• 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!

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 136 65.7%
  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 38 18.4%

  • Total voters
    207
Well, that's homophobic futility for ya. Acceptance keeps going up with each generation, so clearly an awful lot of parents are failing to instill their 'values' and paranoia.

Way off base. Family values can run either way, remember this discussion is in context with bidirectional thinking about issues and consistent principals vs advocacy. Many of you have taken the opportunity to show your true position which is one of advocacy. I would find it perfectly acceptable for families to teach their children acceptance and inclusion of sexual preferences. I also find it acceptable for families to teach their children about sexual immorality. I do not however support governmental indoctrination with respect to sexual morality. I find it acceptable for families to teach their children about Jesus Christ. I find it also acceptable for families to teach their children atheism. I do not, however, find it acceptable for governmental agencies to indoctrinate children about religious values. It's a matter of personal liberty in raising one own children with the moral education that is appropriate for each family.
 
Sexualizing children?

I guess if there was time in public schools...there could be one class devoted to the Muslim religion, one class on Judaism, on class on Christianity, one class on Hinduism, and the list goes on....and by the end of the school day kids will know all about religions, but won't be able to count their finger and toes out loud.

So you haven't said why its different in principal. Only a straw man of impracticality. Substitute the religions you mentioned various sexual preferences and you'll see the weakness of that argument. It actually makes the point that the schools have become places of advocacy. There is not time to teach everything so they have chosen those things deemed most valuable. This shows that the public school system has determined that religion is not valuable, homosexuality is.
 
So you haven't said why its different in principal. Only a straw man of impracticality. Substitute the religions you mentioned various sexual preferences and you'll see the weakness of that argument. It actually makes the point that the schools have become places of advocacy. There is not time to teach everything so they have chosen those things deemed most valuable. This shows that the public school system has determined that religion is not valuable, homosexuality is.

Maybe we should ask our Gay posters if they chose homosexuality as an alternative life style!!
 
I always find it amusing when people project like they do.

People who react with phobic hysteria to homosexuality calling OTHER people emotional? What a hoot.

Did you test your consistency or did you only take the time to mock? Wait I'll answer that for you, you didn't test, you chose to ignore honest debate and decided to mock. This makes my point you are a dishonest advocate not principled.
 
So you haven't said why its different in principal. Only a straw man of impracticality. Substitute the religions you mentioned various sexual preferences and you'll see the weakness of that argument. It actually makes the point that the schools have become places of advocacy. There is not time to teach everything so they have chosen those things deemed most valuable. This shows that the public school system has determined that religion is not valuable, homosexuality is.

John...if you can't grasp the difference between religion and human science, which includes sexual orientation...hey...deal with it however you need to.

But I don't see schools adding values to any sexual orientations or praising one orientation over the other, but rather being included as part of curriculum, which define sexual orientation.

And if your child isn't taught your religion in the way you want it taught...or if a teacher somehow inject his or her own religious values, which aren't agreeable with you...something tells me you'd be raising hell.
 
Because that has no bearing on the discussion at this point.

Yes it does..the thread is called ''Is homosexuality a choice''

Would be interesting to hear from Gays...

I'm not really interested in your bitch fight with various posters!!
 
Yes it does..the thread is called ''Is homosexuality a choice''

Would be interesting to hear from Gays...

I'm not really interested in your bitch fight with various posters!!

I have many posts in this thread in which this has been fully discussed and other posters and I have exchanged on that issue. As a result of our discussions about that I noticed and pointed out inconsistent arguments coming from many and realized that the arguments were not anything more than advocacy at any cost. I am defending my position honestly. So before you start calling people out from a position of ignorance, I would suggest that you go back and read the entire thread.
 
John...if you can't grasp the difference between religion and human science, which includes sexual orientation...hey...deal with it however you need to.

But I don't see schools adding values to any sexual orientations or praising one orientation over the other, but rather being included as part of curriculum, which define sexual orientation.

And if your child isn't taught your religion in the way you want it taught...or if a teacher somehow inject his or her own religious values, which aren't agreeable with you...something tells me you'd be raising hell.

I don't think that sexual preferences, are more human science than religion is. Each society in every part of the world has religious people, who's religion dictates much of the culture, societal norms, and is responsible for all manner of benefit and upheaval. It is the topic of greatest importance to the development of society. Yet I do not advocate for religion classes. I wouldn't want the schools teaching about all religions as moral equivalents.
 
I have many posts in this thread in which this has been fully discussed and other posters and I have exchanged on that issue. As a result of our discussions about that I noticed and pointed out inconsistent arguments coming from many and realized that the arguments were not anything more than advocacy at any cost. I am defending my position honestly. So before you start calling people out from a position of ignorance, I would suggest that you go back and read the entire thread.

My post wasn't meant to confront you or any other poster..I stated I would like more of an opinion from gay people..
 
My post wasn't meant to confront you or any other poster..I stated I would like more of an opinion from gay people..

OK no problem, it was the bitch fight comment that threw me off... but I get where you are coming from. I'll try to reign it in a bit.
 
Did you test your consistency or did you only take the time to mock? Wait I'll answer that for you, you didn't test, you chose to ignore honest debate and decided to mock. This makes my point you are a dishonest advocate not principled.

I tend to ignore sophistry in general, so yes, I do ignore certain things.

The entire phobic reaction to homosexuality is based upon emotion rather than reason because it is inevitably the result of the cognitive dissonance created by the contrast between arbitrary teachings and one's own impulses, or else a generalized revulsion to practices one cannot imagine themselves engaging in. In either case, the homophobia is an emotional response rather than rational since there is nothing inherently hurtful or damaging to another person when two adults engage in it willingly.

The circular illogic of "It's icky-poo because people say it's icky-poo; therefore since people say it's icky-poo it must be icky-poo" doesn't cut it. Just because ignorant people wag their sanctimonious little fingers about "morality" while persecuting people who cause no intrinsic harm, that does not make the actions of those they persecute immoral. It just means that the ignorant, bigoted individuals have no basis for calling it immoral other than their arbitrary prejudice.

Come up with a valid reason for WHY homosexuality is immoral other than arbitrary prejudice based upon emotion. You can't. You simply can't.
 
Yea the do. Schools are government agencies, they require sex ed with homosexual studies. By law you must send your kids to school. If you cannot afford private ed, you are in that class.

Another example you might think about would be requiring kids to take Christian religion class in public school. I am not advocating, I'm comparing the Idea of how institutional power has approved one set of moral judgments and removed another.

I'd be fine with them teaching that Christianity exists, and I'd also be fine with them abstaining from giving any opinion as to the morality of being Christian. If you can do the same for homosexuality, then you have an equality to talk about.
 
I tend to ignore sophistry in general, so yes, I do ignore certain things.

The entire phobic reaction to homosexuality is based upon emotion rather than reason because it is inevitably the result of the cognitive dissonance created by the contrast between arbitrary teachings and one's own impulses, or else a generalized revulsion to practices one cannot imagine themselves engaging in. In either case, the homophobia is an emotional response rather than rational since there is nothing inherently hurtful or damaging to another person when two adults engage in it willingly.

The circular illogic of "It's icky-poo because people say it's icky-poo; therefore since people say it's icky-poo it must be icky-poo" doesn't cut it. Just because ignorant people wag their sanctimonious little fingers about "morality" while persecuting people who cause no intrinsic harm, that does not make the actions of those they persecute immoral. It just means that the ignorant, bigoted individuals have no basis for calling it immoral other than their arbitrary prejudice.

Come up with a valid reason for WHY homosexuality is immoral other than arbitrary prejudice based upon emotion. You can't. You simply can't.

You have totally and completely misrepresented what I have stated and what my objection is in this discussion. I'm done with this. See wolfe post for reason.
 
I'd be fine with them teaching that Christianity exists, and I'd also be fine with them abstaining from giving any opinion as to the morality of being Christian. If you can do the same for homosexuality, then you have an equality to talk about.

I would like for them to do just that. do not teach that non reproductive sexual practices are morally equivalent to reproductive practices.
 
Fact of the matter is there is no logical reasons behind the discrimination of homosexuals. It doesn't matter if it is a choice or not,wasn't America founded on personal liberties and freedoms. If somebody wants to like the same gender why does that deviate from the vision of a free america?
 
I chose "maybe" but now I'm re-thinking this.

You don't choose who you're attracted to. So in that case I would say no it's not a choice.

But you choose who you have sex with, which makes the act of homo or hetero sexuality a choice.

I also think you can "turn" straight or gay because things might trigger those feelings. Just like anything that happens to you in life can shape who you are. Either way, gays don't bother me. Why would they? More women for me. :party
 
I would like for them to do just that. do not teach that non reproductive sexual practices are morally equivalent to reproductive practices.

Do they mention morality at all in these classes? As far as I know, that's not a part of the discussion.
 
Way off base. Family values can run either way, remember this discussion is in context with bidirectional thinking about issues and consistent principals vs advocacy. Many of you have taken the opportunity to show your true position which is one of advocacy. I would find it perfectly acceptable for families to teach their children acceptance and inclusion of sexual preferences. I also find it acceptable for families to teach their children about sexual immorality. I do not however support governmental indoctrination with respect to sexual morality. I find it acceptable for families to teach their children about Jesus Christ. I find it also acceptable for families to teach their children atheism. I do not, however, find it acceptable for governmental agencies to indoctrinate children about religious values. It's a matter of personal liberty in raising one own children with the moral education that is appropriate for each family.

You can send them to church *and* public school and just let them come to their own conclusions, since they're certainly going to do that in the end anyway. No school that i know of has "Mock Christians Day." It frankly doesn't matter what they teach re: sexuality because the environment has changed to where the kids are going to talk about and deal with it anyway.

The one thing i do insist on is that bullying and borderline criminal behavior is squashed. See, you can't differentiate between statement of policy and "advocacy." Telling them "Some people are gay and we don't tolerate harassment here" should not be debatable.
 
Bidirectional thinking: Within your own post Replace the references to "gay" or "homosexua"l etc. with the word "Christian" and any reference to "Sex ed" ,etc. with "religion class", and tell me if you would feel the same way about another protected right. This will determine if this is an emotional appeal based on advocacy or if it is a well thought out and consistent principal for kids of all types. Please give it an honest review. I would propound that families not government agencies should maintain control over certain aspects of their own child's education.

Yes absolutely I would advocate for kids if they were Christan and that caused this kind of issue. Of course I would I am Christian myself. If parents tried to shame children fir being Christian I think a program in schools should exist to tell them that it is perfectly okay to be Christian. If Christian kids went through the same things, buddhist kids, handicapped kids, i don't care the aspect that is the focal point of this kind of chastising, the result would be very similar. If the tables were turned and straight kids or religious kids were this beaten down my opinions would not change, kids still need support that may come from a teacher telling them that its okay that there its nothing wrong with them, or other school children supporting them. Children need that no matter if they are gay, crippled, different, religious, non religious, or what ever they are.

I agree parents should be in control of education. But sometimes they suck at it, that is okay we have schools filled with professionals that can teach what parents can't.

All teachers are doing is saying that it is okay that they are gay. I dint see any indoctrination happening there, they aren't programming children to be gay, you can't, it doesn't work that way. If you think it does just go try sleeping with your gender a couple of times, of you like it than i guess you can be turned gay, if the very thought disgusts you them you have proven that people can't be talked into it.

Nothing is going to happen to straight children except they won't think gay people are perverted and mentally messed up.. Now if you want them to think that, that is a problem. We don't live in a nation that is tolerant of that. If you don't want your kids to be gay,.i understand that, but you dint really have any say in that, you can't, unless we understand how homosexuality manifests itself there is no way you can possibly hope to prevent it.

What do you hope to accomplish by continuing the wall of silence to these kids that desperately need anything but silence? Are you just uncomfortable with homosexuality (nit that there is anything wrong with being uncomfortable with it) do you think that they will turn your kids gay? of you find homosexuality immoral, than teach your kids that it is immoral, be careful though if you have a gay kid that might damage them.

I just don't understand what is so wrong about it that all conversation must cease, even at the peril of children who are homosexuals. It isn't your personal morality, because we talk about eating pigs in classes with no consideration of Muslim and Jewish kids, we say that it is okay to consume bacon but.

So your bidirectional statement in that regard is not the same. What is the difference between telling a class made up of kids that some may be Muslim, Jewish, or vegetarian that its okay to eat pork. And telling a class that may have straight kids in it that its okay to be gay.

I Am even okay with teachers explaining that some religions are against homosexuality and that that is okay, those people will simply not practice it. Just like when I was in grade school and teachers taught me why Jews and muslims don't eat pork, they were a different religion and that is okay. Its immoral for Christians not to believe that Jesus is the Messiah but its okay to learn about Jewish and Muslim people, so what us the difference?
So just because someone elses actions are immoral in you're religion didn't mean that your kids need to be sequestered from learning about it. Try your bidirectional arguments on yourself. What if we said the same thing about being Muslim that we say about being gay. its far more immoral in the Christian faith to follow a non Christian prophet and not accept Jesus as Lord than being gay. But its okay to say its okay to be Muslim or Jewish. Same thing with being gay. I don't see a difference.
 
I chose "maybe" but now I'm re-thinking this.

You don't choose who you're attracted to. So in that case I would say no it's not a choice.

But you choose who you have sex with, which makes the act of homo or hetero sexuality a choice.

....
Soooo, let me understand. So if your male and "attracted" to males, but you have sex only with females who your not attracted to, you are hetero?
 
I chose "maybe" but now I'm re-thinking this.

You don't choose who you're attracted to. So in that case I would say no it's not a choice.

But you choose who you have sex with, which makes the act of homo or hetero sexuality a choice.

I also think you can "turn" straight or gay because things might trigger those feelings. Just like anything that happens to you in life can shape who you are. Either way, gays don't bother me. Why would they? More women for me. :party

Sexual orientation is who you are attracted to. you can be a complete virgin and be heterosexual or homosexual, but by your statement above they would be asexual until they had sex.

No sexual orientation is the sex you are oriented toward.
 
I chose "maybe" but now I'm re-thinking this.

You don't choose who you're attracted to. So in that case I would say no it's not a choice.

But you choose who you have sex with, which makes the act of homo or hetero sexuality a choice.

I also think you can "turn" straight or gay because things might trigger those feelings. Just like anything that happens to you in life can shape who you are. Either way, gays don't bother me. Why would they? More women for me. :party

Some women are gay too though, so that could mean less women for you. :lol:
 
Well, the statement was simple in reference to a statement made by another. It was clear as well, and I cannot make it any simpler.

If you cannot figure out the few simple sentences written, and the comment by Cap'n Courtesy extrapolating on that response, too bad.

I can't help you.

No need to be condescending, you just didn't read my post, obviously. You wouldn't have told me, "good try though" if you saw that I agreed with you.

You ate insulting people to save face, that is an oxymoron. Just own up to your mistake
 
Back
Top Bottom