Is gayness a birth defect?

[The Baron]

It's an intentional misinterpretation of God's Word by homophobic men of the times.

This is the only thing you said that was even remotely interesting. It's completely untrue, but--do tell--where did you come up with this lie?

 

[Lisa]

Your statement comes across as so progressive and political.

I'm not afraid to admit it, I find one man ****ing another man in the ass freakishly offensive.

It doesnt do anything for me either, but I dont get to decide what works for someone else.

 

[The Baron]

"Bad thing" to me means behavior that's hurting someone. Who is this hurting?

It's a sin.

Whose definition

Anybody's.

I would suggest that "normal" just means the cultural norms you are used to, growing up in the culture you happened to be born into. So for example, to someone born and raised in an Islamic culture, "normal" is that women keep their face covered in public as a sign of modesty and chastity. In some African cultures, it is female genital mutilation. At one point in western culture it was "normal" to burn witches alive at the stake or do trials by ordeal.

Approximately 2% of the US population is homosexual.

That is definitely not normal..

But some cultural norms are unnecessary or just highly dysfunctional and hurtful.

See above.

 

[The Baron]

These criteria are all highly contingent culturally and historically- not anything set in stone.

No argument.

The only reason it may not seem "normal" to you now is because you didn't grow up in that kind of culture and so it may weird you out a little.

True.

 

[gboisjo]

Sooooo then it IS inborn? Otherwise, how does evolution and natural selection play a part?

So it is inborn in that regard, not full blown androgyny but to a much lesser extent.

We're all a mix of both male and female characteristics, however one leans heavily to one side or the other depending on gender.

Like grip pointed out, in jail people will temporally switch in an all men or all women environment.

 

[gboisjo]

Approximately 2% of the US population is homosexual.

That is definitely not normal..

Yea. I doubt it was the percentage when humans were hunters and gatherers.

The progressive political atmosphere today is propelling our youth to engage in homosexuality.

Thanks to them its become fashionable, sets one apart from the crowd.

 

[Lursa]

This is the only thing you said that was even remotely interesting. It's completely untrue, but--do tell--where did you come up with this lie?

Who says it's a lie? You? I didnt see you disputing that it does not break God's Word, so how can it be a sin?

Those men that wrote the Bible made mistakes, misinterpreted, etc. And just like today, I'm sure there were plenty of homophobic men.

 

[Lursa]

So it is inborn in that regard, not full blown androgyny but to a much lesser extent.

We're all a mix of both male and female characteristics, however one leans heavily to one side or the other depending on gender.

Like grip pointed out, in jail people will temporally switch in an all men or all women environment.

So after all this, you cant make the distinction between sexual orientation and just committing a sex act?

Anyone can choose to do any sex act. They dont chose their sexual orientation.

 

[Lursa]

Yea. I doubt it was the percentage when humans were hunters and gatherers.

The progressive political atmosphere today is propelling our youth to engage in homosexuality.

Thanks to them its become fashionable, sets one apart from the crowd.

If you read anything here, in the thread, where people discussed stress and environmental effects on the woman during gestation that release hormones and other proteins that affect the unborn, you'd understand better how that could differ.

 

[The Baron]

Who says it's a lie? You? I didnt see you disputing that it does not break God's Word, so how can it be a sin?

There are Old & New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible.

What the hell are you talking about?

Those men that wrote the Bible made mistakes, misinterpreted, etc.

That is demonstrably untrue.

And just like today, I'm sure there were plenty of homophobic men.

So people--men specifically according to you--who simply can't disagree that homosexuality is not moral...they have to be "afraid" of gay folks?

Are there any gay folks that we are supposed to be afraid of or is it all of them?

Also, I wonder if there are any other Christians out there who are getting sick-and-tired of being told who we are supposed to hate and be afraid of?

 

[grip]

Care to explain that distinction?



Sooooo then it IS inborn? Otherwise, how does evolution and natural selection play a part?

Born this way has no choice whatsoever. A propensity is a strong urge towards but not impossible to choose. Every person who has had a homosexual thought, or even experimented is not a full-on practicing gay. That's like all college girls who tried lesbian sex are forever gay.

Yes, it's inborn and societal, resulting from an evolving species.

 

[grip]

This isn't an indicator of what their orientation is, i.e. what sexually attracts them. Willingness to engage with sex with someone does not require that you be sexually attracted to them. Porn stars do this all the time, and it is common within prisons as a sexual release and/or a power play.

Many find it difficult to enjoy or perform without some attraction over repulsion. Even if it's mental acrobats.

 

[soylentgreen]

You keep bringing up this idea of superiority. We're having a debate. I think I'm right. You think you're right. I don't believe I'm superior to anyone because I think I'm right on this matter. Do you think you're superior to me or to others because you believe you are right?

Your superiority complex comes from suggesting others are not smart enough to understand you, not that either of us are right or wrong.

Straw-man. See this post form earlier in the thread: https://debatepolitics.com/threads/is-gayness-a-birth-defect.483497/page-32#post-1076110084

Not a strawman at all. You are just keeping up the pretense that it must be a negative trait. yet have done nothing to prove it a negative trait.

No, that's not quite right. As I said earlier, natural selection is less about "survival of the fittest" and more about "he who leaves the most genes in the next generation wins." Again, assuming (but not asserting) homosexuality has a genetic component, any genetic trait that makes members of the opposite sex less attractive is a trait that is likely going to leave fewer copies of itself in the next generation than those without that trait.

And again you apply a rule of survival of the fittest to an individual. Instead of using the rule as it should be used, as a rule that applies only to species, not individuals within the species.

Your position is entirely irrational.

Meaning you cannot explain it away so instead you just deny, pathetic.

And that is the point you could not understand earlier. The cite I provided demonstrated that approximately 10% of humans have fertility problems, problems that are unquestionably a negative trait. You citing persistent levels of gays in the population (which are, oddly enough, also about 10%) as evidence against homosexuality being a negative trait is proven false by citing the persistence of negative trait of infertility.

Why is it a negative trait? Nature uses infertility quite naturally within species. It is only because you are in fact ignorant of evolution and keep pushing an incredibly dumb idea that has no evidence to back it.

Your argument fails because a rule such as survival of the species is only applicable to a species as a whole. Not to any one individual within that species. Try and actually get an education before trying to disguise your hate for homosexuals with some absurd non thinking on your part.

 

[Lursa]

Born this way has no choice whatsoever. A propensity is a strong urge towards but not impossible to choose. Every person who has had a homosexual thought, or even experimented is not a full-on practicing gay. That's like all college girls who tried lesbian sex are forever gay.

Yes, it's inborn and societal, resulting from an evolving species.

And some people are bi. A person is born the way they're born. But anyone can have any sex they want with anyone they want, no matter 'how they were born'.

 

[Lursa]

There are Old & New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the Bible was written by fallible men of the times. And some could have been homophobic.

Certainly your posts come across that way, lots of posts from posters on this forum do, so it's not like it's unusual.

What the hell are you talking about?

The overall Message of the Bible is God's Word. How does being gay break God's Word of compassion, brotherly love, forgiveness, and peace?

That is demonstrably untrue.

Really? LOL demonstrate it.

So people--men specifically according to you--who simply can't disagree that homosexuality is not moral...they have to be "afraid" of gay folks?

What's immoral about it? It harms no one. Your religion tells you it's a sin.

2 people of the same sex love each other. How is that a sin? That's definitely not God's Word. It doesnt break His Word at all.

Are there any gay folks that we are supposed to be afraid of or is it all of them?

Just because they're gay? No, why? Are there straight people we are supposed to be afraid of just because they're straight?

Also, I wonder if there are any other Christians out there who are getting sick-and-tired of being told who we are supposed to hate and be afraid of?

Perfect! How do you think non-Christians or non-religious people feel about you telling them who they're supposed to hate or be afraid of (why would you be afraid of gay people????)

 

[soylentgreen]

I think it's amazing that you are claiming that Nat is saying homosexuality is not genetic, whereas Lisa is claiming that Nat is saying homosexuality is genetic. Off the same pots of Nat's no less. In the end, all he is saying is that it's not been proven to be genetic, nor has anything to would prove it to be not genetic has been proven. He even acknowledged that it could be a genetic component that is triggered by an environmental component. In the end, he is stating the one actual truth about the cause of any sexual orientation: We don't actually know.

I did not say it was not genetic. Nat is trying to have it both ways. And I suspect he can do that because his ignorance of evolution is as equal to his ignorance on genetics.
And yet he using a bad and completely wrong understanding of evolution to try and make his point. Which he does not have because he has done nothing to prove it is negative.

He is not trying to prove anything about genetics one way or the other. He is simply stuck on the ridiculous assumption that sterility is a negative trait. And he is using his ignorance to pretend that he has a point .

No, he is using the idea that we do not know in order to pretend he knows. But he does not know much himself. He seems to think that if homosexuality is a negative trait it will not get passed on to the next generation genetically. That for some weird and personal reason he thinks a gay man must have to pass his genes on in order for homosexuality to keep going. The guy is an absolute joke if he thinks that.

 

[soylentgreen]

And what is your proof that it existed in the same percentages of today,

The same proof that humans have existed in the same percentage of today.
Which is no proof at all.

Why would I need numbers when the fact of existence is all that is needed?

 

[grip]

And some people are bi. A person is born the way they're born. But anyone can have any sex they want with anyone they want, no matter 'how they were born'.

How do we know people are born gay?

 

[Lursa]

How do we know people are born gay?

Read the thread.

 

[grip]

Read the thread.

You can't provide the scientific evidence?

 

[Lursa]

You can't provide the scientific evidence?

It's in the thread.

Or you could ask someone. If you believe someone when they say they were born straight, why would you doubt someone who said they were born gay?

 

[soylentgreen]

Yea. I doubt it was the percentage when humans were hunters and gatherers.

The progressive political atmosphere today is propelling our youth to engage in homosexuality.

Thanks to them its become fashionable, sets one apart from the crowd.

Why do you doubt that?

I am guessing you think being homosexual means being a bit feminine. not a man enough to do a hunt.

Your prejudice is showing.

 

[grip]

It's in the thread.

Do you mean there are gay, lesbian, bi, trans, and queer genes?

 

[soylentgreen]

You can't provide the scientific evidence?

A child will be born either left handed or right. How can you tell if a new born is either?

 

[grip]

A child will be born either left handed or right. How can you tell if a new born is either?

That's the point, you can't.