|
|
Post by melon1 on Mar 8, 2006 16:11:22 GMT -5
Melon, this board is founded on a bit of self-absorption, don't you think?
True, JAC, perhaps the title of the board puts forth the image of a bit of "narcissism" as Kenny put it. We do need a place to bring some of my rants, though. They do get off the subject from time to time. Fine, then. I shall rename this board soon. Any suggestions? This is your last chance to "Give Melon Hell."
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 8, 2006 16:37:41 GMT -5
Melon, do you believe that the people you romantically love is based on your life style?
That you get to choose these feelings, rather than have them choose you?
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 8, 2006 16:39:03 GMT -5
Because let me inform you: if homosexuality was a choice, a "lifestyle", not a single person would choose that lifestyle because of what comes along with it.
And if you don't know what that means, I'm taking it you were home schooled and never went to public high school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 8, 2006 16:42:55 GMT -5
Well, he said he didn't believe it was a choice...If may, he said you choose to follow those impulses or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 8, 2006 16:46:12 GMT -5
What if said impulses led you to engage in a healthy and trusting relationship between two consenting adults?
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 8, 2006 16:52:31 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure we have a different definition of "healthy relationship" then Melon does. I find it interesting that he said he feels that encouraging to surpress these urges is helping them. That sociaty has been decieved into accepting this lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Mar 8, 2006 16:54:46 GMT -5
I wonder what, specifically, about the homosexual relationship is the sin. Is the actual sex? Would it be okay if the men or women were celibate?
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 8, 2006 18:25:54 GMT -5
How's it feel to receive all this hell, Melon?  |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 8, 2006 20:02:32 GMT -5
From my perspective the whole argument about whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" is beside the point anyway. Some of us probably can't even begin to fathom having different sexual desires. Some of us might even be physically revolted at the thought of sex with members of the same (or opposite, if we're gay) sex. On the other hand some of us might be more open to different kinds of sexual desires and to experimentation. I reject the simplistic idea that sexual orientation is either completely fixed and immutable from birth or that it's some kind of pure, autonomous choice on a par with figuring out what kind of shoes to buy at the shoe store. But from a moral perspective none of this matters anyway, because whether it's a choice or not, I still see nothing wrong with it.
I understand the logic behind insisting that it's not a choice - the idea is that you can't hold people morally responsible for things outside of their control. Well we hold pedophiles morally responsible for acting on their sexual urges and I highly highly doubt any pedophiles chose to find children sexually attractive. So that's bad reasoning anyway. So why not embrace the possibility that sexual desire might well be more flexible and malleable.... and that THAT'S PERFECTLY OK??
Sometimes I think that when pro-gay rights people get really heated about how homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, they're actually granted too much to the other side. The implication is that if this was a behavioral choice, it would be wrong, but since these poor people can't help it, we shouldn't blame them. The whole approach makes me nervous.... and from everything I've seen out here in SF, experimentation and pushing the boundaries beyond one's ordinary practices or desires is indeed possible.... and possibly great, too!
M
|
|
|
|
Post by rockysigman on Mar 8, 2006 20:11:18 GMT -5
experimentation and pushing the boundaries beyond one's ordinary practices or desires is indeed possible.... and possibly great, too! I'm just going to pretend that this statement has something to do with the Rome story. You're just feeding my imagination today, Mary. |
|
|
|
Post by phil on Mar 8, 2006 20:23:41 GMT -5
I understand the logic behind insisting that it's not a choice - the idea is that you can't hold people morally responsible for things outside of their control. Well we hold pedophiles morally responsible for acting on their sexual urges and I highly highly doubt any pedophiles chose to find children sexually attractive.
Hé ! Maybe I'm missing something here
but pedophiles know - or SHOULD know -
that imposing their own urges on children is wrong
while sex between consenting adults(or people of the same age)
is nobody's bee's wax but their own ... !!
|
|
|
|
Post by shin on Mar 8, 2006 20:44:21 GMT -5
Yes, that's exactly why I phrased it as such...
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 8, 2006 21:39:47 GMT -5
I understand the logic behind insisting that it's not a choice - the idea is that you can't hold people morally responsible for things outside of their control. Well we hold pedophiles morally responsible for acting on their sexual urges and I highly highly doubt any pedophiles chose to find children sexually attractive.Hé ! Maybe I'm missing something here but pedophiles know - or SHOULD know - that imposing their own urges on children is wrong while sex between consenting adults(or people of the same age) is nobody's bee's wax but their own ... !! You're missing my point.... my argument was that it's morally irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is a "choice". I agree 100% with you - imposing sexual urges on a child is absolutely wrong, and sex between consenting adults is not a problem. But that's because of the acts themselves, not because of whether or not the urges are inborn! The point with the pedophiles was - even if you have no control over an urge, it can still be wrong to act on it. Thus, from a moral standpoint, it doesn't matter whether or not homosexuality is a "choice" - it only matters whether or not it's wrong to sleep with members of the same sex. If it's not (and, obviously, I don't think it is!!) then who cares if it's a choice, or not a choice, or partially a choice, or sometimes a choice?? oh, and rocky... Oh, Rocky... jeez.... if all you want to know is whether or not I've been with a woman, then you don't need to go to Rome for that!!!! YES, I've been with a woman! And IT WAS A CHOICE!!!! And there's nothing wrong with it!!! And that's my whole argument - who cares if it's a choice or genetic or something in between, if it's not wrong to begin with?? Cheers, M |
|
|
|
Post by limitdeditionlayla on Mar 8, 2006 21:46:51 GMT -5
do you consider paedophilia a sexual preference?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Mar 8, 2006 21:48:04 GMT -5
Hrm...I forgot that my original post was a response to shin saying that absolutely no one would "choose" to be homosexual in this repressive society. I take his point....up to a point. I agree that, unless you grew up in the Castro in SF or something, it's unlikely that anyone would choose to live their life exclusively as a practicing homosexual....
but I don't think that sexual identity is so hard and fast, one-or-the-other anyway. Which is why the whole "choice" question seems misplaced or nonsensical to me. I think a lot of us - maybe most of us - aren't really exclusively heterosexual or exclusively homosexual anyway, and sometimes, for whatever reason, particular desires that we've mostly ignored or suppressed might become more tantalizing than before and we choose to act on them. Not to change our identity - it's not like a straight guy wakes up one morning and says "hmmm, I think from here on out I'll be gay" - but to experiment. Maybe the straight guy goes to a gay bar and discovers he's actually kind of turned on, and makes out in the corner with someone. Doesn't mean he's "gay". Doesn't mean he's not gonna spend the rest of his life dating and sleeping with women. But it does mean he chose to act on a particular urge.... and there's nothing wrong with it!
I guess my frustration here is mostly just with the rigid sexual identites that both sides of this debate seem to impose on people. Maybe I've been at Berkeley waaaaaay too long, but the very idea of "gay" and "straight" as fixed identities just seems problematic to me.
Cheers,
M
|
|
