A friend of mine posted a link to this essay:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferen...osexual-desire

I'm not claiming that the viewpoint put forth is either right or wrong. But it's a fairly comprehensive perspective on the matter that is meticulously footnoted if you want to follow-up on certain claims.

That's really long. And after a while I had to start skimming and then just looking at 2 words per paragraph, but what I got out of it was the same idea from start to finish, which you quoted: "We may not choose our attractions, but do choose our behaviors." Is this shocking to anyone besides those who think that sexual orientation, and not just behavior, is a choice? I mean, was there anyone out there who didn't think that we could choose our sexual behaviors?

article quote: For example, Supreme Court cases supporting same-sex marriage will often argue no one chooses to be gay. That sounds reasonable, but they expand gay to mean that they will choose someone of the same sex as a lifetime partner. 51 They even argue that since it is innate, nothing will affect whether they want a same-sex partner or not.52 While they focused on extending rights to same-sex couples, they also made derogatory remarks against opposite-sex marriages. They argued these marriages are not only unfulfilling for someone with SSA,53 but also unrealistic.54 They argue only in same-sex relationships can gay people find their “true identity”.55 As far as I can tell, they only consulted same-sex couples to make this conclusion and did not include people with SSA in opposite-sex marriages. It seems odd to make such sweeping conclusions from very limited antecdotal evidence. While same-sex couples welcomed the conclusion that everyone with SSA will want a same-sex relationship, it has negative consequences for those of us who don’t. It perpetuates negative stereotypes that serve to marginalize us and increase isolation. Constantly hearing that our marriages are unrealistic and goes against our true identity may cause some people to second-guess the feasibility of their marriage, which may lead to higher divorce rates. Worse yet, it sets a dangerous legal precedent that justifies groups that wish to separate us from our support groups. It limits our agency. After all, why would we need support to go against our “true identity”. -end quote


This is why SSM shouldn't even be in the courts right now.

How does a court rightfully legislate this matter when psychiatry hasn't even identified what constitutes a "true identity"?

Doesn't body type (gender) have any say in true identity? Must identity totally and unconditionally revolve around the hypothalmus and sexual orientation?

Doesn't the individual have any say in his identity?

Why do social activists who don't even know what it's like to be a gay person get to tell the public how to vote on this when gays are divided themselves?

We've even got gay billionaires screwing with the political questions now by buying up local races before the basic human rights issue of personal identity is solved by the individual.

And I'm observing not debating.

None of the above are debatable points.

They are critical facts lost in the swirl of politics.

They are not critical facts.

They are.

People have an individual right to self determination.

There are people in the world who would like access to all the facts and be able to stop and think without all the social pressure.

But there's so much societal pressure today most people don't know they don't have access to all the facts unless they're as personally tenacious as bulldogs in seeking to find them out.


“There are ultimately only two alternatives in the intellectual life: either one conforms desire to the truth or one conforms truth to desire. These two positions represent opposite poles between which a continuum of almost infinite gradations exist.” E. Michael Jones

You don't wanna debate though so don't post.


Even if what your saying is true than it should be legal as otherwise society is pressurising people... to not be gay.

How can you work anything out "pyschologically" when society affects the pysche?


Marriage isn't about identity.
A right to self determination is stopped when people can't marry. This is as true as the day.
It really doesn't matter what the facts are about homosexuality, merely about self determination

People's right to know their religious and personal sexual identities precedes their right to marry.

Other people's right to marry or not should not precede this basic determination.

There is a basic order to human rights y'know.

You should be able to decide who you are before marrying without any outside peer pressure being applied.

There is no "order" to human rights, there is constant competition between the scale and importance of each.

A human right to religious and personal identity is 0 affected by "outside peer pressure."

Unless you fully endorse the banning of public preaching, church exposure, straight examples of role models etc.. you can't support the policy your enacting.

As it stands there is societal pressure to view homosexuality as unnatural which affects one's sexual identity either way.
They should be equal under the eye's of the law so their is no societal pressure either way, merely acceptance that they both exist.

When society stops caring, then there will be no peer pressure.
Observe ancient greek society where no one cared if you were gay or straight; you married for birth (society was different, marriage=life long reproduction, sex=men take what they want) BUT there was no societal pressure to act as straight or gay.

If this is an example of the reasoning in the rest of the article, it is not worth reading for its argument.

Science is falling so short and/or controversial on this issue who cares about the arguments?

Most people arguing the same sex marriage issue aren't aware of all the issues that this article brings up so it's worth reading just for that reason alone.

I have two huge issues with this. First if you try to separate behavior from attraction you will find you can't, its just as gray as the **** issue. Second, the same issue arises with freedom of choice vs our behaviors.

No it doesn't this is why God created hermaphrodites, so you could never argue this with any credibility.

You're right it need not, but we should be allowed to decide that for ourself about ourself. And we shouldn't be allowed to decide that about others, only God can do that, and perhaps Jesus.


The problem here is we are trying to decide what say government should have...but its an unsolvable paradox because the truth is government shouldn't have any say at all.


Yes we should let gays vote only on gay issues, like we should have only let black slaves vote on their freedom. But really there shouldn't be any voting on those issues at all, because controlling those things is just an awful thing to do.

Again you've been fooled the real issue is government making rules on anyone. You shouldn't have an opinion on my freedom, and I resent anyone who does.

My definition of observing is wildly different than yours.

Never say this again.

More importantly all politics is for is swirling away facts.

Arguing is so tiring sometimes.

Besides I doubt God wants me to argue with people since it could fixate them in positions opposed to their own spiritual progress.

You're just as important to God as I am so why do my opinions need to prevail?

If I were you I'd read Dr. Thompson's book. I think he has some ideas you'll find interesting. Unfortunately his neurobiology/spirituality explanations are too multilayered between anatomy and psychology and spirituality for me to post on a message board.

Here's his site though. Good luck and God bless.

http://www.beingknown.com/

Splendour, this spiel is getting really tiring.

I doubt he wants you to argue either, but I think you try and prevail your opinions because you are not fully resolved. But you could be just spreading the gospel too, or maybe those are the same thing.
But by now you know I don't follow any sort of conditioned teachings, so reading something like that would be useless for me, I might find it interesting but all reading is really just jibberish to me.

God bless you too, and everyone!