Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?

[Sly_Wizard]

Don't set up strawmen and assume that i'd discredit that love. The only reason I'd consider discrediting it is because the child is unlikely to be of an age where she can reasonably decide whether or not to reciprocate, and so the adult might take advantage. However I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the forty year old's feelings weren't genuine. Besides, the comparison is not appropriate and I disagree with your final statement. Clearly you can apply different standards to people of different maturities in life.

 

 

 

A.) It's not a strawman, since it specifically relates to the "You can't help who you fall in love with" argument.

 

 

 

B.) Thanks for doing EXACTLY what I said you would do (Qualify the "love" someone else feels for another person). So why is it okay for you to do as you see fit based on age but NOT okay for another person to do it as they see fit based on the genders of the people in question? It's called hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Love is not the end all to end all, as it's not treated equally for all persons. People typically forget all about the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument when faced with a situation they find to be detestable. That was the point being made.

 

 

 

Why equate theft to biological attraction? They're clearly not appropriate to compare.

 

 

 

...Okay. So you obviously didn't understand what was getting at. A person claiming they didn't choose to be a certain way doesn't make it so, otherwise the "I can't help it!" argument would become a valid defense to, well, everything.

[Zierro]

The onus is one you to prove that people are born gay, not for someone to prove that they aren't. Srsly. I hate the disenginuity of the "Well, prove that they aren't!" response, because 1.) it doesn't even attempt to answer the question initially posed and 2.) it doesn't even attempt to conform to the scientific method which I thought people were so big on. I guess that's only when it suits them.

 

 

 

Wait a sec... you are saying that it is a choice until proven otherwise. Why not the other way around? I hate the fling-the-burden-of-proof game. -.-

 

 

 

If, say, a forty year-old male "falls in love" with a fifteen year-old female and vice versa, you'll discredit their feelings of love and any semblence of the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument. It's funny, yet ironic at the same time. Either you apply the same standards of love to everyone or you discredit it all together. And since you don't, and won't, apply the same standards of love to all people, then you're only other option is to discredit all issues of love. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.

 

 

 

Differences in age are not the same as differences in gender. There are so many other things to take into account. (Elderly men can take advantage of younger girls easily. That's a big setback to pedophilia. Can you think of anything like that regarding homosexuality?)

 

 

 

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

 

 

 

A thief makes a fully conscious decision to steal. A homosexual does not make a fully conscious decision to be 'aroused' by men.

[Nenga]

 

 

 

Why equate theft to biological attraction? They're clearly not appropriate to compare.

 

 

 

...Okay. So you obviously didn't understand what was getting at. A person claiming they didn't choose to be a certain way doesn't make it so, otherwise the "I can't help it!" argument would become a valid defense to, well, everything.

Good point. If a thief claimed he can't help but be that way, it is still against the law, thus he still committed a crime. A great example, if you take someone, who grew up around stealing, and crime, they are more likely to be a thief because they grew up with those values. Now if you take a gay person, against the rest of society, they will still be gay even though most people are man and women. Now not every kid who grows up in a bad neighborhood will grow up to rob banks, but gay people arn't gonna change, even if they grew up in the rain forest, there body would naturally develop to either like the same or the opposite gender.

[Tetsuya]

 

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

 

 

 

Possibly.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptomania

[Serpent Eye]

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

 

 

 

These really aren't the same thing, and I don't think they should be compared to one another. But for the sake of your argument, I would say, Yes, it does prove that he didn't have a choice in the matter - there's a biological part to some people that make them need to steal.

 

 

 

It really doesn't need to be debated though...

 

 

 

Multiple gay people have posted in this topic, clearly stating that there was no "choice" involved in the matter of being homosexual - that's proof enough that it isn't a choice. People certainly don't have to agree with it still, I'll give them that, but it really is silly to argue that it's a choice.

 

 

 

But to each his own, I suppose.

[Nenga]

...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

 

 

 

These really aren't the same thing, and I don't think they should be compared to one another. But for the sake of your argument, I would say, Yes, it does prove that he didn't have a choice in the matter - there's a biological part to some people that make them need to steal.

 

 

 

It really doesn't need to be debated though...

 

 

 

Multiple gay people have posted in this topic, clearly stating that there was no "choice" involved in the matter of being homosexual - that's proof enough that it isn't a choice. People certainly don't have to agree with it still, I'll give them that, but it really is silly to argue that it's a choice.

 

 

 

But to each his own, I suppose.

 

If someone is against homosexuality then they don't give an homosexual the time of day lol. As soon as they hear the words "i'm gay and..." they just happen to tune it out. That's been my experience anyway.

[Sly_Wizard]

Wait a sec... you are saying that it is a choice until proven otherwise. Why not the other way around? I hate the fling-the-burden-of-proof game. -.-

 

 

 

That's not what I said and there really is no game to be played. The fact that the onus is on you to prove the assertion that people are born gay is, to be totally honest, non-debatable. Otherwise, I'll just play the "Prove God doesn't exist" game with you from now on, and I'm sure you'd love that.

 

 

 

Differences in age are not the same as differences in gender. There are so many other things to take into account. (Elderly men can take advantage of younger girls easily. That's a big setback to pedophilia. Can you think of anything like that regarding homosexuality?)

 

 

 

And, like I said, "love is not the end all as you will simplify qualify the love two people feel if you find their actions detestable", which is no different than the group you lambaste. You really aren't doing anything but validating what I wrote out, you know.

 

 

 

A thief makes a fully conscious decision to steal. A homosexual does not make a fully conscious decision to be 'aroused' by men.

 

 

 

But, you see, if we're going purely on the testimony of the person involved, then what they say about themselves has to always be true and they really can't help their nature as they are, quite literally, slaves to their nature. It's really not that hard to understand. If a thief says he steals because he was born with the innate desire to steal, then how you do you discount his testimony as being false? The answer: You can't.

 

 

 

This is generally why people claiming something about themselves to be true is not counted as evidence as to whether or not something is, indeed, true.

[Nenga]

Sly like I said before, the best way to prove this to you, is to try and be gay for awhile, if that's a choice then i'm sure you can do it. Until you do I don't think anyone is going to take your words seriously.

[Zierro]

That's not what I said and there really is no game to be played. The fact that the onus is on you to prove the assertion that people are born gay is, to be totally honest, non-debatable. Otherwise, I'll just play the "Prove God doesn't exist" game with you from now on, and I'm sure you'd love that.

 

 

 

This was started by someone asking for proof that being homosexual isn't a choice. Some of us came to the conclusion that we do not "decide" what orientation we are - it just comes down to personal preferences which is on a subconscious level I am pretty sure. Now, where is your proof that we're wrong?

 

 

 

And, like I said, "love is not the end all as you will simplify qualify the love two people feel if you find their actions detestable", which is no different than the group you lambaste. You really aren't doing anything but validating what I wrote out, you know.

 

 

 

They are different - that's the whole point of my response. Your age =/= your gender. We don't have bathrooms based on age. The reason pedophilia relationships aren't allowed are because it is an endangerment to the well-being of the children. What types of moral reasons are there for why homosexuality isn't allowed?

 

 

 

But, you see, if we're going purely on the testimony of the person involved, then what they say about themselves has to always be true and they really can't help their nature as they are, quite literally, slaves to their nature. It's really not that hard to understand. If a thief says he steals because he was born with the innate desire to steal, then how you do you discount his testimony as being false? The answer: You can't.

 

 

 

So we're just assuming that they are lying about not being able to control themselves? A thief makes the conscious decision to take what is not his. A homosexual is more turned on by the same sex. You can control what you take from others but you can't control what turns you on. Analogically speaking, can you make yourself like eating cardboard?

 

 

 

Besides, we're not going by bologna testimony here.

[Shinjula]

I'm sorry Zierro but I think you are arguing in entirely the wrong directions, your arguments dont support what you are saying.

 

 

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with and older person falling in love with a younger person at all, the love aspects are exactly the same as in homosexuality, his argument falls down because theres large bodies of psychological evidence showing relatioships formed out of that cause immeasurable amounts of harm to the child, and ethically the child is not developed enough to be able to consent to them

 

 

 

Whereas (whilst there is less information) theres a reasonable mount of information showing stable homosexual relationships cause no harm to either participant and both participants are able to consent.

 

 

 

Its not a straw man argument its quite reasonable to look at paedophilia and homosexuality togther and ask the questions, PROVIDING HE REALISES THERE ARE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ANSWERS TO WHY THEY ARENT THE SAME, paedophilia and homosexuality are both about sexuality and so questions to one do pertain to the other.

 

 

 

 

 

As for thieving, in our society there are very good reasons why thieving is unacceptable, and so someone with kleptomania will have a very tough time, which is indeed a parallel, but there again is a large difference, theres no evidence and certainly no obvious cause to outlawing homosexuality since it doesnt affect other members of society (there have been suggestions in various Christian circles that it damages society, but those have been shown to be wrong so please dont repeat them here without clear evidence of proof)

 

 

 

 

 

As for our the possibility of us lying about whether it is a choice to be gay, as has been repeated many times in this thread and still not answered by sly "When did you choose to be straight?". Theoretically we could be lying to you, but you can simply find the truth within yourself. If you never chose to be straight then sexuality isnt a choice.

[assassin_696]

A.) It's not a strawman, since it specifically relates to the "You can't help who you fall in love with" argument.

 

 

 

Of course it is, you assumed to know my response and misrepresented my opinion and stance. But that's not what matters.

 

 

 

B.) Thanks for doing EXACTLY what I said you would do (Qualify the "love" someone else feels for another person). So why is it okay for you to do as you see fit based on age but NOT okay for another person to do it as they see fit based on the genders of the people in question? It's called hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Love is not the end all to end all, as it's not treated equally for all persons. People typically forget all about the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument when faced with a situation they find to be detestable. That was the point being made.

 

 

 

Love is hard to define and measure, so these questions are difficult to reach a consensus about. But in both cases (age and gender) the feelings of love might well be equivalent. The problems arise when you look at why society prevents one kind of relationship and allows the other. We don't allow relationships between old men and young girls because although the feelings of love on the old man's behalf might well be genuine the young girl isn't developed to a stage where she can make an informed decision as to whether or not she reciprocates. The law serves to protect the child but doesn't necessarily discredit the love of the old man. Besides, if the old man pleaded that he loved the child then surely he wouldn't abuse her?

 

 

 

The point isn't that it's all fatalistic and predetermined. There are lots decisions and choices that will probably be made before falling for someone. But the experience of most relationships is that once you feel attracted to someone it's very hard to shake that feeling, as much as you might want to.

 

 

 

...Okay. So you obviously didn't understand what was getting at. A person claiming they didn't choose to be a certain way doesn't make it so, otherwise the "I can't help it!" argument would become a valid defense to, well, everything.

 

 

 

Sexual attraction is more deeply rooted in our genetic makeup than a tendency to steal or commit murder. It's more likely that a propensity to steal results from the way someone is brought up and the circumstances that they are in, particularly the latter. Although sexual attraction probably isn't entirely genetic, there is more evidence of things like testosterone levels in the womb having a strong correlation to the likely sexual orientation of the child. This is why they are inappropriate to compare.

[Zierro]

Shin, are you saying that you don't think pedophilia relationships result in worse consequences than homosexual ones?

[Shinjula]

Shin, are you saying that you don't think pedophilia relationships result in worse consequences than homosexual ones?

 

No thats why I said

 

his argument falls down because theres large bodies of psychological evidence showing relationships formed out of that [paedophilia] cause immeasurable amounts of harm to the child

 

But its silly to argue that theres no connection between paedophilia and homosexuality because they are both forms of sexuality so there will be bound to be questions which are worth asking (at least from his perspective - since he hasnt really considered it properly) the point is, those question have definate logical answers which point to homosexuality being fine and paedophilia being not fine.

 

 

 

If you argue that you can't compare the two when he obviously can, you arent going to convince him.

 

 

 

So compare them, oooh look, homosexuality is fine, paedophilia is not, and its because of the lack of consent and the evidence of the destructive nature of the paedophilic relationship, now can we have our gay marriage please?

[Zierro]

I'm not arguing that an elderly man can't love a young girl. I know that anyone can fall in love for the same reasons I know it is not a choice. We do not choose to have the physical feeling our bodies get when we are aroused - and even on an emotional level. But what I am saying is that pedophilia relationships shouldn't exist (the elderly man and young lady both should be responsible for not consenting) because of the previous reasons stated. In other words: Even though I'm fully aware that they can, an elderly man shouldn't have a relationship with a teenager. Nothing says that homosexuals shouldn't have relationships with other homosexuals though.

[gman019]

I'm not arguing that an elderly man can't love a young girl. I know that anyone can fall in love for the same reasons I know it is not a choice. We do not choose to have the physical feeling our bodies get when we are aroused - and even on an emotional level. But what I am saying is that pedophilia relationships shouldn't exist (the elderly man and young lady both should be responsible for not consenting) because of the previous reasons stated. In other words: Even though I'm fully aware that they can, an elderly man shouldn't have a relationship with a teenager. Nothing says that homosexuals shouldn't have relationships with other homosexuals.

 

 

 

Except, you know, the large community of Christians who think their "Bible" is completely 100% right.

 

 

 

I wish the average American was as smart as some of the people in this thread.

[purfishx]

 

 

 

Except, you know, the large community of Christians who think their "Bible" is completely 100% right.

 

 

 

I wish the average American was as smart as some of the people in this thread.

 

 

 

We have our beliefs, you have yours. No amount of wishing will change this. :thumbup:

[Serpent Eye]

Except, you know, the large community of Christians who think their "Bible" is completely 100% right.

 

 

 

I wish the average American was as smart as some of the people in this thread.

 

 

 

I think it'd be more accurate to say "Christians." 8-) (But as said above ^, I think that's a whole 'nother can-o-worms..)

 

 

 

And I don't know whether I should take your last statement as sarcastic, or literal. I'll side with literal, methinks.

 

 

 

- - -

 

 

 

Edit #2: To clarify, I don't mean to imply that all Christians are fake "Christians." I meant to say that the Bible is a very real, tangible thing... and shouldn't be put into quotes to lessen it... Whether you agree in the messages in the Bible or not, you can't deny that it is real... That's all I meant, Penguin. No hard feelings!

[ThurinEthir]

Except, you know, the large community of Christians who think their "Bible" is completely 100% right.

 

 

 

I wish the average American was as smart as some of the people in this thread.

 

 

 

I think it'd be more accurate to say "Christians." 8-)

 

 

Eh, I'm Christian, and I think you can deduct my perspective on this from my previous posts.

[Serpent Eye]

Eh, I'm Christian, and I think you can deduct my perspective on this from my previous posts.

 

 

 

I don't mean to be Sir Spam-a-lot, but I edited my above post for a bit of clarification.

[Nenga]

I'm not arguing that an elderly man can't love a young girl. I know that anyone can fall in love for the same reasons I know it is not a choice. We do not choose to have the physical feeling our bodies get when we are aroused - and even on an emotional level. But what I am saying is that pedophilia relationships shouldn't exist (the elderly man and young lady both should be responsible for not consenting) because of the previous reasons stated. In other words: Even though I'm fully aware that they can, an elderly man shouldn't have a relationship with a teenager. Nothing says that homosexuals shouldn't have relationships with other homosexuals.

 

 

 

Except, you know, the large community of Christians who think their "Bible" is completely 100% right.

 

 

 

I wish the average American was as smart as some of the people in this thread.

 

I still have yet to see, where it says word for word in the bible, "being gay is a horrible sin and everyone who is gay will go to hell." If it was it'd fit right in there with the 7 deadly sins wouldn't it? Most christians take it that seriously. It fits well too. Lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, wraith, greed, envy, homosexuality.

[Serpent Eye]

I still have yet to see, where it says word for word in the bible, "being gay is a horrible sin and everyone who is gay will go to hell." If it was it'd fit right in there with the 7 deadly sins wouldn't it? Most christians take it that seriously. It fits well too. Lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, wraith, greed, envy, homosexuality.

 

 

 

If you're into the series, it'd also make an interesting Fullmetal Alchemist character :twss:.

 

 

 

But in all seriousness, I think it mentions in the Bible about the city of Sodom being destroyed. Apparently Sodom was full of raging homosexual Sodomites, and God poured down his wrath upon them... or something. I don't know.

 

 

 

But I do know that it doesn't say word-for-word that being gay is a sin.

[ThurinEthir]

Eh, I'm Christian, and I think you can deduct my perspective on this from my previous posts.

 

 

 

I don't mean to be Sir Spam-a-lot, but I edited my above post for a bit of clarification.

 

Oh, no problem. It really is quite irrelevant, since as Life_mage mentioned, as far as I'm concerned, God does not directly condemn homosexuals anywhere in the Bible. It may be implied, but implications are up for different interpretations. (I might be wrong, it's rather pathetic I haven't really studied the Bible... :oops: )

 

So someone go find a good argument against homosexuality without using religion. Now. :)

 

 

 

Edit: Scratch that, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says something like "Neither...Homosexual offenders...Will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

"Offenders" could nullify that though.

[Nenga]

I still have yet to see, where it says word for word in the bible, "being gay is a horrible sin and everyone who is gay will go to hell." If it was it'd fit right in there with the 7 deadly sins wouldn't it? Most christians take it that seriously. It fits well too. Lust, sloth, gluttony, pride, wraith, greed, envy, homosexuality.

 

 

 

If you're into the series, it'd also make an interesting Fullmetal Alchemist character :twss:.

 

 

 

But in all seriousness, I think it mentions in the Bible about the city of Sodom being destroyed. Apparently Sodom was full of raging homosexual Sodomites, and God poured down his wrath upon them... or something. I don't know.

 

 

 

But I do know that it doesn't say word-for-word that being gay is a sin.

 

I was thinking about that just now, what kind of FMA character would homosexuality be.

 

 

 

Also that's what I ment, it doesn't say it word for word. How do we know they city wasn't worshipping another god, or being really greedy, lazy, stuffing their faces, lustful, and had a lot of pride?

[Serpent Eye]

Edit: Scratch that, 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 says something like "Neither...Homosexual offenders...Will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

"Offenders" could nullify that though.

 

 

 

"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy or swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

 

 

 

Sexually immoral? Check.

 

Greedy? Check.

 

Idolater? Check.

 

Slanderer, drunkard, swindler? Check, check, check.

 

Homosexual? -- No check. Guess it's not a sin, and that we're safe to eat with! :twss:

[ThurinEthir]

Edit: Scratch that, 1 Corinthians 5:9-10 says something like "Neither...Homosexual offenders...Will inherit the kingdom of God."

 

"Offenders" could nullify that though.

 

 

 

"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy or swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

 

I meant 6:9-10. Whoops.