It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

page: 3
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

This is what you said


I'm definitely a proponent of gay not being a choice but a result of upbringing and the environment one is brought up in


Then you said this


First of all you are using an individual situation to prove a rule


You are actually proving the exception to the rule.




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ISeekTruth101
I'm definitely a proponent of gay not being a choice but a result of upbringing and the environment one is brought up in - father figures, mother figures, non-nuclear family - lots of variables.


I have eleven brothers and sister and we were all bought up in the same way so if what you are saying I shouldn't be gay as my up bringing was exactly the same as my other 5 brothers. Can you explain this to me then please?


It is impossible that you and your siblings grew up the same way, the variables involved are deeper than you make them out to be. All could be treated differently, in subtle or obvious ways by the parents, other members of the extended family like cousins or aunts, plus you don't know how your siblings felt inside when something was done or said directly or indirectly at them. My point is your sibling will most certainly have experienced life differently to you, despite all of you growing up together.


Unless you want to group human beings into one robotic form of input and output when it comes to perception and sensory data.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Wow, you're picky!

Sorry.

I actually thought the poster was using his situation to prove upbringing can not effect sexuality - hence his situation to prove a rule - his rule... which is or course the exception to my rule (or what I believe).

Man, some people on here......



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Oh now you are a psychologist/psychiatrist?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: NavyDoc



I think the choice vs not a choice argument comes into play when groups want to define gay people as a protected class.


No its because they don't want to recognize them as people with equal rights as the rest of us.


I disagree. I see this argument over and over again, on this very site, "It's not a choice like religion or politics, being gay is like being black so we need to make laws to protect them."



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spot on!

I personally don't want more rights than anyone else, just the same rights!




Equal protection under the law--it's right there in the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Because that is the best way that Christians can justify their intolerance. If it turns out that it isn't a choice then that means that God purposely made these people that way which in turn means that they were made that way to be predestined for hell according to their dogma. Since all people have a chance of being saved, this conflicts with their teachings. Hence the choice the debate. I agree though. It is irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

So, it's to be logic then ...

Why are you restating the argument posed by IShotMyLastMuse ?

YOU are the one whose argument depends on "homosexual" not being included in the larger set of "people" which is patently absurd. There is a portion of every population that is homosexual. Please support your claim by presenting valid data which shows any population of humans anywhere any time that doesn't include some who are homosexual. Baring that proof, right out of the gate, you're merely hoisting a straw-man rather than a valid argument.

[X]

The second flaw with your first paragraph is that you're constraining the existence of homosexuality to an individual identification with the social group "homosexual" in your claim that it is not a social norm. There are many individuals in the world who experience some level of homosexual attraction that do not define themselves as homosexual, thus, again, right out of the gate you have committed the fallacy of composition, by implying that the quality "homosexuality" depends on someone defining themselves, or being defined as, in the group "homosexual," which is again, patently absurd.

[X][X]

The third flaw with your first paragraph is that you're falsely identifying homosexuality as "abnormal" a term which, by its nature, more often than not denotes a personal judgement that does not conform to actual facts. You have presented no information on the populations you're considering. From a statistical point of view, abnormality is often arbitrarily considered anything that falls within about 1.96 standard deviations of the mean in the measurement of a quality among a given population. You present no data that demonstrates that the incidence of homosexuality is constrained in such a way, thereby committing several logical errors, the strongest of which is faulty generalization.

[X][X][X]

Sorry, thanks for playing.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263



Wow, you're picky!


Lol. His point was that if it was indeed upbringing then there'd be more gay kids.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Whether the poster is a psychologist or not.... The point the poster makes about upbringing is very relevant yet for some reason you are pulling him/her up on it?

You are obviously too young to have your own children, I'm sorry if I'm wrong but you come across that way. If you have children you understand the fact that each child is treated differently... The first born (miracle), the baby of the family (always will be molly coddled), the second born (a feral upbringing by experienced parents 2nd time round). This undoubtabley effects the resulting behaviour of the child/grown up child.

It's not an insult, it's not a dig - it's fact.

Again these are all things which can not be applied to every person but you can not ignore the glaringly obvious effects/things the poster is saying.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Forget this, I'm banging my head against a brick wall again with the same immature quote pickers who can not and will not open their minds to human nature, nurture, behaviour.

What's the point.

I'll leave you to it.

If you ever want to objectively educate yourself about the human brain, behaviours and psyche then there's information all over the web.

Don't be blind and don't believe that what I say makes me homophobic.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263



You are obviously too young to have your own children, I'm sorry if I'm wrong but you come across that way. If you have children you understand the fact that each child is treated differently... The first born (miracle), the baby of the family (always will be molly coddled), the second born (a feral upbringing by experienced parents 2nd time round). This undoubtabley effects the resulting behaviour of the child/grown up child.

It's not an insult, it's not a dig - it's fact.


It is an insult. I have a son.

And yes different kids are different. What is your point? Are you saying that kids become straight or gay because of their parents?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Your post is the perfect example of word salad. Looks like a big 'ole bowl of stuff, but not much substance.

Where are your studies that show children of homosexual parents suffer more than children of heterosexual parents? Don't give me anything from the Family Research Council - they've been totally debunked as a nothing but a heavily biased Christian fundamentalist gay-hate group, not too much unlike Westboro.

Here are some scientific studies that show children of homosexual parents are no worse off then children of heterosexual parents (and many times are better off):


A large body of scientific literature demonstrates that children and adolescents
who grow up with gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional,
cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are
heterosexual.21–37
...more than 100 scientific publications over 30 years, taken together,
have demonstrated that children’s well-being is affected much
more by their relationships with their parents, their parents’ sense of
competence and security, and the presence of social and economic support
for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their
parents.20,33,34

pediatrics.aappublications.org...


Children raised by same-sex couples have better health and well-being in comparison to their peers, according to a groundbreaking new study which is being billed as the largest of its kind.

Conducted by Australia's University of Melbourne, the new research aimed to "describe the physical, mental and social well-being" of children with gay and lesbian parents, and "the impact that stigma has on them." On average, children raised by same-sex couples scored six percent higher than the general population when it came to general health and family cohesion.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I'm sure there are a few bad homosexual parents out there. There are many, many, many VERY bad heterosexual parents out there as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101
If you're 100% straight, you know it. If you're 100% gay, you know that too. If you can even consider 'choice' to be an aspect of sexual orientation, it follows that you must operate somewhere in between. Dandy...just wondering what motivated your choice?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Would you find it extremely difficult to remain non-emotional about a discussion when one of the proponents inaccurately addresses you as "abnormal" in their opening statement?

Perhaps we should have some actual evidence presented rather than mere personal opinions before we invoke the validity of an argument as an interesting part of the "nature vs. nurture' debate?

That is, if we're approaching it non-emotionally ...



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spot on!

I personally don't want more rights than anyone else, just the same rights!




Equal protection under the law--it's right there in the Constitution.


Unfortunately those religious folk are not happy with it and at every God given opportunity think their belief systems trumps others equal rights!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Can you cite sources of studies that show that single parent mothers raise a higher percentage of gay children?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
Forget this, I'm banging my head against a brick wall again with the same immature quote pickers who can not and will not open their minds to human nature, nurture, behaviour.

What's the point.

I'll leave you to it.

If you ever want to objectively educate yourself about the human brain, behaviours and psyche then there's information all over the web.

Don't be blind and don't believe that what I say makes me homophobic.





Given the complexity of human sexuality and human sexual development, the answer is "all of the above."



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You have your opinion which in my opinion is wrong and I have mine!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: flammadraco

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: flammadraco
a reply to: NavyDoc

Spot on!

I personally don't want more rights than anyone else, just the same rights!




Equal protection under the law--it's right there in the Constitution.


Unfortunately those religious folk are not happy with it and at every God given opportunity think their belief systems trumps others equal rights!


Well, that's changing.


OTOH, even fundies have rights. I'm against state forced accommodation. I'm for freedom of association. I don't care if a private citizen does not want to treat people equally--a free society has to tolerate a few arseholes--however, the state and the law must treat every citizen the same.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join