Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Regardless at to whether or not being a homo is genetic or not, it does, in fact, take a conscious CHOICE on behalf of the person afflicted with abnormal sexual impulses to ACT on them.

They do have another choice, and that is to seek psychiatric help. I've met individuals that had previously been married and lived a normal life, only to later engage in homosexual sex. This is a male I refer to. He had NO feminine characteristics about him what so ever, and didn't after he decided to experiment with queers. This was something he was talked into and influenced to do. It had nothing to do with genetics or being born that way. He simply was in a vulnerable point in his life and was easy to influence by a perverted segment of society. A classic example of participating in homosexual behavior simply because you were talked into it.

How many cases are like that? Probably far more than anyone is willing to admit, because the homosexuals have infiltrated the public school systems and their perverted agenda is being taught to very young, very impressionable children. Obviously, the vast majority of kids aren't born homo, but decide to experiment with it and act out homosexual sex just because they've been told it's ok, it's just an alternate life style.

And that is the best tool the homos have, since they can't reproduce more homos, they TEACH more kids to BE homo.

These ideas are comprehensively wrong and unfounded, and fail to abide by the rules established by the OP, items 3, 4, and 5 in particular.

 

[RKMBrown]

You miss the point

Regardless of the root cause of homosexuality, the government has no Buisiness regulating your relationships

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Regardless at to whether or not being a homo is genetic or not, it does, in fact, take a conscious CHOICE on behalf of the person afflicted with abnormal sexual impulses to ACT on them.

They do have another choice, and that is to seek psychiatric help. I've met individuals that had previously been married and lived a normal life, only to later engage in homosexual sex. This is a male I refer to. He had NO feminine characteristics about him what so ever, and didn't after he decided to experiment with queers. This was something he was talked into and influenced to do. It had nothing to do with genetics or being born that way. He simply was in a vulnerable point in his life and was easy to influence by a perverted segment of society. A classic example of participating in homosexual behavior simply because you were talked into it.

How many cases are like that? Probably far more than anyone is willing to admit, because the homosexuals have infiltrated the public school systems and their perverted agenda is being taught to very young, very impressionable children. Obviously, the vast majority of kids aren't born homo, but decide to experiment with it and act out homosexual sex just because they've been told it's ok, it's just an alternate life style.

And that is the best tool the homos have, since they can't reproduce more homos, they TEACH more kids to BE homo.

1. The instinct for sex is not a "choice".

2. Many gays try to be hetero only to find they cannot.

3. I doubt you could find very many who are trying to turn children into homosexuals. It can't be done so it doesn't matter.

 

[RKMBrown]

The OP's question is impossible to prove but what does it matter?

Its no one's business what consenting adults do together and government should have no say in it.

As to your first question, that is not true, see my post #45.

As to your opinion. You appear to not yet understand the rules of structured debate.

 

[BlackSand]

As to your first question, that is not true, see my post #45.

As to your opinion. You appear to not yet understand the rules of structured debate.

At some point you have to realize that the failure to comprehend the clearly defined is either the fault of the participant or the deliberate attempt to circumvent the system.
Considering those involved ... I am more willing to go with the latter.

.

 

[JoeMoma]

You miss the point

Regardless of the root cause of homosexuality, the government has no Buisiness regulating your relationships

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

And once again, this thread is not about if it is leagally or constitutionally relevant. You present yourself as being an expert in constitutional matters yet don't even seem to understand the rules of the OP and the structured debate forum.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You miss the point

Regardless of the root cause of homosexuality, the government has no Buisiness regulating your relationships

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

And to disadvantage gay Americans as a consequence of their sexual orientation denies them their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The states are at liberty to enact all manner of restrictions and prohibitions, provided they're applied consistently and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You miss the point

Regardless of the root cause of homosexuality, the government has no Buisiness regulating your relationships

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

And once again, this thread is not about if it is leagally or constitutionally relevant. You present yourself as being an expert in constitutional matters yet don't even seem to understand the rules of the OP and the structured debate forum.

Read the OP's rules, there's nothing prohibiting a legal argument or using the law in support of one's position.

 

[RKMBrown]

As to your first question, that is not true, see my post #45.

As to your opinion. You appear to not yet understand the rules of structured debate.

At some point you have to realize that the failure to comprehend the clearly defined is either the fault of the participant or the deliberate attempt to circumvent the system.
Considering those involved ... I am more willing to go with the latter.

.

Structured debate is a style of debate that requires unique skills not often used or exhibited by those who rely on feelings more than facts. Hiding your feelings from within the facts of the debate is not as easy for some as others. Either way I find evidence through the posts that the choice of using structured debate in a debate about a highly charged emotional topic, is difficult for many involved.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The OP's question is impossible to prove but what does it matter?

Its no one's business what consenting adults do together and government should have no say in it.

As to your first question, that is not true, see my post #45.

As to your opinion. You appear to not yet understand the rules of structured debate.

As regards the question, post#45 is opinion.

There is plenty of scientific evidence that our sexuality is hardwired into us and no one decides to be either straight or gay. To my knowledge, there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

The question posed in the OP cannot be proven, one way or the other.

Please keep your insults to yourself. Thanks.

As to your first question, that is not true, see my post #45.

As to your opinion. You appear to not yet understand the rules of structured debate.

At some point you have to realize that the failure to comprehend the clearly defined is either the fault of the participant or the deliberate attempt to circumvent the system.
Considering those involved ... I am more willing to go with the latter.

.

If you have a point to make, please do so. If not, I'll ask that you also keep your insults to yourself.

Thanks.




I stand by my opinion that the government has no place in our private lives, EXCEPT if it concerns those who are unable to give adult consent.

If you are a consenting adult, what you do with your partner is simply none of my business.

 

[Manonthestreet]

If its not a choice why do they proselytize school kids and encourage them to experiment ........ how many stories of "confusion"...why are there guides printed for the "questioning"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Homosexuals don't breed, hence genetic homosexuality is impossible.

This fails as a post hoc fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If its not a choice why do they proselytize school kids and encourage them to experiment ........ how many stories of "confusion"...why are there guides printed for the "questioning"

No one 'proselytizes' school children to do anything, this idea is unfounded and devoid of merit.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Just the facts.......

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Just the facts.......

Link, please.

Thanks.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Links dont matter here, people talk right past the truth and claim it doesnt mean what it said............

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

Yet we have a constitutional amendment that states, and I quote, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Thus with due process of law the states shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property. Disadvantaging particular Americans for the common good is constitutional, since the passing of this clause.

And to disadvantage gay Americans as a consequence of their sexual orientation denies them their right to due process and equal protection of the law.

The states are at liberty to enact all manner of restrictions and prohibitions, provided they're applied consistently and do not seek to disadvantage a particular class of persons. “This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Yet they can and do for certain classes of persons. For example, classes of persons who have more money than others get higher taxes for the common good. As another example, classes of persons who live in the path of a public road get to sell their land and homes for the common good.

Thus the issue of whether said actions based on said laws are allowed clearly comes to whether the SCOTUS rules yay or nay when said issues of common good fly in the face of said issues of equal protection. For clearly, the law does not always side with equal protection when the common good would suffer.

Tying this track tighter to the OP. One can, under the current Constitution, argue that whether or not homosexuality is genetic, a choice, or some combination of both can be specified by the states, so long as these states successfully argue that equal protection of the law has been applied when the law harms said individuals by taking their life, liberty, and property.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Next Steps for LGB Coming Out
"Am I Gay?"
A Guide for People Who Question Their Sexual Orientation

 

[JoeMoma]

Nah ... I didn't miss the point.

You either cannot understand how the Structured Debate Section works (which I seriously doubt is the case) ... Or just haven't realized how the thread is contained within.
I don't have a problem with what you are trying to suggest ... Wouldn't mind expounding on it more.
It just doesn't fit the parameters of the thread as defined by the OP ... And I gave you a link to where you can start a thread, set your parameters and discuss all you want.

Let me know if you need any more help ... Glad to assist.

.

OK

How about this?

A little of both. Some may be wired homosexual and some may choose it

But what difference does the cause make?

The difference applies to how one can enforce laws against the so called taboo behavior. This based on the prior majority desire to make said behavior taboo within our communities.

Again, the difference is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; whether homosexuality manifests by birth or choice, no law seeking to disadvantage gay Americans predicated on their sexual orientation can pass Constitutional muster.

And once again, this thread is not about if it is leagally or constitutionally relevant. You present yourself as being an expert in constitutional matters yet don't even seem to understand the rules of the OP and the structured debate forum.

Read the OP's rules, there's nothing prohibiting a legal argument or using the law in support of one's position.

Read the question posed by the OP:
Debate Now Prove your case! Is Homosexuality genetic or a choice?
Neither the constitution or any other law can answer the question posed by the OP. Also, stating that the question posed by the OP is irrelevant based on constitutional interpretations is a violation of the Op rule #7.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Links dont matter here, people talk right past the truth and claim it doesnt mean what it said............

Manonthestreet

You stated:

If its not a choice why do they proselytize school kids and encourage them to experiment ........ how many stories of "confusion"...why are there guides printed for the "questioning"

That's pretty outrageous so I'm sure you not have said it if you couldn't prove it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to know about this.

BTW, I do remember some bogus links about things being taught in schools but I'm certain those are not what you are referring to.

Please post a link.

Thanks.