I finally figured out why fundies are so adamant that being gay is a choice

[rox63]

Let me preface this by stating that I don't think it's a choice. But I've always been puzzled by the fact that the religious right is so insistent about this.

I don't know if I'm just a doufus for not figuring this out before, but here's my theory. Fundies believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, and is without error. There are passages in the Bible that say that being gay is an abomination before God. They don't believe that God would create something that He considers an abomination. If people are born gay, whether by genetics or by some environmental factor in the womb (hormone levels, etc), they would have to admit that God made them that way. That would then prove that the Bible is not the literal word of God, their entire belief system would fall apart, and their heads would explode. So rather than risk that, they insist that it's a choice.

Whaddya think? Am I on the right track here? :shrug:

[eallen]

1. Bding! Bding! Bding! Give the man a cigar.

[rox63]

6. Woman, actually

:hi:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. there are several heroes in that fairy tale that

discuss same sex relationships in a positive way.
never hear fundies explain those.

[Common Sense Party]

5. Such as? Details, details! We need names!

Or chapter and verse.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. a few examples:

Ruth’s “claving” Naomi’s private parts; Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11; the Jewish King David kissing and fondling his lover Jonathan; Samuel 18:2; and Daniel getting physical with Ashpenaz, Daniel 1:9.

[melnjones]

21. Um...

You have taken the Ruth passage so far out of context that I'm not even sure you read the actual scripture you cited. Nowhere can I find anything about "claving" private parts, in KJV or NRSV. I'm about as liberal as they come on the homosexuality issue, even as a Christian minister, but I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not a fan of people taking scripture out of context or misrepresenting it, regardless of their beliefs.

However, I do agree that there is a lot to be learned from these references that you mentioned. There's just nothing sexual in that Ruth passage. (I don't think that's an argument against homosexuality...just sayin.)

[JackBeck]

28. But the story of Jonathan and David is totally gay.

What makes that story even sexier for me is that my husband's first name is Jonathan and I'll give you one guess what his middle name is...

[xchrom]

31. don't forget christ's ''beloved'' -- john.

john slept with jesus -- his head on his chest.

pretty damn intimate.

adding: christ called john beloved -- john was identified by the apostles as being beloved by christ.

[madeline_con]

47. No mention of the Centurion?!

What gives?

[LostinVA]

51. Yup -- exactly

[dsc]

3. actually some fundamentalists admit that there is a disposition toward being gay

but feel we should fight that dispostion, similar to the way we should fight alcoholism.

[madeline_con]

48. Wait, who was going on about hormones in food....

"making young men homo"? I just read it!

[CJCRANE]

4. Dunno.

But I'd like to ask a "straight" fundy male if he is attracted to women or has simply "chosen" to be attracted to women...because if a man "chooses" to be attracted to women that implies to me that he is naturally gay...(does that make sense?)

[rox63]

10. Absolutely

How could one way be a "choice" without the other being choice as well?

[CJCRANE]

16. Taken to its logical extreme

it implies that there is no natural sexual attraction.

As children we have no preference then at adulthood we simply decide to go one way or the other.

[Kber]

57. The fundy argument (with which I disagree)

is that being straight is "natural" and thus requires no consious choice. Being gay is "unnatural", and therefore requires a consious decision.

Personally, I think that
a) it's inate in most gay and straight people
b) there may be few folks "on the fence" who may be able to "choose" a gay or straight lifestyle
c) it's only revelant if you think there is a higher value in "choosing" one way to love over another.

[valerief]

7. Yeah, but why would g*d create an abomination, in his image, that

would choose to be gay?

None of this religion stuff makes sense. When people nearly die, they thank g*d. I'm not sure why. I guess for scaring the sh*t out of them.

[The Traveler]

8. Yes, but eating shell fish

is also an abomination against God. (Check Leviticus.) So, by this logic, stay out of Red Lobster if a) you like decent sea food and b) don't want to roast in Hell.

Fundies lean on gays not as a matter of faith ... otherwise they would avoid shell fish and pork and such. They do it because it makes them feel powerful in their puny little hearts. It has nothing to do with scripture. THEY ARE BULLIES. Pure and simple.

[rox63]

13. Yes, but eating shellfish and pork are choices

It's not their classification of it as a sin that was puzzling me. Their scripture tells them that. It also says that eating shellfish and pork are sins. It was their insistance that it's a choice that always confused me, until today. You ask any gay person, and they'll tell you they didn't choose to be gay. So why do the fundies claim to know so much about something they think is so awful?

[valerief]

20. What if shellfish was the only food available and if you didn't eat it,

you'd die, which would be suicide, which is a sin.

Silly, silly rules.

[rockymountaindem]

26. Well, according to Judiasm

with whom these laws originated, sins that don't harm another person are all secondary to saving a life (be it yours or someone else's). Thus, if all you can eat is shellfish, go on ahead. This is why sick people and nursing mothers don't have to fast on fast days, etc.

[rainy]

9. They pick and chose which bible passages to live by. This is, in their mind

unnatural, so they condem it. It is hate and ignorance, plain and simple.

[madeline_con]

49. And some of them have the NERVE to have music in the temple,

when the Bible expressly forbids it! :spank:

[Cleita]

12. The problem in the Bible is that every moral platitude is contradicted

by another one somewhere else. Since Christians are supposed to follow the teachings of Christ, there is nowhere in the gospels where Jesus says anything about homosexuality. St. Paul says some things that allude to it but really the Bible doesn't say much about it even in the Old Testament.

Even the old tale about Sodom and Gommorah is really about Lot preventing the mob from ravishing the visitors which is considered a breach of hospitality. That's the sin, not the fact that they wanted to have sex with them.

[DoYouEverWonder]

55. Most fundies Christians

missed the part where Jesus said that he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, so therefore the old rules no longer applied.

Paul is another story entirely. He basically hijacked the teachings of Jesus, melded them with his own warped view of the world, and christianity has gone downhill ever since.

[undeterred]

14. If being gay is a choice, then one could choose not to be gay.

And it would be reasonable for a religion to demand that its followers not make this choice.

I honestly think its more complicated than that. Some people probably have more choice than others. But just because ancient Hebrew culture did not understand homosexuality (and a lot of other things) and condemned it doesn't mean modern day followers of Judaism and Christianity must also be ignorant.

[G Hawes]

15. That sounds like a reasonable theory

And it sounds a lot more considered and rational than my own theory, which is that "fundies are all fundamentally nuts."

:hi:

[Bobbieo]

18. Many Native Americans have a most basic way of

looking at homosexuals. They are termed "two spirit" people meaning they have both the male and female spirits in their bodies. It makes sense to my Mohawk mentality and they were born that way.

[G Hawes]

25. Oh, I agree entirely

that homosexuality is not a "choice" as the fundies claim. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my post. And I quite like the native view that you expressed of "two spirits" as that resonates with me perfectly.

[KitchenWitch]

17. ding ding ding!

[applegrove]

19. It is a wedge issue promoted by the right back 30 years.

[valerief]

23. That's right. It's straight from wedgenomics. nt

[applegrove]

27. After the civil rights movement..the gay rights movement was next

on the agenda of Liberals. Those people who have so heavily funded the fundies wanted to stop time..and the march...so they could have a permanent voting base of right wingers separated permanently from liberals: stopping the joining together of churches and the left as had happened at many times during the 20th Century.

[sillyphoenix]

22. and X gets the square! (nt)

[originalpckelly]

24. 1st. Always ask them when they made the choice not to have sex with other men/women...

2. I think that about says it. That's a very good understanding of why they'd say it. Also because if God created an innately sinful person, then it would be impossible for that person to be saved. That's kind of the basic foundation of Christianity, if you know what I mean.

[tazaroo]

29. Explain bisexuality then?

Are they confused? I personally believe being gay is a choice but there are so many variables that go into that choice that the person doesn't realize they are making the choice. I hope that makes sense but probably not. Variables could include anything from being sexually abused as a child to something as innocent as being allowed to wear clothing of the opposite sex as a child.

[xchrom]

35. it is not a choice.

neither is being bi a choice.

there is a sexual continuum, however.

[Justitia]

36. Cool. So you could totally go either way, but you just go w/chicks for...????

why exactly? I mean, if sexuality is a choice, I think I am understanding you to say that you could do boys too. Right?

I'm throwing out your theory on childhood sexual abuse. I know more people than I'd like to count that were sexually abused as children, and none of them are gay. If sexual abuse makes you gay, why aren't all those victims gay?

[rox63]

44. No one "chooses" whether they are attracted to a particular gender

Or to both genders. There is a difference between attraction and the sexual act. You don't choose who you are attracted to. But you do choose who you have sex with. One can be a virgin, and still be as gay as the day is long. One can be celibate, but still be attracted to their own gender. They probably wouldn't want to remain celibate for their whole lives, though. Most people wouldn't want to live that way long term. Nor would they want to have sex with someone of a gender they aren't attracted to.

All of the people that I personally know who were sexually abused are straight women that were abused by men. Kinda blows that theory out of the water...

I want to know how you claim to know so much about bisexuality? Did you personally "choose" to be bisexual? Or are you theorizing based on things you have no personal experience with?

[NMMNG]

46. They were born that way

Just like straight people and gay people. There are millions (if not billions) of people who get sexually abused or raped as children/teens and are still straight, and many many gays who were never abused/raped or had the experience of wearing "opposite sex" clothing as a child.

[LostinVA]

50. I have two things to say

1.) If you're serious, go educate yours elf before you spew such misinformed drivel on a public board, and

2.) If you're just getting your jollies, go play somewhere else during Liberty University's break.

There's a good poster.

[cwydro]

56. Being gay is not a choice. eom

[LeftCoast]

59. Nice tombstone...loser!

:rofl:

[originalpckelly]

60. When did you choose to not to have sex with both sexes?

:shrug:

If it's a choice for them it's a choice for you.

[DeepGreen]

30. Whether it be genetic, environmental, or by choice, does it make a difference?

Should we be telling two consenting adults what they should and should not do behind closed doors?

[tazaroo]

32. What if the two consenting adults are related

What if the two consenting adults are like brother/sister or brother/brother or sister/sister.

[Justitia]

37. So if they are, should we lock them up in jail or something? Is that what you mean? -eom

[gollygee]

61. How many cases of this have you heard of?

STRAWMAN

Hmmm or is it a red herring. Regardless, it's irrelevant.

[demobabe]

33. Sounds good to me

However, I try not to think like crazy people. ;)

[sam sarrha]

34. i dont think they are capable of such complex thought.. but endstinktively they know it is true

[Critters2]

40. Endstinktively. That's very good. May I use that (with acknowledgements, of course)? nt

[sam sarrha]

41. sure.. my personal favorate is "Decidership"

:blush:

[karlrschneider]

38. It has roots in the perpetual debate between free will and predestination.

The two concepts are logically-mutually exclusive but some fundies embrace both as revealed TRVTH.
There's no accounting for stupidity, though...

[Critters2]

39. It's not just fundies. I just got a PM from an atheist telling me that

my sexuality is an abomination. He claimed to be speaking for the Christian pov, but insisted that the Bible MUST be read that way.

There are what I call "black and white thinkers", incapable of understanding nuance, shades of gray. Some are fundies, some are atheists, some fall in between. I envy them sometimes, actually. Life seems easier for them. They're always right, and everything is clear for them.

But in the end, I'll take a life filled with questions, and nuance, and complexity.

And gay Christians.

[demigoddess]

42. One of their big problems with homosexuality is that it does not produce

children and they also believe it is humanity's duty to produce as many children as humanly possible. Especially male children. Kind of an animalistic view if you ask me.

[Hamlette]

43. its more triabal than that, gotta multiply

so your tribe is bigger than the other tribe and you'll have more warriors when you need them. If you "tolerate" gays, you'll be outnumbered. If you admit people are born gay, you can't expect/guilt trip/pressure them into having kids.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. Some questions one might ask a fundie who says being gay is a sin:

(This has been floating around the Internets for awhile.)

When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1: 9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

[liberalpress]

52. Not Necessarily

First understand that I am a Christian, and don't particularly care who you sleep with. None of my business and such. That being said, as I understand it the "abominations" were designed to increase the number of the tribes and to keep them alive as long as possible. Sex, then, was meant for procreation, and the dietary restrictions to keep you alive.

Today is a different time. Do the same people who decry homosexual behavior as an abomination also refrain from mixing milk and meat? Judging by the amount of sawmill gravy served at Cracker Barrel, I think not.

Nope. The Fundies are homophobes. Pure and Simple.

[gollygee]

53. I think you're right

They also think God made sex only for reproduction, not for enjoyment, and gay sex doesn't lead to reproduction, therefore that kind of sexual desire couldn't naturally exist.

The obvious answer for that being false, IMO, is the number of people who are raised in fundamentalist households who are gay and desperately don't want to be, who even commit suicide over being gay. If it were a choice, those people obviously wouldn't have chosen to be gay.

:(

[mwb970]

54. Ask them when they chose to be heterosexual.

Everyone should easily remember the moment they made such a momentous, life-affecting decision, every bit as clearly as they remember deciding what color eyes to have and how tall to be.

[OnionPatch]

58. I think you're onto something.

I had always assumed the reason they insist it's a choice is because they would find it hard to condemn a person for something that was beyond their control, but your explanation goes even deeper. If homosexuality is "natural" and God made all of nature....

I always have to assume it is NOT a choice, simply because when I try to imagine myself being attracted to another female, I can't, no matter what. I can't even make myself be attracted to men that don't "fit the bill." How can someone just choose who they're going to get all fired up about? If only it were that easy.