• 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
Not sure why it matters if it is or isn't a choice.

It matters to fundi's because if it's not a choice then it's not a moral question. They need it to be a moral question so they can rationalize their hatred for homos. People with weak and fragile egos need someone to be superior to, and if homosexuality isn't a moral fault, then they have to find a new out-group to replace them.
 
It matters to fundi's because if it's not a choice then it's not a moral question. They need it to be a moral question so they can rationalize their hatred for homos. People with weak and fragile egos need someone to be superior to, and if homosexuality isn't a moral fault, then they have to find a new out-group to replace them.

OR instead of hatred.... we could actually care about truth, societal values, and the culture in which we live and raise our children.
1. Opposing opinions are not equal to hate.
2. Moral fault and voluntary action (choice) is not the same thing.
3. Are all sexual predilections equally ok and beyond choice, or is it just the behavior that is being advocated for as being the new norm?
 
OR instead of hatred.... we could actually care about truth, societal values, and the culture in which we live and raise our children.
1. Opposing opinions are not equal to hate.
2. Moral fault and voluntary action (choice) is not the same thing.
3. Are all sexual predilections equally ok and beyond choice, or is it just the behavior that is being advocated for as being the new norm?
1. They are when you purposefully want to change someone for something that cannot be changed.
2. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality other than certain out dated control devices, ie religion
3. No not all are ok, we as a society have deemed consensual sexual choices as favourable and the laws of the land reflect this.
 
1. They are when you purposefully want to change someone for something that cannot be changed.
2. There is nothing immoral about homosexuality other than certain out dated control devices, ie religion
3. No not all are ok, we as a society have deemed consensual sexual choices as favourable and the laws of the land reflect this.

1. I see no advocacy groups that try to change homosexuals against their will. I do, however, see groups that do not want homosexual values imposed upon them via public institutions such as schools.
2. Morality to the nonreligious is relative, but to the religious it is not. Fortunately freedom of religion is enshrined in our constitution and is practiced by a large majority that does not view it as outdated nor as a control device.
3. If the decision on what is acceptable sexual behavior is based on societal norms as you have stated, and not on how one is born or predisposed, then you have agreed with those who say it is a moral choice.
 
Last edited:
1.

No not all are ok, we as a society have deemed consensual sexual choices as favourable and the laws of the land reflect this.

''We as a society''
...So not looking to blend in?
 
1. I see no advocacy groups that try to change homosexuals against their will. I do, however, see groups that do not want homosexual values imposed upon them via public institutions such as schools.
2. Morality to the nonreligious is relative, but to the religious it is not. Fortunately freedom of religion is enshrined in our constitution and is practiced by a large majority that does not view it as outdated nor as a control device.
3. If the decision on what is acceptable sexual behavior is based on societal norms as you have stated, and not on how one is born or predisposed, then you have agreed with those who say it is a moral choice.
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.

2. Morality is relative to both nonreligious and religious after all the religious will changes their views on what is moral based on the time period an excellent example is the Christian change from not eating shellfish to allowing shellfish.

3. Sexual acts are the choices, your orientation is not. I have no desire to return to the Roman/Greek bathhouses where boys and girls were raped on a daily basis. Psychology has proven this is harmful to the children, which is why we have age of consent laws now. We as a society have matured.

''We as a society''
...So not looking to blend in?
I have no idea what you mean by this.
 
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.

2. Morality is relative to both nonreligious and religious after all the religious will changes their views on what is moral based on the time period an excellent example is the Christian change from not eating shellfish to allowing shellfish.

3. Sexual acts are the choices, your orientation is not. I have no desire to return to the Roman/Greek bathhouses where boys and girls were raped on a daily basis. Psychology has proven this is harmful to the children, which is why we have age of consent laws now. We as a society have matured.


I have no idea what you mean by this.

''we are a society''
Think about it!!
 
1. Then you are either ignorant of a group called NARTH or willfully blind to it. Homosexuality should be taught in schools in the same vein as heterosexuality in a class called Sex Ed. As it is a normal trait among humans.

2. Morality is relative to both nonreligious and religious after all the religious will changes their views on what is moral based on the time period an excellent example is the Christian change from not eating shellfish to allowing shellfish.

3. Sexual acts are the choices, your orientation is not. I have no desire to return to the Roman/Greek bathhouses where boys and girls were raped on a daily basis. Psychology has proven this is harmful to the children, which is why we have age of consent laws now. We as a society have matured.

1. NARTH does not seek to change the unwilling. Are their clients kidnapped and forced into therapy? Just silly. Homosexuality should not be taught. Human sexuality based on anatomy, reproductive function, and health is more than sufficient. Just because something is a part of society doesn't mean it should be taught or advocated for inpractice and as a societal norm.

2. You are incorrect, understanding changes because humans are fallible, but moral relativism is much more than this. Moral relativism invites anything to be moral if one can convince enough people that it is. What a very dangerous standard for minorities don't you think?

3. But what if you are born that way, it's your orientation? Why is it wrong in your world? Is it because it is a minority opinion?
 
1. NARTH does not seek to change the unwilling. Are their clients kidnapped and forced into therapy? Just silly. Homosexuality should not be taught. Human sexuality based on anatomy, reproductive function, and health is more than sufficient. Just because something is a part of society doesn't mean it should be taught or advocated for inpractice and as a societal norm.

2. You are incorrect, understanding changes because humans are fallible, but moral relativism is much more than this. Moral relativism invites anything to be moral if one can convince enough people that it is. What a very dangerous standard for minorities don't you think?

3. But what if you are born that way, it's your orientation? Why is it wrong in your world? Is it because it is a minority opinion?
1. Yes, NARTH does seek to change the unwilling, that is why all of their reparative therapies have been incredibly harmful to the individual and they are sponsoring forcing parents to put their homosexual children into said therapy, ie unwilling. Human sexuality is based on many factors and reproductive function is not always reason there is a reason we do not have a penis bone, pleasure has been part of human sexuality for hundreds of thousands of years. Homosexuality is a societal norm; you may disagree with that assessment but it has been around as long as humans have been around. On top of being heavily documented in the animal kingdom as well, it is not a human construct, which is why teaching children there is nothing wrong with them if they are homosexual is a good thing.

2. I'm quite correct. If you'd look back and see how the Christian faith has rewritten itself several times over on top of splitting up into different factions due to moral relativism that is your own unwillingness to see it. Another example besides just shellfish are lighting rods. They were considered immoral at the time they were invented and now they are acceptable. Just more revisionist religious moral justification.

3. What orientation are you talking about? Pedophilia? It is damaging to the child pysche as they are not a willing participant in the act. Confusing authoritative figure over said child as consent is the problem the Greeks/Romans had with the bath houses. My opinion has nothing to do with it being a minority.
 
1. Yes, NARTH does seek to change the unwilling, that is why all of their reparative therapies have been incredibly harmful to the individual and they are sponsoring forcing parents to put their homosexual children into said therapy, ie unwilling. Human sexuality is based on many factors and reproductive function is not always reason there is a reason we do not have a penis bone, pleasure has been part of human sexuality for hundreds of thousands of years. Homosexuality is a societal norm; you may disagree with that assessment but it has been around as long as humans have been around. On top of being heavily documented in the animal kingdom as well, it is not a human construct, which is why teaching children there is nothing wrong with them if they are homosexual is a good thing.

2. I'm quite correct. If you'd look back and see how the Christian faith has rewritten itself several times over on top of splitting up into different factions due to moral relativism that is your own unwillingness to see it. Another example besides just shellfish are lighting rods. They were considered immoral at the time they were invented and now they are acceptable. Just more revisionist religious moral justification.

3. What orientation are you talking about? Pedophilia? It is damaging to the child pysche as they are not a willing participant in the act. Confusing authoritative figure over said child as consent is the problem the Greeks/Romans had with the bath houses. My opinion has nothing to do with it being a minority.

1. Just silly reasoning. Parents have protective rights over their minor children, there can be no force. Your description of "homosexual children" being forced is not what anyone would accept as truth. Let me restate, just because something happens doesn't make it a societal norm that deserves advocacy. Plenty of people choose to smoke and it was once considered hip, it deserved no public advocacy in our schools, now smoking is seen as a health risk and is not seen as hip and still deserves no advocacy. Homosexuality is abnormal by definition as it is well outside majority sexual preference (this is not a moral statement, it is a statistical statement).

2. see previous answer, no amount of examples can remove human fallibility nor the danger in moral relativism.

3. Any non traditional sexual orientation will do. You seem to want to have an arbitrary line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior based on your ever-changing standard of moral relativism. I am simply pointing out that this is inconsistent with the notion that if one is predisposed to any certain sexual orientation that makes it ok, as you argued with regard to homosexuality. In essence you started with one argument ie, predisposition insulates one from moral judgments and then when you draw a line of acceptable sexual behavior its then based on your sense of a moral society. Totally inconsistent, dishonest and smacks of advocacy at any cost.
 
we could actually care about truth, societal values, and the culture in which we live and raise our children.

Truth is being discovered as we speak. All of the major studies have shown a strong correlation/implication that homosexuality has a biological background. Societal values you don't get to dictate. No one does. Same with culture. We don't have an authority on culture like they have in communist and fascist states. In free countries, societal values and culture are whatever they are based on what the majority feels like doing.

3. Are all sexual predilections equally ok and beyond choice, or is it just the behavior that is being advocated for as being the new norm?

If you don't find them okay, then that's your deal. If someone else finds them okay, then that's their deal. What's "Okay" isn't to be determined by any central authority, but by individual choice. The current trend is that something that was once considered immoral, and even illegal, is no longer considered a problem by the majority of Americans. If that's what the majority of Americans think, then that's what the societal values and cultural norms are. We don't need some authoritarian over lord to tell us what our culture and our values are going to be.

If you find it immoral for homos to have sex, that's your problem. If most of the rest of the country doesn't feel the need to shame or attack gays, then that's the new societal value: individual liberty is more valuable than conformity.
 
Answered this before... but. There are currently no studies that definitively conclude that attraction is biological or genetic. There are however several studies that do conclude that attraction is learned behavior.

To address directly the Idea of a natural (uncontrollable) attraction to the same sex, and how learned behavior can coexist. I would say that reproduction is not the base instinct, but sex is. Most if not all will have a base instinct to engage in sexual activity, but that is not limited to a particular object or set of objects of sexual interest. Those interests are developed, and I would suggest they become entrenched within the psyche at times of rapid neurological development and subsequent neurological pruning, leaving one feeling as if it is their natural state. Neurological development and plasticity is a very interesting topic with regard to human behavior, and this is the core of learned behavior.

I can believe that it is a learned behavior as much as it could be genetic or anything else. That really doesn't mean its a choice. Being that psychologists have not been able to pin point any particular cause that "makes a person gay."

I am more than willing to give the idea that it is a learned behavior, so far there is as much proof for that as there is for genetic or biological sources for homosexuality's origin.
 
Truth is being discovered as we speak. All of the major studies have shown a strong correlation/implication that homosexuality has a biological background. Societal values you don't get to dictate. No one does. Same with culture. We don't have an authority on culture like they have in communist and fascist states. In free countries, societal values and culture are whatever they are based on what the majority feels like doing.



If you don't find them okay, then that's your deal. If someone else finds them okay, then that's their deal. What's "Okay" isn't to be determined by any central authority, but by individual choice. The current trend is that something that was once considered immoral, and even illegal, is no longer considered a problem by the majority of Americans. If that's what the majority of Americans think, then that's what the societal values and cultural norms are. We don't need some authoritarian over lord to tell us what our culture and our values are going to be.

If you find it immoral for homos to have sex, that's your problem. If most of the rest of the country doesn't feel the need to shame or attack gays, then that's the new societal value: individual liberty is more valuable than conformity.

Actually the last line of your post is about all you got right. Societal values are not simply accepting norms, the overriding american value is liberty covered by governmental protection. Freedom to do something however does not make it moral nor a societal norm. Not looking for authoritarian government nor oppression of any type, I just want to clarify the issue. The advocates on this thread are trying to argue two opposing positions at the same time.
1. acceptance based on predisposition
2. acceptance based on societal norms, while drawing their own moral lines on other sexual preferences that maybe just as predisposed in those people.

I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with. If you actually think about this from a bidirectional perspective instead of from a position of advocacy, I'll bet you'd agree.
 
it is a normal trait among humans.

Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.

A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.
 
Actually the last line of your post is about all you got right. Societal values are not simply accepting norms, the overriding american value is liberty covered by governmental protection. Freedom to do something however does not make it moral nor a societal norm. Not looking for authoritarian government nor oppression of any type, I just want to clarify the issue. The advocates on this thread are trying to argue two opposing positions at the same time.
1. acceptance based on predisposition
2. acceptance based on societal norms, while drawing their own moral lines on other sexual preferences that maybe just as predisposed in those people.

I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with. If you actually think about this from a bidirectional perspective instead of from a position of advocacy, I'll bet you'd agree.

By "liberty to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I (you) disagree with" do you mean you wish to be free of others advocating a morality that may be different from yours, our even opposite of yours?

And by statement about bi-directional perspective, you think that someone would agree with you.

I am sorry there isn't enough context here to have a conclusion and i prefer not to jump to any.
 
Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.

A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.

I think Meara means that it is a natural trait in humans, it certainly isn't usual, so therefore it is not normal. But then again if you look at the entire life of a human individual you a are going to find something that is unusual. Therefore abnormality is the normal state of being for a person.

When talking about a human populous where no two individuals are alike, the term normal really losses its meaning.

So saying a human is abnormal is like saying water is wet.
 
I think Meara means that it is a natural trait in humans, it certainly isn't usual, so therefore it is not normal. But then again if you look at the entire life of a human individual you a are going to find something that is unusual. Therefore abnormality is the normal state of being for a person.

When talking about a human populous where no two individuals are alike, the term normal really losses its meaning.

So saying a human is abnormal is like saying water is wet.

Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.

There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.

Heterosexuality is the norm.

Good try though.
 
Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.

There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.

Heterosexuality is the norm.

Good try though.

Most people aren't left handed either. Most people aren't red headed, most people don't have two different colored eyes, yet these things exist.

You said homosexuality isn't normal, because it is unusual, i say what is your point? Lots of people are abnormal because they are unusual. I Betty there is something about you that is unusual and therefore abnormal.

gay people normally have 10 fingers, 10 toes, one head, so on. That just really defines them as a rather usual human being. When you look at just their sexuality yes they are going to seem abnormal, just like if you just looked at someone's dexterity left handed people would be abnormal, or people with red hair would look abnormal compared with people that have colors of hair other than red.

You are proving that people are unique and that normal and abnormal have no meaning when applied to a species that is so vastly diverse as humans.
 
3. Any non traditional sexual orientation will do. You seem to want to have an arbitrary line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior based on your ever-changing standard of moral relativism. I am simply pointing out that this is inconsistent with the notion that if one is predisposed to any certain sexual orientation that makes it ok, as you argued with regard to homosexuality. In essence you started with one argument ie, predisposition insulates one from moral judgments and then when you draw a line of acceptable sexual behavior its then based on your sense of a moral society. Totally inconsistent, dishonest and smacks of advocacy at any cost.

The only arbitrary line that gets drawn is the age at which an individual is capeable of giving consent for sex. But when it comes to any given sex act, the true line is both the ability to give consent and that said consent is indeed given. I understand that you are looking at the latest theory/evidence that pedophillia may be an inborn trait or at least something that is ingrained so early in life as to make no difference. And I will agree that if a person realizes that they have these attractions and seeks help prior to acting upon them then no shame or negative stigma should be applied to them. Indeed they should be applauded for over coming the attractions and seeking help so as not to harm a child. A predisposition towards anything should never be looked up negatively in and of itself. If acting upon said predisposition causes harm to another then the act indeed should be looked upon negatively and the action punished at some level. Homosexual activity harms no one in and of it self. Any harm that can come from homosexual acts can also come from heterosexual acts. You cannot name a single harm from homosexual acts that cannot also be applied to heterosexual ones.

I am for liberty. Liberty to draw my own moral lines and to avoid public advocacy for others moral lines that I disagree with. If you actually think about this from a bidirectional perspective instead of from a position of advocacy, I'll bet you'd agree.

Depending upon what you mean by avoiding public advocacy for other moral lines that you disagree with. If it means that you have the right to attempt to avoid them, then you have that liberty. If it means that you should never have to encounter them outside of your private domain, then no that liberty does not exist for you or anyone else. That bidirectional perspective works for public advocacy for preventing/stopping the moral lines that you disagree with or, depending upon your prospective advocating the opposite of what you disagree with as the only possibility.

Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.

A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal?show=0&t=1379187531 said:
nor·mal adjective \ˈnȯr-məl\

1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4 a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
b : free from mental disorder : sane
5 a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter
b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate>
c : not associated <normal molecules>
d : having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6 of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8 of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

Depending upon which definition of "normal" you are looking at homosexuality may or may not be considered normal. It certainly not normal insofar as it does not occur at the top of the bell curve. But not falling into a "normal" frequency does not make a given thing unnatural. Pink lakes are natural but rare also.

Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.

There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.

Heterosexuality is the norm.

Good try though.

Not normal =/= not natural. The girl(s) with two heads I cited earlier in this thread (I believe it was this one) is not normal, but she is natural. Genetic defects are a natural part of life and development. Again it really depends upon what definition of "normal" you are using.
 
Hmmm... it's normal to have two arms, two legs, two hands, 10-fingers, 10-toes, one head,... you get the picture.

There are norms. Most people are not homosexual... by a long shot.

Heterosexuality is the norm.

Good try though.

I don't really know what the point of this post is. I really agreed that homosexuality is not normal.
I think Meara means that it is a natural trait in humans, it certainly isn't usual, so therefore it is not normal. But then again if you look at the entire life of a human individual you a are going to find something that is unusual. Therefore abnormality is the normal state of being for a person.

When talking about a human populous where no two individuals are alike, the term normal really losses its meaning.

So saying a human is abnormal is like saying water is wet.
I went on to say that normal doesn't really exist, but that is absolutely true, and it doesn't mean that i says homosexuality is normal.
 
Nope. Not normal. Normal means usual, or typical.

A handful of percent of the population being homosexual is not normal. It is a small, small minority. Just say'in.

If you are using the term "normal" as a statistical quality, you are correct. However, using the term "normal" as a descriptor of something that is non-deviant in a non-statistical quality, homosexuality is normal.
 
The only arbitrary line that gets drawn is the age at which an individual is capeable of giving consent for sex. But when it comes to any given sex act, the true line is both the ability to give consent and that said consent is indeed given. I understand that you are looking at the latest theory/evidence that pedophillia may be an inborn trait or at least something that is ingrained so early in life as to make no difference. And I will agree that if a person realizes that they have these attractions and seeks help prior to acting upon them then no shame or negative stigma should be applied to them. Indeed they should be applauded for over coming the attractions and seeking help so as not to harm a child. A predisposition towards anything should never be looked up negatively in and of itself. If acting upon said predisposition causes harm to another then the act indeed should be looked upon negatively and the action punished at some level. Homosexual activity harms no one in and of it self. Any harm that can come from homosexual acts can also come from heterosexual acts. You cannot name a single harm from homosexual acts that cannot also be applied to heterosexual ones.



Depending upon what you mean by avoiding public advocacy for other moral lines that you disagree with. If it means that you have the right to attempt to avoid them, then you have that liberty. If it means that you should never have to encounter them outside of your private domain, then no that liberty does not exist for you or anyone else. That bidirectional perspective works for public advocacy for preventing/stopping the moral lines that you disagree with or, depending upon your prospective advocating the opposite of what you disagree with as the only possibility.

I did not mention pedophilia, the other person interjected that as a straw man and I'm not looking for a straw man, I'm making a logical point about the double minded debate that happens with advocates. The arguments are inconsistent and dishonest.

Advocacy in public would include advocating non traditional behavior as normal within public institutions that me or my children are compelled to use such as the schools and courts, and also in a chosen profession as when one is forced to service an event that advocates for a moral position I disagree with. (see thread about primacy of rights).
 
Most people aren't left handed either. Most people aren't red headed, most people don't have two different colored eyes, yet these things exist.

You said homosexuality isn't normal, because it is unusual, i say what is your point? Lots of people are abnormal because they are unusual. I Betty there is something about you that is unusual and therefore abnormal.

gay people normally have 10 fingers, 10 toes, one head, so on. That just really defines them as a rather usual human being. When you look at just their sexuality yes they are going to seem abnormal, just like if you just looked at someone's dexterity left handed people would be abnormal, or people with red hair would look abnormal compared with people that have colors of hair other than red.

You are proving that people are unique and that normal and abnormal have no meaning when applied to a species that is so vastly diverse as humans.

My point... is... quite simple. To correct the poster who said it is "normal". Nothing more... nothing less.

Homosexuality is not... "normal". Heterosexuality is "normal."

Just say'in.
 
Back
Top Bottom