Just wondering how people feel on this question asked at the debate. Myself, I think gays are born that way, based on the ones I have known in my life.
I have no idea what the answer here is -- I don't believe this complex issue can be resolved with a single answer. I do believe that environment and social issues can certainly play a part -- after all, many of us are little more than the sum of our experiences.
Those who tuck their kids in at night happy with the thought that 'those creepy gays can't help it, they were born that way'... disgust me. That answer masks the true issue which is the regard for the behaviors of gays. If it were possible to prove people were born cannibals or not, we could still have disagreement over the behavior. Seems to me, most folks who say 'Gays are born that way' really intend to say 'they can't help it'... with the tacit corollary that if they could help it... they'd be wrong. That attitude makes me barf.
What difference does it make if they are born gay or not? It should not make any difference whatsoever.
__________________
'85 300TD Pastel Beige
361,500 miles and counting
Those who tuck their kids in at night happy with the thought that 'those creepy gays can't help it, they were born that way'... disgust me. That answer masks the true issue which is the regard for the behaviors of gays. If it were possible to prove people were born cannibals or not, we could still have disagreement over the behavior. Seems to me, most folks who say 'Gays are born that way' really intend to say 'they can't help it'... with the tacit corollary that if they could help it... they'd be wrong. That attitude makes me barf.
What difference does it make if they are born gay or not? It should not make any difference whatsoever.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Homosexuality is not a concept readily understood by heterosexuals. Consequently there is an inordinate amount of energy meaninglessly expended by heterosexuals trying to define homosexuality. It is a way humans live their lives and we should leave it at that. Presuming there is a "cause" usually leads to heterosexuals thinking there is therefore a "cure" associated with the cause.
Actually I think it's the other way around. Straights aren't trying to "define" or understand gays. Most have either made up their minds that it's evil or don't care.
It's the gays that want to find that there is some genetic cause of homosexuality. Because being born that way is the first step to protected class status.
__________________
Forum killa
You have been banned for the following reason:
insulting mod
I think the question narrows down the issue too much. There is a huge range of human sexuality and the homo/hetero binary view clouds the issue. Obviously many 'hetero' people have homosexual potentiality given the right circumstances. If they didn't prisons wouldn't be the way they are.
I think the nature/nurture issue is driven by the persecution that gays are subject to and I think it is pretty irrelevant to the moral discussion. After all we really know very little about how much of our behavior is a result of genes.
I think the basic issue is whether there is a normative sexuality that the State has the right to impose on its citizens either directly or by incentive. I've yet to read a convincing argument that sexual behavior engaged in by consenting people could be wrong. Of course, this could lead us back in the direction of that dangerous old thread on German cannibals.
Rather than either celebrating or condemning a citizen's "lifestyle", I think the "state" should get out of the marriage business altogether. The government should just issue and arbitrate cohabitation contracts between consenting human adult couples*, regardless of their legal gender. Let's leave it to the religious cohort to argue themselves silly about which "lifestyle" is sanctified under the various codified mythologies that abound.
*A cohabitation contract issued to more than two individuals could potentially clog the courts with a myriad of legally murky permutations, especially if children are involved. It could be argued from this standpoint that the state has a compelling interest in limiting contracts to just two individuals.
No need for the anti-mormon clause. Just limit the polygamy to people older than 18 and require that polygamous families pay for DNA testing to determine paternity for purposes of child support.
But, in addition to co-habitation licenses, I think I'm also in favor of reproducing licenses.
Linear Mode
