your argument is still based on actions and not true orientation.

Not committing sin = not committing homosexual acts.

Having homosexual attractions are a different issue. You can choose to not act on your homosexual attractions but does that actually make you straight or are you simply denying what you are.

You're still an alcoholic even if you manage to not drink for a month.

actually...I am talking about the heart of the situation. Since everyone has a sinful nature, having homosexual urges is part of that sinful nature, it's just that some people have more struggle in that particular sin than other. Some people have more problems with lying than other, some more trouble on greed or love of money, while others tend to struggle in addiction more than others. Each person have different categories and manifestations of sinful struggles, but everyone has the same sinful nature.

I'm saying that those who are "gay" are basically those who just decides not to fight that sinful urges, so it is, in a Christian worldview of sin, a choice. Just like a person chooses to not fight the sinful urges to commit murder, adultery, thievery, etc.

I agree with play4fun that the underlining question of this thread is that, whether or not it is a choice determines if it's natural. From a Biblical perspective it's not, however a majority that are not Christians, or not even basing their opinion from a doctrine of faith, feel the same that it is not natural. The only people who think that it is not a choice are those who think it is natural.

play4fun : that was a very interesting way to explain it. I liked that. From a Christian perspective it seems like the most sound explanation.

I personally think that homosexuals are not born gay, nor is it a simple choice to be gay or not be gay. I think it's a series of choices, environmental factors and genetics that lead to or away from being gay. I don't think anyone just decides one day to be gay, and they don't just become straight based on a single choice either. It's a series of choices and factors that make the difference. That's the only explanation I can come up with that allows for all the possibilities that people are seeing.

play4fun : People do not simply "change" like that. Many people do not wish to admit they are homosexual, some are only experimenting, and some never really were to begin with. But if you want to insist that people can just change at the drop of a hat...all I can say is prove it. Everyone knows a story about some guy who "came out of the closet" and then a few months later announced he was straight again. That guy didn't go from straight to gay to straight again. He was just curious, or lying, or both.


And of course homosexuality is natural. This is not even a matter to debate. Natural means occuring in nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Traduweise : says, "But if you want to insist that people can just change at the drop of a hat"

No one is saying they just change a the drop of a hat, if and when they do change it is timely. As far as homosexuality occurring in nature, then I suppose either there is no God or sin is natural according to that statement.

tRIUNE : Prove it then. Show me evidence that people can change their orientation.

Traduweise : I already have proven that choice is possible with the fact that bisexuals choose to like both.

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still going O.o
But anyway, I do like the way play4fun described his argument, and it does make a lot of sense, and also what geeogree said to follow up to that.
And, Traduweise: I don't exactly agree with your statement about "it's natural if it occurs in nature." There can be very strange things that happen in nature, but that doesn't make it normal or natural.
Further more, it especially doesn't make it natural to the human race just because it occurs in nature and in other animals. If a human could asexually reproduce(it's a stretch, I know, but just bear with me xD), would you consider that "natural", just because some species in nature can asexually reproduce? No.

Traduweise : "But if you want to insist that people can just change at the drop of a hat...all I can say is prove it."

I don't think anyone is saying that homosexuals change at the drop of a hat. It's not something you wake up one day and decide... I'm going to be 100% different than I was yesterday and you never have a homosexual thought or desire ever again.

tRIUNE : That doesn't prove anything. Bisexuals do not choose to be attracted to both genders. Your claim makes no sense. (No, of course the "drop of a hat" was an exaggeration. Come on.)

And to mdynasty926, occuring in nature is what makes something natural. Asexual reproduction (something extremely rare in vertebrates) is not possible for humans without extensive technology. It really cannot be compared to homosexuality.

Traduweise : Nah, my point isn't about comparing homosexuality with asexuality. My point is that asexuality is seen in nature, but if humans were to asexually reproduce, it wouldn't be "natural".
I understand that asexuality is natural... to certain species. But not to humans. So, just saying that homosexuality is seen in other species in nature isn't going to mean that it's natural for humans.

mdynasty926 : Well humans are not amoeba, we're very complex organisms. You can't just take half of one and expect 2 new, fully functional human beings.

I have heard that there are homosexuals most likely because in nature often times a parent can die or whatever, and, sometimes someone needs to step up and take the place of say the mother. Sometimes there are only male offspring. Generally, homosexuals tend to be nurturing. That's not to say that when a mother dies that the offspring turns gay to assume the role of mother. But having a gay child can be a good backup mother in case something would ever happen to the real mother. I have no idea of how much validity there is to this, it's just what my sociology teacher said may be the case.

Generally if something can happen, it will. It's been shown again and again that creatures of the same sex can have sexual attractions to each other. A good friend of mine is gay, and it's not something that spontaneously happens, I can tell you that. I believe that it has something to do with the environment that a child grows up in (since no "Gay Gene" has been found).

In time we may have a better idea as to how/why this happens.

NotJon : Lol you also misunderstand my point. But that's ok
What I meant was that just because something is "natural" for one species and in nature, doesn't mean that it's natural for all living things. So, just saying that homosexuality is common in animals and stuff like that doesn't exactly show that humans being homosexual is natural.
I also don't think it's a "spontaneous" thing. It's not, I don't think you're not born gay or anything like that. Perhaps it's just how you develop according to what the environment is like and what you experience and stuff like that.

Traduweise : says, "Bisexuals do not choose to be attracted to both genders. Your claim makes no sense."

How is it that bisexuals are gay while still attracted to the opposite gender, if their not choosing to like both? They can't be both gay and straight at the same time, they're gay and still choose to like the opposite gender.

mdynasty926 : Comparing asexuality to homosexuality doesn't work because the two things are so different. However, if humans could suddenly split themselves in half and have the halves grow into two new people (without technological help), that would be natural.

But you still don't seem to understand what natural is. Homosexuality occurs in a vast number of animals including humans, at a general rate of 10% of a species. This is natural. If you want to make the argument that humans are some special exception where it is not natural, you need to explain why and how, or present evidence of some sort.

Traduweise : Man, I keep telling you that asexuality was an example. I'm not trying to use it as a comparison... gosh .
I understand clearly what you say "natural" means. I'm just saying that just because you said that naturally some animals have homosexual behavior doesn't mean that humans being homosexual is natural too. Please understand what I'm saying -.-

mdynasty926 : I absolutely understand what you're saying. And what I'm saying is homosexuality occurs naturally. If you want to make the argument that humans are some special exception where it is not natural, you need to explain why and how, or present evidence of some sort.

Just because animals engage in homosexual acts, who have an inferior intelligence in comparison to humans by the way, does not mean that it is natural. Rape and cannibalism exist in the animal kingdom. Does that make it right for us?

Homosexuality is to change the natural use of sex. Even if sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction, the natural use of sex is for reproduction.

mdynasty926 : Beware of the double negatives. Also, what things happen but are not natural? What determines what is natural?