BTS: I'm glad you realize the examples of "negative" animal behaviors mentioned are irrelevent to the discussion at hand. The point really being made in that context is that it is silly to call any of these things "unnatural". The discussion needs to be refined away from the non-sequitor of what is "unnatural", and more towards how appropriate behavior is measured.
It is not acceptable to gauge appropriateness based on religious views, at least in American society. Religions are diverse and contradictory. What is appropriate to a Christian will not be the same as for a Jew - even different Christians will disagree. This measure must be tossed out.
Note to Freydi: When you can come to the table with clean hands and truthfully state you follow all the OT laws, then you may have some credibility when it comes to this discussion - until then, I think the "cafeteria Catholic" moniker sticks. Heck, you may even be worthy of debating interpretation and translation issues.
But back to the "born" question, BTS:
I think maybe the hormonal environment in the womb can cause this.
Studies with rats involving in uetero hormones in the 1980's support this view.
I think that certain psychological traumas during childhood and sexual abuse can cause a person's sexual growth to go a certain way.
I agree. I lived a childhood of sexual abuse. I am gay. BUT: in my years of group therapy I have met many men with the same background that are completely straight. Unlike Junction Guy, I don't make the mistake of pretending that my situation is universal. What I do know about myself is that I have never had any leanings toward heterosexuality, that every milestone of sexual development has been same-gendered, and that this has always been the same since my earliest memories. We will have the nature/nurture debate with us for many aspects of personality for a long time to come, why should orientation be any different?
It is "natural" for them to feel this. It is not moral for them to act on it.
For those wishing to subscribe to your particular morality, more power to them (and you). Just don't foist it on others. And, knowing you as I do Burn, I know you don't seem to (regardless of the joy we both bring to posture and discussion). ;-) My own morality is less dependent on someone else's interpretation of God's words or God's will. The yardstick I apply to others is whether they are engaged in consensual activities. Not much else is ever needed. But I fully support your decision to apply your morality to yourself.
We are all born with certain proclivities that are not moral.
So let's develop measures of appropriate behavior. And, in America, let's keep in mind the separation of Church and State, and allow all to practice their religion within the context of their own lives - and show the same respect for others. Buddhists in America don't seem to interfere with the Christian eating of meat, Christian's have not successfully stopped the genital mutilation of Jewish men [added for effect], etc. It's better for everyone when we keep religion out of the law. Let each person determine their own morality, and let criminal law deal with non-consensual activities.
You'll make a Libertarian of me yet, you bad man.
As a Christian I believe we are all called to chastity. It is more difficult for some of us than others.
As a Christian, I am free of the law of chastity, and bound by the law of love. As a Buddhist the issue of orientation is irrelevent, and as a Ciceronean I am bound to not compel others to live as I do.
