here.  If he does not want a gay marriage, he doesn't have to get one.

Please show me where, anywhere in the dialogue, the pastor suggests that because of his views in this regard, this is why gay marriage should be illegal?


Sex outside of marriage is not illegal.
Sex inside marriage is not illegal.
Gay sex is, in many places, not illegal

Strawman. No one in that dialogue is suggesting that it should be. Why did you bring this up?


To deny gay persons the same rights as non gay persons, is discrimination.

It's exceptionally debatable if opposing gay marriage is equal to "denying people their rights".


If sex inside marriage is morally preferred, and not allowing gay persons to marry is discrimination, then the Christian choice should be obvious: allow gay marriage.

Marriage, in the Christian definition, cannot be between two people of the same sex. Therefore it is not morally preferable.


Instead, it's Christians who are blocking the marriage equality process.  This man claims it's not strictly a gay hate thing, well, if that's true, then why do using the standards of his argument suggest that it is?


Please explain how the man is advocating hate.

It's exceptionally debatable if opposing gay marriage is equal to "denying people their rights".

Well, not really. If you oppose gay marriage, you oppose giving homosexuals the right to marry. Whether they should/should not get this right, I agree, is debatable.

It's debatable whether or not it is a "right" to begin with.

Being able to marry? How so?

You have the right to marry vs. you do not have the right to marry. Quite simple to me

No. You have the legal ability to marry. That does not make it a right.

RSS

Youtube Links!

Here are some YT links to channels related to Nerdfighteria and educational content!

*Can you think of any more? Pass along any suggestions to an Admin who will then add it to this list should it fit!

© 2015   Created by Hank Green.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service