• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tenn. Senate OKs ban on teaching of homosexuality

People... focus. In general, researchers agree that sexual orientation... ANY sexual orientation is most likely caused by one or some combination of the following factors: genetics, biology, biochemistry/hormones, social environment. Ultimately, there is no proof that sexual orientation is innate or chosen.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
People... focus. In general, researchers agree that sexual orientation... ANY sexual orientation is most likely caused by one or some combination of the following factors: genetics, biology, biochemistry/hormones, social environment. Ultimately, there is no proof that sexual orientation is innate or chosen.
Click to expand...

Is there more evidence to support the claim that it is innate or more evidence to support the claim that it is chosen?
 
I have yet to see any scientific study with good methodology that supports the assertion that it's a result of social environment. All the ones I have read about have been universally rejected by the scientific community as having extremely poor methodology.

If I'm wrong, I'd be shocked, but please feel free to enlighten me if I am.
 
CriticalThought said:
Is there more evidence to support the claim that it is innate or more evidence to support the claim that it is chosen?
Click to expand...

I don't know, CT. I've seen a lot of the scientific evidence that points to innateness, and in general, I agree with it. But, there's also a lot of information that points to choice, abait, it's often anecdotal. I think that the real conclusion will come out of two explorations: 1) Figuring out what causes HETEROsexuality and, 2) Figuring out how do actually define one's sexual orientation. Sexual orientation can be quite fluid in some folks, so it is really hard to determine at times.

Ultimately, I think that the innateness of sexual orientation will be proven, but until then, the jury is out. Further, since we cannot prove the cause of ANY sexual orientation, the issue is really irrelevant to the entire gay rights discussion. It is a red herring, brought up by the anti- side. You know this as well as I.
 
MistressNomad said:
I have yet to see any scientific study with good methodology that supports the assertion that it's a result of social environment. All the ones I have read about have been universally rejected by the scientific community as having extremely poor methodology.

If I'm wrong, I'd be shocked, but please feel free to enlighten me if I am.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I'm tired of being the only person who ever provides evidence to support my claims. How about it you people out there who believe it is a choice? Could you provide some studies to support your claims?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It is a red herring, brought up by the anti- side. You know this as well as I.
Click to expand...

It goes down to the claim that it is a preference. Why should one group with a certain preference be given rights when other groups with a certain preference are not?
 
CriticalThought said:
Indeed. I'm tired of being the only person who ever provides evidence to support my claims. How about it you people out there who believe it is a choice? Could you provide some studies to support your claims?
Click to expand...

I doubt there are any scientific studies that demonstrate this, however, with the fluidity of sexuality, as demonstrated in some of the Kinsey studies, and with some self-report surveys, the possiblity of it being choice cannot be dismissed as false. The cause of sexual orientation is, as of yet, unproven. Like I said, I think the answer will come either from a more thorough study of the causes of HETEROsexuality, or from a more clear defining of each sexual orientation, itself.
 
GPS_Flex said:
There is a mountain of proof? I must have missed the mountain.

Who would choose to be gay? The kids who want to be different than others but don’t want to be all alone would be my first guess.
Click to expand...


When I was in art school I think a lot of my peers choose it.
 
CriticalThought said:
It goes down to the claim that it is a preference. Why should one group with a certain preference be given rights when other groups with a certain preference are not?
Click to expand...

Since preference is unprovable, this argument line has no validity. One reason I never argue the discrimination position. Since neither innateness nor preference can be proven conclusively, it's an argument that always stalls.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since preference is unprovable, this argument line has no validity. One reason I never argue the discrimination position. Since neither innateness nor preference can be proven conclusively, it's an argument that always stalls.
Click to expand...

That is why I often ask people who argue that it is a choice to actually define choice.
 
Ya know, I gotta say, having gotten to the point where we can predict future sexuality in small children with extremely high accuracy based on the findings of these studies, I really think it's a closed case.

While it's true we may not understand all of the mechanisms at work here, it's not true that it's still up for debate. There is no evidence that it's chosen, and tons of evidence that it's not. We can even predict it based on physical characteristics. C'mon.

I agree that it doesn't really matter to the debate of whether or not they deserve equal rights. I don't know why I get caught up in it. The ignorance bugs me.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is why I often ask people who argue that it is a choice to actually define choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but even defining choice doesn't necessarily give you an advantage. Asking them to define the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, does.
 
CriticalThought said:
Huh? First off, a belief in God is not anymore testable than a belief in vampires or leprechauns. A claim which cannot be tested, cannot be support by evidence or falsified by evidence. In other words, I have just as much reason to believe in vampires as I have to believe in God and there is just as much evidence to support the existence of vampires as there is to support the existence of God.

The Bible on the other hand, or the so called "Word of God" holds many testable claims. For example is it possible to build a boat out of wood that could hold two of every animal on the planet? No it is not.

As far as our understanding of sexual orientation, at our current level of technology we can only rely upon self report, involuntary physiological arousal (erections and vaginal lubrication), and behavior to arbitrarily categorize people for study. From doing so, scientists have observed certain physical traits more common among those placed in the gay category than in the straight category. To the exclusion of a genetic sequence to explain them, this would suggest a set of epigenetic factors. Other studies have supported this position. In fact, one study found that people could predict a young child's future sexual orientation with startling accuracy.

So would I say there is more evidence to support the latter than the former? Yes.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, you don’t think an all powerful being could make whatever happened in the bible come to fruition but you think man can and has already explained the reasons people are born gay? Pardon me while I chuckle for a second.

God is or he isn’t. If he is, he can pretty much do whatever the hell he wants even if jack wad engineers can’t explain it. To say it can’t be tested is rather arrogant of you in my opinion. People have been testing for ghosts, ESP and all kinds of crap for years so you are blowing smoke when you say it can’t be tested. Good grief, you are trying to convince me that something is scientifically “likely” based upon these kinds of BS studies so don’t tell me something can’t be tested.

You saying there is more evidence that gayness is a birth defect is like me claiming I won this debate because I tried harder than you; it is completely speculative, biased and unworthy of the bits required to type it.

Now, if you don’t have anything more than skewed statistics (I can turn on Fox News or MSNBC and get those all day long) let’s get down to the proof and cut the statistical cancer causing cell morphing crystal ball reading science and talk proof.

You have none.

Now, let me offend a few people by asking a tough question: If it could be proven that a baby was going to be gay if it was born, would you support a parent aborting that fetus before it becomes a gay human?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Yeah, I know, but even defining choice doesn't necessarily give you an advantage. Asking them to define the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, does.
Click to expand...

All that does is prove that they think that sexual attraction is an irrelevant factor. They deem that it is the sexual behavior that is wrong and that accepting an identity based on sexual attraction is simply a political gimmick.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Oh I see, you don’t think an all powerful being could make whatever happened in the bible come to fruition but you think man can and has already explained the reasons people are born gay? Pardon me while I chuckle for a second.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I posted. I argued that there is greater evidence to support an epigenetic cause for homosexuality than there is to support a Christian God. I didn't argue that there isn't a God, or that it is impossible for such a thing to exist. I did argue that the Bible is fallible, which I could come up with countless examples to justify if you wish to take the discussion down that route. I also argued that at least one study has shown that it is possible to predict the sexual orientation of young children.

I'm sorry, but perhaps you should go back and read what I have posted carefully. Your eagerness to take an adversarial tone with me has clearly blinded your ability to engage me in a coherent debate.

What I find particularly funny is you have argued, long before I even posted any specific study, that it is biased and distorted. That says a lot about how biased and distorted you are. Without even seeing the studies firsthand, you challenge their objectivity by being completely without objectivity. You have clearly lost this debate since you cannot support your assertions and you are attacking evidence which you have not yet even seen.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
All that does is prove that they think that sexual attraction is an irrelevant factor. They deem that it is the sexual behavior that is wrong and that accepting an identity based on sexual attraction is simply a political gimmick.
Click to expand...

Which is very easily proven wrong and a poorly constructed argument.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Now, let me offend a few people by asking a tough question: If it could be proven that a baby was going to be gay if it was born, would you support a parent aborting that fetus before it becomes a gay human?
Click to expand...

Since I support the choice to abort, yes, I would agree with this position. It would be hypocritical to not.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is very easily proven wrong and a poorly constructed argument.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Okay, I'm arguing that sexual attraction is an irrelevant factor since it can only really be discerned from self report and that the concept of sexual orientation is simply a political gimmick of accepting an identity based on sexual attraction.

Please prove me wrong and demonstrate how my argument is poorly constructed.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh really? Okay, I'm arguing that sexual attraction is an irrelevant factor since it can only really be discerned from self report and that the concept of sexual orientation is simply a political gimmick of accepting an identity based on sexual attraction.

Please prove me wrong and demonstrate how my argument is poorly constructed.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... let's see, I could go this direction...

1) The fact that sexual attraction can be diserned from self report is completely relevant and dismissing it denies the definition of sexual orientation. You do not get to create definitions.
2) Sexual orientation is well established as being a pattern of behaviors associated with attraction, romance, and emotion associated with the opposite, the same, or both genders. Again, you have no standing in redefining the term.

That was easy... of course, I could go THIS direction...

If you make the claim that sexual orientation is irrelevant, than ALL sexual orientation is irrelevant. Therefore, arguing sexual orientation in this debate is a red herring and the argument itself is irrelevant.

Take your pick.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
1) The fact that sexual attraction can be diserned from self report is completely relevant and dismissing it denies the definition of sexual orientation. You do not get to create definitions.
Click to expand...

Well I could argue that I'm not creating a definition, only arguing that sexual orientation is a politically created social construction. I could also argue that this is evidenced by the fact that the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" were coined by psychologists in the early 20th century and prior to conceiving of homosexuality as a mental illness, it was not considered a sexual identity as it is today but simply a behavior or character flaw.

2) Sexual orientation is well established as being a pattern of behaviors associated with attraction, romance, and emotion associated with the opposite, the same, or both genders. Again, you have no standing in redefining the term.
Click to expand...

For the sake of this discussion, I am not redefining the term, but simply rejecting the concept outright. What evidential standing was there for creating the concept to begin with?

If you make the claim that sexual orientation is irrelevant, than ALL sexual orientation is irrelevant. Therefore, arguing sexual orientation in this debate is a red herring and the argument itself is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Within this discussion, I can accept that option. Then there is no heterosexual or homosexual. Everyone has the same sexual identity, which is a procreative sexual identity, but some people engage in sexual behaviors outside of that norm.
 
Last edited:
MistressNomad said:
I have yet to see any scientific study with good methodology that supports the assertion that it's a result of social environment. All the ones I have read about have been universally rejected by the scientific community as having extremely poor methodology.

If I'm wrong, I'd be shocked, but please feel free to enlighten me if I am.
Click to expand...

I don’t believe in God personally but I respect those who do and I would die for their right to practice faith in said god.

I don’t believe people are born gay either but I would lay my life down to protect gay rights in this county because both of these are my culture. Both of these are my heritage. I do not need to choose one over the other or hate people I disagree with.

I do have a tendency to tell people who try to preach religion at me the same thing I am telling you. When you get some proof one way or another, I’ll jump on the wagon. Till then, I might give you a hard time if you keep trying to throw BS that isn’t proof of anything in my face but I will respect and defend your right to think whatever kinda crazy crap you can come up with because this is what makes America so great. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and then go dance because the song that’s playing now could end at any time.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I do have a tendency to tell people who try to preach religion at me the same thing I am telling you. When you get some proof one way or another, I’ll jump on the wagon. Till then, I might give you a hard time if you keep trying to throw BS that isn’t proof of anything in my face but I will respect and defend your right to think whatever kinda crazy crap you can come up with because this is what makes America so great. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and then go dance because the song that’s playing now could end at any time.
Click to expand...

What is proof to you? Without even seeing my evidence, you have argued that it is faulty. While I admire your psychic abilities to scrutinize research of which you have not even seen, I have to wonder what constitutes proof to you. It sounds to me like you reject epigenetics outright so if, for at least some people, sexual orientation was caused by epigenetic factors you would reject it and pretend that it was their choice. I can't see how any degree of proof would work in that case. So what would it take to prove to you that sexual orientation was innate, at least for some people?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I never said, "don't talk about it". If these questions are broached when a student is in the 11th of 12th grade, that is one thing. But, not kindergarten. Teaching such things in kindergarten smacks of indoctrination. That's not what grade school is for.
Click to expand...

But these are not the questions asked in kindergarden. Not even the ones proposed. Age appropriate is always a proper consideration, but by outlawing the word, anything to do with the reality, meaning we can't discuss Johnny having two moms or dads is overkill and quite frankly telling people what to think and not opening up appropriate discourse.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I'm not a Christian and I think gays decide to be gay just like children decide they do or don't like broccoli. Am I ignorant too?
Click to expand...

When did you choose? Did you comparison shop? Try both out to see what worked best for you? Kick the tires so to speak? Others have dealt with this well, but I would love to see sexuality as a real choice, meaning that all of us could go either way. If this is true, then we should be much freer to experiment and try than we appear to be. I have yet to meet anyone admitting to actually kicking the tires as it were. However, I do remember being 16. Man, that home education teacher was something. I had to stay seated more than once. :coffeepap
 
So, instead of building public policy around the acceptance of all individuals and protecting the rights of homosexuals and their families, they work to silence the homosexual community and the children involved to "protect" them against bullies, thus making these children more insecure of their own surroundings in which they have little ability to change...looks to me like the bullies actually win this one. Sad. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom