Whether Or Not Homosexuality Is A Choice Is Irrelevant

Nobody would choose to become a second class citizen and to get death threats and not be accepted by their own family.

There are those who claim it's about protecting the integrity of what's written in the Bible. This is one of the most ridiculous claims ever made since the Bible is full of evil acts and suggestions we choose to ignore. Where is the integrity in that?

Homosexuality is found in over 1,500 species, Homophobia is found in only one. Which one seems unnatural now?

originally posted by: flammadraco
Nobody would choose to become a second class citizen and to get death threats and not be accepted by their own family.

An alarmingly higher amount of suicides among gay teens, as well.

Guess they didn't know they could just 'choose' their way out of it.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
you seem to be one of the few people that seem to understand why the debate is all wrong.
the issue is that we are defining a person by what they do in their bedroom, and that represents at most 20% of what a person is about.

Let me begin with saying that your argument is flawed. By saying 'a person', as oppose to 'a homosexual', you are evading the topic and desensitising readers from the actual issue. You are doing this by subtly putting homosexuality forward as the norm (a person), when in actual fact homosexuality has not been proven to be normal or natural among the human population. It has existed long before, but continues to be abnormal, and somehow seems to be trending in our current day and age.

Even if tomorrow we found out, that without doubt, homosexuality was a choice...so what? that just means it's a sexual preference you have, a thing that you are into, it should still not be used to define your entire existence. SO by saying

I believe that homosexuality is currently more prevalent than in previous times due to the breakdown of moral integrity, the continual dissolution of the nuclear family, and the downfall of societal values. You must have tunnel vision if you want to boil down homosexuality to 'sexual preference', and saying it does not define your entire existence, I can prove you wrong on this, and it all roots back to your lack of thought when it comes to choice. Read on.

And as long as you prove to not be a danger for society, nobody has any right to set limits in terms of what you can, cannot do, or make assumptions about you.

This is the flaw right here. It IS a danger to society; it is only your short-sightedness that prevents you from seeing the long term effects on society. While there might not be any immediate effects in endangering non-homosexuals directly, except where some might get pissed of at the sight of two men/ women kissing in public, there is a measurable, long-term effect on the character development and growth of children in their early years on to adulthood.

Homosexuality will inevitably lead to families, since marriages where approved this has only increased the trend, and those families will want to adopt or conceive via artificial insemination. It is the children that grow up in these households or environment that will be greatly affected, who go on to be part of our future society where a disturbing pattern will arise.

Consider this, I can present to you cases where son's and daughters have spoken out publicly against homosexuality despite growing up in a homosexual environment. It is as children begin to develop emotionally into adulthood that they begin to realise flaws in their character, and emotional instability as a result of either a male father or female mother figure being absent in their early lives. Males and Females are inherently different in their natural behaviour and attitudes towards life events; a child will draw upon these when going through their own life events. Being strong and dominant in a situation or being more sensitive, understanding, and emotional in another. et cetera ...

Furthermore you do not even need to go as far as the scenario of growing up within a a homosexual household/ environment to understand the measurable effects on child's emotional development. Just look at any child that has had to go through life with the absence of a father or mother figure, and ask them at adulthood how it has affected them. It's not to say that some of them didn't have great childhoods or live out fruitful lives, but clearly not having a daddy or mommy around will impact you in some way, for sure.

The only difference between the homosexual environment and the above is that the absence of a mother or father is circumstantial at best, not all cases will be a choice in that a mother or father chooses to leave at a critical point in a child's life. But by being homosexual, and starting a family, you have already made that choice from the beginning to put a child's emotional development at risk, as a result of your choice to be gay. And henceforth the choice is important, and does have negative consequences.

The conversation should NOT be is it natural or not, the conversation should be: why should we even allow ourselves to be defined only by what we do in the bedroom and not by the totality of our being.

It is an adult responsibility to look out for the welfare of a child before you bring it into this world, or choose to raise one. Why give that child emotional issues when their older? the conversation SHOULD be whether homosexuality is natural or not, because it is not just about what goes on in the bedroom... it is about the totality of your being and responsibility to the human race, and providing a healthy environment for humans to grow up in.

I guess it all boils down to this:
there are people that do not like or approve of certain things just becuase and they will latch onto anything just to justify it.

It most certainly does not boil down to that at all. What a narrow minded view, and complete ignorance in stating that the opposition will latch on to anything to justify their disapproval of homosexuality when there are very real consequences as I have just stated, and there is evidence to back this up.

Now the impact of homosexual parenting on the development of a child wont affect every child in the same way, but it will certainly affect some or most in a negative way. And it is homosexuals that ought to show some responsibility in assessing their choice to be homosexual, and how it can affect a child's mind, well into adulthood.

If homosexual's are indeed gay by choice, then it is not a naturally occurring phenomenon with humans. It is an important point to address. I am sure that is most certainly a choice.

This question of homosexuality being a choice truly gets my goat. It bugs me no end - in fact it makes me swear due to the stupidity of it.

Religious people tell you God made us all - yup right so he also made homosexuals didn't he probably as a means of controlling population. it runs throughout the animal kingdon and even plants can be hermaphrodite so we should in all common sense know that a hybrid such as a human is going to have attributes that don't include just heterosexuals.

To condem a man or woman because they love a member of their own sex is their business. If the rate of divorce is anything to go by that hardly follows 'what God has joined together let no man …."

a reply to: TheJourney

Great question, and I completely agree with your view.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The fact is, it is people like you that are a danger to our society, who try to corrupt our children with your bigoted, fanatical ideas.
You are the cancer that destroys and tries to bring down society.
Luckily enough there are more and more parents who choose to bring their children up correctky, and more and more children who can see that this kind of devisive homophobia is morally unacceptable and turn away from parents who teach it.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I believe that homosexuality is currently more prevalent than in previous times due to the breakdown of moral integrity

LOL so says somebody who hasn't studied history especially history of ancient Greece.

This is the flaw right here. It IS a danger to society; it is only your short-sightedness that prevents you from seeing the long term effects on society. While there might not be any immediate effects in endangering non-homosexuals directly, except where some might get pissed of at the sight of two men/ women kissing in public, there is a measurable, long-term effect on the character development and growth of children in their early years on to adulthood.

And the rest.

OP that post right there is answer to your question. Those type of people (people who are against homosexuality and/or believe that it is a choice) are dangerous to society.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You raise some brilliantly valid points here. The decay of nuclear family, the effects of single sex parenting. (Maybe I should add the rise of internet porn which encourages people to go down routes they previously would not).

These are all points which should be addressed sensibly and could give us an insight into the nature of the psyche (sound familiar ). I'm definitely a proponent of gay not being a choice but a result of upbringing and the environment one is brought up in - father figures, mother figures, non-nuclear family - lots of variables.

But homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to discuss these phenomena without the resulting homophobe vs homosexual arguments which occur.

With regards to the same sex parenting - A point often raised is: "But if both parents have unconditional love for the child where is the issue?" This is a complex point missed by the non-experienced psychologist. There is a definite effect on the nature of the child's psyche when the child is brought up in single sex parent family (and single parent family). The framework of a mother and father does seem to have an effect on the child's upbringing.

I say all these things which could be deemed as offensive to homosexuals when looked at subjectively. BUt it is important to look at these things objectively. Question your own sexuality, your upbringing... how is one's relationship with one's father? Mother? The early years of life which cannot be remembered - who was present? What relationships did you witness ?

There are so many interesting points here that get overlooked because people are offensive or defensive.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
This question of homosexuality being a choice truly gets my goat. It bugs me no end - in fact it makes me swear due to the stupidity of it.

Religious people tell you God made us all - yup right so he also made homosexuals didn't he probably as a means of controlling population. it runs throughout the animal kingdon and even plants can be hermaphrodite so we should in all common sense know that a hybrid such as a human is going to have attributes that don't include just heterosexuals.

To condem a man or woman because they love a member of their own sex is their business. If the rate of divorce is anything to go by that hardly follows 'what God has joined together let no man …."

Why do you even have to bring in religion?? Why can't you discuss homosexuality and its contribution to humanity without bashing or religion???? Stay on topic

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

The fact is, it is people like you that are a danger to our society, who try to corrupt our children with your bigoted, fanatical ideas.
You are the cancer that destroys and tries to bring down society.
Luckily enough there are more and more parents who choose to bring their children up correctly, and more and more children who can see that this kind of devisive homophobia is morally unacceptable and turn away from parents who teach it.

But there was nothing fanatical about my post at all, or was it bigoted in anyway? I suggested a scenario where homosexuality can be detrimental to the human race, a provided examples and logical reasoning, and you will find that much of what I said can be proven with studies that already exist and are probably part of the current curriculum in schools and universities.

I did not directly attack homosexuals in any way except to say that should they choose to start a family, this is where problems arise.

I think it is laughable that you say my views are corrupting children, when I only described how the human population has thrived and existed for the past 1 Million years or so...

What is the correct way to bring up a child, and how did I suggest an incorrect way?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I'm glad you find something laughable. I find ideology like yours downright depressing.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

You raise some brilliantly valid points here. The decay of nuclear family, the effects of single sex parenting. (Maybe I should add the rise of internet porn which encourages people to go down routes they previously would not).

These are all points which should be addressed sensibly and could give us an insight into the nature of the psyche (sound familiar

). I'm definitely a proponent of gay not being a choice but a result of upbringing and the environment one is brought up in - father figures, mother figures, non-nuclear family - lots of variables.

But homosexuals and heterosexuals should be able to discuss these phenomena without the resulting homophobe vs homosexual arguments which occur.

With regards to the same sex parenting - A point often raised is: "But if both parents have unconditional love for the child where is the issue?" This is a complex point missed by the non-experienced psychologist. There is a definite effect on the nature of the child's psyche when the child is brought up in single sex parent family (and single parent family). The framework of a mother and father does seem to have an effect on the child's upbringing.

I say all these things which could be deemed as offensive to homosexuals when looked at subjectively. BUt it is important to look at these things objectively. Question your own sexuality, your upbringing... how is one's relationship with one's father? Mother? The early years of life which cannot be remembered - who was present? What relationships did you witness ?

There are so many interesting points here that get overlooked because people are offensive or defensive.

All your points build upon, and compliment my previous post, I agree with what you say. It is certainly a more complex issue than meets the eye, where many feel qualified to provide a passing opinion but don't choose to break down the psychological components of the issue at hand.

We can all refrain from exchanging bad blood or attacking each others sexual preference, but we must address the impact of homosexuality on the future of society, and more importantly the children that grow up in homosexual environments, how are they affected into adulthood? They quite possibly could be the victims here.

You simply cannot dismiss choice, and say that is irrelevant, when in fact it is the most important part of life.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

I'm glad you find something laughable. I find ideology like yours downright depressing.

I am glad that you pick the most trivial parts of my post to address, without contending my arguments. Why don't you use your posts to add some meaningful input to this discussion.

That shouldn't be to hard? ATS is a great place to exercise critical thinking.

ETA: There was sarcasm in this post.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: ISeekTruth101
I'm definitely a proponent of gay not being a choice but a result of upbringing and the environment one is brought up in - father figures, mother figures, non-nuclear family - lots of variables.

I have eleven brothers and sister and we were all bought up in the same way so if what you are saying I shouldn't be gay as my up bringing was exactly the same as my other 5 brothers. Can you explain this to me then please?

originally posted by: TheJourney
Just a thought I have had, that I figured I may as well make a thread about. People like to turn the whole issue of homosexuality into whether or not it is a choice. The religious saying, 'It's a choice!' as an argument for illegalities and such involving homosexuality. Others saying 'it's not a choice!' as a counter-argument. I don't really see why this is the defining issue of it. Even if it were a choice. If our sexuality were not pre-defined, and one simply became homosexual through a variety of personal interpretations and choices...so? Then prohibitions against it would be legitimate? We need to remove this idea that the purpose of law is to stop people from making what some consider to be 'bad' choices. Individuals should be free to make whatever choices they want, so long as they're not harming another. So, why is the issue of whether choice is a factor or not so prominent in the debate?

I have to agree. Choice or not, law abiding citizens should have the same rights as every other law abiding citizen.

I think the choice vs not a choice argument comes into play when groups want to define gay people as a protected class. Their argument is that since it is not a choice, they can't help it and thus should be a protected class.

The real answer is that the state should just leave people alone. There should be no protected classes. The state should not favor one group over the other and the law should treat all citizens equally.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

because the rest of what you write is nonsense.
It's always dangerous when people like you, want to reduce real people, who want to get on with their lives, work and meet people they love and settle down, as some kind of danger to society.
they arent people any more , they are a menace, with an agenda.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I think the choice vs not a choice argument comes into play when groups want to define gay people as a protected class.

No its because they don't want to recognize them as people with equal rights as the rest of us.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Spot on!

I personally don't want more rights than anyone else, just the same rights!

originally posted by: Rocker2013
a reply to: TheJourney

The Fundies need to claim it's a choice, because otherwise they would have to accept that their invisible sky wizard made LGBT people too, and that's a disconnect they just cannot fathom.

Nailed it.

Love is a choice, but Fundies are stuck on the
false authority of the Bible as the Word of God.
They fail to understand God did not say EVERYTHING
they read in the Bible. Man said that stuff, not God.

If they admit that being gay is a natural occurrence outside of our choices then they have to then admit that their precious and arrogant God created us all, and that we therefore all deserve the same respect and rights. As organized religion is built on the notion of power over others, being superior to other Humans and controlling their lives, the fundies cannot possibly accept it as it would make them all no more powerful or righteous than anyone else.

Fundies are not adults who rely on reason,
rather they are stuck in the child/parent
mentality of guilt, shame and tradition.

Reason tells me that God is utterly indifferent to
what human being do with their sexuality. He
(or She) doesn't give a F*CK who we F*CK.

Monotheism, however, has much genital and/or
gender anxiety, and monotheist regions are all
rooted in a FEAR of sex, as I see it.

And so certain behavior(s) get labeled "sinful."
But ask yourself, Does God care how you find
sexual pleasure? The answer is no, God does
not care. That is the concern of man and
the religion (memes) man has created.

This is another reason we would all be well
severed to be rid of the false authority of
the Bible or other holy book or scripture.

Sin is not what "hurts God" as the Fundies
are fond of saying, Sin is what hurts those
you love (and yourself). We never sin against
God unless we sin against ourselves (or each
other). Sin hurt us, not God.

a reply to: flammadraco

Didn't we have this conversation in another thread?

First of all you are using an individual situation to prove a rule... A rule which doesn't exist but exists as a theory to apply to the majority. As with most, if not all psychological theories.

I can not comment exactly on your situation, I have no knowledge of order of births, parental influence, sibling influences, your upbringing, etc etc...

But there is evidence (a lot in the thread I link above) which suggests a breakdown in the father - son relationship can result in the son being homosexual. There is further evidence to suggest the rise in divorce rates and rise in single parenting families (usually a single mother) has a correlation with the rise in homosexual men. Obviously a correlation is not a causation, however in this case the evidence suggests it may well be.

I personally am undecided as to whether we are all born straight or all born with no preference and we grow into the preference which is influenced by our environment. Nature vs nurture.

But as I keep stressing - it is really important to not be blinded by emotion. Really important. Nothing is meant as an insult and nothing is meant to be homophobic. These are all observations with evidence which suggest a really really interesting part of the nature vs nurture debate.