Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"

[CristW]

Being gay is a decision even though that "decision" was made either through an act or subconscious level.

Erm What? Do you have an argument why this is justified? And what do you mean by a decision being made through an act?

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

[rexbeccarox]

Erm What? Do you have an argument why this is justified? And what do you mean by a decision being made through an act?

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

So, what is one's sexual orientation before "the act"?

[CristW]

Erm What? Do you have an argument why this is justified? And what do you mean by a decision being made through an act?

CristW, if sexuality is a choice, when did you choose to (presumably) be heterosexual? Better yet, why don't you "choose" to be homosexual? Seriously; choose to be sexually attracted people of the same gender. Change what you like by sheer force of will. I dare you.

Fucking idiot.

Yes, I was referring to Kant's argument. No, if you were born with a biological mechanism to be a particular category, concerning sexual orientation, I doubt that genetics plays a role. This is why I say, you "decide" to be gay. Nevertheless, if you skip the previous argument and determine sexuality by an "act". The "act" would be the only way someone could determine if they are gay or not.

It really does not bother me if scientists find out if someone is born gay or not. I was by-passing the argument, even though, I mentioned it by mentioning last the final "act".

There are two arguments to the conclusion - (Gay).
One argument - genetics or social environment.
One argument - flaws in religion through social legislation.

I by-passed the first argument and concentrated on the second one.

[FatAndFaithless]

Erm What? Do you have an argument why this is justified? And what do you mean by a decision being made through an act?

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

I am doubting that someone could be born heterosexual. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born straight or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be straight or not.


See how dumb that sounds when you consider the reasoning applied to your own (i assume) sexuality?

[CristW]

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

So, what is one's sexual orientation before "the act"?

Genetics or social environment determines "sexual orientation".

---

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

I am doubting that someone could be born heterosexual. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born straight or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be straight or not.


See how dumb that sounds when you consider the reasoning applied to your own (i assume) sexuality?

What are you saying? are you saying that if someone is heterosexual that they are "homosexual" just because you say so ???

[FatAndFaithless]

I am doubting that someone could be born heterosexual. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born straight or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be straight or not.


See how dumb that sounds when you consider the reasoning applied to your own (i assume) sexuality?

What are you saying? are you saying that if someone is heterosexual that they are "homosexual" just because you say so ???

No, that would be daft. Are you applying your fixation on "the act" to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, or ust homosexuality in specific? Because if you don't believe someone can be born homosexual, do you believe they can be born heterosexual?

[CristW]

Yes, I was referring to the Emmanuel Kant's observations concerning acts. I am doubting that someone could be born gay. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born gay or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be gay or not. Remember, I mentioned the legal considerations also which actually looks at the physical act which is the final determination.

I am doubting that someone could be born heterosexual. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born straight or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be straight or not.


See how dumb that sounds when you consider the reasoning applied to your own (i assume) sexuality?

Let me explain this, as simple as possible:

1. You were born either female or male.
2. Either genetics or social environment forms your sexual orientation(debatable).
3. There should not be any legislation which would punish someone who is gay!

[FatAndFaithless]

I am doubting that someone could be born heterosexual. When the argument is cleared it all comes down to the act. Both sides could argue if a person is born straight or not. However, it really comes down to the act to be considered to be straight or not.


See how dumb that sounds when you consider the reasoning applied to your own (i assume) sexuality?

Let me explain this, as simple as possible:

1. You were born either female or male.
2. Either genetics or social environment forms your sexual orientation(debatable).
3. There should not be any legislation which would punish someone who is gay!

Ah, gotcha. Well, #3 on that list is the most important to me, but #2 would be interesting. Sorry if I jumped down your throat, I assumed you were going to go to the canard of "being gay is a choice", and therefore doesn't deserve to be on equal footing as 'natural' heterosexuality. But if you're just asking about the genetic/environmental factors that may or may not determine sexuality, then yeah, very interesting topic!

[rexbeccarox]

Sources?

[MusicLovingAtheist]

I am NOT gay !!! I am NOT a homosexual!

that's what they all say