Yes, precisely! They haven't chosen to become homosexual, so they're not. If, because of temptation, they decide do engage in homosexual sex, then they're homosexual, much like a bank robber becomes a bank robber when he robs then bank, but he's not when he's only planning it or being tempted to do it.
Well, according the Patriot Act, you are a terrorist for merely planning or being tempted to perform a terrorist act. Regardless, using your "temptation" logic, which is founded in religion, people give in to temptation because they were enticed or allured to do something, and they are bad for giving in to temptation that you're not supposed to give in to. That's a religious moral argument. That's OK, and I don't have a problem with it, other than it's the argument that is really the only way to not have God culpable in the defective creation of his creations - it
must be a result of free will, purely a choice of the individual. Anything else would bring God into the mix, we'd have God actually creating homosexuals, and we just can't have that, now can we? No, it must be free will, a choice. Nothing else is acceptable.
The ease or difficulty of the decision is irrelevant.
Actually, it's crucial to your own argument in favor of temptation and that it being an actual choice.
I have my temptations and you have yours, whatever they may be. If Jennifer Aniston were present, I might desire to force myself on her. But since I don't desire to be a rapist, I guess I'd have to withstand the temptation, wouldn't I?
That's a little creepy, especially since you're talking about the woman I love. I would prefer, as a choice, to not be in love with her, but it happened. I didn't make a conscious decision to fall in love with her, but I did, that's how it is, no temptation or thinking about the temptation involved. I would much prefer to be in love with someone who loves me back, or at least knows I exist (beyond the restraining order, of course), but alas that is not to be the case.
Who you fall in love with, who you are attracted to, is not a choice.
People have all sorts of temptations, and always will. Maybe you don't want to be a compulsive gambler; so you avoid gambling. An alcoholic tries to avoid drinking. Name your temptation. If you don't want to be what people who do it are, you do what you have to do to resist. If you don't care or can't resist, I guess you do it, but then you have to deal with whatever social approbation exists for your problem.
Interesting use of the word "compulsion", don't you think? It's a word that removes all choice from the act, an irresistible impulse to perform an act that is irrational, unnatural, or contrary to one's own will. And if you succumb to the temptation, then somehow you are weak. Interesting, indeed.
Several of us feel that the individual in question, being that she's a lesbian, should not be trusted to be one of the few with a hand on the rudder of the ship of state, given the decisions we can see she's made in her life. She chooses to do things with her sex organs and the sex organs of others that are unnatural. Making decisions is apparently not something she's good at.
Again, you're stuck on the moral argument. Temptation, gambling, drinking, sex and sex acts (and the use of pitying her soul), these are the cornerstones of religious fundamentalist morality.
You don't want her on the Supreme Court because you think she had a choice in her sexual orientation, and that it's a morally bad decision, and that she's likely to further make equally bad decisions that disagree with your morality. I don't want her on the Supreme Court because she's a homosexual, an anomalous being within the species, and I don't want someone who thinks being an anomality and that anormal behavior is perfectly normal, making decisions that affect every person in the country.
Perhaps it's a question that shouldn't be addressed in polite company, but that doesn't mean a choice wasn't made. For all of us, there's a time when we choose to do something with our sex organs.
Ever woke up with a
?
We either make the choice that's acceptable to society (and, dare I mention the G-word?) or one that's unacceptable to society (and there's the G-word again.)
Oh, that's OK, you don't have to mention it, as it permeates everything you write. But please don't tell me that you think that what society deems acceptable is also what God deems acceptable, and unless God deems it acceptable, that society should reject it.
but the sex act in and of itself is not the determining factor of one's sexual orientation.
I'm sorry; you're incorrect.
Truth does not change because it is or is not believed by a majority of the people. Sorry, but yes I am. Orientation is a state of being, a pointed direction, or a relative position.
No, you didn't become a heterosexual when you had sex with someone of the opposite sex. You were created with that function in mind, procreation and all that stuff. That's the default setting. You choose whether or not you deviate from it.
That's the moral argument, the same one which cannot allow for evolution. It's an argument that demands that you believe that all people are created, by God, to be heterosexual, that God cannot make mistakes (even if those mistakes are
not mistakes at all, and he did them absolutely on purpose, but you just don't understand them), and that homosexuality can
only be the result of someone breaking away from God's will and defying God in giving in to temptation of the Devil and OMG self pleasure.
All of the people in these examples are heterosexuals because they don't have sex with others of their own sex. I'd take any of them for SCOTUS before the apparent nominee-to-be.
Wow, that's quite a piece of litmus paper ya got there. Even people who are absolutely attracted to and sexually tempted by others of the same sex and have no desire, yay no temptation of having sex with someone of the opposite sex, and who think it's perfectly normal to be that way, are find and dandy in your book, solely because they haven't had actual homosexual sex,
yet. Never mind the fact that they want to, really, really badly, and very likely will, everything's still A-OK until they actually pull the trigger, as it were. Wow.
Maybe they're saving themselves for a Vermont marriage.
