As a conservative, I have no problem with the idea that homosexuality may quite possibly have a biological component. God knows my (ridiculously strong and distractingly ever-present) heterosexual urges are quite biological. I hardly see how it matters.

There are all kinds of completely hetero activities that I could quite happily indulge in that would seem totally natural to me. What straight red-blooded male isn't attracted to nearly every reasonably attractive 20-something female that happens to be nearby? Who isn't at times tempted by porn, strip clubs, or what have you? The shamefully high hetero divorce rate in this country is ample evidence of which I speak. And it is all unquestionably primarily driven by our innate sex drives that we were granted at puberty, not something we freely chose just because we wanted it.

None of which is in the least bit relevant to anything that matters. Fact is, there are a whole host of socially and personally destructive sexual desires we are all born with. Homosexuality is no worse than any, and less damaging than many of them. But being born with a desire, sexual or otherwise, is not what makes indulging it right or wrong.

TTC makes a good point. We're all born and/or live with urges that run counter to the welfare/wellbeing of ourselves, specific others, or society as a whole. That doesn't excuse those behaviors.

BUT - I don't think homosexuality is one of them. If two people are born a certain way (and I think TTC stipulates that they could be) and engaging in certain acts with each other gives them pleasure with minimal (arguably no) impact to anyone else, then where's the damage to, well, anyone?

On the other hand, if two people are born a certain way, and a third person wants to prevent them from engaging in acts that give them pleasure with no impact to anyone else, then that third person is hurting the first two. That, to me, is the sin.

I cannot speak for you personally, but many conservatives would suggest that their heterosexual urges are not, in themselves, sinful or wrong -- and neither is indulging in them (provided that is done within marriage). So yes, you cannot go out and shag every attractive women you see (work rules and common sense would dictate that even apart from any moral issues), but you do have the opportunity to direct that lust to an acceptable target (ie your wife).

Homosexuals do not have that choice -- so as I understand you, their only choice would be to try pretend to be straight, or to live life with no opportunity of expressing their sexuality.

TTC makes the point I just made in Faith-Based. It doesn't really matter whether being gay is innate or not.

The focus should be what harm is there to society by allowing gay behavior. I see no harm so I see no reason to restrict the behavior.

Except that there is non-sinful way to express the heterosexual drive in your belief system, but none to express homosexuality. It is the homosexuality itself that is seen as sinful.

Homosexuality in that system is seen a sinful expression of sexuality. If homosexuality itself is inate, then it is a separate subset of sexuality.

So name a few other inate drives that are sinful in theselves, not in their expression.

And I love how you brag about your raging heterosexuality. Isn't pride a sin?

as promisciously as many gays do, but what stops you is that women are pickier. The truth is testosterone wires your brain to want as much sex as possible. The screeching break has always been females. Stop patting yourself on the back for something for which you have absolutely no control on. Your what, maybe 40? Trust me, most 20 something year old girls wouldn't be interested in you anyway.

differnetEllen:

as promisciously as many gays do, but what stops you is that women are pickier. The truth is testosterone wires your brain to want as much sex as possible. The screeching break has always been females. Stop patting yourself on the back for something for which you have absolutely no control on. Your what, maybe 40? Trust me, most 20 something year old girls wouldn't be interested in you anyway.

Depends o how much money he has.

But on the main subject here, were do we draw the line, or is there no line to draw? Born gay, born trans, born beastal, born pedo, Once the door is cracked open its flung wide open.

arguements that were trotted out to prevent mixed racial marriage. You are going to tell me that if we have gay marriage, you are going to run out and start having sex with sheep?

Do you have that little control that the minute one thing is okay, ou go out and engage in every perversion in the world. Give me a break. And even if people are born with a orientation that harms others, we aren't going to accept it.

What is harmful or non-consensual (including minors) is always toing to be not allowed because even if they were "born that way" their victims would not be. Get a grip.

Hmmm, but a child cannot make a truly informed agreement to sex with an adult. Animals can't agree either. So these two have victims and we CAN try to protect the victims. Two adults though, they can make informed decisions. They can exercise their sexual preferences in the privacy of their homes. Unless one of them accuses the other of abuse, the public does not know. I tend to go with the idea that among adults, the law only gets involved when one claims abuse. Then, we are protecting the victim. Maybe if society put as much effort into discouraging aggressive, heterosexual pressure on women as they seem to do decrying an imagined homosexual threat to one's manhood, there would be less domestic violence.

I don't see how what two consenting adults (married, straight, strangers) do in the privacy of their bedroom is anyone else's concern.

Also, what straight guy has never dreamed of having sex with two women at the same time?

Now, everyone slow down just a second. You are reading more into my statements then are there. For the record, I do NOT think gay sex should be illegal. No more then I would want the state to arrest people for engaging in pre-marital or extra-marital affairs.

But the question of what should be legal and tolerated is not the same as what should be socially encouraged. No one should be forced to get a job. It is legal to be lazy, but it is socially harmful and rightfully results in public scorn and poverty. The earned income tax credit is a good example of the government promoting activity, (hard work among the poor) because it is better for society that people work and receive a small check from the government then that they don't work at all and their families become wards of the state.

Legal marraige is no different. You have the RIGHT to have sex with any consenting adult you wish. No law should forbid you. But that is not the same as demanding societal approval and support. Marraige in this country is restricted to precisely two people. Polygamy and bigamy are illegal. You can have sex with as many people as you wish, but you cannot be married to more then one.

The restriction on gay marraige is no different. A man can have sex with another man, and no law will stop him. But he cannot marry another man, because marraige is not simply tolerance. It is formal societal approval. And that we do not grant to behaviors that we (by we I mean the majority of people) believe to not benefit the larger society.

the true conservative:

Fact is, there are a whole host of socially and personally destructive sexual desires we are all born with. Homosexuality is no worse than any, and less damaging than many of them. But being born with a desire, sexual or otherwise, is not what makes indulging it right or wrong.

Then what, pray tell, does indicate the rightness or wrongness of indulging in such a desire? Is it harm to others? "Going against nature"? And how does this apply to homosexuality?

I've seen on this forum for awhile.

Dustydragon:

< p>But on the main subject here, were do we draw the line, or is there no line to draw? Born gay, born trans, born beastal, born pedo, Once the door is cracked open its flung wide open.

You're really equating homosexual or transgendered with bestiality and pedophilia? Hard to tell if that bigotry is born of ignorance or prejudice. The only thing homosexuality has in common with bestiality and pedophilia is that all involve sexual behavior. That's all there is - engaging in one doesn't increase the likelihood that you'll engage in another, and there's no evidence that greater tolerance for homosexuals results in greater tolerance for, or higher incidence of, either pedophilia or beastiality.

And being transgendered isn't even necessarily an issue of sexual preference; gender identity and sexual preference do not necessarily coincide.

Last, while its been long acknowledged that there must be a biological underpinning to both gender identity and sexual preference (malleability has been the issue of debate), there's never been any speculation about a biological basis for pedophilia or bestiality.

The only similarity between these issues is the one you project onto it, based on your skewed conception of what is moral and natural. It's people like you that leave me wondering whether the term "nonjudgmental Christian" is in fact an oxymoron.

[Then what, pray tell, does indicate the rightness or wrongness of indulging in such a desire? Is it harm to others? "Going against nature"? And how does this apply to homosexuality?]

Now you're at least asking the right question. How would you answer it?

[It's people like you that leave me wondering whether the term "nonjudgmental Christian" is in fact an oxymoron.]

It is an oxymoron. The essence of the Christian message is that God has very definite standards of right and wrong and He will severely punish those who refuse to repent of their disobedience.

Your sin is no worse than mine, but yours will damn you as surely as mine will damn me if either of us refuse to forsake it and follow Christ.