CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Well, as a bi I don't really think that anyone only prefers one gender to the other. Culturally, we grow up to accept that there are gays and there are straights. Most just want to be straight, so the idea of experimenting with sexuality is put down (mainly by men).
Thanks to drug use, I've messed around. Ever had sex with a man? No... but I see the appeal and would like to try it out (my sex life isn't very active at the moment :l )
So in a sense, we choose based on our upbringing and culture. No one can just switch between being physically attracted to either a male or a female, but to say that it's genetic is kind of also backwards... there isn't a gene that makes you want a woman or female (founded, at least). There, however, genetic traits that can make you more sexually ambiguous or such.
However, if you're mostly gay you can't just stop like how Conservatives try to make it. Most gays don't like to have sex with women, just how most straights don't like to have sex with men. At the same time, I don't believe that humans are that concrete (sexually).
"Well, as a bi I don't really think that anyone only prefers one gender to the other."
You are bi-sexual?
". Most just want to be straight, so the idea of experimenting with sexuality is put down (mainly by men). "
ya but sex with another man can seem digusting to someone (i.e. me) who is in no way attracted to ther men, you can call this cultural programming or some cultivated psychopathalogical condition, and you might well be right but it doesn't change the fact that i am simply not turned on by men.
"Thanks to drug use, I've messed around."
Ya ive taken plenty of drugs as well but it never made me the least bit attracted to a man.
"No... but I see the appeal and would like to try it out "
Position?
"So in a sense, we choose based on our upbringing and culture"
It's not nearly that simple.
"No one can just switch between being physically attracted to either a male or a female, but to say that it's genetic is kind of also backwards"
Admittedly it isn't soley genetic but like everything else it involve's both genetic-physiological roots, most people are simply genetically predisposed to being gay, but like anything else it's only true in varying degrees.
It's best to view human sexuality as a bell curve, all orientations have been explored by the population somewhere at some point, and all of these were influenced heavily by genetic programming
"there isn't a gene that makes you want a woman or female (founded, at least)."
Being gay reduces the chances of reproducing on the whole, and thus is not selected, that is not to say that being gay hasn't found it's own niche in humkan evolution i.e. "The so-called "gay uncle" hypothesis posits that people who themselves do not have children may nonetheless increase the prevalence of their family's genes in future generations by providing resources (food, supervision, defense, shelter, etc.) to the offspring of their closest relatives. This hypothesis is an extension of the theory of kin selection. Kin selection was originally developed to explain apparent altruistic acts which seemed to be maladaptive. The initial concept was suggested by J.B.S. Haldane in 1932 and later elaborated by many others including John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton and Mary Jane West-Eberhard.[43] This concept was also used to explain the patterns of certain social insects where most of the members are non-reproductive."
"At the same time, I don't believe that humans are that concrete (sexually)."
Well speaking from my own personal experience it would take a hell of lot for me to even consider being affectionate with a man, let alone be sexual, call it psychological conditioning if you wish i simply can't imagine finding another man attractive, however the mere scent of women from a distance can make me stop everything i am doing and immediately pursue her.
I can't really convince someone that we are all bi in some way when they just don't feel it.
Hell, 2 years ago I would have been "that's impossible."
Really, what led me to eventually realize how I can spread my sexuality was first realizing how flexible our minds are. It took years of philosophy and psychology for me to realize my bisexuality, and I would say that drugs (psychedelics, xtc, marijuana) really helped me in seeing the construct of the mind.
Now, I could speak from a bias. My major interest in the "soul" (aka, consciousness/personality) puts me in the position to experiment and not feel "disgust" in the same way that most others would.
For most, experimentation is not a concern, so they will never want to (nor have to) delve deeply into their construct to see just what they're capable of (sexually or w/e).
So I will say... bisexuality can be constructed, but it first requires deconstruction (open-mindedness is one thing, but deconstruction is the next step).
"I can't really convince someone that we are all bi in some way when they just don't feel it."
I realise that all humans have the capacity to be bi-sexual, like if all the women disappeared tommorrow it would take a 20 minutes for the worlds population of men to turn gay.
But again i feel i should stress if you consider human sexuality a bell curve then you must admit that people hovering around the mean are those more genetically predisposed towards bi-sexuality, while those closer to the upper and lower tails are strongly predisposed towards being straight, and gay.
"Hell, 2 years ago I would have been "that's impossible."
I knows it's not impossible, i actually find funtari porn very arousing so i suppose that's an expression of innate bi-sexuality right there but i can't find a man the slightest bit attractive.
"Really, what led me to eventually realize how I can spread my sexuality was first realizing how flexible our minds are."
I don't think its to do with how felxible the mind is, i mean if you're saying i can train my mind do find the same sex attractive i wouldn't doubt it, but i simply don't want to.
"It took years of philosophy and psychology for me to realize my bisexuality"
I realise my bi-sexuality, i have explored it to some extent but would simply never engage physically with it.
"and I would say that drugs (psychedelics, xtc, marijuana) really helped me in seeing the construct of the mind. "
Yes i can agree, my own long term love affair with entheogens led me to vastly expand and explore the construct of my own mind, and its possibilities, but outside the impact of culture and ideological affiliations, my biological and genetic predisposition's tell me not to go there.
If i could get hard from looking at naked men that would be a different story, i mean im not repressing any latent homosexual urges or anything.
"Now, I could speak from a bias. My major interest in the "soul" (aka, consciousness/personality) puts me in the position to experiment and not feel "disgust" in the same way that most others would"
Again i have long since outgrowned the "disgust", i simply have grown the homosexual lust.
"For most, experimentation is not a concern, so they will never want to (nor have to) delve deeply into their construct to see just what they're capable of (sexually or w/e)."
Again i don't deny that i (and all men) have the capacity for homosexuality but i do take issue with your insistance that delving deep into one's construct will lead one to want to experiment with homosexuality.
This is first time i ever heard someone claim that exploring your own consciousness will lead one to realise how desirable homosexuality it.
"So I will say... bisexuality can be constructed, but it first requires deconstruction (open-mindedness is one thing, but deconstruction is the next step)."
I agree that open-mindedness can lead one to accept homosexuality more, and can even open them up to explore their bi-sexuality but i still think it comes down to a conscious chioce, and how a person is genetically predisposed.
I really wish you people would start making proposition-opposition/affirmative-negative debates instead of these either/or dichotomies, as if every issue were Coke vs. Pepsi. I'll have to go with "choice," because it is; but only insofar as every other aspect of one's life is a choice. 'Tis in ourselves that we are thus or thus: people wield an enormous amount of personal volition without realizing it.
But while choice almost definitely plays a role, as far as we can tell right now, there is no single factor that determines sexual orientation. There's most likely a polygenetic component, and there's probably also a prenatal/hormonal component and a component of both conscious and unconscious will. Each of these influences might serve to simply nudge a person's sexuality in one direction or the other: towards homosexuality or bisexuality or heterosexuality. But it's an ongoing field of research, and nobody's attained any substantial degree of certainty over what causes deviant lifestyles apart from the influences of the prince of darkness, Satan.
Homosexuality and choice are closely related. Sexuality is a fundamental choice in human action in relation to sexual orientation. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, consenting adults choose partners based on preferences just as if a male may prefer a blonde woman over a brunette woman, the same goes for homosexuality when a male prefers a male over a woman.
While it is possible for a person of any orientation to be sexual with any sex, the orientation itself is not a choice. This is because orientation is the same as hunger, the desire for air, social contact, or any other human need.
Whatever, sexual orientation describes sexual attraction which involves sexual acts. So, millions of teenage men have an sexual attraction to teenage women, but don't have the desire to engage in sexual acts. The key term is sexual.
While it is possible for a person of any orientation to be sexual with any sex, the orientation itself is not a choice.
Of course, it is a choice, every single day millions of men and woman choice not to have emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to the the same sex.
Of course, it is a choice, every single day millions of men and woman choice not to have emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to the the same sex.
And I thought you weren't a lunatic, PF.
This is the biggest, most delusional lie I have ever read just about anywhere.
Nobody wakes up and says to themselves, "I'm not going to be attracted to someone of the same sex as me today," as if they have a switch they can flip.
If you actually wake up and do that, if you yourself personally do that, you're a psychopath, because millions of people do not do that, PrayerFails.
This is the biggest, most delusional lie I have ever read just about anywhere.
Congratulations is in order.
Nobody wakes up and says to themselves, "I'm not going to be attracted to someone of the same sex as me today," as if they have a switch they can flip.
Actually, it does happen.
A friend of mine was heterosexual and married for years with children, one day she filed for divorce, and now she is homosexual. You don't think that isn't choice. She even admitted that she was not a closet homosexual.
If you actually wake up and do that, if you yourself personally do that, you're a psychopath, because millions of people do not do that, PrayerFails.
She even admitted that she was not a closet homosexual.
Not being in the closet doesn't mean she wasn't a homosexual her entire life. There's a difference between choosing and not realizing you were something up until a certain point.
Whatever!!!
Wait, you really do this? You really wake up every wake up every day and tell yourself to not get a boner from looking at men?
"She even admitted that she was not a closet homosexual."
I would be sceptical as to whether she had no previous predilection to sex with women, or at least the idea of sex with women. She's just a bi-sexual who changed her preference, it doesn't mean sexual orientation is choice.
Why would someone choose to be gay if they know that their parents might beat them or kick them out, if they know that might get bullied severely at their school, if making that decision gives the suicidal thoughts, if they know that, in every city they go to, there are people there that completely despise them and hope that they do commit suicide, if choosing to be gay causes them to have fewer rights, fewer job opportunities, fewer supportive friends, a lack of respect, and a weaker public life? Yeah, that sounds like a choice thousands of people would make and commit to for the entirety of their lives.
That's because I am a homosexual. And I know what it's like to be bullied, hurt, and hated by so many people. Do you think I want to be discriminated? Absolutely not. I would rather be heterosexual than homosexual, but I can't because I don't have that choice. I can't control who I am attracted to or have feelings for. None of us choose to be homosexuals; it's biological.
I am also a homosexual, and I disagree. If our only mode of argument were reactionary emotion and first-hand experience, we could go on like this ad infinitum. Fortunately, that's not the case.
I began experimenting with the same sex romantically not more than a few months than I did with the opposite sex. I would advise against attempting to divine the inner machinations of strangers on the internet, though; I merely posited my own experience as a demonstration of the insufficiency of personal accounts as evidence in argument. I could just as easily make conjecture about my fellow homo's inclinations as being subconsciously choice-based, but it wouldn't advance my case in any meaningful way to do so.
En, I'm trying to figure out the origins of your apparent ability to choose. It is rather odd.
I reckon most gay men have their experiences with women due to a desire to try to fit in to their expected roles; not so much out of experimentation. They also don't enjoy those experiences. well you have not explicitly stated one way or another, I imagine your sexual experiences with women weren't unenjoyable to you and if that is indeed the case I really wouldn't consider you to be gay. sure, you may enjoy one more than the other, but that alone wouldn't make you homosexual. If you did find them unenjoyable, then perhaps your insistence on your homosexuality being a choice is incorrect; for surely sexuality comes from some source other than free will but rather a innate standard which may shift within a small scope due to life's experiences. It appears either your scope is wider than most people, meaning it wasn't as limited and thus your likely Bi-sexual or it's limitation lead you to make what appeared to of been a choice but was really just the limitation expressing itself.
I view sexuality as something different than what gender one chooses to have sexual experiences with, rather its a standard of how one differentiates between sexual experiences one may have with different genders. It does vary, and much of it depends on conscious decisions but the most significant aspects of it depends on factors outside of our control. In order to choose to be heterosexual or homosexual, I think one would first have to be asexual(after puberty) or bisexual since consciously deciding to overcome a set of barriers and a world view on the two genders that occurs naturally and unconsciously, when those barriers would be part of the standard one would use to decide, is unlikly. It seems to me that such a thing would require a conscious meta-mind of sorts, a conscious higher mind that knows well and molds the unconscious(and conscious) lower. That seems to be something that is lacking in humans; at least in most.
I imagine your sexual experiences with women weren't unenjoyable to you and if that is indeed the case I really wouldn't consider you to be gay.
No true Scotsman. Are you under the impression that, in order to be considered gay, a gay can find no enjoyment whatsoever in whatever experiences they have with the opposite sex? Because I assure you that the majority of gays aren't like that. The common, modern understanding of sexual orientation is that it's a spectrum, which I alluded to in my OP.
sure, you may enjoy one more than the other, but that alone wouldn't make you homosexual.
I've got my own views on this, but I think a perspectives debate would be more a appropriate place to discuss that.
If you did find them unenjoyable, then perhaps your insistence on your homosexuality being a choice is incorrect;
Your rationale here presupposes the validity of your proposition, exemplified by what follows your semicolon. You're rationalizing circular.
Its true that sexuality exists on a spectrum. I suppose our difference is where exactly one segment of the spectrum becomes another which can be a difficult thing to determine.
So if heterosexuality is a choice, this means that our government is effectively denying citizens the fundamental right to choose. So this also gives the government the right to deny minority religions the right to practice, as most of those who have taken your stance seem to have confused the meaning of 'choice' and 'belief'.
Montesquieu wrote that any punishment that does not arise from absolute necessity is tyrannical and gives citizens the right to rise up against the government. He was one of the most influential philosophers on the men who wrote the Constitution. What, exactly, is the necessity of the lawful persecution of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of homosexuals since the dawn of this country? Even if homosexuality was a choice on par with a belief, the simple existence of a possible choice is not sufficient enough a threat for the government to punish alleged perpetrators.
PrayerFails, based on what you've posted so far, I'm beginning to doubt that you are actually human, as you seem to have virtually no understanding of human emotionality. On the basis that you are not human, I hereby denounce your opinion as invalid and faulty.
johnnyQ, based on what you've posted so far, I'm beginning to doubt that you are actually an monkey, as you seem to have virtually no understanding of logic and rational thinking. On this basis, you are a monkey, I hereby denounce your opinion as invalid and faulty.
You can continue to base everything you know on emotion while I will go on logic and reason.
Well, I'm glad you're now doubting that I'm actually a monkey because -- I'll be truthful with you -- I'm not. Bit of a buzzkill, I know. You can't blame me, though. I actually never claimed to be a monkey in the first place. I don't know why you just whimsically assume everyone is like you!
I'll cut straight to the point for you. Science has already gathered sufficient evidence to support the stance that homosexuality is the result of processes beyond an individual's control (in a very logical, rationale, methodical manner, mind you), whether they be genetic or environmental. Just because I use the term 'emotionality' does not mean that my stance on the matter is based on my own emotions. I don't think you understand that sexuality is an aspect of personality and is part of the nature of people. By denying rights and acceptance to anyone other than full-blown heterosexuals, our society denies human nature. There is enough statistical evidence for us to be practical at this point in history and accept that the majority of our species exists somewhere on the spectrum between homosexual and heterosexual. And it is all normal human behavior.
I hope that as you come to the realization that I am not, in reality, a monkey, you also begin to consider that the world is not always as you (dare I say, choose to?) believe.
The confusion here is between choice and preference. The 2 words have different meanings. You can make a choice based on preference but you cannot choose what you prefer. If I preferred brunettes, I can't turn around and say I choose to like blondes better.
Im not gay but one of my cousins are he said he had a choice he said the people who say its not a choice just dont want to admit that they are not as normal as everyone. I used to think it was a genetic thing but now i see its a choice for everyone to decide it all depends on what you like
You apparently do not realize that your cousin is trying to make his sexuality appear normal, so that he can be better included in "normal" society. ie, he is lying.
Sexuality is what you like, who you have sex with is a choice.
For example, If I like apples, but not grapefruit I didn't choose to like or not like them but I may choose if I eat them.
Scientists have identified what they call the "Gay Gene" however not all men that have this gene are gay and not all gays have this gene, clearly a choice.
I have not heard of any evidence of a 'Gay Gene'. Please let me know where you got this information from? Your step to say it a choice from that "evidence" is dubious too.
Why would they choose their own gender over the opposite if doing so presents them with the problem that they will be second class citizens under most modern governments and have the chance of being beaten, discriminated again, or murdered just because of their 'choice'.
Nobody is stupid enough to make a choice like that.
Unless you have reasonable proof that they make a choice, you're being ridiculous. The only difference between being a racial minority in a country and being gay is that you can't see when someone's gay, but you can't prevent them from being a homosexual just like you can't prevent a Black man from having brown skin.
Why would they choose their own gender over the opposite if doing so presents them with the problem that they will be second class citizens under most modern governments and have the chance of being beaten, discriminated again, or murdered just because of their 'choice'.
Why would someone choose to convert to Christianity in Iran when they have the chance of being beaten, discriminated against, or murdered? Because Obviously they think the reward ways out the risk. It's just like any other choice.
The only difference between being a racial minority in a country and being gay is that you can't see when someone's gay, but you can't prevent them from being a homosexual just like you can't prevent a Black man from having brown skin.
You can force someone into having gender-changing surgery. Assuming they remain attracted to the same gender after the surgery as before, they are no longer homosexual.
Why would someone choose to convert to Christianity in Iran when they have the chance of being beaten, discriminated against, or murdered?
Because, if they don't convert to religion that they themselves believe in, then they will not go to Heaven, based on the very text of the Christian Bible. I am pretty sure that Christian Iranians are choosing a place in Heaven over Earthly discrimination, whether it is physical or not.
When it comes to homosexuality, however, one does not have any benefits coming out of it other than having to hide the rest of their lives. I know this for a fact. I have had to deal with discrimination, physical abuse, and other terrible things just because I like the same sex. Like I have explained to another debater, I would strongly prefer to be heterosexual. And I could lie to others and say I am a heterosexual to prevent future discrimination and a fewer amount of rights. But when I am making a choice not to closet myself, I am not making a choice to be gay. I am choosing to not hide who I really am biologically. That's why my homosexuality is not a choice.
You can force someone into having gender-changing surgery.
Sure you can. And all you are doing is changing their gender, not the hormones that cause them to be attracted to a certain gender. Unless you do that, they will still be attracted to the same gender from before the surgery.
Sure you can. And all you are doing is changing their gender, not the hormones that cause them to be attracted to a certain gender. Unless you do that, they will still be attracted to the same gender from before the surgery.
Exactly, so if they are attracted to the same gender as before the surgery, they will now be attracted to the opposite sex because their own gender has changed.
Because Obviously they think the reward ways out the risk. It's just like any other choice.
Teenagers do not consider pros and cons of their choices, and yet they are gay... and yet they commit suicide over being unable to not be gay.
You can force someone into having gender-changing surgery. Assuming they remain attracted to the same gender after the surgery as before, they are no longer homosexual
And I'm sure there's a surgery that can get rid of a Negro man's genetic tan. Does that not make you a fascist for forcing them into the surgery? Of course it makes you one. Only fascists force people to have surgery just because they were born a different way then a heterosexual white man.
Oh, but of course, since you're convinced there's something wrong with them you'd see forcing a surgery that alters a homosexuals gender on them to be perfectly acceptable, huh?
Teenagers do not consider pros and cons of their choices, and yet they are gay... and yet they commit suicide over being unable to not be gay.
This is a cheap emotional appeal. If the standard of determinability for a characteristic is whether teenagers kill themselves over it, discrimination laws ought to apply to damn near everything.
If the standard of determinability for a characteristic is whether teenagers kill themselves over it, discrimination laws ought to apply to damn near everything.
Except teenagers don't kill themselves for everything, so... your point is moot.
Discrimination over homosexuality should be abolished just like any other form of cultural abuse.
The only difference is that homophobia is more prevalent today then racism or bullying, so it's the prime target of believers of Civil Rights.
Because they take away from people's freedom to be equal to everyone else. Why should anyone be treated negatively for something that causes no harm to anyone?
And that's reasonable, insofar as physical harm goes. But once you're not being physically threatened, how far does this extend? If it's a violation of another's rights to bully them into insecurity, is it the same to send a bill to a man who can't afford to pay it? To give constructive criticism to someone who can't handle it, doesn't want it? Am I infringing upon your rights by being mean to your loved one, since you care about them? I can't imagine how this could be anything other than arbitrary.
Harm is not limited to the physical. Your state of being can be damaged in may ways. Anything that invariably causes some form of harm to someone should not be committed. It extends as far as harm is concerned. It's not very complicated.
If it's a violation of another's rights to bully them into insecurity, is it the same to send a bill to a man who can't afford to pay it?
The difference between bullying and sending an outrageous bill is that the bill is a consequence to a mistake. You can't harm someone without reason, but you certainly can't coddle them and let the outcome of all their mistakes be utterly non-consequential to them.
To give constructive criticism to someone who can't handle it, doesn't want it?
If you know they can't handle it, then don't give it to them. What's complicated about that?
Am I infringing upon your rights by being mean to your loved one, since you care about them?
If my loved one has not committed any act against you worthy of consequence, then of course you are.
I can't imagine how this could be anything other than arbitrary.
Human condition isn't arbitrary. It's measurable objectively.
The difference between bullying and sending an outrageous bill is that the bill is a consequence to a mistake.
Bullying is possibly the oldest form of social conditioning there is.
If you know they can't handle it, then don't give it to them.
So people's feelings are to take priority over efficiency and good work? This seems in direct contradiction with your "can't coddle them" claim. And if you don't know? Is only conscious or intentional harm harmful?
If my loved one has not committed any act against you worthy of consequence, then of course you are.
How far does this transitivity of harm-doing extend? Am I harming all of humanity by harming one person?
Bullying is possibly the oldest form of social conditioning there is.
Does that make it right to nearly kill someone with a prank or make them so depressed they commit suicide for no reason?
Not even a little.
So people's feelings are to take priority over efficiency and good work?
If they can't handle being told off by others, it's better that they learn how to be better by making mistakes.
And if you don't know? Is only conscious or intentional harm harmful?
Of course accidents are harmful, but they're accidents. They happen. If you can prevent them, you're supposed to, but if you can't, you're not at fault.
How far does this transitivity of harm-doing extend? Am I harming all of humanity by harming one person?
Yes. The human race is a social organism that evolves best by being cooperative and by bonding with others. By committing baseless harm against one person you slow our progress of evolution.
Why do I have to explain this to you? Isn't it common sense that hurting someone for no good reason is wrong?
Does that make it right to nearly kill someone with a prank or make them so depressed they commit suicide for no reason?
Well, if you're asking me, it depends on the nature of the prank, but my original statement was directed in response to your assertion that: The difference between bullying and sending an outrageous bill is that the bill is a consequence to a mistake. Arguably, so is bullying.
If they can't handle being told off by others, it's better that they learn how to be better by making mistakes.
And if they don't? At what point does it become [letting] the outcome of all their mistakes be utterly non-consequential to them?
Of course accidents are harmful, but they're accidents. They happen. If you can prevent them, you're supposed to, but if you can't, you're not at fault.
How much harm can good intentions make up for?
Why do I have to explain this to you? Isn't it common sense that hurting someone for no good reason is wrong?
Sometimes, common sense doesn't make much sense. Not everybody's a humanitarian.
Actually, you are correct. I recognize this. Though, now the argument is of the nature of the consequence. What did you do to receive the consequence? In comparison to being billed and being bullied, you did nothing wrong to receive the consequence of bullying. That is the nature of bullying.
At what point does it become [letting] the outcome of all their mistakes be utterly non-consequential to them?
When their mistakes start harming others.
How much harm can good intentions make up for?
Numerical difference, quantity, or severity. Good becomes evil once the difference weighs against the action. If you kill 100 people to save 10, you aren't doing good. If you kill 10 people to save 100, you are going good. It's jaded either way, but numbers matter in the end, unfortunately, since everyone is equal.
Sometimes, common sense doesn't make much sense. Not everybody's a humanitarian.
Being not a humanitarian is detrimental to our evolution. That's why the UN has a consensus that goes more towards humanitarianism and not against.
What did you do to receive the consequence? In comparison to being billed and being bullied, you did nothing wrong to receive the consequence of bullying. That is the nature of bullying.
I'm having trouble understanding this bit linguistically. Can you elaborate? (You can message me to clarify and I'll edit this if you want to save space.)
When their mistakes start harming others.
All mistakes cause harm (elsewise they wouldn't be mistakes), and all harm is harmful to everybody.
If you kill 100 people to save 10, you aren't doing good. If you kill 10 people to save 100, you are going good. It's jaded either way, but numbers matter in the end, unfortunately, since everyone is equal.
By what means are you quantifying human suffering where death is not concerned?
Being not a humanitarian is detrimental to our evolution.
I'm having trouble understanding this bit linguistically. Can you elaborate?
I don't particularly know how to elaborate any more then I did. The nature of bullying is that it's a result of something that was not an inherently wrong action. If it was the result of something wrong being done, then it's not bullying.
All mistakes cause harm (elsewise they wouldn't be mistakes), and all harm is harmful to everybody.
If I could remember what led up to this part of our conversation, I'm sure I'd be able to reply to it better, but I can't, unfortunately.
By what means are you quantifying human suffering where death is not concerned?
Estimation. People suffer more or less based on what kind of person they are, so the best you can do is make an educated guess as to what point their suffering if unfounded.
That's none of my concern.
Why? If the general quality of the human race isn't of your concern, what is?
The nature of bullying is that it's a result of something that was not an inherently wrong action. If it was the result of something wrong being done, then it's not bullying.
What constitutes inherent wrongness?
Estimation.
On what basis? What's the education behind your educated guess?
If the general quality of the human race isn't of your concern, what is?
The particular quality of my race (my race to the top). Which is certainly affected by the general quality of the human race, but not dependent upon it.
So all choices are a product of a perceived reward that "ways out [sic]" a perceived risk? Well good thing Christianity is a system of BELIEFS and not a system of CHOICES, otherwise those poor Iranian Christian truly would be suffering for no reason.
If I told you I could fly (independently of any apparatus), would you believe me? What if I held a knife to your throat and told you I could fly? Would you choose to believe me then, no matter how ridiculous the notion seemed?
Choosing and believing are two separate actions, bud.
'Belief' by definition entails no element of choice. If I choose to punch a brick wall, I won't, under most circumstances, believe that my fist will go through it. As a result of my belief that my fist will not go through any brick wall I punch. I will choose to not go around punching brick walls. It is true that there may be a brick wall in the world I could punch through, but as of yet I have not punched that brick wall and no matter how hard I try, I cannot make myself believe that I can punch through a brick wall.
Explain to me how you know for a fact that homosexuals are just making choices without basing your proof on what people have told you. Unless you are gay and are choosing to, you can't prove it.
Wow it's obviously a choice you idiots. I can choose right now if I like boys or girls... It's a personal preference. It's what you're attracted too, you're all making it sound like some genetic disease... It's just what you like.
Let's pretend you're right and sexuality is a switch people can flip at will. Why are there scared straight camps? Why do so many right-wing politicians have to poorly hide their orientation? Why do people kill themselves from the shame of being gay? Why has anyone, ever, been attracted to someone they'd rather not be attracted to? Do they just lack your superhuman ability to control what arouses you?
Could you wake up tomorrow and decide to be aroused by old people? Ugly people? Animals?
Scientific research has shown that an imbalance of attraction hormones causes sexuality. For heterosexuals, their hormones weigh more on their sex's (males: majority is male hormones / females: majority is female hormones). There are instances, however, where the balance can go the other way. If a male has more female hormones, or a female has more male hormones, sexual attraction towards the same sex is common. For bisexuals, it could just mean that there is a close-to-even balance between the two hormones, and asexuals would have a lack of the certain hormones.
If you say that you choose to be homosexual, you imply that you choose to not be homosexual, and that you choose to be heterosexual.
See my other "Dispute" on why choice is a completely ridiculous idea.
Preference isn't a choice. I don't like Brussle sprouts... I can't suddenly choose to like Brussle sprouts.
What prayerfails is talking about isn't choosing heterosexuality or choosing homosexuality, he's talking about choosing to pretent to prefer one or the other.
It's a dumb fucking idea and fodder for the religiously insane.
I'm not disputing that one cannot choose to not partake in homosexual acts or heterosexual acts... or any act for that matter.
But, as even your own inclusion of "or genetic" in the debate title implies,
The actual attraction is the key factor (since what one does is obviously not genetic, only the process of the brain leading to action).
Otherwise what your saying is, as my post states, is that I could make myself like Brussle sprouts. Or you are saying that because I eat Brussle sprouts sometimes I must like them.
Neither of those are true obviously. I do eat them sometimes, I still hate them, I cannot make myself like them try as I might.
... I actually have no idea why I'm trying to explain this further anyway.
Do you really not see the flaw in your assertion that preference and choice are the same thing? Is it impossible to choose something you do not prefer, or to prefer something you do not choose in your mind? If so I am worried.
Do you really not see the flaw in your assertion that preference and choice are the same thing?
Maybe you should be asking yourself the opposite question. I have referenced numerous definition websites showing that preference is choice. They are synonyms, which are words almost identical. Both of those words imply selection. You are going to defend next that selection is not choice.
I would be interested in seeing all of those "numerous definition websites" that you are referring to. If they are anything like the example you gave above, then they would be pretty poor examples as well.
Both of those words imply selection.
One implies selection (choice), the other implies the cause of such a selection (preference).
One definition of choice is a synonym of one definition of preference. Perhaps even two, don't get hung up on the numbers, the point is,
One's sexuality would be this definition of preference:
2. The state of being preferred.
A state of being cannot be chosen. I can no more choose the color of my skin or eyes than I can attraction--if that is clearer than my Brussle sprout example.
You're using one definiton, and the wrong definition, for the sole purpose of fitting your argument. It's something you do often, just usually not so obvious as in this debate.
Dictionary.com actually defines 'preference' as "the act of preferring."
Dictionary.com gives "choose rather than" as a definition for 'prefer'.
If anything, I would say that this is far from equating choice and preference. It may be true that the semantic fields of both words overlap, but all you're doing is ignoring reality and bringing yourself into a rhetorical argument. The fact that the English language uses similar words for distinct phenomena does not mean the actual concepts conveyed by the words are one and the same. In Chinese I can use the same word to describe an object as black, blue, or green. This linguistic convention does not abolish the reality that three different objects colored black, blue, and green are three different colors. If you believe what you're arguing, you'd better find some valid evidence quick, because what you're saying would not stand up to any logical analysis.
And also, you can't just pick and choose different dictionaries to build a logical chain of semantic relations.
Someone who is serious and just not looking for attention doesn't have a choice in my opinion. They're simply attracted to the same sex and can NOT help it. One of my gay friends is literally scared of vagina, if he had a choice he probably wouldn't be so turned off by them, but he just prefers the guys over girls. If it was a choice then those children who are terrified of having to deal with their family and friends wouldn't choose to be put through that discrimination.
If it was a choice then those children who are terrified of having to deal with their family and friends wouldn't choose to be put through that discrimination.
Which is why it is a choice. Those family members also believe it is choice. They just feel the choice was bad.
Not of choice in itself, but more accurately what causes a particular choice or outcome.
I prefer chocolate ice-cream over vanilla, so I make the choice to pick chocolate. The preference is not chosen in this case, as with sexual orientation.
That's not the point. It's not the cause of them being second class citizens that's the problem. Your argument has nothing to do with what I said.
Why would they choose to be gay in a society that might beat, discriminate or murder them? Nobody chooses that. Unless you want to imply that all gay people are idiots, I don't particularly see how you could possibly dispute this.
It's like assuming that an old black man chose to be black during the 30's when he clearly did not. The only difference is that you can't see homosexuality with your eyes and apparently that gives you leeway in your mind to assume that it's 100% of a choice when it almost never is.
If it was a choice, why have so many teenagers committed suicide when they could have just chosen to be heterosexual, you cad?
Why would they choose to be gay in a society that might beat, discriminate or murder them? Nobody chooses that. Unless you want to imply that all gay people are idiots, I don't particularly see how you could possibly dispute this.
Who's to say that being gay has only disadvantages? It's apparent that people think its worth the persecution to be with someone of the same gender. It's an example of risks and rewards like any other choices.
Who's to say that being gay has only disadvantages?
Homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal. Because of this, if society held them equally, there would be no more benefits of being homosexual then there would be of being heterosexual.
You can't justify discrimination against the gays by saying, "Oh, we're discriminating against them, but they're still gay. Being gay must be REALLY awesome if they don't want to give it up." That's horseshit. It's guaranteed to be more likely that they aren't giving up being gay because they can't give up being gay at all.
They are not making a compromise with you nutcases. They are being oppressed.
I'm not trying to justify homosexual discrimination.
All I'm saying is that if someone really prefers one gender over the other, they aren't going to settle for the lesser preferred gender just because of a bit of persecution.
No, you're right, a little persecution here and there, a dash of police brutality, hate mail, and death threats, nothing to worry about. It's all good, we can ignore it.
they aren't going to settle for the lesser preferred gender just because of a bit of persecution.
You're right, actually, quite a few people resort to suicide.
Older teenagers and adults recognize consequences of their decisions, and even if they did choose, why don't they become heterosexuals again? Being a homosexual doesn't bring any more benefits that being a heterosexual does, except homosexuals are discriminated against.
Victim-complex-sufferers.
Yup, because most homosexuals want attention and for everyone to take pity on them even though they aren't really being mistreated...
You know, I bet there were at least a few white racists 50 years ago that would have said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a victim-complex sufferer. Sound familiar?
Self-diagnosed autists.
This makes little to no sense.
A person with autism can't even function in real life, meaning it's impossible for them to self diagnose anything about them.
Meaning that everyone who self diagnoses themselves with autism has some sort of personality disorder or is a complete idiot.
Is that your argument? They're all just crazy or stupid? That's some serious argument there, chum.
Being a homosexual doesn't bring any more benefits that being a heterosexual does, except homosexuals are discriminated against.
Nor does becoming a "gothic" or a "nerd," ostensibly. (And I disagree that only older teenagers, presumably past these phases of high school cliquishness, are cognizant of their rational processes.) I can't speak for others, but I personally chose to be gay out of a combination of desperation and counter-culture appeal.
why don't they become heterosexuals again?
Because the value of the decision continues to outweigh the prospect of change. This could be for any great variety of reasons.
because most homosexuals want attention and for everyone to take pity on them even though they aren't really being mistreated
I never said they weren't being mistreated. People generally like attention and pity; particularly my generation. There's a great romantic indulgence in perceived oppression.
I bet there were at least a few white racists 50 years ago that would have said Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a victim-complex sufferer.
I don't doubt that, but simile isn't argument.
This makes little to no sense. A person with autism can't even function in real life, meaning it's impossible for them to self diagnose anything about them. Meaning that everyone who self diagnoses themselves with autism has some sort of personality disorder or is a complete idiot.
Sorry, I assumed you'd encountered some in your internet travels, as most of those I relate with have. I can link some individual cases if you like, but I don't have any objective studies or anything. Note that when I say "autists" I include spectrum disorders such as Asperger's and higher-functioning forms, which is far more common than straight-up claiming to be 'tard-level autistic.
Is that your argument? They're all just crazy or stupid? That's some serious argument there, chum.
I can't speak for others, but I personally chose to be gay out of a combination of desperation and counter-culture appeal.
Desperation?
Because the value of the decision continues to outweigh the prospect of change. This could be for any great variety of reasons.
I can understand that there are a few people who choose to be gay. I could also see why those who choose might stay, but ultimately, if everyone made the choice, most of everyone would choose the easier path. I have a few gay friends and they certainly didn't choose. If they had always been able to choose, then they would have become heterosexuals when they were teenagers.
There's a great romantic indulgence in perceived oppression.
I've grown up long enough to know that some oppression isn't just perception. Maybe you don't mind being spat upon, but I've known many gays who are tormented by being judged for something they can't stop being.
Sorry, I assumed you'd encountered some in your internet travels, as most of those I relate with have. I can link some individual cases if you like, but I don't have any objective studies or anything. Note that when I say "autists" I include spectrum disorders such as Asperger's and higher-functioning forms, which is far more common than straight-up claiming to be 'tard-level autistic.
My brother has Asperger's and can barely function; I suppose he can function, but it's almost impossible.
One thing I am sure of is that there was no possibility that he could have diagnosed himself without the help of his family and a clinical psychologist.
Careful.
I was arguing without the knowledge that you were the one rare seed of a gay man arguing while knowing what you were talking about. I apologize.
I can understand that there are a few people who choose to be gay.
Then we're in agreement. I'm not arguing that all gays possess the same strength of will, or are lucky enough to have the same malleability of psyche.
I've grown up long enough to know that some oppression isn't just perception.
I didn't say it wasn't.
One thing I am sure of is that there was no possibility that he could have diagnosed himself without the help of his family and a clinical psychologist.
He's not included in the group of "self-diagnosed" autists, then. My implication in the "self-diagnosis" label was that the diagnoses are primarily false.
I was arguing without the knowledge that you were the one rare seed of a gay man arguing while knowing what you were talking about. I apologize.
That's fine. See my primary argument for a reference to a whole bunch of queers who consider their sexuality a choice.
The problem, generally, with arguing that sexuality isn't a choice is the implicit suggestion that gays would change if they could, and the homophobia inherent in that sentiment. If you're a true egalitarian, shouldn't the question of whether gaydom is a choice be irrelevant? If it were a choice to be black, would that make blacks any less deserving of human rights?
I mean, I'm not an egalitarian (I find the mere concept of human rights dubious), so none of this concerns me personally, but it's something to consider for those who are.
I'm not arguing that all gays possess the same strength of will, or are lucky enough to have the same malleability of psyche.
I don't know if this is a question of all gays not being strong enough to make a choice as much as many gays having the ability to make the choice while most are genetically predisposed.
Studies on identical twins and fetal development have actually led scientists to generally accept that sexuality is a actually a gene that can be passed down through heredity. Do you think you're mentally stronger then most homosexuals or just different then most of them?
I didn't say it wasn't.
Then I don't get why you're bringing it up. Harm is not justifiable based on the humanity tendency to seek attention.
If you're a true egalitarian, shouldn't the question of whether gaydom is a choice be irrelevant? If it were a choice to be black, would that make blacks any less deserving of human rights?*
The matter of it being a choice is irrelevant... until it's used as an argument to continue discriminating against gays. Perhaps that's us giving into the irrationality of the opposition, but in a way it's a justifiable stance to take against them when they truly use it to rally people into lynching mobs.
I don't know if this is a question of all gays not being strong enough to make a choice as much as many gays having the ability to make the choice while most are genetically predisposed.
I tried to make clear room for both possibilities.
Studies on identical twins and fetal development have actually led scientists to generally accept that sexuality is a actually a gene that can be passed down through heredity.
I know. Again, see my primary argument for my full stance.
Do you think you're mentally stronger then most homosexuals or just different then most of them?
Well, it's impossible to tell. I like to think it's a bit of both, thanks in part to my delusional narcissism.
Then I don't get why you're bringing it up.
You asked why someone might make a choice that led to their oppression. I said it could be because there's indulgence in self-pity and romance in overwhelming opposition. I was answering a question.
Harm is not justifiable based on the humanity tendency to seek attention.
This was not my implication, but we're already arguing this in another thread here, so we should let it alone here.
Perhaps that's us giving into the irrationality of the opposition
Yes, it is. Don't do that.
it's a justifiable stance to take against them when they truly use it to rally people into lynching mobs.
The end justifies the means? Allowing irrationality to factor into your reasoning process at any point is detrimental to being correct. In those situations, you can try to reason with the convinced; in and environment like this, which is supposed to be as sterile as possible, there's really no need. Never conflate debate with activism.
I tried to make clear room for both possibilities.
Your tag, unfortunately for me, makes my ability to see this jaded at some times.
Well, it's impossible to tell. I like to think it's a bit of both, thanks in part to my delusional narcissism.
I really enjoy your honesty.
The end justifies the means?
In some cases, I think so.
Allowing irrationality to factor into your reasoning process at any point is detrimental to being correct.
Arguing with an idiot on their levels helps them to understand you better and therefore makes it more likely that they will see things your way and possibly change their opinions. I've seen it happen and done it before.
If you choose homosexuality, then you were never really heterosexual to begin with. You likely lack much of a preference, and so your apparent orientation is molded more so by your experiences than your biology.
Sexuality is more than who you have sexual experiences with.
Most gays are part of a gay community, surly you've found that a good number of people within your community found themselves to be gay from when they first started having sexual thoughts and urges. A best friend of mine was gay since his early teens, the same with another good friend of ours, and my best's friends ex. The early onset of their sexuality suggests a biological origin,an origin the same or similar as the heterosexuality that typically arises from puberty.
Its unlikly that all gays are masochists, especially with the pain avoidance behavior many exhibit.
I meant that people who choose who they find attractive, are capable of finding those they chosen not to find attractive as attractive. Homosexuality and heterosexuality involves viewing the sexes differently, to the point where one isn't considered sexually attractive. The ability to choose which sex to find attractive, means you don't view them differently enough; at least not in-till after you have chosen. The time before someone would choose, they were capable of finding both attractive or found neither attractive, which means they were either bi-sexual or asexual.
Homo/Hetero-Sexuality involves a double standard, where we naturally judge one sex differently than the other. In order to really choose, we should be comparing apples to apples or else we are just going to go with our favorite fruit, and what is our favorite fruits are things which appeals to our senses the best not things we choose.
For example, if you asked me if I wanted an apple or a peach; I'll immediately say peach without much thought because...lets say I find apples yuckky(not really, but for the sake of argument). Now if I didn't find apples yucky, If you asked me if I wanted one type of apple over another, I would first have to differentiate between them and come to a more conscious decision where I weigh options on their properties(or pick randomly). The first isn't much of a choice, Its an already defined preference while the second is a choice.
I really don't think you can say definitively whether its one or the other, like any nature vs. nurture debate i would err on the side of nature.
You can't make a person who was born with an average IQ a genius with nurture, and you can't make someone you is powerfully predisposed to being gay a hetero, it simply cannot be done, and saying it is more of choice simply add's credence to the view that it can be, and all the other right wing bullshit so many force on kids who show homosexual tendencies, you cannot pray the gay away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of good friends was gay, he grew up in a rural village, his family were deeply religious and would have never chosen to be gay if he could have, he simply found himself attracted to men instead of women.
i chose this as the most logical answer because it is a bit of both, you don't decide when your young because you don't know thats genetic but later on in life you decide whether you like the idea or not.
I'm on this side, because it's closer to the truth, but Homosexuality has not been identified as a genetic trait, that is there has been no gene(s) identified that causes these particular set of behaviours.
If homosexuality were genetic, it would stand to reason that it would be bred out, a gene that inhibits sexual attraction between males and females would not be passed on, simply because it takes both of these genders to make a baby. Also, it's mostly straight parents that have Gay children so figure that one out.
It is though not a choice, not entirely anyway, a Woman's non-compartmentalised brain works entirely at the same time on both sides, and sexual attraction to other Women is more common than it it is with straight men and other men.
During foetal development, hormones are needed to develop male and female characteristics at varying stages and in vastly varying quantities. Oestrogen is placed into a foetus by it's Mother in spades, the differences being that a male when sexual differentiation is occurring starts to release steroids and Leydig cells release a lot of testosterone, this in turn leads to the formation of male traits, including the development of the male brain.
If this does not happen at the right time and in the right quantity males can develop sexually, but mentally as females to varying degrees, this would be observable if there were people that were homosexual to many different degrees and there is.
From Bi-sexual straight through to transgender.
From my experience most people that are homosexuals say it was not a choice, the biggest proportion of these being male.
If you hate blood or do not prefer tea over coffee is not just choice but your body functioning. If you cannot tolerate cold and like heat better, it is your body functioning. If you cannot make your mind up to be with a man and your a girl is your body functioning. If your a man and cannot force yourself in a woman is your body functioning. You cannot force yourself into something you do not like. And you do't have to... You do not need to worry what the entire World will think of it. Cuz at the end of the day what happens to you is your problem not the World's!
Besides sometimes people alsosuffer with genetic disabilities perhaps abnormalities. Like the klinefelters syndrome or turner syndromes. Things that can't be exchanged with the entire World.
This debate could be broken by another 'does free will exist' well if choice does not exist then genetics is the last answer but from my perception of life and my surroundings free will does exist and therefore so does choice homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be genetic in some cases but that does not eliminate choice by free will, there will be those who chose to be homosexual and those who are genetically homosexual prompting the question what is truly a homosexual?
This doesn't make sense. Maybe it is free will that allows homosexuals to act on their feelings, but the actual feelings that are a part of their being as a person are not a choice. Go give a dude oral and tell me whether you chose to be aroused or not.
Take the 'homo-' out of 'homosexuality'. A more pertinent question would be: What is sexuality? Choice or genetic? Homosexuality is one type of sexuality. Do you choose to look at whomever you're sexually attracted to and be turned on? Not to say sexual orientation is entirely genetic; perhaps environmental factors and psychological processes play a role in one's ultimate orientation. But this is a ridiculous question that should not even be disputed in today's society. Now, is it a choice to come out of the closet? Yes... a choice based on genuine feelings people have.
It certainly not a choice but probably not genetic either. Homosexuality is a preference, we have no say in what we prefer and no amount of convincing will change that.
I think it can be either. Most of my family/friends that are homosexual would say they were born that way, but not all. I think people can use their personal experiences in life and come to a homosexual preference over time. I respect both sides and think it really doesn't matter - we should show everyone respect regardless of their sexual orientation.
I have two key arguments supporting the 'genetic' side:
1) LOGICAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACH: Homosexuality is observed in animals who are intellectually incapable of distinguishing between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Thus, if an action is done without free will and conscious thought, it is involuntary. Involuntary actions (heartbeats for example) cannot be controlled and are, therefore natural (genetic).
2) RATIONAL SOCIETAL APPROACH: Homosexuals a. have fewer rights and privileges than their straight counterparts, b. are constantly demonized by many in society, c. are frowned upon by many religions (Christianity, Islam, etc.). Why then, if we have established that gays are societally predisposed to a qualitatively worse life, would they CHOOSE to have fewer rights, disrespect from society, and intolerant religious beliefs towards them? Who would want that for themselves?