@philokalia saidTrust me, FMF doesn't have a clue what I believe, or my intents when I write here.
It isn't silly.
A great deal of scholars believe that sexuality is incredibly fluid...
How else do we explain the waxing and waning popularity of it? There is a belief, for instance, that the ancient Spartans regularly practiced pederasty, and there is also a belief that at different periods in Rome, the Ottoman Empire, the Japanese Empire, Shilla, etc. that homose ...[text shortened]... were not so different than us.
KellyJay agrees with lots of scholars on this topic, doesn't he.
Even when I tell him, he argues.
@philokalia saidPhilokalia: How else do we explain the waxing and waning popularity of it? [...] homosexual practices were [at times] prevalent and widespread. Yet, at the same time, they can drastically contract. How else can we explain it other than a significant amount of people choose or are integrated into sexualities?
How else do we explain the waxing and waning popularity of it? There is a belief, for instance, that the ancient Spartans regularly practiced pederasty, and there is also a belief that at different periods in Rome, the Ottoman Empire, the Japanese Empire, Shilla, etc. that homosexual practices were prevalent and widespread. Yet, at the same time, they can drastically contr ...[text shortened]... n we explain it other than a significant amount of people choose or are integrated into sexualities.
How else can we explain it? Well, you are talking about "homosexual practices", so prevalence and contraction would be affected by norms, values, laws, government policies. There is no credible reason to believe that the prevalence of homosexual orientation has changed. I don't buy into your 'how-else-except-for-what-I'm-saying' suggestion.
To return to the OP question, do you think the government ~ and society as a whole ~ should approach homosexual practices in a way that causes them to drastically contract?
@kellyjay saidRight -- which is why I recommend to everybody selectively responding to users who routinely ask repetitive, decontextualizing questions and discuss things on the forum in a way that isn't in good faith.
Trust me, FMF doesn't have a clue what I believe, or my intents when I write here.
Even when I tell him, he argues.
Completely ignoring some users altogether for extended periods of time is also probably for the good.
We have some new posters in Spirituality that are putting up good content, and there are way too many good books and important articles in the world to read.
Reply only to what interests you & has a chance to further the dialog/thread in the way you want to see it furthered.
@philokalia saidYou should read what KellyJay said. He has said he could choose to be a gay man if he wanted to. Ideologically he HAS to say this because he believes homosexuals choose to be gay.
Right -- which is why I recommend to everybody selectively responding to users who routinely ask repetitive, decontextualizing questions and discuss things on the forum in a way that isn't in good faith.
Presumably, he thinks everyone is, in fact, heterosexual.
Referring to KellyJay's assertion that he could choose to be a gay man if he wanted to is not "decontextualizing" anything. You have got the wrong end of the stick.
You should read the thread and read people's posts instead of typing stuff that has more to do with what posters' names are than what they say they believe.