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

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Same thing can be said about pedophiles, that's genetic too.

And a consenting relationship between ADULTS is not the same as raping a child.

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

And a consenting relationship between ADULTS is not the same as raping a child.

It's still genetic, so they can't be blamed right.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Same thing can be said about pedophiles, that's genetic too.

Ok penut gallery

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Fine then if they are born that way we can find the gene defect and abort the fetuses until we come up with a cure.
Problem solved.

How about we not abort a gay fetus and just let gay people be themselves and show a little respect to them?

Originally Posted by wolfsgirl

Personally I don't think it matters either way.

IF it is a choice, then so is heterosexuality.

IF it is genetic, then so is heterosexuality.

I agree. One cannot be genetic without the other also being genetic.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Same thing can be said about pedophiles, that's genetic too.

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:

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

Fine then if they are born that way we can find the gene defect and abort the fetuses until we come up with a cure.
Problem solved.

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.

Originally Posted by Come Home America

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'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.

Originally Posted by fishmatter

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.

Originally Posted by Slyhunter

It's still genetic, so they can't be blamed right.

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