Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

originally posted by: truckdriver42

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TheJourney

Because the fundamental Christians want to justify their view that gays should be punished and even killed for making the choice to sin against God (going against nature and God). They push this into politics and law.

So you see why it's important. The debate is in reaction to that.

The "it's not a choice" crowd do this to get them to see the light and to stop them from trying to control the gay people and passing laws to punish them.

In reality its you that want to feed the Christians to the wolves because you hate that free speech involves someone not agreeing with your version of a healthy lifestyle...

Go live with the head choppers if you think Christians are so evil. Last time I heard there were no head chopping or stoning of gays in America on a daily basis.

What a delusional bunch Homosexuals are..

No real argument, bring in the Muslims.

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
Well the only burden I carry is replying to your posts, simply because I am curious as to how your brain works.

Anyone making any claim has the burden of proof, its part of critical thinking which is taught in most schools. But your reasoning is very strange, infact its so far fetched i suspect it to be untrue and an attempted deflection...

If you do not want to take me seriously then why are you replying to me? It is very easy to ignore me, the fact that you continue to do so means I must have struck a nerve with you, especially for you to personally attack me by calling me homophobic despite the fact that I have stated within this thread (if you care to use your eyes to go back and find the post) that we do no have to resort to attacking homosexuality, or going into whether it is right or wrong.

I do not reply for you benefit....unsurprisingly. I respond for the rare occasion that someone might have read your posts and while it's unlikely, they might think you're correct on the matter and I think the fact that you haven't given any evidence for your claims should be pointed out.

I am merely discussing the idea of same-sex parenting, with regards to homosexuality. If you think what i said is based on opinion and feelings despite my reasoning, than it is you who is clearly responding with feelings and opinions not me.

Your feelings and opinion do not constitute reasoning are as such irrelevant. You must show you're correct with evidence. Even your claims of logical reasoning are just that, claims.

I presented logic, you presented god knows what.

Claiming you presented logic is far from actually presenting a logical argument. Have you ever been taught how to think critically?

The evidence? It exists, part of it is called common sense.

A common cop-out for someone that has zero evidence.

Mankind has always gone through life with a mother (mommy) and father (daddy) in life, for thousands upon thousands of years. across billions of generations. BILLIONS!!!

Yes that is required for reproduction. But we're not talking about reproduction are we?...

Yet homosexual parenting is absolutely perfectly okay in your universe - let's call your universe 2015, because change is happening, and common sense is being thrown out of the window along with critical thinking, history, the nuclear family, and even psychology and it's concepts.

Imagine this thread or this conversation existed...20 years ago... 40 years ago... 50 years ago... how would people or the general public or critical thinkers or society in general respond?

Would they be pro or against homosexual parenting??

I suggest some history lessons too maybe? the sheer ignorance in this post is astounding.

What has changed??? since then? Please tell me - is it the human condition? Are we less needing of father like figures in life because we don't require any of the qualities often attributed with male, breadwinner, strong father like rolemodels? What if the world plunged into chaos tomorrow and we needed to go back to the hunter gatherer types as 2015 society is no more.

Good luck.

It is 2015 though, even if you wish it wasn't. The world has moved on from the homophobia imposed on it since the arrival of a certain sandal wearing jew. Homosexuals are no longer killed, chemically castrated or imprisoned, so you're gonna have to get used to it.

You are the other homophobes in this thread and indeed the world are on the wrong side of history, the part of our history that we'll be deeply ashamed of.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Ok....obviously we have a little problem in communication. A MALE/FEMALE relationship has the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL". The homosexual relationship doesn't have the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL" of what constitutes human marriage and never will. That's about as plain as I can make it...

originally posted by: TheJourney

People like to turn the whole issue of homosexuality into whether or not it is a choice. The religious saying, 'It's a choice!' as an argument for illegalities and such involving homosexuality. Others saying 'it's not a choice!' as a counter-argument. I don't really see why this is the defining issue of it. Even if it were a choice. If our sexuality were not pre-defined, and one simply became homosexual through a variety of personal interpretations and choices...so? Then prohibitions against it would be legitimate?

I think you're right here: the choice/no-choice doesn't really matter, as long as it's about orientation, *not* action. I think we can all agree people choose which actions they take.

We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices. Individuals should be free to make whatever choices they want, so long as they're not harming another.

And yet the (odd) truth is that in our society we're fine with choices we *know* harm other people. I don't think it's possible to make meaningful choices in life without harming people. But that's just me.

originally posted by: HarryJoy
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ok....obviously we have a little problem in communication. A MALE/FEMALE relationship has the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL". The homosexual relationship doesn't have the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL" of what constitutes human marriage and never will. That's about as plain as I can make it...

Reminds me of my Catholic friends who prayed their parents would divorce.

So much for IDEAL.

a reply to: truckdriver42

In reality its you that want to feed the Christians to the wolves because you hate that free speech involves someone not agreeing with your version of a healthy lifestyle...

I don't care what they think. Why do you think I care? They can believe whatever they want.

It's different when religion has laws passed to punish homosexuals.

What a delusional bunch Homosexuals are

Uh I am not a homosexual. You're the one who is delusional.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The world has moved on from the homophobia imposed on it since the arrival of a certain sandal wearing jew.

Query: what makes you believe that Jesus (or was it Moses) was responsible for homophobia? It seems to have a pretty straightforward explanation from an evolutionary perspective, but that's just me.

a reply to: HarryJoy

A MALE/FEMALE relationship has the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL". The homosexual relationship doesn't have the "possibility" to represent the "IDEAL" of what constitutes human marriage and never will.

Huh? What's the difference? What makes homosexual relationship different?

Many heterosexual relationships are not ideal as you can see today.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Jesus was never against homosexuality.

It seems that most homophobes are Christians themselves because of what their preachers tell them. It's the OT law.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: thebtheb
...civil union is not enough because it's not really about ANYTHING except being accepted by society, and not rejected. Your idea of preserving marriage as a special thing between a man and a woman is simply exclusive, discriminating, and so gays don't like it.

You may have just gotten to core of this issue. Thing is, certain titles and privileges are exclusive to certain people. Like it or not, that's life. PhDs are exclusive. Does that give me a right to usurp the title of Doctor? Should we expand the definition of Doctor so as to be more inclusive? Maybe I should demand membership in the local women's book club...I mean how dare they be so exclusive!?

I thought being accepted was all the LBGT community wanted. Is the new goal to be considered every bit as normal as a heterosexual, even though less than 3% of America is gay? Because that's asking for people to deny reality.

What is wrong with using specific terminology to refer to specific people/things? Why do people feel entitled to things simply because someone else has them?

Society benefits from straight people who have sex but decide never to have kids, who can't have kids? Should they also not be allowed to marry? What about homosexual couples who adopt unwanted children all the time? Does society not benefit from that?

Society benefits from married couples for many reasons beyond procreation and healthy child rearing. A marriage is not an easy thing to maintain. Look at any happily married elderly couple and you will see astounding patience, compassion, and selfless love. Those things don't magically become part of your character when you put the ring on. They come from years of effort, dedication, and strife. Marriage builds character, if you will. The entire community benefits when people are emotionally and mentally mature.

I will not get into any negatives related to homosexual couples or lifestyle, because that is irrelevant. My argument is not that gays should be forbidden from forming life partnerships, but I believe heterosexual marriage deserves its exclusive title.

Thing is, a doctor is a doctor because he studied, passed, etc., while a gay person getting married or not is completely up to whether the society they live in allows it or not. So in the case of marriage, it's really just nothing more than society allowing it or not, plain and simple. Any exclusivity is arbitrary, unlike getting a PHd.

Right, well first of all, more than 3% of people are gay, but yes, loving someone and wanting to marry them is pretty normal I'd say. If you want to define normal, then let's again go backwards to the whole idea of a black person marrying a white person - ooh, not normal! Oh no! 50 years ago, that was the case.

Well, heterosexual marriage HAS its exclusive title - heterosexual marriage. That you imagine gay people any less capable of understanding what goes into the work and maintenance of a marriage is quite hilarious.

a reply to: Annee

Not sure I follow. Are you saying children are no longer influened by their parents because they are off at work all day? That's not the case in every household, and kids are at school for most of the workday anyhow.

Even in homes where the mother and father work 7 days a week, children are influenced by the parents. Parents are our first role models. They teach us the things we need to know in order to become healthy and well-adapted. They are the ones we first look to for guidance when we are unsure. That influence is about way more than gender stereotypes.

Did you grow up with a both mother and a father? As someone who did not, I can tell you there are things you can only learn from your mother, and things you can only learn from your father. The sliding scales of masculinity and femininity make for some overlap depending on the persons involved, but it's all about balance.

originally posted by: StalkerSolent

originally posted by: Prezbo369
The world has moved on from the homophobia imposed on it since the arrival of a certain sandal wearing jew.

Query: what makes you believe that Jesus (or was it Moses) was responsible for homophobia? It seems to have a pretty straightforward explanation from an evolutionary perspective, but that's just me.

The Romans didn't care who or how people were screwing/loving one another.

Then around 2000 yeahs ago suddenly being gay was wrong, immoral and an 'abomination'.

Interested to know what you think was the evolutionary reason for our sudden change in morality.

I do not think our sexuality is decided at birth but nor do I think it is a choice, I believe that homosexuality is as a result of our experiences and social circumstances, and I do believe that as such there is a degree of choice at a sub-concious level.

Regardless if homosexuality is a choice or not, it does not change the fact that homosexual couples should be respected the same way as a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee

Not sure I follow. Are you saying children are no longer influened by their parents because they are off at work all day? That's not the case in every household, and kids are at school for most of the workday anyhow.

Even in homes where the mother and father work 7 days a week, children are influenced by the parents. Parents are our first role models. They teach us the things we need to know in order to become healthy and well-adapted. They are the ones we first look to for guidance when we are unsure. That influence is about way more than gender stereotypes.

Did you grow up with a both mother and a father? As someone who did not, I can tell you there are things you can only learn from your mother, and things you can only learn from your father. The sliding scales of masculinity and femininity make for some overlap depending on the persons involved, but it's all about balance.

I'm saying the stereotype of male & female is not a requirement in today's world as gender specific roles no longer exist.

If I was going to push an ideal, I'd push the Elephant society.

I was raised by my mother and grandmother. There were issues because my grandmother was controlling. There was not an issue due to lack of a male figure. I had abandonment issues because he left. That has nothing to do with the immediate family dynamic.

a reply to: Annee

If only it were as easy to spot one's own shortcomings as it is to spot others'. I know I'd be a better person.

Gender roles absolutely do still exist and always will. This is because they originate from patterns in natural behavioral tendencies. Modern society is making a real effort to convince people to ignore the obvious, but the majority will trust their own judgements on things they see every day.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

The Romans didn't care who or how people were screwing/loving one another.

Then around 2000 yeahs ago suddenly being gay was wrong, immoral and an 'abomination'.

Interested to know what you think was the evolutionary reason for our sudden change in morality.

I'm *not* a student of Roman history, but it's my understanding that the Romans did, actually, care how people were screwing/loving each other. They were fine with homosexual love, as long as it didn't replace the marital structure. So, in short, the Romans (at least, the early ones) would be screaming pretty loudly at the idea of homosexual marrying. Same with the Greeks.

But the Jewish law predates Jesus, it's far older than 2000 years, and it does not look kindly on homosexuality. The idea that there was a "sudden change in our morality" isn't accurate, since homosexuality was already considered wrong in at least one culture, and also since Rome was not the only culture around.

As far as the evolutionary stuff goes, reproduction is foundational to evolution. Homosexual sex doesn't produce children, which might explain why some people might have an instinctual "squick" reaction to it–evolution has conditioned them to seek out mates that will produce children. That would also explain why the Romans and Greeks, for instance, placed a lot of emphasis on heterosexual sex (even when they were OK with homosexual sex in certain contexts) because they were driven by the desire to produce an heir, which fits nicely with evolutionary theory as I understand it. In short, I think that's one possible explanation for homophobia. Not necessarily the correct one, but the idea that "religion made them do it" seems simplistic to me. If religion is man-made, why would man make those sorts of rules? Natural selection seems like a reasonable candidate. But perhaps you believe religion is divinely inspired?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

If words are so insignificant, why does a gay couple care whether or not they are married? Why is the term 'civil union' not acceptable?

That question works backwards and forwards - why does anyone care? What possible difference does it make to anyone?

It's a form of segregation

The words civil union are acceptable to some people because they don't want to call it a marriage unless it's between a man or a woman

Think about that for a minute...

Gay people are not fighting over words - they are fighting to wrest control over their lives from people who are not entitled to control their lives in the very first place

If people want to get married - who dares to say they can't?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Jesus was never against homosexuality.

It seems that most homophobes are Christians themselves because of what their preachers tell them. It's the OT law.

I was interacting with Prezbo369, who believes that Jesus was against homosexuality (and also, apparently, that nobody was against homosexuality before that...) I don't think that Jesus was in *favor* of homosexuality, but he didn't speak much on it in the Gospels.

I am slightly interested as to why Christians always get dragged over the coals when Muslims have the same beliefs, but it's probably just a Western-centric thing.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: Annee

If only it were as easy to spot one's own shortcomings as it is to spot others'. I know I'd be a better person.

Gender roles absolutely do still exist and always will. This is because they originate from patterns in natural behavioral tendencies. Modern society is making a real effort to convince people to ignore the obvious, but the majority will trust their own judgements on things they see every day.

Oh, tell the feminist that gender roles still exist.

Forced society gender roles is what I was talking about. Since I'm almost 70, it is something I've experienced.

Ignore what obvious? We are mammals. I choose the society structure of elephants as an IDEAL.

You are also choosing what you've sekected as ideal. A man made society --- not natural behavior. If anything, the elephant society structure is more natural.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Alpha group claims to not care about the word.

Beta group openly seeks to preserve the definition of the word.

Why does Alpha group insist on being able to use the word, when they don't really care and it will cause distress to Beta group?