RE: Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"
October 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: October 14, 2014 at 12:48 pm by CristW.)
(October 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:(October 14, 2014 at 12:28 pm)CristW Wrote: 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".
(October 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(October 14, 2014 at 12:28 pm)CristW Wrote: 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 ???
