3 ms·

Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to m

Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. Assuming you're a straight male, are you able to look at a beautiful woman and not feel any feelings of attraction? My point is that there are behaviors that definitely transcend "nurture". It's ridiculous to claim there aren't.

ordu 7y ago
> Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank. There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them. You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so? Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile? But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok? It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.

ordu 7y ago

> Gays might have the choice not to live a gay lifestyle, but I don't think you will find any gay guys who would say they have the choice not to be attracted to men. It is not about to be attracted or not to be attracted. It is a choice between different kinds of behavior, not between different states of mind. It is bad to rob a bank. But it is neither bad nor good to be attracted by the money of the bank. There is neither bad nor good to be sexually attracted by a woman, but it is bad to rape her in any case. I feel attraction to a women regularly, but I'm not raping them. You know, there is an examples of sexual preferences that are forbidden. Pedophilia for example. But if pedophile keeps his preferences to himself, than it is ok, nothing wrong with it. We forbid pedophiles to follow their sexual desires, but we allow heterosexuals and homosexuals to follow theirs (while they respect legal constraints on an age of a partner). What the difference? Why we allow some people to follow their sexual preferences and forbid others to do so? Lets clarify: it is bad to forbid human from following his sexual desires. Not just because he would be unhappy, it is bad for his psychological well-being, it might have harmful long term effects for his mind. As Freud taught there is 8 (or 9?) kinds of psychological defense and only one of them isn't necessary harmful to a person -- sublimation. Which one of those will choose the mind of pedophile? But in some cases we forbid nevertheless despite of damages, why we think that it is ok? It is all about harm to individuals and to a society inflicted by following a desires. Gays are harmless, they are not saints of course, but they are not worse than a heterosexual. There is no reason to harm gays by a ban to a homosexual relationships. Such a ban would inflict damage for some without benefiting others. But pedophile could do a lot of harm to children, so we accept harming pedophiles to protect our children. We accept harming robbers of banks to protect banks. We accept harming rapers to protect women. We do not accept harming heterosexuals, because they do nothing specifically bad. We do not accept harming gays, because they do nothing specifically bad.