Posted on 11/26/2003 2:47:02 PM PST by kattracks
And so it stands to reason that believing that "beliefs" are delusional - since they are disconnected from reality - is also a... delusion.
When did I say you couldn't have a genetic tendency toward it? I never mentioned genetics at all. Of course, implicit in my statement was the premise that a person's sexual behavior is shaped by his will, not just by his genes. I saw that you approvingly quoted Ayn Rand on emotions, so I supposed you knew why, but...
I'd say that some people are naturally homosexual and that some others choose homosexuality.
...I guess I should explain. Briefly: Your emotions are a reflection of your value-judgments ("lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values"). For example, if you have decided that freedom is a great value for you, you will feel positive whenever you hear that word; you will be attracted to the company of freedom-loving people; you will feel satisfied whenever you have done something to advance freedom--and so on. The mullahs of Iran, on the other hand, irrationally judge freedom as something dangerous--they see it as a disvalue--and thus their emotions toward it are so negative that they label the freest country on earth "the Great Satan."
You can see that emotions do not come from your genes or some other source you have no control over. They are the result of your value-judgments. Rational value-judgments will lead to helpful emotions; irrational value-judgments will lead to destructive emotions. It is up to you what kinds of emotions you have. It is up to you whom you fall in love with.
Based on your second sentence, I'd also say that you don't know whether to like or dislike homosexuals.
Oh, I know it very well.
I like rational people: people who always choose the best among their options--who stand up for their values with courage--who think long term and are true to their principles. Now, what does this mean in the field of love and marriage?
Human sexual behavior is influenced by a number of needs: the need for love and friendship, the need for tenderness, the need for the excitement of discovery, the need for self-respect--and, of course, the need for sexual satisfaction. (Is there anything I left out?) The more of these needs a relationship can satisfy, the more complete the experience is. And a rational person will not settle for anything but the best possible choice.
You could satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent by buying Playboy magazine or visiting a whorehouse--but you agree, don't you, that it's a rather poor substitute for the real thing.
A homosexual relationship might also satisfy one or two of the needs to some extent--but can it ever be the real thing? Let's see:
In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real.
It is easy for a man to become friends with a man; it is easy, if both are so inclined, for them to become intimate. They know each other; they're buddies; they have similar interests, similar ways of thinking, similar bodies; it is easy for one to predict whether the other will accept or reject an offer--once they see that both are interested in a relationship and don't mind if it's homosexual, they can simply just go ahead. No barrier there. But if a man wants to have a relationship with a woman, he has to face the challenge of dealing with someone different from himself; he has to overcome her resistance; he has to brave the possibility of being rejected; he has to have the self-confidence to try again despite having been rejected before. This is a formidable challenge, a tough barrier--and it requires courage to break it through.
Homosexuality is a coward's way out.
I like rational people: people who always choose the best among their options--who stand up for their values with courage--who think long term and are true to their principles.
What you don't seem to realize, though, is that some significant percentage of homosexual people would agree with it too.
Homosexuals are what they are just as bigoted and irrational Southern Baptists are what they are.
Can they change?
Anyone can change their way of thinking, but it sometimes takes a Damascus Conversion experience to do it.
The first of your words quoted above are: "I like rational people," but ... you don't seem to have questioned the rationality of those religious teachings, especially those teachings based in mysticism.
The acid test question to ask yourself upon stepping back and looking at mystical beliefs rationally is ...
Would you accept such teachings from a witch doctor?
What is sad is so many believe them while ignoring the truth those same republicans daily violate their oaths of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
I know my post is rather lengthy, but I do recommend that you take a glance at the part you apparently haven't had the time to read (i.e. from "Human sexual behavior is influenced by a number of needs..."). I do not appeal to any mystically based religious teachings there, but try to present an objective case for heterosexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.