• 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
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, REALLY? Why don't you post these intentions. Oh... and do make sure they come from a reliable source, from a source that represents the general homosexual population, and one that clearly states that indoctrination is a goal... and while you're at it, show what exactly they are trying to indoctrinate kids into.

This should be good.

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.
Click to expand...

Which is a stupid law... but is more about the transgendered, not gay, and is one law in one place.

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.
Click to expand...

We see this with all minority groups. Nothing new.

Now this may be sold as equal treatment, but it is a clear moral agenda that seeks to normalize homosexuality as morally acceptable.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. That's YOUR perception.

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.
Click to expand...

Neither do I. But I do want public institutions to provide accurate information. And I do not care if that information violates some people's sensibilities.

And while I would have some sympathy, I damn sure don't want a confused little boy in the restroom with anyone's daughter.
Click to expand...

Which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
 
Also, why does it matter if it's a choice or not?

We do not discriminate based on religion and that by all measures is a choice.

So why would we do so on homosexuality?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Oh, REALLY? Why don't you post these intentions. Oh... and do make sure they come from a reliable source, from a source that represents the general homosexual population, and one that clearly states that indoctrination is a goal... and while you're at it, show what exactly they are trying to indoctrinate kids into.

This should be good.
Click to expand...

No need, you have conceded that this is the case by saying this is "nothing new", in reference to the examples.



CaptainCourtesy said:
Which is a stupid law... but is more about the transgendered, not gay, and is one law in one place.
Click to expand...

This makes my point. thank you



CaptainCourtesy said:
We see this with all minority groups. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

not all, some. Which show that someone draws a moral line between what should and shouldn't be in the schools. This makes my point.

CaptainCourtesy said:
Not in the least. That's YOUR perception.
Click to expand...

yes it is


CaptainCourtesy said:
Neither do I. But I do want public institutions to provide accurate information. And I do not care if that information violates some people's sensibilities.
Click to expand...

Wow. now this is one of the clearest statements of discriminatory thinking I have seen in this entire thread. And again makes my point

CaptainCourtesy said:
Which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Click to expand...

exactly, but it serves to show your own moral lines exist.

You probably didn't read this entire thread, but you should know that the whole advocacy within schools issue was brought up in the context of who should draw the moral lines and what should they be for the society at large, which produces societal norms. This came about because someone commented that religious people needed for HSex to be a choice in order to justify discrimination. My answer was to battle this false accusation and is consistent, each family should draw there own moral lines and public institutions should stay out of that business, because invariably someone will charge discrimination. Advocates on this site want governmental intrusion in this arena because they feel that they have been discriminated against and therefore welcome added protections, besides public institutional power is currently on there side. However as you have shown so unwittingly, that everyone has their own moral sensibilities and therefore society is open to divisions at every turn. Given this, where should governmental institutions draw their lines while maintaining equal protection? They cannot and should not. All this to say that a personal moral line is not equal to discrimination.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
This could simply be because the taboos have been lifted.

Homosexual experimentation is nothing new, it's been occurring for millennia it's just that now it isn't criminalized do people are capable of being honest without repercussion.

it's not necessarily indoctrination, in fact it's likely liberation.
Click to expand...

Your points are valid, we just see thing from a different perspective. One caution though, and you should think this through for yourself. If it is as you say, that an increase in an activity that was once taboo (whether do to indoctrination or not), Does this imply that to engage is indeed a choice?
 
CriticalThought said:
Universal traits are evidence of biological origins. How many cultures do you know where proximity and reciprocity are not attractive qualities? People have evolved to find traits that would promote offspring and their survival to be particularly attractive. How might proximity and reciprocity play a role in increasing offspring and their survival?
Click to expand...

I may been wrong and have went too far in asserting no biological cause, based on theoretical assumptions. However, I said "conclusive" studies.
 
CriticalThought said:
Behavior yes, attraction no. Try it yourself. Try to condition yourself to find something unattractive to be attractive.
Click to expand...

This happens all the time in a general sense, ever hear the phrase "acquired taste". However it takes openness and repeated contact. Any biological predisposition is subservient to the human ability to "veto" impulses in a normal human brain. This is less apparent in base instincts such as sexuality, however as I have said before, I believe that the base instinct of sexuality is separate from the object of that desire.
 
chromium said:
You are referring to private school vouchers? Have you heard of separation of church and state? I'm for public funds to buy economics textbooks or something if you want to home school. In fact, i think public middle/high schools are so lousy and inefficient at educating and career training, I'd almost rather shut them all down. But unconstitutional public funding of religious schools that can still discriminate (thanks to the 1st amendment, no less) California Court Rules Religious Schools May Expel Gay Students

No, I'm not going to agree to that. If you think you know best how to raise your kids, with no 'gay agenda', do it on your own.

The religious extremist agenda, on the other hand, is real and a real threat to kids:

Daily Kos: Georgia gives tax support to schools that expel kids for being gay or not hating gays enough

I'm sure the SC will get around to doing its job and stopping them in 17 years.
Click to expand...

I think it's good that, thanks to your willingness to discuss this honestly we have come to a place of general agreement with regard to at least some of the issues. I appreciate that as I am here to learn and understand other perspectives. We'll have to pick this voucher thing up on a different thread, but thanks.
 
johndylan1 said:
ok... you contradict yourself then.



If it's not 100% in either direction, what determines the outcome? Could it be .... *gasp* a decision to act? A behavioral choice.
Click to expand...

Not dead center in the middle either. Could be 80% one way or the other. Let me ask, if we wanted you to, could you live the rest of your life making love only to someone of the same sex?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not dead center in the middle either. Could be 80% one way or the other. Let me ask, if we wanted you to, could you live the rest of your life making love only to someone of the same sex?
Click to expand...

For the purpose of this discussion I will portray asexual behavior, thank you. I am making a logical argument, not an emotional one.
 
johndylan1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no clue how bigotry (of its various forms) was endemic in our political/government/court systems. The laws/rules were not created in a vacuum. It was because the system allowed for the perps to get away with their behavior.

What should have happened was for decades for people to speak up against bigots and bullies and to not accept their behavior. So in many cases laws or rules overcompensated.
 
johndylan1 said:
ok... you contradict yourself then.



If it's not 100% in either direction, what determines the outcome? Could it be .... *gasp* a decision to act? A behavioral choice.
Click to expand...
A sexual act is not the same as sexual attraction. If you can't separate those two you'll never understand.
 
year2late said:
You have absolutely no clue how bigotry (of its various forms) was endemic in our political/government/court systems. The laws/rules were not created in a vacuum. It was because the system allowed for the perps to get away with their behavior.

What should have happened was for decades for people to speak up against bigots and bullies and to not accept their behavior. So in many cases laws or rules overcompensated.
Click to expand...

Sure, and I agree to some extent. I just don't think that to turn things 180 and discriminate and advocate against another groups moral foundation solves anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
johndylan1 said:
Your points are valid, we just see thing from a different perspective. One caution though, and you should think this through for yourself. If it is as you say, that an increase in an activity that was once taboo (whether do to indoctrination or not), Does this imply that to engage is indeed a choice?
Click to expand...

Of course to engage in it is a choice, unless you ate talking about rape. But having sex is ideally a choice.

Homosexuality isn't sexual activity though it is sexual orientation, that isn't a choice. there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual activity orientation normally dictates activity but it doesn't always.
 
johndylan1 said:
For the purpose of this discussion I will portray asexual behavior, thank you. I am making a logical argument, not an emotional one.
Click to expand...

I was also making a logical argument. I factually laid out the nature genetics, and two questioned the logic of expecting to see abstinence or sex with those you or anyone else isn't attracted to.

So, you can answer the question with a logical response if you have one.
 
johndylan1 said:
I guess I can't understand inconsistent rhetoric either. End.
Click to expand...

Okay let's try it this way. Before you ever had sex you were attracted to women. Did that make you heterosexual? Because if your behavior dictates sexual orientation than you were asexual.

I have been with both genders what does that make me? Was i gay then straight then gay than straight than gay again?
 
johndylan1 said:
Sure, and I agree to some extent. I just don't think that to turn things 180 and discriminate and advocate against another groups moral foundation solves anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

You do understand that it wasn't advocacy for homosexuals that led to loss of prayer rights in schools right? Madeline O'Hare was an atheist advocate. She was the one credited with removal of prayer in school.

The 180 turn doesn't exist. it really wasn't gay people that had prayer removed from school. to lump every "group" that is "against your moral foundation" in with one another isn't accurate.

Don't blame the political force of today for what has occurred in the past that you do not approve of.
 
johndylan1 said:
Sure, and I agree to some extent. I just don't think that to turn things 180 and discriminate and advocate against another groups moral foundation solves anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Well, the answer is to buck up and be a man and call out bigotry when you see it and this includes if it is your friends, boss, coworker, or cleric.

But that is not what has been happening.

They need poster children like Matthew Shepard to show people what has been happening to them in varying degrees EVERY SINGLE DAY.
 
johndylan1 said:
Sure, and I agree to some extent. I just don't think that to turn things 180 and discriminate and advocate against another groups moral foundation solves anything. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Click to expand...

Christian students aren't getting expelled the way christian schools expel gay and ally students. This is a false equivalence if I've ever heard one, because that's what a 180 would be. They'd be expelled and christian teachers fired and so on.

Your PA prayer thing has a point, but it's such a minor thing i don't see the big deal for either atheists to cover their ears or theists to mumble a prayer to themselves or something. Football at a public school isn't church, though it tries to disguise itself as such. There are also plenty of gay theists, so it's a separate issue really.
 
Last edited:
chromium said:
Christian students aren't getting expelled the way christian schools expel gay and ally students. This is a false equivalence if I've ever heard one, because that's what a 180 would be. They'd be expelled and christian teachers fired and so on.

Your PA prayer thing has a point, but it's such a minor thing i don't see the big deal for either atheists to cover their ears or theists to mumble a prayer to themselves or something. Football at a public school isn't church, though it tries to disguise itself as such. There are also plenty of gay theists, so it's a separate issue really.
Click to expand...

My point isn't to compare or equate, it is to show inconsistent and unequal treatment from governmental institutions toward groups that have differing ideas of what constitutes morality. Keep them out.
 
johndylan1 said:
This happens all the time in a general sense, ever hear the phrase "acquired taste". However it takes openness and repeated contact. Any biological predisposition is subservient to the human ability to "veto" impulses in a normal human brain. This is less apparent in base instincts such as sexuality, however as I have said before, I believe that the base instinct of sexuality is separate from the object of that desire.
Click to expand...

Experimenting goes both ways. In the past, a lot of gay people married and had kids, and it still didn't change their sexuality. Yes, behavior is a choice but there's also reason behind it. For anyone with a sex drive, suppressing or acting contrary to it our whole lives is neither healthy nor realistic.
 
johndylan1 said:
My point isn't to compare or equate, it is to show inconsistent and unequal treatment from governmental institutions toward groups that have differing ideas of what constitutes morality. Keep them out.
Click to expand...

Every action has a trace of morality behind it, but you have to make decisions. When they teach birth control in sex ed, that is evil to some and to others the state acting on its own best interests of avoiding teen pregnancies. That's all public ed owes to its citizens, to act in their collective best interests. Apparently the state of CA has determined that it's in the public's interest to inform students about the history of the gay right's movement, just as they do for that of women, african americans, jews, child labor and so on. Is the state 'discriminating' against the ku klux klan or neo-nazis in the process? Because to those hate groups, blacks and jews are deviant and should still have no place in public ed textbooks. You don't give it a 2nd thought though, just as no one will be raising these objections about the 'gay agenda' in 50 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom