toldailytopic: Does your opinion about homosexuality change if the behavior turns out

[Lon]

I see, so referring to someone as a maladjusted disgusting socially inept mama's boy is intended to make them feel better. Excuse me.

It isn't about 'making one feel better.' The OP topic is concerned with genetic make up.

My answer is that such is a behavioral choice, not a genetic program.

 

[Skavau]

I realize this is hypothetical, but it cannot happen. No behavior is caused strictly by genetics.

No-one says it is. Even if homosexuality is genetic people can of course resist the predisposed temptation to follow it. That said, it could be argued that the desire to follow a number of behavioural tendencies could be influenced by genetics. It doesn't mean that one should follow those behaviours or should not follow them only that that is where the desire for them might derive.

Something being wrong is independent of whether or not we are predisposed of it. If you though think that God deliberately set up all humans with the potential towards homosexual feelings only to prohibit it then you believe in a capricious God and you are welcome to him.

We are simply 'sexual' beings. Homosexuality is an inability to relate appropriately with the opposite gender.

How many homosexuals do you know? How many straight people, for that matter do you know? I know many straight people that operate very badly with the opposite gender. They aren't homosexual or even slightly inclined towards it. Similarly, I know some homosexuals that get on very well with the opposite gender.

To put it bluntly, the above is complete drivel.

We would all certainly raise our brow at the 'pedaphile gene.'

I wouldn't. If it had scientific backing then it could be. Does not excuse the action but helps us to understand and help those with it.

I don't believe for a second we are 'born this way.'

"You are not gay..."
...you are ugly
...you are socially inept
...you are into 'disgusting'
...you had bad relations with an overbearing mother (father)
...you are emotionally/mentally unstable/confused
...you don't understand that love and sexuality are not the same thing

You're a bigot.

Whether or not someone is ugly or not (subjective) has nothing to do with their sexual preference. Whether or not they are inept has nothing to do with their sexual preference. What they are in to has nothing to do with anything and something being considered disgusting certainly does not mean that it is immoral.

How can you pretend to know the relations that all homosexuals had with their parents? How can you even pretend to know what homosexuals feel for their partner? This is speculative bigotry, nothing more and it will only invoke the opposite response.

A similar list would go for adultery, philandering, and other problem behaviors. There is no reason to confuse these with genetics, they are behavioral choices.

The tendency to be an adulterer could certainly be indirectly associated with genetics (abnormal sexual desires, etc) but of course it is a choice and it is wrong entirely on the basis of the fact that it effects other people. Two homosexuals in a consensual relationships is not your business and harms no-one.

 

[ragTagblues]

My answer is that such is a behavioral choice, not a genetic program.

How is it choice; because if it is it's the harder choice.

It's a choice that will bring someone persecution for the rest of their days, they will be prejudiced, bullied , ran out of town, turned down for jobs, be put under a spy glass every god damn day. They will never be accepted fully by society . . . . yet you say it is choice. If that is the case why would anyone make it? If it is that easy, then no one would be gay as surely that suffering is not worth it.

Seriously why would anyone make that choice if they didn't have to? The issues and insecurities that come with choosing to be gay and then accepting it and telling your friends and family does not sound like something I would 'choose' to do.

Neither is it as simple as 'manning up' and ignoring your true colors, because we all deserve to be with someone that not only we love; but someone who attracts us sexually, something that is a basic human right.

 

[Lon]

No-one says it is. Even if homosexuality is genetic people can of course resist the predisposed temptation to follow it. That said, it could be argued that the desire to follow a number of behavioural tendencies could be influenced by genetics. It doesn't mean that one should follow those behaviours or should not follow them only that that is where the desire for them might derive.

No. Genetics may have contributing factors but they do not make behavioral choices. People do.

Something being wrong is independent of whether or not we are predisposed of it. If you though think that God deliberately set up all humans with the potential towards homosexual feelings only to prohibit it then you believe in a capricious God and you are welcome to him.

I already said no. Genetics has little to nothing to do with it.

How many homosexuals do you know? How many straight people, for that matter do you know? I know many straight people that operate very badly with the opposite gender. They aren't homosexual or even slightly inclined towards it. Similarly, I know some homosexuals that get on very well with the opposite gender.

I don't agree. Yes I've seen heteros treat the opposite gender poorly.
It has not a lot to do with the topic other than they too, are maladjusted.
That homosexuals 'get along' with the opposite gender doesn't mean healthy, nor a healthy view toward them. This was not the only listed point.

To put it bluntly, the above is complete drivel.

I couldn't imagine you coming to any other conclusion on the matter with such a shallow redress.

I wouldn't. If it had scientific backing then it could be. Does not excuse the action but helps us to understand and help those with it.

And then what? Eradicate those deviant genes? Remember you said this just below.

You're a bigot.

You mean as 'intolerant?' Yep, so are you.

Whether or not someone is ugly or not (subjective) has nothing to do with their sexual preference. Whether or not they are inept has nothing to do with their sexual preference. What they are in to has nothing to do with anything and something being considered disgusting certainly does not mean that it is immoral.

Shallow.

How can you pretend to know the relations that all homosexuals had with their parents? How can you even pretend to know what homosexuals feel for their partner? This is speculative bigotry, nothing more and it will only invoke the opposite response.

How can you pretend to be addressing this conversation by the same token?

The tendency to be an adulterer could certainly be indirectly associated with genetics (abnormal sexual desires, etc) but of course it is a choice and it is wrong entirely on the basis of the fact that it effects other people. Two homosexuals in a consensual relationships is not your business and harms no-one.

Tell that to the pedaphiles that propositioned me as a pre-teen.
The deviance has affected other people. You have your head in the sand and have let media and commercials influence your opinions as any uncritical drone. What's your favorite toothpaste and soap?

 

[Lon]

How is it choice; because if it is it's the harder choice.

It's a choice that will bring someone persecution for the rest of their days, they will be prejudiced, bullied , ran out of town, turned down for jobs, be put under a spy glass every god damn day. They will never be accepted fully by society . . . . yet you say it is choice. If that is the case why would anyone make it? If it is that easy, then no one would be gay as surely that suffering is not worth it.

Seriously why would anyone make that choice if they didn't have to? The issues and insecurities that come with choosing to be gay and then accepting it and telling your friends and family does not sound like something I would 'choose' to do.

Because the sexual drive is greater than the consequence to them.

Neither is it as simple as 'manning up' and ignoring your true colors, because we all deserve to be with someone that not only we love; but someone who attracts us sexually, something that is a basic human right.

Sexuality is a human right? Where was that in the Constitution? I missed it.

 

[Granite]

It isn't about 'making one feel better.' The OP topic is concerned with genetic make up.

My answer is that such is a behavioral choice, not a genetic program.

So you did mean to be insulting. Maybe you should just decide what the world it is you're trying to say here.

I suspect some choose and I suspect many simply are. Neither of which justifies ostracism, death, persecution, short changing, or prejudice. Short of an iron-clad scientific explanation I'd suggest laying off the kind of old-school ignorant bigotry you're trying to peddle and get back to something far more challenging, like rearranging your sock drawer.

 

[Lon]

So you did mean to be insulting. Maybe you should just decide what the world it is you're trying to say here.

I suspect some choose and I suspect many simply are. Neither of which justifies ostracism, death, persecution, short changing, or prejudice. Short of an iron-clad scientific explanation I'd suggest laying off the kind of old-school ignorant bigotry you're trying to peddle and get back to something far more challenging, like rearranging your sock drawer.

Your suspicions do not a convincing argument, make. Just because the television says 'its okay' doesn't mean you turn your brain off. There is a reason its old school, and as such doesn't make it wrong, especially if we are allowing 'suspicions' into the conversation.

 

[Granite]

Your suspicions do not a convincing argument, make. Just because the television says 'its okay' doesn't mean you turn your brain off. There is a reason its old school, and as such doesn't make it wrong, especially if we are allowing 'suspicions' into the conversation.

I don't watch TV. Except for the Sox and Pats. Sue me. The judgments I make about not exterminating or otherwise persecuting millions of people come from personal exposure to them and the realization that they are human, not vermin we need to round up or kick out. Try it. It worked for Schindler.

 

[Lon]

I don't watch TV. Except for the Sox and Pats. Sue me. The judgments I make about not exterminating or otherwise persecuting millions of people come from personal exposure to them and the realization that they are human, not vermin we need to round up or kick out. Try it. It worked for Schindler.

I didn't say kick them out. I said it isn't genetic.

Those who are grossly deviant, yep, kick those ones out regardless of who they are, across board.

The things I'd advocate are 1) don't throw it in my face 2) don't hurt others 3) pay whatever consequences are due for whatever behavior you choose 4) don't force/press your opinion on the rest of us, you aren't changing my mind

 

[Granite]

I didn't say kick them out. I said it isn't genetic.

Do you a solution to this perceived problem or do you just like complaining about people you don't like?

Those who are grossly deviant, yep, kick those ones out regardless of who they are, across board.

Define "grossly deviant," then explain how to "kick them out," exactly. Out of what? A place of business? Their home? The country? Life?

The things I'd advocate are 1) don't throw it in my face 2) don't hurt others 3) pay whatever consequences are due for whatever behavior you choose 4) don't force/press your opinion on the rest of us, you aren't changing my mind

That doesn't sound like it's directed at any one kind of specific person or behavior. Just things and people who get on your nerves. Fair enough but if you're going to be a bigot, at least stick to your guns.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Your suspicions do not a convincing argument, make. Just because the television says 'its okay' doesn't mean you turn your brain off. There is a reason its old school, and as such doesn't make it wrong, especially if we are allowing 'suspicions' into the conversation.

Why are you so convinced it's not genetic? I don't know about every homo or bisexual person but through personal experience I know it's not a choice I could make. I can't flip a switch and change my orientation so how can I flippantly presume that everyone else chooses their sexuality? I have a hard time believing that all cases of homosexuality are related to simply upbringing and environment also.

 

[Lon]

Do you a solution to this perceived problem or do you just like complaining about people you don't like?

You are imposing upon the OP. It is about genetics and whether or not our opinion on the matter would change.

Define "grossly deviant," then explain how to "kick them out," exactly. Out of what? A place of business? Their home? The country? Life?

Anything we'd all agree is not acceptable, like propositioning children, regardless. Kick 'em out was your analogy, I was just agreeing.

That doesn't sound like it's directed at any one kind of specific person or behavior. Just things and people who get on your nerves. Fair enough but if you're going to be a bigot, at least stick to your guns.

Yep. Specifically I'm against the socially deviant, it doesn't matter if they are gay or not, but this is getting off-topic.

 

[Granite]

You are imposing upon the OP. It is about genetics and whether or not our opinion on the matter would change.

And I said earlier than some ignorant bigots will remain just that way regardless of whatever is put in front of them. Oh well. Those are the breaks. The only good news is that they tend to die off first.

Anything we'd all agree is not acceptable, like propositioning children, regardless. Kick 'em out was your analogy, I was just agreeing.

A complete non-answer and squirming, weasely dodge.

If there are no atheists in foxholes, why not put The Gays in uniform? That way they can find God and get what some of you guys want all at once. A cosmic two-for-one deal.

 

[Lon]

Why are you so convinced it's not genetic? I don't know about every homo or bisexual person but through personal experience I know it's not a choice I could make. I can't flip a switch and change my orientation so how can I flippantly presume that everyone else chooses their sexuality? I have a hard time believing that all cases of homosexuality are related to simply upbringing and environment also.

What about pedaphilia? Where is your line when it stops making sense to you concerning genetics? I do presume, flippantly or otherwise (though I wasn't aiming for flippant), that we are primarily seeing a choice and that genetics do not have a lot to do with it. What about other deviant preferences I won't mention here. When does 'genetic' stop making sense in the grand scheme?

 

[Lon]

And I said earlier than some ignorant bigots will remain just that way regardless of whatever is put in front of them. Oh well. Those are the breaks. The only good news is that they tend to die off first.

A complete non-answer and squirming, weasely dodge.

Because it doesn't have a lot to do with the specifics of the thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What about pedaphilia? Where is your line when it stops making sense to you concerning genetics? I do presume, flippantly or otherwise (though I wasn't aiming for flippant), that we are primarily seeing a choice and that genetics do not have a lot to do with it. What about other deviant preferences I won't mention here. When does 'genetic' stop making sense in the grand scheme?

Well this is the crux then. There's no way on this earth that I could find either a child or a man remotely sexually attractive. I was attracted to the opposite sex since 4 years old though obviously in an immature sense and it continued thereon through adulthood where the attraction matured. Whether social conditions could have affected that I can't say for absolute sure but I highly doubt it. I've heard plenty others who say they 'know' they're gay from a young age and without any abuse or any other 'event' that causes such. Why should I doubt them?

I seem to be genetically predisposed to hate peanuts as well so I make the choice to avoid them. Others love em but I don't. Is that a choice of mine? Do you think I could decide to start liking them?

:think:

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, sociopaths are people who lack the ability to empathize with the pain of other living creatures. They usually begin torturing animals as children because they recognize that they feel nothing when they do so, while all the other children are shocked. So the sociopath becomes curious about his own lack of feeling. He tends to graduate to deliberately hurting other people because he finds that causing pain to others gives him a thrill, instead of repulsing him, as it does everyone else. In time he may become a serial killer because he got addicted to the ultimate thrill of killing another human being. But whos fault is it that such people are born without the ability to empathize? The sociopath didn't ask to be born that way. He didn't choose to be born that way. But he was born that way, and as a result, he was drawn to the suffering of others. Fascinated by it. And he was very susceptible to becoming addicted to it.

Watchmakers don't make broken watches, and God didn't make broken people. Adam and Eve broke themselves and they produced broken children, after their own image and so on and so forth.

Can you read the hearts and minds of others? No? Then how do you justify your presumption to the right to condemn and punish them?

At what point did I propose punishing people for what takes place in their hearts and minds?

The issue is what people do. It doesn't matter what goes on in their hearts and minds when they do something wrong. Motive is irrelevant to whether or not someone deserves punishment. Actions are the only relevant issue thereof.

 

[rexlunae]

Watchmakers don't make broken watches,

They don't? Have you ever tried to make a watch. Ok, I haven't either, but I'd imagine you have quite a few failures amongst the successes.

Adam and Eve broke themselves and they produced broken children, after their own image and so on and so forth.

If a watchmaker makes a watch that breaks itself, does the watchmaker:

A. Blame the watch, and punish it?
B. Accept responsibility for the mistake themselves, and try to correct it?
C. Make more watches exactly the same way?
D. A and C?
E. All of the above?
F. None of the above?
...
X. Call in his son, induce the watch to kill him, and then resurrect him, thus fixing the watch?

 

[PureX]

The issue is what people do. It doesn't matter what goes on in their hearts and minds when they do something wrong. Motive is irrelevant to whether or not someone deserves punishment. Actions are the only relevant issue thereof.

My! How medieval of you! So killing someone in self defense, and killing someone just for fun demand the same punishment, because the motive for the killing is irrelevant? I don't think you've considered this position very clearly.

 

[PureX]

What about pedaphilia? Where is your line when it stops making sense to you concerning genetics? I do presume, flippantly or otherwise (though I wasn't aiming for flippant), that we are primarily seeing a choice and that genetics do not have a lot to do with it. What about other deviant preferences I won't mention here. When does 'genetic' stop making sense in the grand scheme?

I think you are confusing two different issues. Just because someone is genetically predisposed toward a behavior or lifestyle doesn't mean they are not responsible for acting on that predisposition. In the case of homosexuality, most people feel that for one to act on that predisposition with another consenting adult is acceptable social behavior. No one is harmed by it. In the case of acting on a genetic predisposition for pedophilia, however, (if there even is such a genetic predisposition), it is not deemed acceptable social behavior because someone is harmed by it, and the perpetrator of such an action will be held accountable for that harm regardless of his/her genetic predispositions.

You seem to be confusing the acceptance of genetic predisposition with the acceptance of actions taken based on such genetic predispositions. And this is not the case at all.