On an earlier post, Skylark wrote: " To me it is WRONG to establish that sexual preference is emphatically a choice IF it is not true."
Isn't it just as wrong to say that it's not a choice if it is true?
Regarding this particular issue in the controversy....(and thanks for the diversion, Bob)...let's assume that when we say someone is a homosexual, it is because they are attracted to the same sex whether or not they actually ever perform a single act with someone of the same sex. In other words, they have made the "choice" not to fulfill their desire (which is basically what Biblically based Christianity would expect), but they are no less a homosexual by nature.
My brain isn't functioning very well....but, Bob, I don't think you can apply the inverse of this comment. For one thing, I'm very certain there are a lot of people who just like sex, whatever. I don't think you could qualify them as homosexuals. I think we are specifically talking about people who find it emotionally fulfilling to share a life and family...a full experience...with a person of the same sex. And that it just couldn't happen otherwise. (And for the record....I can't relate one little bit to this, I just know it exists.) The point is that to find happiness, it isn't by choice but by natural instinct that they are led this way. It seems crazy to call that a choice. Of course, a choice can be made not to pursue a relationship then.
The inverse doesn't seem to apply....mostly because you could never take choices out of equations like this. Since they are always there, you could never say "it's not a choice" 100% of time. Does that make sense?
You all seem more Biblically savvy than I am....but I could add a bit in that regard. I believe there were some pretty bizarre temples on the mountain tops and around where fertitlity rites and rituals were practiced. I think people found all kinds of reasons to have sex whenever and with whoever, and the temples were filled with male and female prostitutes. I think the Biblical law needed to put a lid on this insanity...and for good reason.
Lastly... perhaps biological has to take into account a certain amount of environmental factors (which I know doesn't make sense). But the point is, there are reasons that become the biology or the psychology, the physical/mental makeup of a human...after which they are wired this way. If a person has sociopathic tendencies but somehow manages to get through life without incident, does it mean they aren't potentially dangerous and sociopathic.
Perhaps a better title would be: Natural vs. choice....meaning could a person in a homosexual relationship abruptly stop, make a choice to be completely fulfilled and happy with a person of the opposite sex, and be completely mentally healthy doing it.
I hope that all makes sense. Have they ever tried to isolate a specific gene that is common in homosexuality? That would probably answer the debate.
It's nice to work my brain a little...but it's a little overwhelming! Sky