Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Regarding Homosexuals and Choice

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:30:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being a choice, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being predetermined, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

If you think it is immoral, then it is STILL immoral if it they are born that way and choose to engage in said behavior. Your argument is that it is immoral, improper, or unnecessary, so it matters not.
If you think it is genetic, then acknowledge that other things that are genetic doesn't make it okay to act (pedophilia or sociopathy). Your argument is that it doesn't harm anyone, so it matters not.

I don't understand why this matters in the slightest.
It is not a point for or against any stance, so why dwell over this point in discussions?
My work here is, finally, done.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 6:45:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Homosexuality isn't genetic. Sexuality is genetic, and we simply never evolved a gene that restricts our orientation.

Homosexuality is determined by many environmental factors, both biological and social.

And yes, the level of choice has nothing to do with its validity.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Firstly, homosexuality is not a choice. One does not wake up one day and say, "oh, I think guys are hot." It just happens.

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination. Furthermore, morality deals in choices--if I have not made a choice, I am not liable for something. For instance, if I trip into someone, and they fall and hurt themselves because of it, I am not morally at fault so long as I did not choose to injure them or choose to act in a reckless or negligent fashion. Simply put, we cannot be blamed for any consequence X, if we are not responsible for X. We are only responsible for our choice, from a moral POV.

Thirdly, while I think choice matters, it is possible to justify the morality of homosexuality sans choice. So, at the end of the day, choice is not the definitive question some treat it as, but that doesn't make it irrelevant either.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 8:59:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

He already made the point that pedophilia is generally accepted as both genetic/non-choice and generally accepted as immoral.

So not having a choice isn't a factor for discrimination in that case.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 9:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 8:59:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

He already made the point that pedophilia is generally accepted as both genetic/non-choice and generally accepted as immoral.

So not having a choice isn't a factor for discrimination in that case.

I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 9:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:59:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

He already made the point that pedophilia is generally accepted as both genetic/non-choice and generally accepted as immoral.

So not having a choice isn't a factor for discrimination in that case.

I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

And with those who claim homosexuality is immoral, they also condemn the behavior.

Same concept.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:03:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:57:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

And with those who claim homosexuality is immoral, they also condemn the behavior.

Same concept.

No, there's no consent issue.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

If there was pedophile porn created by computer (no children involved) but looking very realistic, does that mean you'd have no problem with it? I would because I hate the idea of it even.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:08:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:06:58 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/3/2014 9:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

If there was pedophile porn created by computer (no children involved) but looking very realistic, does that mean you'd have no problem with it? I would because I hate the idea of it even.

If it involved no real children, I don't see a rational basis to object. Emotionally, I'd be horrified by something like that. But that isn't sufficient grounds.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:57:52 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/3/2014 9:09:01 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:59:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

He already made the point that pedophilia is generally accepted as both genetic/non-choice and generally accepted as immoral.

So not having a choice isn't a factor for discrimination in that case.

I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

And with those who claim homosexuality is immoral, they also condemn the behavior.

Ah yes, but there are many people who find homosexuality itself to be immoral. Since we cannot be responsible for things other than our choices, it is ridiculous to make the argument that homosexuality itself is immoral.

If people just condemn the behavior, that would be more logical (though, IMHO, still fallacious). But, if people condemn both, they have no basis in logic to affirm that stance.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:40:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:08:35 PM bsh1 wrote:
I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

If there was pedophile porn created by computer (no children involved) but looking very realistic, does that mean you'd have no problem with it? I would because I hate the idea of it even.
If it involved no real children, I don't see a rational basis to object. Emotionally, I'd be horrified by something like that. But that isn't sufficient grounds.

You'd discount your own reaction entirely as invalid. You have no faith in your own reaction - or you separate judgements into reasoned and other.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:43:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:40:58 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/3/2014 10:08:35 PM bsh1 wrote:
I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

If there was pedophile porn created by computer (no children involved) but looking very realistic, does that mean you'd have no problem with it? I would because I hate the idea of it even.
If it involved no real children, I don't see a rational basis to object. Emotionally, I'd be horrified by something like that. But that isn't sufficient grounds.

You'd discount your own reaction entirely as invalid. You have no faith in your own reaction - or you separate judgements into reasoned and other.

I recognize the refried beans disgust me--does that mean it's immoral. I recognized that consensual sodomy disgusts people--does that mean it's immoral.

I would say "no" to both of those questions. We need to look to logic, not gut reactions here.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 10:57:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:43:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I recognize the refried beans disgust me--does that mean it's immoral. I recognized that consensual sodomy disgusts people--does that mean it's immoral.

I would say "no" to both of those questions. We need to look to logic, not gut reactions here.

You know fried beans disgust you from experience. There's no way of anticipating direct physical disgust to an unknown stimulus. So unless you have watched realistic simulated pedophile porn, you're talking about something different to physical disgust.

Not trying to attack you. Just interested in this idea.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:04:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:40:58 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/3/2014 10:08:35 PM bsh1 wrote:
I would make an important distinction here. Pedophilia disgusts me, but I don't think that having those urges is itself immoral. Rather, acting on those urges is immoral because it violates the principle of consent.

If there was pedophile porn created by computer (no children involved) but looking very realistic, does that mean you'd have no problem with it? I would because I hate the idea of it even.
If it involved no real children, I don't see a rational basis to object. Emotionally, I'd be horrified by something like that. But that isn't sufficient grounds.

You'd discount your own reaction entirely as invalid. You have no faith in your own reaction - or you separate judgements into reasoned and other.

It has been found that sex crimes are more prevalent where pornographic content is restricted (plausibly since it provides an outlet for sexual urges); it's plausible that access to childless child porn (computer generated or drawn, where no actual children are harmed) could reduce sex crimes against children -- in which case maybe it would be morally preferable to allow such porn even though it is disgusting.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:10:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:57:30 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/3/2014 10:43:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I recognize the refried beans disgust me--does that mean it's immoral. I recognized that consensual sodomy disgusts people--does that mean it's immoral.

I would say "no" to both of those questions. We need to look to logic, not gut reactions here.

You know fried beans disgust you from experience. There's no way of anticipating direct physical disgust to an unknown stimulus. So unless you have watched realistic simulated pedophile porn, you're talking about something different to physical disgust.

Not trying to attack you. Just interested in this idea.

But I can be disgusted by the idea of something. Since I've never watched pedophile porn, I can't say that it disgusts me, but I can be certain it would if I saw it. That's if you want to make a semantic game out of it.

But, really, "disgust" isn't a moral thing--it sometimes is, but not always. We therefore have to look to rational rules.

If moral responsibility presupposes choice, then homosexuality isn't immoral itself. Since homosexual acts (if consensual) violate no other rational, moral principles, they aren't wrong.

However, pedophilic acts are totally wrong because they violate the notion of consent.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

So we can discriminate based on religion and politics? Those are technically things that we choose.

Furthermore, morality deals in choices--if I have not made a choice, I am not liable for something. For instance, if I trip into someone, and they fall and hurt themselves because of it, I am not morally at fault so long as I did not choose to injure them or choose to act in a reckless or negligent fashion. Simply put, we cannot be blamed for any consequence X, if we are not responsible for X. We are only responsible for our choice, from a moral POV.

If I spill my coffee on your laptop computer, thus frying its circuits, then I owe you a replacement laptop. If I hit you with my car and leave you unable to work for six months, then I owe you your hospital bills and lost wages. Whether I chose to do either is irrelevant, because I have still wronged you.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:19:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:13:11 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

So we can discriminate based on religion and politics? Those are technically things that we choose.

Saying that we cannot discriminate against X doesn't mean we can also discriminate against Y and Z.

For example, if it isn't okay to discriminate against Blacks, Muslims, or Martians, and I said "it's wrong to discriminate against Martians" I am correct. But, just because my sentence applied just to Martians does not mean I condone discrimination against Blacks or Muslims.

So, what you're assuming here is logically fallacious. You're falsely assuming that because I said that one type of discrimination is wrong that all others are okay.

No, it is not okay to discriminate against these groups either.

Furthermore, morality deals in choices--if I have not made a choice, I am not liable for something. For instance, if I trip into someone, and they fall and hurt themselves because of it, I am not morally at fault so long as I did not choose to injure them or choose to act in a reckless or negligent fashion. Simply put, we cannot be blamed for any consequence X, if we are not responsible for X. We are only responsible for our choice, from a moral POV.

If I spill my coffee on your laptop computer, thus frying its circuits, then I owe you a replacement laptop. If I hit you with my car and leave you unable to work for six months, then I owe you your hospital bills and lost wages. Whether I chose to do either is irrelevant, because I have still wronged you.

I am discussing moral, not legal, responsibility. Legally, you can be held to account for such things, but you are not morally blameworthy if both incidents truly were outside of your control.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:22:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:19:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I am discussing moral, not legal, responsibility. Legally, you can be held to account for such things, but you are not morally blameworthy if both incidents truly were outside of your control.

Whose morals?

According to my morality, you're at fault for not showing up on my doorstep with free food.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:26:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:22:56 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/3/2014 11:19:10 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I am discussing moral, not legal, responsibility. Legally, you can be held to account for such things, but you are not morally blameworthy if both incidents truly were outside of your control.

Whose morals?

We can look to a variety of different principles. Since most people who oppose gay marriage do so on deontological, naturalist, or religious grounds, those would be the morals I am appealing to.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

How can you say that skin colour or gender cannot be a basis for discrimination, when historically they have been used as a basis for discrimination? Do you mean that they shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination? Can you use intelligence (which is largely outside of one's own control) as a basis for discrimination (e.g. mensa)? What about height (e.g. roller-coaster height restrictions)?
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:41:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:35:35 PM, Enji wrote:
At 9/3/2014 8:26:41 PM, bsh1 wrote:

Secondly, the significance of choice is that if it isn't a choice (i.e. if it is a trait innate or inherent to someone, e.g. skin color or gender), then it cannot be a basis for discrimination.

How can you say that skin colour or gender cannot be a basis for discrimination, when historically they have been used as a basis for discrimination? Do you mean that they shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination? Can you use intelligence (which is largely outside of one's own control) as a basis for discrimination (e.g. mensa)? What about height (e.g. roller-coaster height restrictions)?

Can - "be permitted by conscience or feeling to" [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] So, yes, it shouldn't be used as a standard for discrimination.

Intelligence shouldn't be used as a basis for discrimination unless there is some demonstrable harm to others in not discriminating. For instance, someone with a severe mental handicap should not serve on a jury because they won't understand the proceedings, and thus would violate the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The roller coaster height restrictions are designed to keep you safe. The right to life outweighs the right against discrimination, thus, it is justified.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:42:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like how people nit-pick at what I'm saying, but don't address the core gist of my points with regard to how they address the OP.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2014 11:54:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:42:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I like how people nit-pick at what I'm saying, but don't address the core gist of my points with regard to how they address the OP.
I don't disagree with your overall response to the OP, but I did disagree with your phrasing "These cannot be a basis for discrimination," since 'cannot' generally connotes that "it is not possible for these to be a basis for discrimination." But it turns out that's not what you meant.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:26:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:42:16 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I like how people nit-pick at what I'm saying, but don't address the core gist of my points with regard to how they address the OP.

I agree with everything you've said about choice and homosexuality. I'm just a bit confused by your comments about paedophilia.

The difference is consent and you said you'd be emotionally horrified by computer simulated and realistic pedophile porn. You're just guessing that you would be maybe.

Imagine if you WEREN'T horrified, that it was made artistically and the fake child was having fun and you surprised yourself by liking it. I think you would be horrified to not be horrified. You'd be horrified on principle.

This is different from knee-jerk disgust. I don't know how to express different concepts except with words. You've accused me of semantics as if there's an alternative, but I don't know what it could be.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 2:30:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 11:04:38 PM, Enji wrote:

It has been found that sex crimes are more prevalent where pornographic content is restricted (plausibly since it provides an outlet for sexual urges); it's plausible that access to childless child porn (computer generated or drawn, where no actual children are harmed) could reduce sex crimes against children -- in which case maybe it would be morally preferable to allow such porn even though it is disgusting.

I'm really surprised by that. Can you link me to the evidence?
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 8:05:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 10:57:30 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 9/3/2014 10:43:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:

I recognize the refried beans disgust me--does that mean it's immoral. I recognized that consensual sodomy disgusts people--does that mean it's immoral.

I would say "no" to both of those questions. We need to look to logic, not gut reactions here.

You know fried beans disgust you from experience. There's no way of anticipating direct physical disgust to an unknown stimulus. So unless you have watched realistic simulated pedophile porn, you're talking about something different to physical disgust.

Not trying to attack you. Just interested in this idea.

Not really. I'm sure you know you don't like sh*t, but probably you have never tasted it. I don't like fish, and I knew I didn't like it before I tasted it for the first time.
Osiris_Rosenthorne
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 9:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 6:30:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being a choice, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being predetermined, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

If you think it is immoral, then it is STILL immoral if it they are born that way and choose to engage in said behavior. Your argument is that it is immoral, improper, or unnecessary, so it matters not.
If you think it is genetic, then acknowledge that other things that are genetic doesn't make it okay to act (pedophilia or sociopathy). Your argument is that it doesn't harm anyone, so it matters not.

I don't understand why this matters in the slightest.
It is not a point for or against any stance, so why dwell over this point in discussions?

Well, when somebody tells me they chose to be heterosexual, I get confused, because if that were the case, wouldn't we, and they, really all be bisexual?
I probably hate everything you stand for - and on.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 9:53:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/4/2014 9:45:48 AM, Osiris_Rosenthorne wrote:
At 9/3/2014 6:30:14 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being a choice, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

For those who make a big deal about homosexuality being predetermined, I ask you this:
so what? What does this change?

If you think it is immoral, then it is STILL immoral if it they are born that way and choose to engage in said behavior. Your argument is that it is immoral, improper, or unnecessary, so it matters not.
If you think it is genetic, then acknowledge that other things that are genetic doesn't make it okay to act (pedophilia or sociopathy). Your argument is that it doesn't harm anyone, so it matters not.

I don't understand why this matters in the slightest.
It is not a point for or against any stance, so why dwell over this point in discussions?

Well, when somebody tells me they chose to be heterosexual, I get confused, because if that were the case, wouldn't we, and they, really all be bisexual?

The root of the choice debate is whether people choose to be attracted to members of the same sex or not. Regardless of why they are attracted, they choose to pursue those relationships.
So, who cares if homosexuality is a choice? It doesn't normalize it, nor make it any more or less sinful. It is an argument, IMO, based in pathos.

Gays can claim "I was born this way", inciting feelings of naturalism, and by extension, who are you to tell them to change what they can't.
Those saying it is sinful have the cushion to say they choose to be gay, thus they don't look as big of d!cks for bring the logical conclusion (similar to saying that if abortion is murder, then it is still murder if the women was raped).

In either case, it doesn't have any merit to the issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2014 10:13:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/3/2014 9:05:21 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
I know this guy already got cut, but how on earth can you watch that person cry and still believe it's "immoral?"



Wow Mr. Parrot, I didn't know you cared!!

I personally can't help but always notice the power thing to all homosexual relationships (eg. big black man/little white man, each compensating, controlling, etc.) but it's not like it's not there in heterosexual relationships too, just obscured by the whole reproduction dealie I guess... Still, love and care between people is something you could hang a reality on... Regardless of between who...