Is it wrong to be gay?

[devonin]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

First off you can't just pretend christiantity isn't false.

When someone says "Assume X and then consider Y" it is what is called a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, and if you personally cannot manage to consider IF christianity were false, what would follow from that, then I'm feeling like you're in the wrong subforum to have a discussion. When you can do things like "Assume a frictionless vacuum" (which doesn't exist) or "Assume a world in which women ran all nations"" (which doesn't exist) and then consider the implications that would follow from that, you're doing philosophy. You're conducting a thought experiment and that is a very valuable logical tool. You can absolutely pretend christianity is false, just like you can pretend it is true. It is not -proven- to be true OR false, so all you're doing is considering what might be implied by replacing one supposition by its opposite.

Firstly, scientists in all their knowledge cannot, and I put this out there right now, CANNOT understand how a feather would have evolved from nothing.

Then it's a good thing that scientists don't believe a feather evolved out of nothing.

People take the THEORY of evolution and try and turn it into fact. What they don't tell you is that Darwin used skeletons of other creatures to try and prove his theory of evolution.

Yes, because more creatures than just humans evolve. All life evolves, why wouldn't he look at "other creatures" when developing the theory of evolution?

Even the bird, 'Darwins Bird', is what you could call evolutionary, but its not. It is an adapting bird that adapts to the world around it.

That's what the word evolution means. "You'd call it evolutionary, but it's not, it just evolves" is what you said.

Secondly, if you believe in evolution I have a few words for you; if you take a watch, completely disassamble it, throw it in a bucket and slosh it around for three-hundred hours in the bucket, do you think its going to go back together? Or create something new?

It will absolutely create something new, it will create a mixed pile of watch parts. I see what you're -trying- to suggest here, but it doesn't work because a) Non-oraganic non-life doesn't evolve, so pointing out that non-organic non-life doesn't evolve is meaningless and b) You're mixing your analogies. The watchmaker analogy is built to try and show why you think that humans couldn't have been the product of evolution "because humans are made up of a bunch of small parts working in a complex way" but that does not remotely constitute any kind of proof of anything.

Thirdly, the Human body.
It seems simple, the hand the legimates, but what they don't tell you is that it is scientifically impossible for the Feather of a bird, and the eye of any creature to have evolved.

Now you're just wrong. They've actually scientifically proven the opposite, that you can develop an eye through the process of natural selection through something as small as 100 generations, each time, the newer form towards a modern eye being more useful to the species' survival than the previous iteration. The usual addendum to the "eyes evolving" objection of theists is "What use is half an eye?" but that's actually been proven to be much more useful than no eye at all.

Sure you can have your oppinion, but evolution was thought up by 1 man. One man who hated christianty after his daughter died.

The theory of natural selection isn't even the same thing as "Evolution" and suggesting that evolution is problematic because it was theorized by one person is to suggest that gravity is problematic, and thermodynamics, and polio vaccinations, and oh wait, Jesus was also 1 man.

If you read through the bible, Darwin would have been deemed an anti-christ. And he is, he set out to try and prove christianity false.
But he didn't. In fact he proved it.

I deny that Darwin would have been deemed an anti-christ at all. He didn't oppose the tenets of christianity in any of his writings. The IMPLICATION of the theory of natural selection is one that runs counter to the teachings of many fundamental christians, but I direct your attention to the fact that the pope (though I guess if you aren't catholic, you don't really care) had acknowledged the extreme liklihood that the theory of evolution was a correct model. Evolution isn't even directly opposed to creationism. The evolutionary process could be occuring according to rules and laws set down by God, or by the direct guidance of God without making the process of evolution false.

[devonin]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

I'll put it downright plainly, the bible describes everything thats going on in the world today, everything.

Evidence please?

And yes it is a choice to be gay, I could choose to go out and date a man right now, but I don't.
People who say they didn't have a choice are making up an excuse, I have homosexual feelings but I don't act on them. I have had desires to be with men, but I choose not to.

Ooh semnatic failure. What you're actually saying here is that it is a choice whether or not to act on homosexual feelings, which is true. What you are -not- saying here is that it is a choice whether or not to be homosexual. Let me rephrase: The statements you have JUST made, yourself, right now, amount to "You can have no choice at all whether or not you -are- gay, you just have a choice, if gay, whether or not to -act- gay" which is completely not what you were trying to argue earlier.

[Paqrat]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Yes, because more creatures than just humans evolve. All life evolves, why wouldn't he look at "other creatures" when developing the theory of evolution?.

Thats not my point, he mixed bones of other creatures together, one of his skeletons he "discovered" was proven to be the mixed compilation of several dinosaurs into one skeleton.

[Izzy]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

People who say they didn't have a choice are making up an excuse, I have homosexual feelings but I don't act on them. I have had desires to be with men, but I choose not to.

For some reason devonin doesn't believe you are trolling. If you aren't then I'd just like to point out that you are homosexual or bisexual. It seems unfortunate that you are a self hating homosexual who is part of a religion that is intolerant to your sexual orientation.

[Paqrat]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Wtfreakin crap?
My analogy was that people who claim that their only choice to be gay is a lie. I've been down that road and I hate myself for it.
I don't make up excuses unless what you say is a crock. and thats just about it. You can be a homosexual or you can choose to be straight. Its a human choice. I was never forced to be gay, and people who continue on that road start to accept, even consent with something that was absolutely frowned upon twenty years ago.
And still no one has quoted me on Romans 1:18-32.
That is what I was talking about in my main post. So whatever, I'm going outside, I'm not going to reason on something when I'm the only one opposed against something.

[Izzy]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

I'm not going to reason on something when I'm the only one opposed against something.

That's why you are a christian. You refuse to understand the world and you just want everything you believe to be true.

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

This kid has got to be trolling. Not only is he morally retarded, but he doesn't even understand evolution.

[devonin]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Well, whether he's trolling or not, he's now broken the rules of the CT forum, and can stop posting for a period of one week while he brushes up on the LAW

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

My absolute favorite part of this thread:

10 immense objections to Paqrat's logic

Response in defense toward just one objection

<3

P.S. I'm straight, there is no choice in this matter, I have never (and can't imagine ever) feeling emotionally/sexually connected to a man.

I know this to be true, it is a fact.

Now if this is true, how could it be any different for homosexuals? I understand you're one of those cases that chose it (Paqrat), but you weren't born that way. You should stop pretending to know this situation from experience.

[rqm]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Wtfreakin crap?
My analogy was that people who claim that their only choice to be gay is a lie. I've been down that road and I hate myself for it.
I don't make up excuses unless what you say is a crock. and thats just about it. You can be a homosexual or you can choose to be straight. Its a human choice. I was never forced to be gay, and people who continue on that road start to accept, even consent with something that was absolutely frowned upon twenty years ago.
And still no one has quoted me on Romans 1:18-32.
That is what I was talking about in my main post. So whatever, I'm going outside, I'm not going to reason on something when I'm the only one opposed against something.

bro

hate to break it to you but it's really not a choice my man. when did you choose to be straight? why did my aunt date dudes through college then start having dreams about being with women and eventually realize that she would be happy in a loving relationship with a woman? its not a choice - its how youre born. you can state all the bible versus condemning homosexuals that you want: it doesnt change the fact that theres nothing wrong with being gay. the real reason youre not going to "reason on [this]" is because youre a god forsaken salad-tossing moron

[MrRubix]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Guys it's pretty obvious that paqrat is trolling. And if not, he's a rather misled and nutty individual.

There are indeed many cases where people actively choose/develop a certain sexual preference between men and/or women, but there are obviously many cases where people are born with such a preference. Ever since I can remember, for instance, I've been attracted to females. I can remember this type of preference even during very, very early ages, and this type of attraction was independent of any active "choice" or social influence. It was just there. Likewise, many homosexual men can tell you the same thing about their own childhood and how they've always found the same sex to be preferable. Some people are just born with it.

[Chrissi]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

I probably have a fairly extreme view on this, but anyway,

I don't believe gays are necessarily "born that way". I admit that there are certain factors of your development and your inborn personality that will give you a tendency to be gay or straight or anything in between or outside these boundaries. But I don't think that anyone can be "born gay". In order to be gay you need to be made of the right stuff (nature) and have an envrionment that allows you to consider the idea of being gay.

For example, let's take the two most extreme variations.

Variation #1 is somebody with a very gay "nature" and absolutely no gay "nurture". This person was born with very strong gay urges; however, they live in a place like Iran like The-Persian-King mentioned earlier,

we have pretty much no homosexuals in Iran

it's entirely possible that the person would never "express" their gayness and would remain straight. If the environment doesn't foster it, it doesn't happen.

Variation #2 is somebody with very little gay "nature" and a lot of gay "nurture". Now, it's hard to describe this, considering (as I will explain later) that we don't really know what environmental factors cause somebody to be gay. But let's presume that whatever these factors are, this person is bombarded with them. Let's say the strongest gay environment (if very impractical) that a person can be born into is one where their parents are a same-sex couple that are the same sex as the person, and EVERYBODY they are exposed to in their lives are the same sex as them, and in this mythical society, children are sexualized at an early age- sexual media is in abundance and perhaps sexual play between children is well-fostered.

It's likely that this person may grow up feeling that being gay is "normal" and, regardless of not having a natural tendency to be gay, they might grow up feeling extremely gay and turn out to be a gay person.

Or, they could reject the idea and realize that they are not attracted to the same sex. But they would need to be exposed to the idea of the opposite sex before they could actually develop a sexual orientation toward them. Once they have, it's likely this person would realize something's up and, even if they dont' have a word or concept for being straight, they would probably realize something is "wrong" and seek out relationships with those of the opposite sex.

I don't really know which one would prevail, I guess it would depend on the individual case.

With that said, I think that primarily, gayness is environmental. I think that most people have a fair tendency to be gay if the conditions are right. The people who are born with a very strong or very weak tendency to be gay are outliers.

And let me make it clear that by environmental factors, I don't mean how accepting/tolerant the culture is of sexuality. I mean things that are yet unidentified - things that would cause a person to develop their tendency. Perhaps having sexual feelings and associating these feelings with someone of a particular sex. I really don't know. As far as I know these factors have not been identified - and I think it will be a long time before they are identified, if ever, because the current prevailing ideology is that of gays being "born that way".

I don't think it's practical for gays to be "born that way". Why?

- Many people grow up not realizing they are gay, and only later in life decide they must be gay.
- There are less gay people in certain areas and times and more gay people in others. You could say that these people are simply repressing their feelings and "pretending" to be straight in repressive societies, but this doesn't really seem right... you'd see more homosexual underground behavior. There is some, but I think there would be more.
- I don't think a thing like being "gay" is something you can be born as. It's just a preference - like preferring to play video games, but saying that you were just "born" a gamer kind of sounds silly. You can be born as a person who has a high likelihood to end up a gamer, but if you were never exposed to games, you won't be a gamer.

With all that said, I am very opposed to the idea that being gay is a "choice". You don't choose it. You just are it. It doesn't matter what causes it, either way you can't help it. It's your own personal feelings and preferences, so how can you choose that?

From this perspective there's no reason to think that being gay is "wrong" or "right". It's just a variation like any other variation. Since it doesn't cause harm, I don't see why it would be wrong. Those with strong religious convictions would believe otherwise, but if we take religion out of the equation, I don't see any reason to why being gay would be wrong.

[Izzy]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Gay people not being born gay can't just be an opinion because it isn't true... The main factor of homosexuality is primarly a genetic one.

Didn't feel like reading the rest because of this error.

[N.T.M.]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Gay people not being born gay can't just be an opinion because it isn't true... The main factor of homosexuality is primarly a genetic one.

I disagree. I know this isn't a common perspective, but it seems to me that their propensity may also be ascribed to their childhood. Seems to be correlated with fathers who are either absent often, or present a very poor image. I've noticed this quite a few times actually and it seems plausible.

Also, however, there are brain scans which display a strong affinity between homosexuals' brains and females'. Clearly this'd suggest a genetic predisposition, but these similarities aren't always present.

My point is that I don't believe that it's soley genetic, or even if genetics always plays a role to some degree.

*edit* Holy ****! 15 pages?!?!

[Chrissi]

Re: Is it wrong to be gay?

Gay people not being born gay can't just be an opinion because it isn't true... The main factor of homosexuality is primarly a genetic one.

Didn't feel like reading the rest because of this error.

Uh, wonderful.... do you have some sort of proof of this "fact", because I study sexuality in school and I'm almost done my degree - it's my minor (major is psychology) and I have never encountered proof that homosexuality has a genetic basis.

It certainly seems to be the most common viewpoint, but please do not confuse that for the idea that somebody has proven it to be true.

Also, however, there are brain scans which display a strong affinity between homosexuals' brains and females'. Clearly this'd suggest a genetic predisposition, but these similarities aren't always present.

Brain scans do not indicate genetic cause. Our brains are malleable - for example, people who have grown up with cell phones have a larger representation of the thumb in the brain from texting so much. I hope you don't think this means that it was in our generation's genes to text. That would be silly.

Also here is a comic to express my feelings about whether being gay is wrong or not.