• 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!

We should sue those who claim that homosexuality is a choice!

M

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Because it's defamation!

They are lying (saying that gays chose that lifestyle) in a direct, deliberate attempt to harm that group's reputation (by rallying support to deny them legal rights).

They can't use the defense of "truth," because scientific study after study after study has proven that no one can choose, nor change, their sexual orientation.

They can't use the defense of "opinion" because it's not an opinion. Whether or not homosexuality is IMMORAL is an opinion; whether or not it's a CHOICE is a matter of fact; cold, hard, scientific FACT!

They have absolutely no excuse to use! Sure, they might attempt to raise the defense of "statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true;" however, the defendants will have to justify the reasonableness of their beliefs. They won't get far when they have no justification, other than their own prejudices, religions, and fears.

Thoughts?
 
everybody see above? when we talk about slippery slopes, it is crap like this that we are talking about.
 
cpwill said:
everybody see above? when we talk about slippery slopes, it is crap like this that we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate on, specifically, why you have this opinion about my idea?
 
cpwill said:
everybody see above? when we talk about slippery slopes, it is crap like this that we are talking about.
Click to expand...

What slippery slope? Nutters on the internet will say crazy stuff on the internet regardless of circumstance. Its not like an actual politician or judge with real power and influence in calling for this.
 
rathi said:
What slippery slope? Nutters on the internet will say crazy stuff on the internet regardless of circumstance. Its not like an actual politician or judge with real power and influence in calling for this.
Click to expand...

So, you're answer to my proposal is... yes... no... ?
 
So, you're answer to my proposal is... yes... no... ?
Click to expand...

The answer is no as your proposal blatantly violates the 1st amendment. Being wrong is not a crime.
 
rathi said:
The answer is no as your proposal blatantly violates the 1st amendment. Being wrong is not a crime.
Click to expand...

Defamation is a clear, well-established exception to first amendment rights.
 
spud_meister said:
its only defamation you're thinking homosexuality is a bad thing
Click to expand...

It's defamation if they're trying to convince other people that the plaintiff CHOSE to be that way.

We're not talking about morality; we're talking about whether or not the plaintiff made the CHOICE to be that way.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Because it's defamation!

They are lying (saying that gays chose that lifestyle) in a direct, deliberate attempt to harm that group's reputation (by rallying support to deny them legal rights).

They can't use the defense of "truth," because scientific study after study after study has proven that no one can choose, nor change, their sexual orientation.

They can't use the defense of "opinion" because it's not an opinion. Whether or not homosexuality is IMMORAL is an opinion; whether or not it's a CHOICE is a matter of fact; cold, hard, scientific FACT!

They have absolutely no excuse to use! Sure, they might attempt to raise the defense of "statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true;" however, the defendants will have to justify the reasonableness of their beliefs. They won't get far when they have no justification, other than their own prejudices, religions, and fears.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Can you prove that every homosexual didn't choose to be gay. While personally believe most homosexuals were born gay I think there is also a lot of sexual confusion across our country. Some homosexuals may just be confused or they may have in fact chosen to be gay. Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that every homosexual didn't chose to be gay, its not a lie its opinion.
 
spud_meister said:
how is that defaming them?

if i went around saying being centrist was genetic, would that be defamation?
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be.

partier9 said:
Can you prove that every homosexual didn't choose to be gay. While personally believe most homosexuals were born gay I think there is also a lot of sexual confusion across our country.
Click to expand...
Upon showing the scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the burden would then fall to the defendant to prove that the particular homosexual that he is talking about is the one exception.

Also, if a person simply calls up the Washington Journal and claims that homosexuality, in general, is a choice, what possible exception can come of that?

Some homosexuals may just be confused
Click to expand...
Did they choose to be confused?

or they may have in fact chosen to be gay.
Click to expand...
Give me an example.

Unless you can prove beyond a doubt that every homosexual didn't chose to be gay, its not a lie its opinion.
Click to expand...
No, it's a lie because the alleged defendant is merely going off his own prejudices and biases, especially if he feels that way about homosexuality in general.
 
Defamation is a clear, well-established exception to first amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Claiming homosexuality is a choice is not defamation. I don't think such a claim is supported by evidence, but it is not slanderous either.
 
Last edited:
rathi said:
Claiming homosexuality is a choice is not defamation. I don't think its supported by evidence, but it is not slanderous either.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be supported by evidence.

The opposite is supported by evidence.

Therefore, disagreeing with the opposite would satisfy the "false, not truth" and "fact, not opinion" elements of a defamation case.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Upon showing the scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the burden would then fall to the defendant to prove that the particular homosexual that he is talking about is the one exception.

Also, if a person simply calls up the Washington Journal and claims that homosexuality, in general, is a choice, what possible exception can come of that?
Click to expand...
Can you provide a source that proves that every homosexual is born gay?

Did they choose to be confused?
Click to expand...
Have you ever chosen to be confused when you don't get what is going on?




No, it's a lie because the alleged defendant is merely going off his own prejudices and biases, especially if he feels that way about homosexuality in general.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked we have the first amendment so people can say what they feel like saying even if its wrong.
 
partier9 said:
Can you provide a source that proves that every homosexual is born gay?
Click to expand...
Who ever - EVER - said that homosexuality was something you were BORN with?

Certainly not me.

I merely said that it was not a choice, which comes in all different shapes and sizes.

Have you ever chosen to be confused when you don't get what is going on?
Click to expand...
You can't choose the fact that you don't understand something; you can only work to understand it more.

Last time I checked we have the first amendment so people can say what they feel like saying even if its wrong.
Click to expand...
I've already struck down that argument as invalid; read my previous posts.
 
Therefore, disagreeing with the opposite would satisfy the "false, not truth" and "fact, not opinion" elements of a defamation case.
Click to expand...

You are missing the most crucial part of a defamation case, which is damages. Nobody is harmed by such claims, even if false. If some fool tells me that I can get turned by dudes just by choosing to do, I'll just ignore them and go about my day.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Yes, it would be.


Upon showing the scientific evidence that homosexuality is NOT a choice, the burden would then fall to the defendant to prove that the particular homosexual that he is talking about is the one exception.

Also, if a person simply calls up the Washington Journal and claims that homosexuality, in general, is a choice, what possible exception can come of that?


Did they choose to be confused?


Give me an example.


No, it's a lie because the alleged defendant is merely going off his own prejudices and biases, especially if he feels that way about homosexuality in general.
Click to expand...

middleagedgamer said:
Who ever - EVER - said that homosexuality was something you were BORN with?

Certainly not me.

I merely said that it was not a choice, which comes in all different shapes and sizes.


You can't choose the fact that you don't understand something; you can only work to understand it more.


I've already struck down that argument as invalid; read my previous posts.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea what the hell your talking about. I hope this gets moved to the basement so I can personally call you an idiot.
 
rathi said:
You are missing the most crucial part of a defamation case, which is damages. Nobody is harmed by such claims, even if false.
Click to expand...
Loss of reputation is just as legitimate a damage as loss of limb.

If some fool tells me that I can get turned by dudes just by choosing to do, I'll just ignore them and go about my day.
Click to expand...
That's because you're a wimp. You'd probably refuse to sue someone who beat the holy hell out of you, just cuz you don't want the drama, right?
 
What's wrong?

Aren't you guys gonna respond some more? I'm having fun here!
 
Loss of reputation is just as legitimate a damage as loss of limb.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but even accepting your argument, how does someone making a false claim about the nature of sexuality hurt your reputation?

That's because you're a wimp. You'd probably refuse to sue someone who beat the holy hell out of you, just cuz you don't want the drama, right?
Click to expand...

According to your logic, I should sue you for defamation of character for that post. Suing people for insulting you is not only moronic, but clogs our court system with completely frivolous lawsuit. Your pathetic wounded ego is not important enough to warrant a judges attention. If somebody makes up lies that get you fired, then you have a case.
 
rathi said:
I disagree, but even accepting your argument, how does someone making a false claim about the nature of sexuality hurt your reputation?
Click to expand...
Because, if you are gay, and a homophobe claims, and convinces, other people that you chose to be that way, their opinion about you (aka your reputation) has suffered.

According to your logic, I should sue you for defamation of character for that post. Suing people for insulting you is not only moronic, but clogs our court system with completely frivolous lawsuit. Your pathetic wounded ego is not important enough to warrant a judges attention. If somebody makes up lies that get you fired, then you have a case.
Click to expand...
Mere insults do not constitute a statement of fact.

Online Defamation Law | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Claiming whether or not someone CHOSE to do something is a statement of fact.

It has been proven by science that, while the exact cause of homosexuality is unknown, choice does not play a role in any case of homosexuality ever studied.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom