Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TheJourney

If homosexuality is a choice, then so is heterosexuality. But as can and has been shown, a homosexual cannot choose to be heterosexual.

I'm not asserting that it is a choice. But saying I don't understand why that is the center of the argument, since free human beings can make whatever choice they want. It wouldn't matter if it WERE a choice, it's a pointless argument. Free human beings can make their own choices, so long as they aren't harming another. And 'choice' is just a filler term for a complex process of how sexual identity is formed, as you say in general not just with homosexuals but people in general. It shouldn't, anyways, be seen like just some conscious decision like what type of cereal to buy. And I'm not asserting that either way, just saying it doesn't matter.

It matters because not everyone thinks like you.

I don't think you're clueless to the fight for equality.

The fundamental religious (mostly) think it's a Chosen Sin. And many actually 100% believe it is prophesized when homosexuality is accepted as normal ---- it is the End Times. I kid you not.

a reply to: TheJourney

Religion, unfortunately, is a very powerful opposition.

Not only on a personal level, but on a political level.

I like you're thinking ---- but, we're just not there yet. First, we have to win the "war" of equality and non-discrimination for LGBT.

In the USA, which laughingly calls themselves "the world's moral compass" homosexuality is still only practiced by about 5% of the entire population, but the size of the argument on the subject far outweighs the actual number of homosexuals in the country.

Almost every TV show has a homosexual character, many movies do, and the number of homosexuals in Hollywood seems to far outrank those in the US population, so they seem to get a much larger part of the national debate than they really deserve.

Just like the NRA (which has less than 1% of Americans among their members), the amount of discussion for the cause is far beyond normal rationale given the size of the groups under discussion.

I have absolutely no problem over pretty much anything that anyone wants to do in their own homes or out and about, but when you're trying to promote your lifestyle over and above that of others, I start to have a problem.

a reply to: TheJourney

Well, we have no right to outlaw personal choices that don't harm others I the first place, so I don't like the premise of 'since it's not a choice, we'll accept it. Freedom of choice in life is extremely important!

Oh of course we have no right to outlaw anyone's choices as long as they don't harm anyone else.

The findies are the one who made the claim that it's a choice and that homosexuality is harmful so therefore its bad. Hence the reason why we have the debate.

Like you said, it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. The point is... it MATTERS to the Fundamentalists.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: TheJourney

Well, we have no right to outlaw personal choices that don't harm others I the first place, so I don't like the premise of 'since it's not a choice, we'll accept it. Freedom of choice in life is extremely important!

Oh of course we have no right to outlaw anyone's choices as long as they don't harm anyone else.

The findies are the one who made the claim that it's a choice and that homosexuality is harmful so therefore its bad. Hence the reason why we have the debate.

Like you said, it doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. The point is... it MATTERS to the Fundamentalists.

I've been reading comments on some "Fundie" sites. It's truly down right scary, not to mention ignorant and brain washed by religious ideaologies.

We HAVE to fight for equal rights and non-discrimination of any minority. We can't just leave it up to everyone choosing what they want.

a reply to: mOjOm

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?

One person has already made the ignorant preumption that my argument is tied to religion, so let me make my position clear. I am all for liberty. I couldn't care less what consenting adults do in private, so long as no harm is being done to anyone. I simply believe the institution of marriage is worth preserving as a special contract between a man and woman.

Society benefits from a man and woman choosing to partner for life. Same sex unions serve no purpose other than to make those involved feel good and entitle them to the same legal benefits. If I had my way, marriage and same sex unions would be treated the same in regards to taxation and the law.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Because of the fundies? It's simple really. We do not care but they do apparently.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: Martianlanded

I don't think many people still believe it is a choice, it is after all an old fashioned view. I however do not believe you are born gay (or straight?)...

Gay - not a choice but not born that way

I'm gay, and I totally agree with above statement. No, consciously I don't remember choosing to, in fact I remember trying as hard as I could to be straight, instituting a program of only allowing myself to think of women, etc. - didn't work. So it doesn't seem like a choice. BUT....I don't think I was born gay or that I had to be. Human sexuality is far far too complicated to come down to a gene (which by the way has never been proven either). Personally I think the reason we have 100% gay people and 100% gay people is more indicative of what we assume into our psyches early EARLY in life, and that goes to profound levels of our psyches, and that comes from the basic society we live in. I'm pretty sure I would have been bi if I had been born at a different time/place.

I have no problem what people do in the privacy of their own homes as long as it's consensual . Yet...the "act" of sodomy is in plain common sense a miss-use of the human body..and I say that as someone that has engaged in heterosexual sodomy. The parts of the body and their intended functions are...OBVIOUS. Now when a society gets to a point that they deny the ...OBVIOUS. We start having a breakdown in logical thinking. My feeling is to engage in what you like but never lie to yourself. If the light in us becomes darkness how great is that darkness ?

We live in a world of compromise and imperfection and homosexuality is a part of this world. We must never lose sight of the "IDEALS" or we have lost our beacon.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: mOjOm

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?

One person has already made the ignorant preumption that my argument is tied to religion, so let me make my position clear. I am all for liberty. I couldn't care less what consenting adults do in private, so long as no harm is being done to anyone. I simply believe the institution of marriage is worth preserving as a special contract between a man and woman.

Society benefits from a man and woman choosing to partner for life. Same sex unions serve no purpose other than to make those involved feel good and entitle them to the same legal benefits. If I had my way, marriage and same sex unions would be treated the same in regards to taxation and the law.

I was thinking about this the other day, because I'm gay and I couldn't give a rat's ass about getting married, and I wonder why gay people are so concerned. It kind of came to me in one moment: 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. It's the way things HAVE been, and so you're sticking to it for...what reason? I wonder if you'd been around when women got the vote if you would have protested that too.

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 any of its members feeling happy and a PART of the society - unless of course your part of society feels unhappiness from this, even though it really does nothing whatsoever to change any of your life.

What society definitely does not benefit from is its members limiting each other's freedoms.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Stop being hypothetical and apologetic for same-sex parenting, stick to the immediate family.

okay

I can argue many people dont have siblings, such as myself, and moved to a nation with no family ties, such as myself.

So stop running away from the argument by comparing apples and oranges

Not sure how it's apples an oranges. Sibs and family ties are not really required to present/provide role models.

It takes a village.

we are comparing the household, not the local community or the extended family that are not a central part of every ones life.

IT TAKES A VILLAGE.

You are saying that the local community, or the extended family, ARE NOT a central part of everyone' life?

I guess technically, that's true.
And that's why - IT TAKES A VILLAGE.

Think about it.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Good post. He thinks that uncles and aunts and cousins don't take part in their lives. He doesn't even think about divorced parents. Single parents. Heaven forbid the grandparents who raise their grandchildren. Forget about the other people around them. Same-sex couples raising children. OH THE HORROR!!!!! THERE'S RISK! THERE'S DANGER!

a reply to: babybunnies

Just like the NRA (which has less than 1% of Americans among their members)

Please source this.
Where did you get it, what site is it from?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: babybunnies

Just like the NRA (which has less than 1% of Americans among their members)

Please source this.
Where did you get it, what site is it from?

LOL he just pulled it out of his ass.

Most homosexuals are able to "rise above" and make it through all the bull#. However, it has been proven that young gay teenagers statistically have a very high rate of suicide. I am not sure if that stat has gotten any better over time. It probably depends on the region they grew up in and how religious it is/was. There is definitely a conflict between gay people and Christian upbringing and their community. Most of the gay people have to move away, to San Francisco for example, to plant their roots in a community that is entirely understanding of them. Away from the confusing and alienating factors of their upbringing.

Many are not so lucky and are never able to transcend the entangling factors of muddled social development and a wide array of mixed messages, contradictions and other conflicts that can insert themselves on an almost unconscious or disconnected level. For those types of homosexuals, the damage done is sufficient enough to have essentially ruined their lives...

a reply to: corsair00

Another answer to the OP's question.

Fundies are the ones who make it hard for them.

Generally we don't give a f what they want. It is the fundies who have the problem.

Hence the debate is not pointless.

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.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I think you answered your own question there.

The reason why "Civil Union" wasn't accepted was because it didn't come with the same benefits as "Marriage" does and in fact those differences make a huge difference.

For one, "Civil Unions" are only valid at the state level where "Marriage" is valid at both State and Federal. This means right away that Federal benefits would not apply. Things like spousal benefits, federal veterans’ spousal benefits, immigration rights associated with marriage, federal spousal employment benefits, the right to file joint federal tax returns, exemptions from income tax on your partner’s health benefits and so on.

Also, since it's only valid at the state level if they were to travel or move out of state it might not be valid at all depending on where they go. If one of them was hurt and needed medial attention they could easily find themselves without the assistance they might otherwise have.

All in all though when you look at all of things together the overall issue is that once again it's about "Unequal Treatment Under the Law". There is no reason to treat the Union of two people different than any other. You say that "Society Benefits from a Man and Woman partnership" yet a "Same Sex partnership serves no purpose other than to make them feel good." I say that is complete BS and a heavily biased position to take. No two partnerships are going to result in the same things so to try and group them all in to "these and those" is equally just as invalid. Both Gay and Hetero Partnerships can be either Good or Bad for society.

Even you end your argument by saying if you had your way they would both be treated the same. I totally agree. They should be, so why aren't they???

If you truly believe that then your argument about how one is beneficial and one is not seem to be in conflict with each other. It seems like you're just having trouble accepting your own conclusions.

a reply to: mOjOm

Starred your post for civility.

Well, here we are back around to the legal side. The solution has been presented many times: take the government out of marriage altogether.

One way would be to call everything a civil union from a legal standpoint, and make marriage a purely private matter. People already have to get a marrige license. It could be as simple as changing that to 'civil union license.' State vs. federal authority is part of this, too...

a reply to: TheJourney

Absolutely. Who someone loves and has sex with is the most mundane of trivialities. Any further consideration is simply a display of one's own fears.