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: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: flammadraco

I think the term "homophobe" has transcended its actual meaning.

Homophobes are frightened or made uncomfortable when confronted with homosexuality in form or in essence.

It has now become defined as "a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly." (MWD)

In its original meaning, the term is not a condemnation, per se, merely an observation.

Our problem arises, I believe, in that hate and abuse often closely follows fear and discomfort, but not necessarily.

Perhaps if we were more careful in our application of the pejoratives?

/shrug
edit on 9Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:06:28 -050015p092015366 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Back to the topic



Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant


It is so very relevant.

Who started it?

Fundies of course.

Who else cares?

Nobody.

Who want them jailed and killed?

You can guess who.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
alcoholism is considered a legitimate disease and yet alcohol is still legal. if homosexuality is a choice then that should be all the more reason to make a business out of it. dont get pissed off, get rich.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: and14263



Mate you need to start reading posts on threads and stop telling people what is and isn't acceptable in these forums.


I am not telling them that. Read again.


Ok, when you say something is a big no no on ATS that means it is not acceptable.


It's a big no no here on ATS.


Whatever, Christ I can't believe I've been sucked into this.... I'm half hoping it's someone I know logged in as you and they are laughing at my expense, because surely this thread is not happening??????? I'm actually laughing reading your posts back.

Gryphon66 - I'm not emotional about the subject matter - only emotional when people refuse to read posts then ask a question answered in the post - and they ask it like I'm the stupid one? If you note the poster has also denied doing something they blatantly did. That in itself should explain how futile it is having a mature discussion with said poster.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: flammadraco

I think the term "homophobe" has transcended its actual meaning.

Homophobes are frightened or made uncomfortable when confronted with homosexuality in form or in essence.

It has now become defined as "a person who hates or is afraid of homosexuals or treats them badly." (MWD)

In its original meaning, the term is not a condemnation, per se, merely an observation.

Our problem arises, I believe, in that hate and abuse often closely follows fear and discomfort, but not necessarily.

Perhaps if we were more careful in our application of the pejoratives?

/shrug


So what word does one utilise now then if Homophobes has changed its previous meaning? Would "Bigot" be more suitable?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: NavyDoc

Right. You just proved my point.


? Perhaps we were just speaking at cross ends--saying the same thing but not realizing it.


It does not matter what "causes" homosexuality. Does not mater if it is nature, nurture, choice, or a variation off all of the three. All law abiding citizens must be equal under the law. No person, regardless of their sexuality, should be deprived of life, liberty, property, or any other Constitutionally guaranteed right with exceptions due to just punishment for criminal activity after due process.

No protected or preferred classes, regardless of what perceived past injustices we think we are trying to correct because that goes against equal protection under the law as well. Everybody is treated the same by the law, period. This is not an bad concept.
edit on 20-3-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Why are you restating the argument posed by IShotMyLastMuse ?


What on earth did I restate? If I had restated anything it might have been to add context to my post, perhaps even for the benefit of a reader who has just joined us. It's a fundamental writing skill, you should learn about it. Go back, put your glasses on and read what that poster wrote, and the basis of my post. To put it short, they said ''homosexuality was a choice...so what? that just means it's a sexual preference you have' and my post provided an argument that goes against this statement.




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.



I am the one? How true is that statement on a general level, beyond the demographic of ATS? Just because it has become a sexual preference check-box on some questionnaire sheet in some department somewhere... does not make it part of the larger set of people. By the way what is the population of homosexuals? It's pretty low, and has only increased by a small amount in the past decade. This is important information as it is part of my argument in that it does not just boil down to equal rights, and sexual orientation and cannot just be put in the same category as race, height, gender or whatever.

The fact is that you can have Indian parents, African parents, Atheist parents, and whatever, but having the same sex parents will definitely provide a completely unique (negative) impact on the upbringing and emotional development of a child. It is NOT just another preference that society can accept without serious consequences on future generations. I don't know how else to spell it out to you. I am not contending the right to be gay here, I am contending the rights of gay couples to raise children based on fundamental psychological factors in child development, impact that can be directly compared to single parenting where there is the absence of either a mother or a father figure. And there are plenty of studies on the matter.

Moreover, I have spent ample time with social care workers, and child minders, as well as growing up in a single-parent household myself, so I can speak from personal experience, and interactions with many more that were in my situation where we always discuss the same points - lack of mother/ father figures.

I can even go one step further as to say that homosexual parenting is worse than single-parenting. Consider this, a muscle imbalance can be caused by exercising a particular agonist muscle group, without providing equal stimulation to the antagonist muscle group. The longer an individual continues training in such a manner, the more compounded the muscle imbalance becomes, and this problems in posture and health arise further down the line, it almost becomes an irreversible issue.

This is comparable to the emotional imbalance in the emotional development of a child into adulthood, caused by the parenting of two 'mother' figures, which compounds the issue more.






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.


This is irrelevant to the core of my argument. I am addressing homosexual parenting, the presence of same sex parental figures during the upbringing of a child's development, It has nothing to do with what you are saying.




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.



Personal judgement? How about the general, widely accepted judgement? Even the English language is all based on opinion at any given era, and you use whatever spelling or terms that are normally used, by most peoples standards. Look, I do not need to get into whether being gay is normal and or not, I am simply going into how families were normally formed in the past, and how they continue to do so now, and how homosexual parenting does not fit in with the norm, and why it is detrimental to family life and child development.

You can say that 'normal' families have their issues too, but that is part of the human condition, being gay isn't and numerous studies have been conducted into the negatives of single-parenting which I feel is strongly comparable to homosexual parenting, and highly relevant, except homosexual parenting is a choice made that you make from the get-go, and not circumstantial.
edit on 20-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

To be honest Deaf Alien, NavyDoc is one of the most "Libertarian" members I've seen on ATS. A while ago when debating with him I was not sure what side of the fence he was on, but now realise his point of view and to be honest we need more folk like him in this world!



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Homophobia is an individual's irrational fear or hate of homosexual people.

Ask Yoda.....



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:24 AM
link   



Here is a recent case, which conveys the points I am trying to raise. In no way is this an isolated case, do not fool yourselves.

ETA: fatherless children represent:

63% of teen suicides
70% of juveniles in state institutions
71% of high school dropouts
75% of children in chemical abuse centers
80% of rapists
85% of youths in prison
90% of homeless and runaway children

I have seen this first hand, with peoples from all walks of life.
edit on 20-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Just like skin IT ISN'T ,so says the law of our country. THey should be able to have a legal union with the same context as marrige in all 50 states. AND so say I in my mind.
I will not accept a marrige in Christian faith that is what the book says it also states "Render unto Ceaser",in this case Ceaser says IT'S LEGAL .
I have gay frieds they KNOW the male act creeps me out we both laugh it's good.
I don't hassle them about their sexuallity THEY don't hassle me as a warrior...because I don't lie to them, I accept them for who they are and have LITTLE time for nominal popular culture ,BECAUSE of this divisionary BULLS #IT.


edit on 20-3-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263



Ok, when you say something is a big no no on ATS that means it is not acceptable.


Not you. The other guy.

Anyway the answer to the OP's question is because of the fundies. Without them there wouldn't be threads like this one.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Surely the point you just made (other than the video) is against Single Mothers rather than Gay parents?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I got a youtube video too:




posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

But you seem to conclude that a normal family has always been mother father co parenting a child together, which has not been true for vast swathes of human history.
The were times when fathers had little on no interaction with children, leaving them to be raised by their mothers, times when mothers didnt raise their kids but they used nannies and neither parent had much interaction. Children have been sent off to boarding schools.
you have societies where women marry multiple men and a child will have many fathers.
societies where men have married multiple women and children have many mothers.
societies where children are raised by the community and arent considered the "possession" of any paticular parent.

Your idea that society has always raised children with one mother one father soley is just wrong.
edit on 20-3-2015 by WilsonWilson because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101




You can say that 'normal' families have their issues too, but that is part of the human condition, being gay isn't and numerous studies have been conducted into the negatives of single-parenting which I feel is strongly comparable to homosexual parenting, and highly relevant, except homosexual parenting is a choice made that you make from the get-go, and not circumstantial.


Homosexuality isn't limited to humans it's common in many other species. Your description of homosexuality displays your bias on this issue as do your 'feelings' in regards to same sex parenting.

Can you give a reason why same sex parents are detrimental to a child's upbringing that isn't based purely on what has been traditional in the past or your subjective feelings and emotions?



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:36 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.




It's tough to get the point across sometimes, but remember you aren't just trying to convince the members in this thread, you are reaching out to the thousands of unregistered readers of ATS who may stumble upon this thread and read your post, so your voice will always count. So don't bang your head against the wall just yet.
edit on 20-3-2015 by ISeekTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

I've always wondered why homosexuals aren't happy that
they stil have a choice. I'm amazed it hasn't become mandatory
in the U.S.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369



Can you give a reason why same sex parents are detrimental to a child's upbringing that isn't based purely on what has been traditional in the past or your subjective feelings and emotions?


Check the sources in this OP here

Read them all then do your own research.



posted on Mar, 20 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



It does not matter what "causes" homosexuality. Does not mater if it is nature, nurture, choice, or a variation off all of the three. All law abiding citizens must be equal under the law. No person, regardless of their sexuality, should be deprived of life, liberty, property, or any other Constitutionally guaranteed right with exceptions due to just punishment for criminal activity after due process.


The OP is asking why is the debate so important. Few of us posters have stated that it is because of the fundies who claimed that it is a choice.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join