Is consciously chosen homosexuality more valid than congenital homosexuality? Do people have the right to be anything other than straight?

[Smallteaplant]

I'm confused by the question. Can you be more specific? Are you asking whether homosexuality is more of a function of nature versus nurture? If so, than that's a debate that can go on forever! People have literally written books on that issue, as well as volumes of research on that issue. So that's not a debate that's going away anytime soon.

My question is more along the lines of homosexuality being acceptable as long it is seen as congenital. My second question is should society and government grant people the right to live outside of heterosexual norms?

 

[Smallteaplant]

If you want to discuss this philosophically, you should not have chosen such an illogical and inane title. This has the appearance of a post made in bad faith, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise, @Smallteaplant

First, you should not have started with baseless assumptions, as they are invalid from the start. Your question is nonsense because of this. Begin with the below questions, and start proving you are acting in good faith.

Is a consciously-chosen straight lifestyle more valid than congenital homosexuality? In what value system would a society force one to choose a lifestyle over their congenital sexuality? Given there is no evidence sexuality is "chosen," what kind of damage does the narrative of choosing a sexuality do to peoples around the world? Where did this narrative arise?
Do governments have the right to police sexual relationships between consenting adults?
Should governments intercede in marriages made out of anything but love? To what degree should secular society reclaim marriage as a legal process and not a religious one?
How far are we willing to take genetics in a discussion of human rights? How have our forebearers misused genetics to root out persecuted demographics? How can we learn from past crimes to safeguard human rights in the future?

Take your time.

I would argue that a consciously chosen straight lifestyle is probably more valid as it could be argued that it's an act of willpower over base instincts.

In what value system would a society force one to choose a lifestyle over their congenital sexuality?

A religious one or one that values social conformity over individual expression.

How far are we willing to take genetics in a discussion of human rights? How have our forebearers misused genetics to root out persecuted demographics? How can we learn from past crimes to safeguard human rights in the future?

On the flip side of the coin, homosexuality which was said to be congenital was treated by the law less severely than homosexual acts that were thought of as perversions.

You lost me. This is a different topic than what you originally asked.



I didn't ask any questions so I don't have a premise. You did. I wanted to know where YOU came from and YOUR premise because no one asks the questions you asked unless they had some differenting viewpoint that they don't agree with the general public.



This is a statement, though not answering my actual question of clarification. So I ask again, is it for the reasons you stated above that you question that "people have the right to BE anything other than straight"?

By the way, unions aren't what the original question was about. All these problems I and others have seen show this is a bad faith argument. You may not have meant to, and we all learn on our own pace to improve but people do not generally like it when questions are loaded and assumptions are made before being able to even answer the question. This comes across as you asking a question and wanting to use answers as evidence to fuel a different topic you may be engaged with. Somewhat deceptive and the ulterior motives shine through.

I guess I am starting from the premise that heterosexuality is superior in that it grants resources to the state and society through childbearing.

The reason why I asked these questions is because of some of the threads on this forum. They brought up questions to mind such as is a self-identified gay man who sometimes sleeps with women more worthy of respect and rights than a homosexual who’d never slept with women? Is “congenital homosexuality” more “respectable” or worthy of social considerations than homosexuality that is willfully chosen?

 

[Cum_is_Great]

I would argue that a consciously chosen straight lifestyle is probably more valid as it could be argued that it's an act of willpower over base instincts.



A religious one or one that values social conformity over individual expression.



On the flip side of the coin, homosexuality which was said to be congenital was treated by the law less severely than homosexual acts that were thought of as perversions.




I guess I am starting from the premise that heterosexuality is superior in that it grants resources to the state and society through childbearing.

The reason why I asked these questions is because of some of the threads on this forum. They brought up questions to mind such as is a self-identified gay man who sometimes sleeps with women more worthy of respect and rights than a homosexual who’d never slept with women? Is “congenital homosexuality” more “respectable” or worthy of social considerations than homosexuality that is willfully chosen?

Your question does not line up with what you're really getting at then. You didnt ask if the government should grant the right to become a homosexual union. You asked if people have a right to BE ANYTHING other than straight.

It seems you are policing people if they are child bearing unions or not. According to your logic, If you marry and dont reproduce then you are not providing value to your government and society and have no right to be together, regardless of sexual orientation.

Again, child bearing and reproduction is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TOPIC than if someone has a right to BE anything other than a heterosexual. It sounds more like if you are asking if anyone has a right to be anything other your personal definition of value to society.

Remember, BEING heterosexual is definitely not same as and more than just having and raising children. You questioned the right of BEING, not of GOVERNMENT RESOURCES, REPRODUCTION AND UNIONS.

Anyway, since that is NOT what the original questions were, I must withdraw because that is politics. If you truly were asking from a purely philosophical point of view, you wouldn't have made your statements about providing government resources.

 

[MeatStickSupreme]

People have the right to be healthy and happy, to live their own lives, to believe what they want to believe and to do what they want to do, so long as it doesn't harm others. The ONLY role of government should be to protect and enable these rights.

Nothing and absolutely NOTHING else matters. Not whether being gay is genetic or a choice, not religion, not whether gay people give more to society or not. Not whether one orientation or gender identity is "superior" or "inferior". Being gay should be of no consequence to anyone as wearing the color blue or having brown eyes or eating a donut.

Its not anyone else's business what consenting people decide to do with their own lives, and its certainly not the business of the government. Societies and governments exist to serve the people that live within them. NOT the other way around.

There is nothing to debate, nothing to discuss. That's it full stop. And that's all I'm going to say.

 

[Cakeking]

Why y'all making it seem like we WANT TO feel like this? Or we got a choice?

 

[chrisrobin]

I agree with you. Even if a guy professes as straight but has thoughts of being with another guy, was born with inclinations. I don't think it's EVER a conscious choice. It's not like you wake up one day and go, geez I think I'll start being with a man occasionally. Even if they have never been with a man, the thought process in already inherent and there. This is for identifying straight guys that do have those thoughts. Like you, I don't understand the confusion. A guy that is straight COMPLETELY, is inherently straight from birth. What needs to be understood but sadly isn't is it goes the other way as well.

Thank you - its very much like those who one day decide to become a different sex because its "cool". Choosing sex and orientation are things you are born with, these self-identifiers do more harm to genuine cases than good.

 

[BulgeGuySD]

No words !!

 

[FrankieGuile]

My question is more along the lines of homosexuality being acceptable as long it is seen as congenital. My second question is should society and government grant people the right to live outside of heterosexual norms?

As for the first question, it should be obvious to all but the most aggrieved homosexuals who have an axe to grind and the most intolerant non-homosexuals who have an authoritarian yoke for others to wear that society accepts homosexuality, whether congenital or chosen, as legitimate sexual preferences and does not care enough to rank how one comes to such a preference.

As for the second question, granting rights is a matter of the vote in a democratic society and that vote has been settled in this country. Homosexual citizens, indeed, have the same legal rights as heterosexual citizens.

I think what has confused some respondents to your questions is the manifest obviousness of the answers -- as if you know the answers like the rest of us and merely seek to provoke, or you are one of those who grinds an axe of grievance, or you haven't been paying much attention.

 

[Evenflow618]

It’s your free will

 

[ILoveGames48]

Surprised anyone hasn’t turned in this idiot for posting such a racist question..


We have as much right to be gay as much as you have the right to be straight or bisexual..


So whoever posted this question needs to remove it.. .. as it shouldn’t be allowed

 

[Smallteaplant]

Surprised anyone hasn’t turned in this idiot for posting such a racist question..


We have as much right to be gay as much as you have the right to be straight or bisexual..


So whoever posted this question needs to remove it.. .. as it shouldn’t be allowed

I got permission. The reason I asked this question was because it seems like some gays are upset about the whole sexuality fluidity thing.

I think the basis for the emotion has to do with notion that congenital homosexuality is the only way gays can win support.

 

[ILoveGames48]

a lot of gay men are like that because of how society treats them..living a life where most of the people in the world and around them do t want nothing to do with them ..

A lot of guys go into denial about being gay. Hide it and cover it up and try to live a straight life just to appease the masses ..

I’ve known from a yng age I was gay and was openly gay and didn’t care what people thought about me..

If guys would learn to be more of who they are instead of what society wants them to guys would be more satisfied with who they are

 

[FrankieGuile]

Surprised anyone hasn’t turned in this idiot for posting such a racist question..


We have as much right to be gay as much as you have the right to be straight or bisexual..


So whoever posted this question needs to remove it.. .. as it shouldn’t be allowed

Shutting down the expression of thought is no way to pursue enlightenment and smacks of authoritarianism and intolerance. It is much better to engage if you disagree rather than shrink and remain silent or seek to take away the voice of others who might disagree.

 

[Sagittarius84]

Secondly, homosexual unions do no provide society or the government any resources when compared to heterosexual unions.

On the resource/societal value front, you could be mistaken. Obviously one could argue the inability to biologically produce children from such a union is the mitigating factor, but one could make an argument that dual income no kids couples of any sexuality are equally contributory provided a higher than average annual income, at least from a tax revenue perspective, and if children are desired you have a high percentage demographic incentivized and motivated to alleviate the state of its parent less wards.

I think from a standpoint of what society typically percieves as value you could make an argument that homosexual couples have more intrinsic value to society at large(provided they are afforded the same rights as straight couples) than homosexual purposeful singles.
I think any question as to the "right" for homosexuals to be revolves more around a perception(or observation) of the average homosexual's(men especially)propensity to skew towards being a productive member of society, or a more hedonistic existence

 

[FrankieGuile]

On the resource/societal value front, you could be mistaken. Obviously one could argue the inability to biologically produce children from such a union is the mitigating factor, but one could make an argument that dual income no kids couples of any sexuality are equally contributory provided a higher than average annual income, at least from a tax revenue perspective, and if children are desired you have a high percentage demographic incentivized and motivated to alleviate the state of its parent less wards.

I think from a standpoint of what society typically percieves as value you could make an argument that homosexual couples have more intrinsic value to society at large(provided they are afforded the same rights as straight couples) than homosexual purposeful singles.
I think any question as to the "right" for homosexuals to be revolves more around a perception(or observation) of the average homosexual's(men especially)propensity to skew towards being a productive member of society, or a more hedonistic existence

Good response to a thoughtful post. I only take exception to the implication that homosexual couples may not be afforded the same rights as straight couples as evidenced by your need to qualify your statement. Can you name one law that restricts the civil liberties of homosexual couples that does not restrict those of heterosexual couples?

 

[Sagittarius84]

Good response to a thoughtful post. I only take exception to the implication that homosexual couples may not be afforded the same rights as straight couples as evidenced by your need to qualify your statement. Can you name one law that restricts the civil liberties of homosexual couples that does not restrict those of heterosexual couples?

De jure? Not so much, it's more of residual de facto stuff like adoption agencies not approving gay couples, not renting to gay couples...etc., there's a lot more sociocultural hurdles for gay and lesbian couples than legal ones these days, but I don't think they're any less harder to overcome at times because a lot of plausible deniability is usually in play; similar to the experiences of African American prospective homebuyers and reclining by banks.

 

[FrankieGuile]

De jure? Not so much, it's more of residual de facto stuff like adoption agencies not approving gay couples, not renting to gay couples...etc., there's a lot more sociocultural hurdles for gay and lesbian couples than legal ones these days, but I don't think they're any less harder to overcome at times because a lot of plausible deniability is usually in play; similar to the experiences of African American prospective homebuyers and reclining by banks.

And under the law, such discrimination can be challenged in court. The denial of adoption or lodging is not prima facie evidence of discrimination and is certainly not reserved only for homosexuals. The point is that homosexual couples are, in fact, afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples, not "may be afforded," as you incorrectly asserted. Characterizing it the way you did perpetuates a myth, undermines the advancements made under the law and could delude a person into thinking he has no recourse under the law. We all must defend our rights when we believe they are violated and the violation of such rights is not unique to any particular group.

 

[Sagittarius84]

And under the law, such discrimination can be challenged in court.

Which in of itself also has a prohibitive cost of entry...again much like redlining by banks, absolutely correct any African American that suspected they were victims of it could challenge in court like anybody else...however to obtain the legal counsel competent and necessary to do so is out of range by most of the people that would be affected...So too do I think in cases of discrimination of housing, adoption, etc., homosexual couples have the legal opportunity to challenge, but will not be largely successful unless they happen to be the small percentage of high earners that can afford it.
Another parallel; every father in a child custody dispute has the legal opportunity to get just as much if not more custody than the mother...however the only statistically successful men in doing so earn more than the average man.
It is very easy and convenient for the status quo to rest on the haunches of de jure equity when de facto proves just as if not more effective in preventing individuals from attaining that equity, and it comes with built in plausible deniability.
I also caution about the slippery slope your overarching question introduces, because if we're talking about societal worth in such a broad and objective manner, a lot of cishetero demographics fall under the banner of "societal burden", and they far outnumber the LGBT couples and whatever socioeconomic impact they have...for instance if we identified a demographic that consistently spends more than they earn, but somehow also dominated consumer spending and consumer debt, an argument could be made for their societal unworthiness.

 

[FrankieGuile]

Which in of itself also has a prohibitive cost of entry...again much like redlining by banks, absolutely correct any African American that suspected they were victims of it could challenge in court like anybody else...however to obtain the legal counsel competent and necessary to do so is out of range by most of the people that would be affected...So too do I think in cases of discrimination of housing, adoption, etc., homosexual couples have the legal opportunity to challenge, but will not be largely successful unless they happen to be the small percentage of high earners that can afford it.
Another parallel; every father in a child custody dispute has the legal opportunity to get just as much if not more custody than the mother...however the only statistically successful men in doing so earn more than the average man.
It is very easy and convenient for the status quo to rest on the haunches of de jure equity when de facto proves just as if not more effective in preventing individuals from attaining that equity, and it comes with built in plausible deniability.
I also caution about the slippery slope your overarching question introduces, because if we're talking about societal worth in such a broad and objective manner, a lot of cishetero demographics fall under the banner of "societal burden", and they far outnumber the LGBT couples and whatever socioeconomic impact they have...for instance if we identified a demographic that consistently spends more than they earn, but somehow also dominated consumer spending and consumer debt, an argument could be made for their societal unworthiness.

Then I rest my case. Your original statement was inaccurate as the law applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals. As I suspected, your phrasing that rights "may be afforded" and subsequent replies belie a social, not legal, bias, indicates a certain victimhood and intends to mislead. I'm calling it out for the sake of intellectual honesty.

 

[1wldprefernot2]

This thread