Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First off, I'd like to state that I'm not religious and that Christian beliefs do not inform my views on this topic.
It is my firm belief that people are not born gay, nor are they born heterosexual- or even sexual. I believe that the 'born gay' argument is merely a rationale employed by those seeking to legitimize homosexuality to a culture that is uncomfortable or downright morally opposed to it. While I am fully in favor of the legitimization of homosexuality and I fully support marriage rights for homosexual couples, and I do not see homosexuality as inherently harmful to anyone, gays and straights alike (it is only within a culture that suppresses, demonizes and shames homosexuals that unhealthy aspects are borne), I believe the 'born gay' rationale to be utterly fallacious and therefore harmful to any dialogue concerning it. In essence, it is a response to the moral irrationality of religious dogma: If one is born gay, then God willed it and it should be accepted as a legitimate lifestyle and/or identity. Unfortunately, despite the fact that there are many many scientific studies that apparently contribute to the 'born gay' argument, they are all open to interpretation and are simply inconclusive in this domain. Furthermore, the argument regresses and bastardizes the 'nature versus nurture' debate. Ultimately, science will never prove that a person is born gay. This is not an argument that will ever be won because the 'born gay' argument is simply not true.
This I do believe- homosexuality is not a choice, just as the time and place of one's birth is not one's choice. People are born merely as potentialities; some of these potentials are determined by genetics and some by the environment into which one is born. There exists the possibility that a person can contain the genetic combination such that there is a 99.99999% percent chance that he or she will eventually direct his or her sexuality toward one of the same same sex, in other words- 'become gay', but the environment into which that person's potentials are channeled will play an instrumental part in this eventuality. This cannot be denied. Every study purporting to support the 'born gay' argument that I've read has been easily seen to fall infinitely short of the desired 'born gay' conclusion. For instance, I read tonight that homosexual men contain certain identical brain structures of heterosexual women. I offer this- what about the lifetime lived before the study was performed? Brains develop over time. This study can even offer the opposing viewpoint a legitimate interpretation; consider this- if one decides to pursue music as a teenager and develops this ability over the course of a lifetime, by the time he or she is an adult, his or her brain will look different under the scientific lense than someone who has pursued engineering. And at the onset? A choice.
I've heard it said that a person's experience of knowing he or she is gay as soon as he or she has the self-awareness to do so is evidence that a person is born gay. What about the window between birth- during which all experiences are new and powerful, sometimes traumatic and catastrophic- and such self-awareness?
I write simply to state that this the 'born gay' argument, as important a tool as it is to confront bigotry and religious zealotry, is ultimately untrue and will therefore never produce the desired result of acceptance and legitimacy of homosexuality. Furthermore, it confuses the nature vs nurture debate by attempting to point at only nature, which is downright idiotic. And the movement is discredited by using a false rationale to appeal to people who are beyond reasoning, and if they aren't beyond reasoning they can use the same inconclusive evidence to counter the lie. Setting science and reasoning aside and demanding acceptance for something that no one should be ashamed of is the proper course; requesting acceptance from a belligerent group by showing them evidence that proves nothing is not.
My two cents.
I find the OP a little confusing because you're saying that you do support the rights of gays and lesbians but it isn't clear how you think they end up that way. I suspect that the born gay theory may very well be true and I'm not sure why you don't like that idea. I think the great majority of the population is born heterosexual and couldn't feel an attraction to the same sex under any circumstances so why is it so far fetched to consider the possibility that someone might be born gay or lesbian due to something we really don't yet understand about genetics? You said that being a homosexual is not a choice, well then what exactly is it? There's only two possible answers that I can think of and that is personal life experiences or genetics, or nature versus nurture as you yourself said. Why do you rule out genetics or nature as being "idiotic" as you described it? That would mean that there is some common experience that causes people to either become a heterosexual or a homosexual but what in the world would that be? I think the genetic cause is much more likely than the life experiences or nurture cause.
Doogladron, Welcome to the forum..Perhaps you don't know about the "Search" tool..It is at the top of this page..If you just type in the word Homosexual you will find that it is discussed over, and over here in many threads..You may find some of the answers to your questions there..I look forward to seeing you in other threads here..We have some really interesting discussions right now..
The last time I checked, natural means 'happening in nature'. Homosexuality isn't caused by any outside forces. Therefore, it is natural.
Christianity aside, Homosexuality isn't caused by any outside forces is still debatable in many cultures. Natural also means unthinking/ prompted by instinct. An apple produces an apple, and a human a human; meaning they do not have to think about being right or wrong. Anything that doesn't produce after itself IMO is rather unnatural.
Christianity aside, Homosexuality isn't caused by any outside forces is still debatable in many cultures. Natural also means unthinking/ prompted by instinct. An apple produces an apple, and a human a human; meaning they do not have to think about being right or wrong. Anything that doesn't produce after itself IMO is rather unnatural.
So you're saying that I'm unnatural because I can't breed?
You know nothing about me, interesting judgment.
Are you saying I'm a defect?
That I'm not human or something?
What's your real agenda here? Belittling, judgment, superiority, fear of your own sexuality?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
