Homosexuality and choice

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Given the existence of ex-homosexuals and given the existence of human cultures where homosexuality has apparently not existed, the position that homosexuality is ultimately a choice in individuals or at the very least can be a choice in individuals has strong evidential support.

Homosexuality and choice are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between consenting adults are, by definition, done by choice. In addition, according to the Bible and Christian ex-homosexuals, homosexuality is a sinful choice (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Also, in 2012 ABC News reported concerning actress Cynthia Nixon: "Cynthia Nixon stands by her statement that she is gay by choice, despite the backlash she’s received from members of the gay community."[1]

Given that there are people who state they are ex-homosexuals and given that the homosexual population has significantly higher rates of many diseases and the homosexual population also has significantly lower rates of various measures of mental health, it can be strongly argued that engaging in homosexual acts is a bad choice for individuals. Those who make this choice suffer significantly higher rates of domestic violence in homosexual couples. In addition, according to experts homosexual murders are relatively or quite common and often homosexual murders are very brutal. Also, the homosexual population has a greater propensity to engage in illegal drug use.

A person may have a craving for alcohol so strong that he feels powerless to resist it (see Alcoholism), yet people are free to choose to seek treatment for this addiction with drugs, therapy, or support groups. Psychiatrists often concede that spirituality provides the most effective cure for those who are willing to try it.

Whereas alcohol addiction is generally regarded as a disease and/or a moral failing, homosexuality in recent decades has come to be seen as normal. It is clear to the vast majority of people that overindulging in alcohol hurts the individual as well as society. For example, drunk driving contributes to auto accidents by increasing reaction time and reducing alertness. Alcoholism is closely related to absenteeism and domestic violence. But a political decision was made in the mid-1970s to drop homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders. In fact, the chief "scientific" reason given to deny a link between homosexuality and choice is that major American mental health organizations deny the link. In other words, scientists have voted on it, and they disapprove (see politicization of science).

In addition, a distinction is made between choosing to have homosexual desires and choosing to engage in homosexual sex acts. And there are other aspects of choice to homosexuality. One can decide the following aspects: whether or not to believe that homosexual acts are detrimental to one's immortal soul, emotional well-being or physical health and one can also obviously choose whether to enter into a homosexual relationship or not. Obviously one must use wisdom and also do diligence in regards to these matters. For example, the Bible condemns homosexuality and sound Bible exegesis reveals this matter.

A 2003 poll done by Ellison Research of Phoenix, Arizona stated that 82% of all American Protestant ministers agreed with the statement “homosexuality is a choice people make."[2]

The Russian Orthodox Church view is that homosexuality is a choice.[3]

The Roman Catholic Church's position is that having homosexual desires can be a choice in individuals but having homosexual desires is not a choice in respect to all individuals.[4][5] However, according to the Vatican individuals should not engage in homosexual acts as they are acts of serious depravity.[4]

Dr. Nadia El-Awady reflects the view of many adherents of Islam when he stated the following:

Much research has been done over the years to discover the scientific origins of homosexuality. Mostly it has been to disprove the fact that homosexuality is a matter of choice.[6]

Edmund White wrote:

When I was a young man, in the sixties, before the beginning of gay liberation, I was always in therapy trying to go straight. I was in love with three different women over a ten-year period, and even imagined marrying two often. But after the Stonewall Uprising in 1969 . . . I revised my thinking entirely: I decided I was completely gay and was only making the women in my life miserable. Following a tendency that Garber rightly criticizes, I denied the authenticity of my earlier heterosexual feelings in the light of my later homosexual identity. After reading Vice Versa, I find myself willing to reinterpret the narrative of my own personal history.[7]

Contents

The homosexual agenda and choice

One of the goals of the homosexual agenda is to "indoctrinate children in the nation's public schools by convincing kids that homosexuality is a normal and healthy lifestyle."[8] Because schools fail to warn children of the dangers of homosexuality, and because it is taught that homosexuality is not only "normal" but "healthy" as well, homosexuality starts to seem like something that is acceptable by normal society. To supplement this many schools give homosexuals preferential treatment, for instance protecting a homosexual student from teasing in cases where they would not protect a heterosexual student because a heterosexual student wouldn't be as easily bullied about being gay if he wasn't. Homosexuals are also given clubs that have the goal of ensuring that homosexuals are not persecuted for their beliefs.[9]

These are just some of ways that students are tricked into mistakenly thinking that homosexuality is a desirable lifestyle. As people get older and study the word of God they become less susceptible to being misled like this. This is the reason the homosexual agenda targets school children for recruitment into homosexuality.

Optimal Choice

The optimal choice is never to become involved in homosexual activities, given the many undesirable consequences of homosexuality and given what the Bible states about homosexuality. However, there is certainly hope for the individual who wants to overcome homosexuality by the grace of God.

Furthermore, as there is no link between homosexuality and genetics, it very likely that homosexuals will engage in homosexual activitys not because they were born that way(as some claim[10]), but rather because they choose to[11].

Choice and Genetics

Proponents of the homosexual agenda often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting relationship, whether homosexual or not must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the temptation to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the a man who took the words of Jesus Christ and changed them because he was xenophobic and desired for his citizens to hate those of other faith and country.

Choice and civil-rights status

Dr. Alveda C. King is the founder of King for America, Inc. which is a faith based organization. [12] Dr. Alveda C. King is the daughter of the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A. D. King.[12]

Dr. Alveda C. King stated the following to the Massachusetts General Assembly regarding the existence of ex-homosexuals is an argument that "gay rights" does not achieve civil rights status:

Thirty-nine years ago, my great-uncle, Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., delivered to mindful citizens of America a prophetic dream which envisaged all of this great nation's people living in the full exercise of all rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution. My forebear's dream was deeply rooted in the American dream wherein the Founders of our Union saw every lawful citizen standing in dignity outfitted by unalienable rights from God to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness free from the tyrannies of personal whim and ideology handed down by kings, dictators, political groups, and yes, some institutions of democratic government....

Yet, there is a larger body of science represented even by the above scientists that agrees that mature behavior patterns rely much more on social shaping and choices than genetic predisposition, such that these behaviors may be successfully modified by a variety of means. The food addict may eat responsibly, the alcoholic may drink responsibly or not at all, and the homosexual may live according to a wide range of choices as well. Thus, binge drinking, overeating, cocaine abuse and other behaviors do not have to be granted public latitude as a matter of right in this great nation. Certainly, these and other mutable behaviors may be practiced; they may be under constitutional protection in fact (under our privacy clauses), but they may not be granted civil rights or public protection.

Again, if behavior or other aspects of personhood may be altered, then those aspects fail to meet civil rights status. Homosexual practice clearly falls into this category. As my mother, Alveda C. King has said, "I have met many ex-homosexuals just as I have met many ex-husbands, ex-wives, ex-drug addicts and ex-lawyers. Yet I have never met an ex-Negro, ex-Caucasian or ex-Native American." The politics of preference does not jibe with civil rights legitimacy...[13]

In short, the distinction is between characteristics that may be altered, and that thus do not merit civil-rights protection, and immutable characteristics, which do merit civil-rights protection. This is why sexual orientation does not merit civil-rights protection, while characteristics such as race, sex, and religion do.


See Also

External links

References

Personal tools