*Hypothetical* Science confirms you are born homosexual. Does this change things?

Is it? I don't think that's been conclusively demonstrated.

 

I don't know why it matters so much whether homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal development or environmental factors or even if it were a choice.

Even if it were a choice, that would not be a reason to justify hating and persecuting people for who they love. Male, female, who cares?

Now, of course I don't think it is a choice. I certainly don't recall ever making any choice to be bisexual. Sexual orientation is an inherent part of who someone is, an innate characteristic that is beyond any individual control.

But that need not be overstated. I am a bit tired of hearing that overused and mildly offensive "no one would ever choose to be gay!" line, sometimes used by well-intentioned straight allies. I would gladly choose to remain bi, and I would hope (and expect) that most if not all gay people are comfortable enough with themselves to choose to remain the way they are even if they had a choice.

We need to stop wasting time letting the bigoted buffoons set the terms of the debate. For example, people like this:

I really don't see how this is any different from saying we should, for example, abort any mixed-race babies. Why is human diversity so offensive to you? I can't imagine a world without LGBTQ people, and certainly that sort of boring world is not one I'd want to live in.

 

I've been guilty of using the "who would choose to be gay" argument. And you're right, it has more power rhetorically than sensibly. As in "All things being equal, if I could choose my orientation just prior to birth it wouldn't matter to me one way or the other which way I ended up. But if I knew option B guaranteed me a lifetime of hassles, violence, bigotry, etc., then A would be the smarter choice." So it's a pretend argument made in response to the pretend claim that it's a choice.

But it doesn't respect the fact that you, an adult with his/her sexual identity already installed, wouldn't choose to be a way that you're not, which is a real argument about the real choices you can make in the real world.

So. If you've seen me making the argument here, I apologize. It hadn't really occurred to me that along with being clever it's also kind of condescending. I'm not going to use it again.

 

Oh, I hope nobody who has used that argument felt I was in any way personally attacking them. As I said, I know many people who use it are in fact well-intentioned allies of the LGBTQ community, and I love and appreciate all of you.

I think at one time it might have been a useful piece of rhetoric for driving home the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice, but at this point the only people who are still trying to claim that it is a choice are willfully ignorant bigots with an agenda.

I and some other LGBTQ people I know (though I can't speak for everyone) have just always been slightly bothered by the implication is that if being gay were a choice, then there would simply be no gay people. Queer people would just become extinct.

If that sort of logic were applied to other historically persecuted groups, would people choose to stop being black or stop being Jewish if they could? Unlike sexual orientation though, the parents in those cases certainly do have a bit of a choice. Should we tell black and Jewish people to stop having children and let their peoples go extinct, since any kids they had would likely face discrimination? Of course not, that would be offensive even if it were a well-intentioned idea to save the children from a lifetime of persecution for being who they are.

All peoples have a right to exist, and the bigots and bullies and hatemongers should not be allowed to get their way.


So I thank you for realizing that there are much better ways to argue this issue.

 

It's sad that you can't see the difference between what two consenting adults do together, and an adult raping a child.

 

It's sader that you don't recognize the fact that it's also genetic.

 

So what? Having blue eyes is genetic. Having Tay-Sachs disease is also genetic. Just because they are both genetic does not mean they are in any way comparable.

 

Interesting that you hold the faith based belief that homosexuality is genetic and yet you insist that God is fictional. That says a lot about you. I don't think it makes a difference to you what science proves. You have already decided what you want to believe regardless of the evidence.

As for your hypothetical, it would change some things. I would think it would become easier at that point to make the argument that people are being denied equal rights. Right now it doesn't hold much weight.

Unfortunately, it's not this simple. Environment, conditioning, and trauma can all affect sexuality.

 

Yes, discrimination in the law could continue if orientation were found to be genetic. What matters is whether a characteristic is relevant to the law in question, not whether it is inborn or chosen. So it depends on the specifics of the law we're examining.

That said, over time the courts have come to recognize that certain groups have been the targets of suspect classifications made in the law, and a trait being immutable or highly visible may strengthen one's case for consideration under a higher level of scrutiny. Note that I said immutable, not inborn. It's an important distinction; while immutability is perhaps most often associated with inborn traits, one could acquire an immutable trait after birth (for example, an irreversible physical disability). Immutable does not mean the trait must always have existed, merely that once existing it cannot be changed over time.

Since it is generally well accepted by experts that sexual orientation doesn't change dramatically over time, the court may be willing to view it as an immutable trait, regardless of whether it can be established as inborn or not. That being so, I'm not persuaded that proving a genetic cause makes much (if any) legal difference.

 

The premise makes no sense, the species would have died thousands of years ago if only deviants bred. Yet another lame attempt to normalize the deviants of today, bravo!

 

It's your post that makes no sense.

 

This is silly. Obviously it's a trait that only a certain percentage of the species is born with.

 

It is the scientific definition of human sexuality that is to be used ,as the other more crude and derogatory ,"Gay" and "lesbian ""straight",'Bi"the crude and rude speak .Which is the main problem ," Gay" is saying itself a "GENDER \Sexuality"Identity as cultural ? is just plain irrespective of sexual orientation just plain ,WRONG!

Liberal post-modernist gobbly goog!

 

Sorry, but what is wrong with using words like "gay" or "lesbian" or "bi"?

 

Good to see such a defence of being Normal which no human can be,as normal is mean average not a real number,and never to be applied in human affairs for any judgement by you or me.

Normal ,who would want to be anyway .Bourgeois "Normality" wants me want to VOMIT!

 

You're putting entirely to much focus on terminology. Language evolves of time, different words take on different meanings over history.

The issues has nothing to do with terms or labels.

 

They,the LGBTIQ, Demean the scientific Meaning homosexual,bisexual hetrosexual ,politically neutral definitions are always best ,"Gay and Lesbian,bisexual,transexual,Intersexual,queer\questioning "are very Politically charged and therefore very inapplicable definitions to any true understanding.

Gay=happy and homosexual is the best Definiition ,Homosexual marriage isn't the question ,Abolition of marriage is!

And it meets with english language conventions to be as concise, as least word heavy ,so "Gay and Lesbian" ,must therefore yeld to Homosexual ,One must use the most acurate definitions for good science,that Includes Political Science BTW,Sociological definitions at best ,can rack off back to Sociological Schools ,political School has different rules ,as far as Definitions ,more exacting then LAW!

 

Yeah, well here's the thing, most people don't think like that.

In fact, I'm gonna say the majority of people don't think like that. Society creates buzzwords and public mindsets pick these up and continue them. Homosexuality is now synonymous with gay. Society views the two words in the same light, meaning the same thing.

So, hate to burst your bubble, but it's a non-issue for the vast majority of people. It's certainly a non-issue for this thread.

Kindly go back to the topic.

 

Start fiddling with well proven historically tested method is well lets say phillistine ,Science rules ,where as middle class life style choices such as "gay and lesbian"have no wieght as political definitions ,of any sort .Other then purile protest politics.

Politics for economy recognises only homosexual as far as any application of democratic rights ,and therefore civil as well,LGBTIQ is not a Community as understood by political and historical Culture ,except the upper middle class frenzied new money crowd culture of "Lifestyle choice"Politics.

 

I think "gay and lesbian" sound much better than "homosexual". The latter word, at least in my view, has acquired a sort of old-fashioned, clinical, dehumanizing connotation to it.

As for marriage, I am indeed opposed to it as a matter of principle. However as long as it is the norm in our society, it must provide equal access to both same-sex and different-sex couples.

 

Certainly LGBTQQIAP people form a human community (though that alphabet soup is growing slightly burdensome). Queer people of the world should unite.

 

Well that was a nice big burst of word salad that amounts to...nothing.

Again, your argument here is pretty much null because society indeed uses gay as an interchangeable word for homosexual.

 

Men and women, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. What you propose isnt a marriage.

 

It is in six states, and the number is growing every year.

 

..............