(March 24, 2013 at 11:04 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 10:00 am)John V Wrote: 1. Define gay.

2. Support that you were born gay.

3. Explain what being born that way has to do with anything.

I know that Infidel wants this debate, but you're seriously asking question 3?

Yes, seriously asking it.

---

(March 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: A homosexual.

Which begs the question, what is a homosexual? A person who only has attraction to the same sex? A person who predominantly has attraction, but has some attraction to the opposite? If so, what's the cutoff between gay and bi?

Quote:Like most adolescents, I did not wake up one day during the onset of puberty with the arduous decision of having to choose between being sexually attracted toward men or women. Like most individuals, I understood the accepted standard was for boys to like girls and vice versa, but even as late as the age of fourteen and fifteen I did not feel any sexual desire for either gender. I was a late bloomer. When my hormones finally began to change my body, I almost immediately knew that I was different than other guys. I distinctly remember the very first time I had a sexual thought. I was walking from one class to the next, and I was staring at the ass of someone in front of me. It was a great ass, it excited me sexually, and it belonged to a guy. I have never experienced any sexual attraction toward women whatsoever.

Let me clarify - by support I meant scientific studies and such, not your personal testimony. Personal testimony generally isn't accepted as support around here.

Quote:It is in reference toward those who believe being gay is a choice. Obviously, I was never faced with a choice of whom to be sexually attracted to. Most everyone can attest to the same thing, whether they are gay or straight.

Let me clarify - what practical considerations are implied by being born with a certain predisposition?

Suppose someone gives a testimony similar to yours claiming that they were born with a violent hatred of homosexuals? You'd likely say that being born that way was irrelevant, and he should be expected to suppress the predisposition and conform to societal norms on violent behavior.

I sometimes wonder what the fuss is over whether sexual orientation is innate or not. While both my common sense and the field of psychology agree that it is, the question isn't really relevant to the issue of gay rights, at least as far as I can see.

I do find it perplexing that politicians and religious theologians once again want to argue with scientists and dispute their findings with nothing but bare assertions to back up their opinions that scientists somehow don't know what they're talking about or that there's some kind of vague conspiracy with poorly defined motivations. However, this too is a side issue.

Whether sexual orientation is determined by choice, genes or environmental/developmental factors, this is a question for psychologists and not judges and lawmakers and it's moot insofar as the rights of people are concerned. Gays have rights not because they were born that way but because they are people. It is "persons" that are discussed in our Constitution, at many points whether American or of other nationalities. Our constitution is written in the language of human rights.

The 14th Amendment, Section 1 of our Constitution makes it clear under no uncertain terms that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. There can be no second class citizens. You can't provide special privileges to one group and deny them to another.

Quote:14th Amendment, Section 1
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read it and weep, Christians. Go tell it on the mountain all you like but don't tell it on Capitol Hill. You can feel any way you like about how God views homosexuals and bisexuals but you can't treat them as second class citizens.

This ties into my parody on the ban on Christian marriage. And Christianity IS a lifestyle choice. Don't worry, Christians, you're also protected by the 14th amendment.

(March 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm)John V Wrote: I meant scientific studies and such.

There are plenty. You just have to know where to look.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ork-times/

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articl...pects.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...-a-choice/

(March 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 24, 2013 at 11:04 am)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: I know that Infidel wants this debate, but you're seriously asking question 3?

Yes, seriously asking it.

---

(March 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: A homosexual.

Which begs the question, what is a homosexual? A person who only has attraction to the same sex? A person who predominantly has attraction, but has some attraction to the opposite? If so, what's the cutoff between gay and bi?

Quote:Like most adolescents, I did not wake up one day during the onset of puberty with the arduous decision of having to choose between being sexually attracted toward men or women. Like most individuals, I understood the accepted standard was for boys to like girls and vice versa, but even as late as the age of fourteen and fifteen I did not feel any sexual desire for either gender. I was a late bloomer. When my hormones finally began to change my body, I almost immediately knew that I was different than other guys. I distinctly remember the very first time I had a sexual thought. I was walking from one class to the next, and I was staring at the ass of someone in front of me. It was a great ass, it excited me sexually, and it belonged to a guy. I have never experienced any sexual attraction toward women whatsoever.

Let me clarify - by support I meant scientific studies and such, not your personal testimony. Personal testimony generally isn't accepted as support around here.

Quote:It is in reference toward those who believe being gay is a choice. Obviously, I was never faced with a choice of whom to be sexually attracted to. Most everyone can attest to the same thing, whether they are gay or straight.

Let me clarify - what practical considerations are implied by being born with a certain predisposition?

Suppose someone gives a testimony similar to yours claiming that they were born with a violent hatred of homosexuals? You'd likely say that being born that way was irrelevant, and he should be expected to suppress the predisposition and conform to societal norms on violent behavior.

He clearly stated he has never felt any attraction towards a woman. I think we can safely define homosexuality as only having attraction towards the same sex. As far as scientific studies on if homosexuality is a choice or not, you could go seek those out yourself. I think it's irrelevant if it was a choice, so I just assume he's telling the truth with his personal testimony. If someone said they were born with a hatred of homosexuals I'd first tell them they must be a natural asshole. Of course they must suppress the predisposition. The difference between the two situations is that homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Violence obviously does. A first grader could've seen that...

(March 25, 2013 at 12:44 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: There are plenty. You just have to know where to look.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/20...ork-times/

This says nothing about being born that way.

Quote:http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articl...pects.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gues...-a-choice/

These both say that it's a combination of nature and nurture.

Do you have anything which shows that people are born gay (a term which you haven't yet defined BTW)?

---

(March 25, 2013 at 12:49 pm)TromboneAtheist Wrote: He clearly stated he has never felt any attraction towards a woman. As far as scientific studies on if homosexuality is a choice or not, you could go seek those out yourself. I think it's irrelevant if it was a choice, so I just assume he's telling the truth with his personal testimony. If someone said they were born with a hatred of homosexuals I'd first tell them they must be a natural asshole. Of course they must suppress the predisposition. The difference between the two situations is that homosexuality does not hurt anyone. Violence obviously does. A first grader could've seen that...

That first grader would presumably then have started a debate on the harm principle, rather than on inborn tendencies.

(March 25, 2013 at 12:08 pm)John V Wrote: Suppose someone gives a testimony similar to yours claiming that they were born with a violent hatred of homosexuals? You'd likely say that being born that way was irrelevant, and he should be expected to suppress the predisposition and conform to societal norms on violent behavior.

Faulty analogy. Generally speaking, we don't care about the bigotry anyone holds- to the point that we won't physically stop them from voicing it, we'll still call you an asshole for doing so- but once that hatred becomes demonstrably harmful, say, if that violent hatred translated to actual violence, then yes, it should be stopped, inborn or not. I hope I don't have to explain why.

Besides, nobody is born bigoted. That's something you have to learn later, and unfortunately, some people are all to happy to teach that.

(March 25, 2013 at 12:53 pm)John V Wrote: These both say that it's a combination of nature and nurture.

Science shows that genetics plays a major role in sexual orientation. Science has not, however, provided any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&...ch&f=false

(March 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: Science shows that genetics plays a major role in sexual orientation. Science has not, however, provided any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice.

Twin studies show that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation but doesn't come close to determining orientation.

(March 25, 2013 at 1:05 pm)John V Wrote:

(March 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: Science shows that genetics plays a major role in sexual orientation. Science has not, however, provided any evidence that sexual orientation is a choice.

Twin studies show that genetics plays a role in sexual orientation but doesn't come close to determining orientation.

Sure, but how different is that to the standard religious line where homosexuality is entirely a choice, and an evil one at that, one that gay people opt into out of their own ignorance, or degeneracy, or obstinacy?

Yes, there's a genetic part and an environmental part. I submit to you that this is vastly different than the "choice" that the christian right wants you to believe it is.

(March 25, 2013 at 1:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Sure, but how different is that to the standard religious line where homosexuality is entirely a choice, and an evil one at that, one that gay people opt into out of their own ignorance, or degeneracy, or obstinacy?

Yes, there's a genetic part and an environmental part. I submit to you that this is vastly different than the "choice" that the christian right wants you to believe it is.

1. When someone here makes such arguments, or those arguments are presented from the source, we can consider them.
2. It wouldn't surprise me at all if both the far left and far right were wrong, and the truth were somewhere in the middle.

A lot of you guys probably think that I'm far right. I'm not. I'm right, but not that far. If you're way far to the left, though, it becomes difficult to distinguish moderate right from far right.