• 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
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.

I wonder if it ever dawns on anyone that the reason that these rules and laws get put into place are because people (many who are devoutly religious) go out of their way to harass and demean the LGBT group.

Do you think these rules or laws would exixt if the LGBT individual was just treated like ***gasp*** just another human being?

What folks call "the gay agenda" is just counteracting a bigoted agenda by some people - many who seem to think GOd is at their side.
 
I wonder if it ever dawns on anyone that the reason that these rules and laws get put into place are because people (many who are devoutly religious) go out of their way to harass and demean the LGBT group.

Do you think these rules or laws would exixt if the LGBT individual was just treated like ***gasp*** just another human being?

What folks call "the gay agenda" is just counteracting a bigoted agenda by some people - many who seem to think GOd is at their side.

My post was in response to some that claim that there is no gay agenda nor an institutional bias that supports the sexual values of non traditional groups. I don't have bias, I want to equally bar public institutions from promoting sexual morals from either perspective. Round and round we go I say I don't want institutional advocacy others accuse me of discrimination, I say I don't want discrimination others say there is no bias so why worry.... round and round, I getting dizzy in this thread.
 
First off it isn't indoctrination to learn about the advancements made for the equality of homosexuals, we study the advancements made by black people to further their equality.

It isn't indoctrination for kids to understand what homosexuality is, it already is part of history. They aren't telling your kids that they should be gay, just that it is wrong to discriminate against others who are. Just like they teach that it is wrong to discriminate against muslims Jews and catholics, a women, black people and so on.

Homosexuals don't live a different lifestyle than heterosexuals. I for one, an a home owner, I go fishing in my leisure, I take my boy to school and Evan picks him up. Homosexuals aren't any different than heterosexuals.

The idea that there is a difference is the basis for the prejudice, teaching that the difference doesn't really effect the person's lifestyle or ability to participate in society.

It is exactly the misconceptions that you have posted here that must be unlearned. At one time the nation thought that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

I don't mean any disrespect toward you, but you are voicing your bias, it isn't wrong to be biased all people are to some degree, but with the amount of people that share your bias which makes it easier for you to believe things that aren't necessarily true about homosexuals, lends to the discrimination against them.

The only way to make it to where we aren't ruled by biases is to learn about the people we are biased against. You can certainly keep your biases, Lord knows I have them, but I had to address mine and not let them cloud my judgment. Specifically because I am in law enforcement. I don't think it's to much for people to address their biases and hopefully not let their judgment be clouded.

Your concerns about transgenderisum are very valid. But the solution isn't as easy as boys go in the boys room and girls go in the girls room. What if you saw a 13 year old with long hair, make up on a blue blouse and a plaid skirt on walk into the girls bathroom? Would you know of that kid is a boy or a girl? Isn't it a worse violation of our rights to ask that child to prove it?

Don't get me wrong, I understand the discomfort with transgendered people, but it's a very difficult problem to address. It isn't as simple as boys wear boys clothing, there really isn't such a thing any more, I see many teenaged girls when dropping my son off at school, that wear boys clothing, and the boys are wearing what were considered girls clothing in my youth.

It's really a more difficult problem than it seems at first.

I can't say enough how I understand your point, but at the same time that courts and politicians have allowed advocacy for non traditional sexual groups to become institutional forces with in the school they also have pruned away the religious advocacy, even removing the ability for student led prayer before football games if the PA system is used. Let's remove it all, teach the three r's and let families decide how to morally train their children.
 
If you're weary of it, maybe you should get with the times. There hardly needs to be a 'gay agenda' for teenagers in California to talk about and become aware of this stuff on their own. They *definitely* are going to do so. Most probably even have gay friends and/or have friends with gay parents and have been around that for years. Nor does there need to be an 'agenda' for homosexuality to be normalized. It already is! Do you really expect to be taken seriously with this "gay agenda" crap when a clear majority supports gay rights?

I'm not saying I'm weary of gay folks, I'm weary of people denying that there is an institutionalized agenda. In addition, You are making my point. Let society learn by experience and freedom of association, not by public institutional indoctrination.
 
My post was in response to some that claim that there is no gay agenda nor an institutional bias that supports the sexual values of non traditional groups. I don't have bias, I want to equally bar public institutions from promoting sexual morals from either perspective. Round and round we go I say I don't want institutional advocacy others accuse me of discrimination, I say I don't want discrimination others say there is no bias so why worry.... round and round, I getting dizzy in this thread.

I didn't accuse you specifically of discrimination. I accuse the bigoted self righteous assholes who feel the need to discriminate against and act abhorrently and often violently against gay people. That in turn causes people to actually make crappy laws and regulations because otherwise nobody else will step up to the plate.

It reminds me of Affirmative Action laws.

Should they have been necessary? HELL NO! But were minorities getting a fair shake in this country? Bigger HELL NO. Did the civil rights movement stop bigoted idiots from doing their best to their best to assure minorities never got a fair shake? Even bigger HELL NO.

So while we are busy blaming our lawmakers and our government about stupid ass laws...perhaps we should be blaming the bigoted idiots that do their best to make sure anyone who is not like them is traumatized either physically, emotionally, or financially.
 
I can't say enough how I understand your point, but at the same time that courts and politicians have allowed advocacy for non traditional sexual groups to become institutional forces with in the school they also have pruned away the religious advocacy, even removing the ability for student led prayer before football games if the PA system is used. Let's remove it all, teach the three r's and let families decide how to morally train their children.

Sorry, I don't know what sexual group has become an institutional force. The fact that it's only about sex with you has means you don't really understand.
Sorry that nobody has stood up for students rights to prey.

The three r's aren't enough. Because you need history, social studies, and science.

I was never an advocate of schools teaching morality.
 
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.
Sorry John, but that is an absolutely ridiculous statement_

Sexual attraction is most definitely a psycho/bio-logical function designed by evolution to motivate a species to procreate_

Although homosexuality can be learned in situations where people have no access to the opposite sex such as long prison sentences_

But most wouldn't consider this true homosexuality but rather desperate measures much the same as cannibalism by starving people_

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.
Considering the extreme dopamine rush during orgasm, it's no surprise that the motivation for sex is more often for the physical pleasure than for actually making a baby, especially since the introduction of birth control_

But Mother Nature doesn't care why we do it, as long as we're doing it_

Regardless, we are all products of evolution and any variation from the design is considered a mistake of nature_

Including those who are sexually attracted to anything other than the opposite sex of reproductive age and same species_

ie, any sexual attraction to animals, children or the same sex is the result of either a genetic or psychological abnormality_

Genetic mistakes are evolution's way of improving the species by allowing a beneficial mistake to contribute to the gene pool_

And inconsequential mistakes die off making no genetic contribution to the species, which is what homosexuals do by design_

So regardless of what triggers homosexuality or any other paraphilia, it is not natural to biological or psychological human evolution_
 
There are however several studies that do conclude that attraction is learned behavior.

Can you post them? I am a social scientist by trade and I am always terribly disappointed when people make these kinds of claims but then don't back them up.
 
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.

Interesting. Do you oppose the opposite? Do you oppose public institutions promoting the view that homosexuality is abnormal and morally unacceptable?

Also, why are you conflating the issues of trangenderism with homosexuality? They are completely different topics. While I respect transgender rights issues and gay rights issues, I am not sure why people from both sides feel the need to combine the two.
 
I'm not saying I'm weary of gay folks, I'm weary of people denying that there is an institutionalized agenda. In addition, You are making my point. Let society learn by experience and freedom of association, not by public institutional indoctrination.

What, an agenda to have equal rights? Guilty as charged! You can't legislate morals. That's been obvious since prohibition if not before. The *only* reason there is some blurb about Harvey Milk or whatever in california school books is because the "freedom of association" made it possible, if not desirable to literally every parent. Shockingly, that's not the law in mississippi and it will not be until gays are actually respected there, in 2412 or whatever. So all this fear of the 'gay agenda', which has more accurately become an *american* agenda, seems quite irrational.
 
I really am growing weary with this. Advocates for the gay agenda have publicly stated their intentions with regard to the indoctrination and normalization of the gay lifestyle. Hell in California the just put forward a law that allows trans-gendered kids to choose which restroom they feel best fits their self gender identification, despite their actual gender. Text books must by law include historical achievements of homosexual figures described as such. By law text book contents must have information and review from advocacy groups including homosexual advocates, femenist advocates, etc. Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable. Now here's where you have to understand my point of view, I don't want public institutions involved in family business in either direction. And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.

Seriously, these issues didn't just "pop up".

Laws and rules usually do not come out of nowhere.

Look at the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Who would have thought you would have to tell people that it is a crime to single out an individual because he was gay and torture and murder him?

The torture and murder of Matthew Shepard was one in a long line of cruelties inflicted on members of the gay community.

So perhaps you should aim your indignation at the bigots - but over the years, too many people went silent. Now we have laws and rules to protect people who shouldn't need protecting - except for the fact that bigots had been allowed to do their thing for so long everybody kinda took a blind eye to the behaviors
 
Also, why are you conflating the issues of trangenderism with homosexuality? They are completely different topics. While I respect transgender rights issues and gay rights issues, I am not sure why people from both sides feel the need to combine the two.

Because in the end they are all really the same issue. The rights of the individual to be considered equal before the law when compared to the other individuals. It doesn't matter whether it's the right to marry the other individual you want, or the right to bed whomever you want, or to engage in commerce with whomever you want, or whatever. In the end, "gay rights", "transexual rights", "interracial rights", "black rights"....they are all the same.
 
What, an agenda to have equal rights? Guilty as charged! You can't legislate morals. That's been obvious since prohibition if not before. The *only* reason there is some blurb about Harvey Milk or whatever in california school books is because the "freedom of association" made it possible, if not desirable to literally every parent. Shockingly, that's not the law in mississippi and it will not be until gays are actually respected there, in 2412 or whatever. So all this fear of the 'gay agenda', which has more accurately become an *american* agenda, seems quite irrational.

It's not fear, It is simply advocacy that is in its wrong place. As a governmental institution, indoctrinating sexual preferences is institutional discrimination against those who religiously disagree.
 
There's no poll.

But no, homosexuality isn't a choice. Gays can't just flip over to the other side anymore than a straight person can make himself gay.

But they do. Frequently too.

The leading candidate for mayor New York has a "former" lesbian as a wife.
 
Interesting. Do you oppose the opposite? Do you oppose public institutions promoting the view that homosexuality is abnormal and morally unacceptable?

Also, why are you conflating the issues of trangenderism with homosexuality? They are completely different topics. While I respect transgender rights issues and gay rights issues, I am not sure why people from both sides feel the need to combine the two.

1. yes I do oppose the opposite, sex ed in public institutions should be about anatomy, reproductive functionality, and health (physical science) not preferences (behavioral / social science).

I conflate to show that these agenda's have no business in school. Let me explain: What else should we or shouldn't we add to the list? Once you answer, you have drawn your own moral line. I follows that you become subject to the charge of discrimination by what ever agenda is on the otherside of your line... if that agenda gains institutional support, you then have the power of governmental force steamrolling toward your sense of morality.
 
But they do. Frequently too.

The leading candidate for mayor New York has a "former" lesbian as a wife.

So they're exploring a new area of their life. Changing doesn't mean they set out to change. I don't know anybody that says "You know, I'm going to go be gay now." It's about who you are attracted to.
 
Can you post them? I am a social scientist by trade and I am always terribly disappointed when people make these kinds of claims but then don't back them up.

If you are a social scientist you are familiar with the studies on attraction, otherwise google it. Note: I am refering to studies on attraction as a general principal, not specific to sexual preference.
 
So they're exploring a new area of their life. Changing doesn't mean they set out to change. I don't know anybody that says "You know, I'm going to go be gay now." It's about who you are attracted to.

Isn't exploration, by definition, a choice?
 
So if you're only attracted to your own sex, and not attracted to the other sex, you're heterosexual as long as you just don't do anything sexual?

I don't know what that means.
 
I don't know what that means.

Then I'll dumb it down for you. Are you saying that no matter what your inner attraction is, you're straight if you don't act on it? IE: John is sexually attracted to guys, and not sexually attracted to girls. Is he straight as long as he doesn't have sex with guys?

I would call that a closet homosexual. John can't help who he's attracted to.
 
Sorry John, but that is an absolutely ridiculous statement_

Sexual attraction is most definitely a psycho/bio-logical function designed by evolution to motivate a species to procreate_

Although homosexuality can be learned in situations where people have no access to the opposite sex such as long prison sentences_

But most wouldn't consider this true homosexuality but rather desperate measures much the same as cannibalism by starving people_

Considering the extreme dopamine rush during orgasm, it's no surprise that the motivation for sex is more often for the physical pleasure than for actually making a baby, especially since the introduction of birth control_

But Mother Nature doesn't care why we do it, as long as we're doing it_

Regardless, we are all products of evolution and any variation from the design is considered a mistake of nature_

Including those who are sexually attracted to anything other than the opposite sex of reproductive age and same species_

ie, any sexual attraction to animals, children or the same sex is the result of either a genetic or psychological abnormality_

Genetic mistakes are evolution's way of improving the species by allowing a beneficial mistake to contribute to the gene pool_

And inconsequential mistakes die off making no genetic contribution to the species, which is what homosexuals do by design_

So regardless of what triggers homosexuality or any other paraphilia, it is not natural to biological or psychological human evolution_

Thanks for your perspective, from my reading we're not that far off in our views, we just get there through different methods. I am slightly familiar with evolutionary psychology and it's theories but have not done a thourough contemplation. I kind of dismissed it after two thick volumns of info that seemed a bit fanciful to me... btw In the first statement I didn't say sexual attraction, I said attraction.
 
Then I'll dumb it down for you. Are you saying that no matter what your inner attraction is, you're straight if you don't act on it? IE: John is sexually attracted to guys, and not sexually attracted to girls. Is he straight as long as he doesn't have sex with guys?

I would call that a closet homosexual. John can't help who he's attracted to.

I didn't say anything remotely similar to that.

Maybe you should smarten up instead of worrying about dumbing down your posts.
 
I didn't say anything remotely similar to that.

Maybe you should smarten up instead of worrying about dumbing down your posts.

Seriously? You postulated that gays CAN choose to be gay or not, then when I stated they can't choose who they're attracted to, you replied with "Isn't exploration, by definition, a choice?"

That means you think they're only gay if they choose to explore it, it doesn't matter who they're attracted to.

Please try to keep up, I'm tired of you getting lost, especially on your own statements.
 
I didn't accuse you specifically of discrimination. I accuse the bigoted self righteous assholes who feel the need to discriminate against and act abhorrently and often violently against gay people. That in turn causes people to actually make crappy laws and regulations because otherwise nobody else will step up to the plate.

It reminds me of Affirmative Action laws.

Should they have been necessary? HELL NO! But were minorities getting a fair shake in this country? Bigger HELL NO. Did the civil rights movement stop bigoted idiots from doing their best to their best to assure minorities never got a fair shake? Even bigger HELL NO.

So while we are busy blaming our lawmakers and our government about stupid ass laws...perhaps we should be blaming the bigoted idiots that do their best to make sure anyone who is not like them is traumatized either physically, emotionally, or financially.

We agree. I'd much rather stygmatize a biggoted Idiot than someone who has a sexual preference that is different than my own, let's just keep the fight in an open and free civil society and out of public institutions.
 
Back
Top Bottom