Dear God

[Hazzard]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

It is nobody's business what I choose to do in the bedroom. It does not negatively impact society in any appreciable way (it is nothing like the second-hand smoke analogy you raised). The same is true for homosexuality. It is really nobody's business what they choose to do sexually.

I agree with your desire for a government with very limited reach and powers. I disagree, however, that what goes on in bedrooms all across America "does not negatively impact society in any appreciable way." As Archaea pointed out, the negative effects of homosexual behavior on health and health care have been in some cases quite large. Greater volumes of contaminated blood and the spread of STD's are just two of these effects.

Furthermore, there are many other bedroom activities which negatively impact society in a dramatic fashion. Heterosexual sex between unmarried people is perhaps the best example. The number of children born out of wedlock is staggering both in numbers and in negative impact on society.

I can accept many reasons why the government should stay out of the bedrooms of America, but I have a hard time accepting the one you offered.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

it is a very comforting thought to many Mormons, that gays can choose to be straight (or could have chosen).

it makes us feel like the world is full of ninety degree angles, primary colors, and clearly marked sign posts.

I file this squarely under "the natural man is an enemy to God" category.

I don't personally think that for the vast majority of people who have SSA there is any element of choice, particulary not in men. Women are a little different in my mind because of several examples I know of where there was pretty clearly some choice involve revolving a great deal around convenience. Nonetheless, I again assert that almost no one chooses SSA.

That having been said, no one chooses to be predisposed to alcoholism or to be a pyromaniac, cleptomaniac or simply to feel depressed or angry most of the time for no apparent reason. Yet, no one asserts that people ought to be able to burn, steal or act out violently or selfdestructively simply because they come equipt with impulses (sometimes incredibly powerful one) that drive them to do it. We all agre that these things are "wrong" for many reasons, not all of them based on the degree of harm to others.

I think SSA is one of the worse curses you can have. Look, either is it is a sin or it isn't. Additionally, the idea that people have no control over how they act on the urges is not compatible with free agency. There are a very few urges that can overwhelm free agency but this is not IMO one of them.

So the bottom line is, if free agency is not ovewhelmed then acting on the SSA IS a choice even though the SSA is not. If it is a sin, then there is no moral distinction between choosing to "be gay" and chosing to act on the impulses so from a moral standpoint the distinction is quiet meaningless. If it is not a sin then the source of it doesn't matter.

I do, however, buy what I suppose Mike's point to be, which is that people do not chose this and we ought to be more compassionate about it and no act as though these powerful impulsed can simply be wiped away volitionally. If the next step of that logic is that they therefore ought to be able to act on the impulses free of moral condemnation, then that is one step further than I can go.