Sex is nature, gender/sexuality is nurture. I'm not sure who said being gay is nature, but I don't know of any scientific studies that would back up such an assertion. Feel free to enlighten me if you do...

bo - Just to clarify: I've been told that being gay is not a choice *many* times in forum discussions by people that support gay marriage.

So, I am only using a pre-supposed "fact" that has been presented to me by gay-rights advocates.

I, personally, have said I think it is a choice.

The question, though, is that if we take it as a given that homosexual behavior is by nature, not choice, then does the same apply to the other sexual choices, and therefore does it affect their legal status in society?

other sexual *behavior* - not choices. - just to correct that question.

"Dr. Carson expressed his opinion about gay marriage and said the following:
"“marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”" Who really cares what the good doctor thinks about this topic. Within his field, he is a genius with a great story. This is just someone talking about something he really doesn't know about. He has shown recently that he is firmly planted on one side of the political field, and in the fringes at that.

As far as making a comparison between homosexuality and man/boy love, there really is none. Man/boy love, just like Woman/boy love, where boy is a child, is illegal everywhere in the US. An adult cannot take advantage of a child. Homosexually or not.

I don't know that it's a choice. There are plenty of non-genetic things that just become your identity over time. You just believe them because your entire life you have had those beliefs stored up inside you. Some people have different views on sexuality than you and I do, and though it hasn't been shown by my knowledge to be genetic, that doesn't mean it's a conscious choice either.

And there are plenty that would say that man/boy is not a choice as well. I don't know; I don't know anyone that is openly a pedophile, that's for certain. I know plenty of people that are openly LGBT so I'm more comfortable commenting on that.

jimgov -- you have completely ignored the questions posed in the OP. The Carson reference was a set-up from current events that leads to a question - it was not the topic.

As for homosexuality versus man/boy love - they are both sexual desires that bring great ridicule by society. The argument is made that nobody would choose to be gay and suffer ridicule. Therefore, why would anyone "choose" man/boy love and suffer ridicule? If they won't choose the far more acceptable homosexuality, then man/boy love is not a choice...it is a condition of being...and therefore should not be punishable, as the person *has no choice*....so the argument goes if you are gay.

I say that whether or not man/boy love is "genetic" or not, the actual behavior is a choice which can be controlled...and therefore, as a choice, there is not excuse for it, and no special preference should be given to the choice of behavior.

Well yes, the actual behavior is a choice, but so is sexual behavior of any kind by a straight person. If that's the case, that it's all a choice all around, maybe it's actually not a choice but an impulse that can't be resisted forever. Who knows? That's the blurriness over this subject that I personally encounter.

The question, as I saw it was

And therefore, should the behavior be made legal?

No. It should not be made legal. While an adult may or may not have a predisposition to this kind of love, the object of his affection cannot make this decision because they are not capable of understanding the ramifications. We have laws against having sex with underage children for this exact reason. This is not like two consenting adult homosexuals having sex. They are capable of this kind of reasoning and allowed, by law, to make up their own minds.

jimgov - I agree. So, what you are saying is that society considers the behavior of man/boy love to be "unnatural" and it is a behavior that both *can* and *should* be controlled and not exercised?

@krellin - not exactly. What I am saying is that society considers children incapable of making a reasoned decision regarding certain things, sex being one of them. Society has decided to protect these children from adults, male and female, who would prey on them.

I don't think it's unnatural as much as I think it's uncommon (in my opinion that's a very good thing). It is much easier seen as taking advantage of children, which I believe it is. However, speaking from the side of the man in the relationship, I would think he might say that it was at first a conscious choice that he believed was what he wanted. At that point, it can be argued that it's as much non-choice and impulsive as anything else.

But you are saying that the adult *can* and *must* control their sexual desires and not pursue their sexual "needs" with children, even if they are a genetic predisposition?

In today's world, that's my thought.

So do yo believe that homosexuality is maybe a pre-dispoistion, but one for which there is a choice in behavior?

jimgov?

I'm with jim here, krellin, bringing the fields of minors and bestiality into play changes the question considerably. There is a distinct difference between a 12 year old who has no legal standing and a 25 year old consenting adult. Statutory rape laws are in place on several bases, and I agree with bo, they must control their desires. And my take on your question directed at jimgov is that yes, but at the same time so is heterosexuality, and since they have that equivalency homosexuals deserve marriage equivalency. Other considerations have to be taken into account besides just the love argument, and those considerations exclude man/boy love and bestiality.

Gig - as I said, I agree - the behavior should be controlled.

I also give you kudos on taking the argument to the next step regarding homosexual marriage. (Which I have said repeatedly in the other forum should be left *out* of the hand of the Feds altogether and be allowed between any consenting adults *or group* of adults.)

But...it is interesting that everyone can look at one set of sexual behaviors and say "can't be helped...not a choice..." and make the argument nobody would choose the behavior...
...and then look at other sexual behavior that is extremely less preferential and say it absolutely is a choice that is made and must be controlled.

Why the distinction?

And...if it is a choice, then why is a person who thinks homosexuality is a choice that should be declined villified as a bigot?

In truth, what are now considered "minors" by society were once considered "marrying age" for thousands of years....so there is nothing special about a 14 year old having sex historically, and therefore our vilification of the behavior is purely a recent social occurence...and yet it is agreed by all that the choice of behavior is wrong and worthy of being vilified.

Likewise, for thousands of years homosexuality was as vilified as a 14 year old getting married was acceptable....

So why is someone that holds a belief (that homosexual marriage is wrong) that has been a common belief for thousands of years considered a bigot? Especially since we all admit that the behavior in question is a *choice* that can be controlled, and, per society, was required to be controlled for thousands of years?

I do agree that it's an interesting thing that there's a distinction about what we see as right and wrong, but that's a cool thing about being alive at this time in history. We are seeing these social changes and now we can get to use them to link to all of the semi-parallels that you've proposed.

And the marriage age change is an interesting thing too, but it supports the economy and education system if kids don't get married; but if theyre really determined they can get parental release and still get married.

I guess the reason we call them bigots is the exact same reason we call the people who argued against interracial marriage bigots. The flow of public opinion/social and civil change is such an interesting dynamic. And, historically, we've had the fastest series of social, civil, economic, and technological advances in the last 100 years that it kind of makes sense we're going to have these divides among ourselves.

The exponential curve of reform (or whatever you will call it) is reaching an asymptote, that is we are trying to reach change at a faster than ever rate; a rate that puts the revolutionaries far ahead of some people (the bigots). as the revolutionaries realize they're ahead, they think everyone else should be ahead, and get really pissed cause everyone else isnt there yet.

I think it will be a while before we can universally reach social reform points. Especially since we as a *world* want to facilitate as many liberties as socially possible, in an attempt to get closer to that perfect society (know i shouldn't say that because of backlash, but oh well it's true).

*That* is why I feel like we call them bigots. Its great food for thought, really.

http://tinyurl.com/ccfht2w Although this is an opinion piece on CNN.com, it is very interesting and, I believe, well thought out. For those who will not click through, it basically says that, like interracial marriage, people weren't immediately bigots just because they opposed it when it became legal. They became bigots after a number of years in which society came to accept this marriage arrangement and they continued to oppose it.

So in answer to the question, I do not believe that everyone who opposes same sex marriage is a bigot. Over time, however, if society continues to evolve and they don't? Sure.

Gig - so it is interesting that you say the marriage age thing supports the education system and the economy...and yet the social *judgement* of someone caught violating this principle is harsh and extremely severe.

Oh....wait a minute...let's correct that:
* If it an adult male having consensual sex with a young child of any gender, he is a terrible pedophile and should be executed
* If an adult woman (usually a school teacher) has sex with a child, she may get convicted in a court of law, but must people are rather open about the concept of congratulating the kid for gettin' himself some hot teacher ass...

So our social judgement call on sexual behavior is actually quite confusing and extremely inconsistent. the idea of young males having sex of any sort is generally worhy of a pat on the back and hearty "good job".
The idea of young girls participating in sexual behavior is damned near encouarged, because who doesn't want to watch the lesbians getting it on.
The idea of young children having sex in general is generally accepted as a given - it's going to happen, which is why our school pass out condoms freely..
.the idea of an adult being interested in young kids who we openly acknowledge are sexually active is alternately frowned upon or not...but is generally seen as a negative...

....but adults and children can play sports together...
....just not have sex, even though the kids are having sex...

It's all extremely confusing and hard to keep track of what is encouraged and what is discouraged. What is acceptable, what is frowned upon, and what is openly discouraged but privately see as no big deal....

...and yet for all these judgements - which *at best* are extremely hazy - there are at times extremely harsh and sever societal punishments?

and keep in mind, there is no evidence that the sexual behavior is *inherently* evil.

That is..."under age" sex used to be marrying age...now it's villified...
Homosexuality used to be frowned upon...now it's a healthy lifestyle choice for some...

SO....all that said to ask: How and when do people being to be judged and labelled *morally* for things that have been, haven't been, are openly, are secretly, encouraged, discouraged, etc....??


**but gig -- I also *completely* reject the notion of making sexual choices and skin color equal arguments. I think that is extremely disengenuous...but that's another topic.

Regarding *when* people became bigots by social opinion...what the proper time frame then?

For more than half my life, open homosexuality was frowned upon and labeled as an immoral act; something that was openly mocked on TV.

It is only within the last twenty years that it has gone "mainstream" and become acceptable....first gay kiss on TV within the last 20 years....so an opinion that was held by the *vast* majority of Americans for most of their lives is now something for which they are called bigots and openly abused by society? I don't' get it...calling granny a bigot for having a belief that is consistent in her lifetime, and for the majority of her lifetime was the overwhelmingly accepted opinion is *repulsive*...and makes those that call her a bigot as much or more so an immoral actor.

@krellin - I'm on my phone and don't have time for a lengthy response, but, as a teacher, I have a real problem with your above statement. I will respond in full later.

'k I'm not saying everything I said above is true -- it was kind of a random mind-dump...but I'm sure you object to the "women teachers having sex with kids" comment...and, hate to tell you, but most people go on the internet to check out the mug shot and see if she was hot...

Krellin, I agree to an extent that race and sexuality are not exact parallels; i was simply citing another bright example where "bigots" and "social/civil rights movement" go hand in hand.

Krellin, I agree wholeheartedly with your logic. We have absolutely no idea what the heck we're doing morally. America was founded by brilliant thinkers who set goals so lofty we'll struggle to reach them probably till the end of America. Until then, we'll scramble trying to figure out what's actually right (snatching from the abstract plane if you ask me, but thats another fun topic). Until then, we are going to see a long long time of gender bias like that you talked about above, and Until then, we are human. (after that is a different story, also a great conversation)

My main point was that the great acceleration of social movements could be causing us to (possibly mistakenly at some points) label people who disagree with our personal view of civil "rightness" as bigots.

Perhaps someday we will have a standard. We will understand what is "wrong", "right", and why. But right now, we just have to feel in the dark until we pick up another diamond of truth. (and then try to find some light to realize we actually found a diamond)

Krellin - the good doctor is wrong. Gays, NAMBLA members and donkey lovers all get to define marriage and indeed most other laws. They do so along side their straight, non-NAMBLA and non-donkey loving citizens. It's called democracy.

As the citizenry changes over time so do our laws. I doubt you would find a single person who would agree with ever law and sometimes they make no sense when looked back on historically, indeed some like alcohol and cannabis laws make no sense now, but the fact that we all get say underpins that we should all respect and abide by the laws as they stand today. You, i and the good doctor can campaign for change where we see injustice and voice our opinions where we think a change has led to an erosion. I won't castigate the good doctor for holding an opinion, but I can point out politely that he is wrong.

On the nature/nurture debate in this context it doesn't matter. Nature does not mean legal. It may be natural for us to hunt and fish and take apples from trees but the law can prevent or restrict any of these. It may be natural for us to wonder naked, but again the law can restrict this. Something is either acceptable to society as a whole or it isn't, the fact that something is natural or was permissible or restricted under another societies laws is immaterial.

It is really quite simple. Homosexual relationships between two consenting adults (or indeed more than 2 if you're that way inclined) does no harm to anyone and should therefore be accepted. Bring a child into it and you have harm being done, there it is illegal.

As far as the choice aspect goes, it seems clear that there is some element of choice for a lot of gay people. In less tolerant times plenty of gay people got married to members of the opposite sex and had successful families and happy lives. Some, of course, did this and had truly wretched lives. It seems safe to assume that many gay people can choose to live heterosexual lives if they wish, and some may even be better off for doing so. To be honest I really don't care what they do, but it seems unfair for society to push them one way or another.

The thought occurs that if there is a genetic element to being gay then the historic trend of gay people being married and having children would have likely inflated their numbers considerably. Now this is largely no longer the case we may about to witness a significant drop in the number of gay people. Or not, as the case may be.