Homosexuality: What's Your Stance?

[Hobbit]

I've heard the arguments time and time again about the nature of homosexuality and its position in morality, so I just thought I'd sort of 'test the waters,' so to speak. I can't fit full elaborations in the poll questions, so I thought I'd elaborate here.

First, my definition: When I refer to homosexuality, I am not referring to the sex acts that often accompany it. I am referring to the state of being where one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, and implies no acts involved.

Homosexuality is a choice and is morally wrong: This means that you think homosexuals decide to be so, and the entire state of being is morally wrong.

Homosexuality is innate, but gay sex is wrong: Just what it sounds like. It's the belief that some people are born homosexual (well, from the time they hit puberty, anyway), and that there is nothing they can do about it. However, acting on those impulses is wrong.

Homosexuality is innate and perfectly acceptable: Gays are born that way, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with them having sex with each other.

Homosexuality is a choice and perfectly acceptable: Homosexuals decide to be so, but there's nothing wrong with that. If somebody decides to be gay, so be it.

I, personally, take stance 2. I think there's enough scientific evidence to indicate that homosexuality is something involuntary that cannot be controlled without significant advances in the science of the brain. However, I cannot help but see the physical problems with the homosexual lifestyle, not to mention the fact that the Bible expressly prohibits homosexual sex. I know this means that I believe homosexuals need to stick to chastity for a lifetime, which is no picnic, but we all have our burdens to bear, and theirs is a tough one.

That being said, I think it's necessary to admit such a thing to yourself and your trusted friends, but that such a thing need not be flaunted. If you want to be in the Army, accept the fact that homosexual tension is something the generals would like to keep out of combat and keep your mouth shut. People may figure it out, but as long as you don't go blabbing, the Army's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy will keep you from being ostracized. Also understand that the Boy Scouts will turn you down for the same reason they don't take girls. Hormonal teenagers in the woods is just asking for trouble.

I also don't think you can have your gender changed. Argue all you want about a 'gay gene,' but the gender chromosome is well documented.

And last, but not least, keep it civil. On one side, there's no reason to use slurs to make a point or yell at each other, nor is there any reason to go about stating that somebody 'hates gays' because that person thinks gay sex is wrong. I think unmarried people shouldn't have sex, but that doesn't mean I hate single people (I happen to be one).

[LiberalNation]

I think it is a choice to engage in homosexual sex but also that the feelings are innate. I don't see anything wrong with being gay or sleeping with someone of the same sex. I don't see much wrong with sex outside of marriage.

[Abbey Marie]

I can't vote, because I don't think we know if it is innate or chosen. PC-controlled scientists aren't allowed to do research on the subject.

[5stringJeff]

I've heard the arguments time and time again about the nature of homosexuality and its position in morality, so I just thought I'd sort of 'test the waters,' so to speak. I can't fit full elaborations in the poll questions, so I thought I'd elaborate here.

First, my definition: When I refer to homosexuality, I am not referring to the sex acts that often accompany it. I am referring to the state of being where one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, and implies no acts involved.

Hobbit, your poll is flawed from the get-go, and here's why: homosexuality is tied directly to the sex acts. The "state" of being gay is a false distinction; what makes one gay or not gay is the participation in homosexual acts.

That said, participating in a voluntary act is a choice, which narrows it down to options 1 and 4. And, God clearly says, both in the Old and New Testaments, that homosexual behavior is immoral/sinful. That leaves option 1, which I voted for, with the understanding that "homosexuality" refers to the acts, and not the "state of being."

[LiberalNation]

If you lust/are attracted to only those of the same sex but don't act on your feelings are you a homosexual. I think you could me.

[Hobbit]

Hobbit, your poll is flawed from the get-go, and here's why: homosexuality is tied directly to the sex acts. The "state" of being gay is a false distinction; what makes one gay or not gay is the participation in homosexual acts.

That said, participating in a voluntary act is a choice, which narrows it down to options 1 and 4. And, God clearly says, both in the Old and New Testaments, that homosexual behavior is immoral/sinful. That leaves option 1, which I voted for, with the understanding that "homosexuality" refers to the acts, and not the "state of being."

Take a look at the definition. It is impossible to have sex with someone of the same gender unless that somehow 'turns you on.' I'm making a distinction between people who are attracted to those of the same sex and those who aren't. Sexual attraction isn't tied directly to acts. If that were true, I'd be asexual because I have never engaged in a sexual act. Sexual attraction leads to acts. I think you might also agree that it's not exactly a concious choice as to who you're attracted to. I never thought to myself, "You know, I think I'll be attracted to slender, tan chicks with dark eyes and hair." Instead, I just look at Eva Longoria and think 'hot.'

I think it is by defining homosexuality solely by the acts associated with it, we tend to overlook and marginalize those who have those feelings, but don't act on them. I'd hardly call those people heterosexual, but since they haven't performed any specific acts, they don't fall under your definition of homosexual.

[manu1959]

If you lust/are attracted to only those of the same sex but don't act on your feelings are you a homosexual. I think you could me.

if you want to kill someone but don't are you a murderer?

[The ClayTaurus]

if you want to kill someone but don't are you a murderer?

Is Hobbit asexual?

[Hobbit]

Ok, if nobody is happy with my definition of homosexual, then what would you call somebody who feels the desire to have homosexual sex, but doesn't?

[Mr. P]

Take a look at the definition. It is impossible to have sex with someone of the same gender unless that somehow 'turns you on.' I'm making a distinction between people who are attracted to those of the same sex and those who aren't. Sexual attraction isn't tied directly to acts. If that were true, I'd be asexual because I have never engaged in a sexual act. Sexual attraction leads to acts. I think you might also agree that it's not exactly a concious choice as to who you're attracted to. I never thought to myself, "You know, I think I'll be attracted to slender, tan chicks with dark eyes and hair." Instead, I just look at Eva Longoria and think 'hot.'

I think it is by defining homosexuality solely by the acts associated with it, we tend to overlook and marginalize those who have those feelings, but don't act on them. I'd hardly call those people heterosexual, but since they haven't performed any specific acts, they don't fall under your definition of homosexual.

Agreed.

[CockySOB]

I can't vote, because I don't think we know if it is innate or chosen. PC-controlled scientists aren't allowed to do research on the subject.

Until I see solid evidence which indicates that homosexual tendencies ARE innate, I have to consider them a choice, and those who pursue homosexual relationships to be doing so by choice. But the possibility does exist that homosexuality may be innate.

[Sitarro]

Until I see solid evidence which indicates that homosexual tendencies ARE innate, I have to consider them a choice, and those who pursue homosexual relationships to be doing so by choice. But the possibility does exist that homosexuality may be innate.

I would like to see a study of how many people that believe they were born homosexual were also molested as a child. How many don't remember it or have blocked it from their memory.

[Mr. P]

Until I see solid evidence which indicates that homosexual tendencies ARE innate, I have to consider them a choice, and those who pursue homosexual relationships to be doing so by choice. But the possibility does exist that homosexuality may be innate.

We don’t need studies to prove sexual tendencies are innate.

The proof is in of us. I don’t know about you folks but I never made a choice to be heterosexual, I just am.

How about you?

[Dilloduck]

We don’t need studies to prove sexual tendencies are innate.

The proof is in of us. I don’t know about you folks but I never made a choice to be heterosexual, I just am.

How about you?

I think homosexual behavior has a variety of motivating factors from innate, to maladaptive, to deprivation.

[Mr. P]

I think homosexual behavior has a variety of motivating factors from innate, to maladaptive, to deprivation.

Possible for some I guess but not most.IMO. Then again who cares what you do sexually. I sure don't.