Heard a new one in the futile attempt to pray away the gay. it goes someting like this:

"Acting on homosexual urges is a sin"

Stupid, but they've been saying that forever, so, whatever

"You can CHOOSE who to be attracted to"

The evidence overwhelmingly goes against that assertion

"I just can't understand why it's so hard for you to understand it's a CHOICE!"

It's hard to understand much of anything when you close your mind

"After all, I can choose to be attracted to men OR women!"

Sooo... you're bisexual?

"I mean, I could even choose to be attracted to a rock, but I decided to be attracted to my spouse instead"

Well, I guess on the bright side we're not comparing homosexuality to bestiality this time. What kind of psychological damage has been done to bring our hero to the conclusion that sexual attraction to another human being with thoughts and feelings and the ability to relate on a personal level is the same as having sexual feelings for... a rock?

What kind of miserable marriages must these people have when they have to CHOOSE to be attracted to that spouse. You mean he wasn't before he married her, so he had to say to himself, "Self. I'm going to be attracted to my wife." I guess he's married to her for eternity now; he's pretty much stuck with her. Better be attracted. Or else it's going to be a really loooooong eternity.

This is what you get when you want to be right so bad that you will say anything. It' called NO morals at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2014 11:05AM by blueorchid.

Here's one of the best replies I've heard to the argument that you choose who to be sexually attracted to.

Right Wing Nut Job: Homosexuality is not something you're born with. You choose to be homosexual.

Gay Man: Ok, prove it. Suck my ...

1. One thread had people arguing whether a guy was gay because he had an equivocal isolated partial same-gender attraction, kind of like it just crossed his mind...it seemed like some said he was just a wannabe gay, but otherwise not a real gay, not an intense, all-in, ONLY attracted to same gender real gay.
2. Steve posted the story of the professor writing an argument that it's natural.
3. The church is even on-board now with it's-not-a-choice.

But, what if it wasn't all-or-nothing, not real, wasn't natural, and was a choice...?

...Guess what, I STILL have the right.

The point is, consenting, competent, assenting agents, not violating anyone else's human/civil rights, can just say, for no reason, what the hell let's try it. I don't have to argue it's "real", or "natural", or "not a choice". I, me, a so far "straight" guy, can try it if I want to...and I might. I had a dream last week that I gave a HJ/BJ to a guy. Even in the dream, I thought to myself, "I'm not even gay and it's still interesting". A nicely hung guy is interesting to look at. It's a curiosity for me to sort role play a woman in a way...what's it like up close? You know the joke...why do dogs lick their junk...because they can. We would too if we could reach.

On the other hand, there ARE behaviors that are "real", "natural", and "not a choice" but which are still pathological. The question is whether it violates anothers rights. Take religious literalism for example...it's real, natural, and not necessarily a choice. Yet even with all three of these qualifiers a religious literalist can be a bull-in-a-crystal-shop on human/civil rights. I think some predators probably have "real, natural, and not-a-choice" impulses, but almost all agree their practices are crimes/abuses/atrocities/pathological anyway...all because they violated a victim's consent/assent/competence. The real/natural/not-a-choice triad doesn't decide for me.
Something that's anyone's right is everyone's right. I don't have to qualify as "real". I'm a total fake. I would only have a same-gender fling for a fling, then I'd go right back to T&A knowing just a little more about her perspective