Difference between revisions of "Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Undo revision 343823 by Special:Contributions/Alexxjm (User talk:Alexxjm) please don't spam the same content to multiple pages -- contribute to each page separately)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{The very title of this "debate" slants the dialogue in a negative direction.
+
{{debate}}
−
Why in the world would it be necessary to defend or justify something that is part of nature, something people (and other species) are born to?  The answer to that is threefold:  a).  Some social conservatives use the bible to justify discrimination and intolerance against gay people.  This is the case even though we did not all agree to be ruled by the bible, that the bible says different things about homosexuality (the Eunuchs shal inherit the earth), and that much of what is in the bible doesn't fit in a modern world (hence we don't smite people for mixing fibres in their garments, burn a sacrificial bull at the altar, condone slavery, or stone people for the 'abomination' of eating shellfish). b) Some social conservatives use twisted science to condemn gay and lesbian people, even forgetting that women are included, and looking only at so-called 'research', such as the discredited ex-gay ministry, which reinforces their belief systems.  c).  Those same social conservatives actually CAUSE homosexuality to be a critique of 'traditional values' (although there is NOTHING non-traditional about homosexuality in and of itself-- it's been around since before tradition!) by pushing homosexuality into the shadows by using the bible and twisted science to advocate for discrimination and intolerance against gay and lesbian people. There is nothing new about wanting to abridge the rights of people we are not comfortable with, and there's a self-reinforcing dynamic of systematic mistreatment of people who are different, leading to defensive behavior, leading to stereotypes, which are used to justify further mistreatment.  There is also nothing new about blaming a group of people we are uncomfortable with for all society's ills.  It's reassuring and provides a simple answer-- even if it's the wrong answer. Alexxjm
 
−
 
 
−
{debate}}
 
  
 
''Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?''
 
''Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?''

Revision as of 21:15, November 27, 2007

! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting 		Conservlogo.png

Are homosexuals "born that way"? Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?

Yes

"Are homosexuals "born that way"?"

I think the science is not all in on that one. All I do know is that many of them have known they were "different" from a very young age.

"Would it outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex?"

What a sick, controlling question. I know it would outrage my personhood to suppress any desire I hold because someone else finds it abominable or disgusting. As it should, indeed, outrage theirs if I were to expect them to suppress a desire that I think is wrong somehow. Although, now that I think about it, why shouldn't all warmaking people suppress that desire? A bit off topic there. Anyway, yes, I'm certain that it would be a cruel outrage for expect or force someone else to suppress their desires where they do not affect you personally. Human 21:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts. This question is more of a free will versus determinism question than about the science behind homosexuality. People have the choice in whether or not they have a relationship with a person of the same sex. I believe that we have the free will in what we do and so homosexuals have the choice of not committing those sinful acts. --AdrianP 21:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Those that think the acts are "sinful" can make that choice, yes. Those that don't are free to act in a way that increases their happiness. Human 22:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)


Yea but it's so hard not to do itRebiu 23:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

No

I believe that there are elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts. Homosexuals are not "born that way", and it would not outrage their personhood to suppress the desire to fornicate with a member of the same sex. --Ed Poor 18:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Answered below.-AmesGyo! 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe

I think there is a division of homosexuality. I think that some people during their youth are sexually confused by hormones, and they engage is sexual acts that they otherwise wouldn't. I have a friend who is straight as can be, but he's had homosexual sex before, as a teen, and regrets it, because he was not homosexual. Also, I don't believe in "Bisexuality." I can give that people can be attracted to the opposite sex, but I don't think that you can be attracted to both. I think bisexually is just a lack of CARING about what you have sex with, so long as you are having sex.

Now, I am a strong believer in gay rights and I believe that at least some gays are in some way a natural occurrence. I have many gay friends and am a member of our school's LGBTS alliance. I have meet many single sex couples, including a pair of lesbians partners who are currently raising a daughter that is more well behaved than most straight raised couples and she is heterosexual to boot.--Elamdri 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

How can bisexuality be a lack of caring? I am bisexual, and besides the fact that I am not legally old enough to have sex, there are plenty of people with whom I simply would not want to do so.--Άθεος 20:18, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I just don't think you can be both. I think you can be either one or the other. Being bisexual means that you don't care whether or not you are having sex with a man or a woman. Also, if you are not legally old enough to have sex (No such thing btw, sex isn't illegal) then you may not be bisexual. You might be hormonally confused. It happens. But anyway, I just don't think bisexuality is a valid sexual identity. I think its more like you just want to have sex, and its really irrelevant what you are having sex with. I mean, feel free to think me wrong. It just what I personally feel. You can either be gay or straight, but both is pushing it.--Elamdri 22:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

The Obvious Arguments

People have said repeatedly that homosexuality is not "inborn" - rather, it appears at a very early age, such that people don't remember it, so they think it's inborn, but it's not. The question is, how does this matter? If the change is subtle, at a young age, and permanent, how is it any different from being "inborn" in the respect it deserves? The trait is still immutable, and discrimination based on immutable traits is flat-out bigotry (racism, sexism). So, does it matter if the trait is inborn, if it can be proved to be acquired early on, as Ed has argued?

Second, the argument is that homosexuals do not have to be "practicing" homosexuals - they can abstain. The request, then, is for homosexuals to live a sex-less life. Hands up who's male, straight, and adult here (*hand up*). Hands up who'd be mad as anything if they couldn't have sex ever again (*hand up*). Now impute that same prospective frustration onto homosexuals. Can you deny someone, even someone with whom you disagree, someone who you think is a sinner, the basic right of expression & love that sexual intimacy is? Plenty of people do voluntarily - but that's entered into voluntarily, not by forcible compulsion.

A closing thought: if it disgusts you, so be it; don't do it. If you think it'll condemn gays to Hell, so be it; according to fundamentalist Christianity, all Muslims & Jews are going to hell anyways, and you seem capable of getting along with them. Ed, maybe "evil" doesn't deserve your acceptance, but you "accept" evil all the time in the form of different religions. The point is that it doesn't hurt anyone to be accepting of a right that infringes upon none of yours.-AmesGyo! 22:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Very eloquent: "You should be a lawyer." --Ed Poor 22:43, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks Ed! I try. I've just seen too many good people go through pain & trauma because they've been needlessly ostracized for their sexual orientation.-AmesGyo! 22:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
As Ed said, very eloquent. I agree completely; this equivocation is ridiculous. Underscoreb 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Hey, I didn't say "correct", I just said "eloquent". ;-)
Yeah, but in the legal world, you don't have to be correct to be right.--Elamdri 01:48, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
"if it disgusts you"... The thought of many, many people fornicating/consummating their marriage disgusts me. But, it is none of my business who they choose to do it with. And none of yours, either. Human 00:37, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Does It Matter?

Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetically determined or a personal choice, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. It's a no-brainer, guys. Underscoreb 00:23, 8 November 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Are_there_any_elements_of_choice,_when_it_comes_to_carrying_out_homosexual_acts%3F&oldid=343853"