Sexuality

[imgoneimdead]

the topic went on nice but it all starts when either an atheist or religious invidual states something like this:Atheist: Religionz for stupid people, its evil or i blame religion its a wicked thing.. Or:Christian: homosexuals are not normal and should die and go to hell cuz god doesnt allow it.

seriously why do people always point fingers at each other

I'm an athiest. I respect religion :L

[spukrian]

Would you allow choice to be limited only in the person, animal or object that the sexual act is directed to? If you question my inclusion of animals and objects, then you should likewise question your belief of being born a certain way. For if a person be labelled with a sexuality before ever committing an act towards said sexuality, wouldn't it be likewise right to declare that a person was born a sex toy addict or with beastiality? Would considering this not direct one towards the idea that the only thing natural within a person's sexuality is only their desire to self pleasure, regardless of the method chosen to satisfy? For if attraction were not nuture but nature, you could not deny anyone any form of sexuality; afterall, they were "born with it."

If a person is attracted to animals, then he/she is a "zoophile". And that's not illegal. He/she only becomes a criminal when he/she abuses animals.

Basically, the zoophile CANNOT choose his/her sexuality, but he/she can choose to NOT commit crimes. So to answer your question, YES, we can't deny anyone any form of sexuality.

"We" are those who would likewise deny people choices other than homosexuality and prove to be in the right in doing so. Yet, when people choose to deny others homosexuality it shouldn't be taken within the same context as denying others different, so-called choices?

If homosexuality really was a choice, then it should NOT be denied, because two homosexuals having consensual sex are NOT hurting anyone.

After all religion is a choice, should "we" deny people the right to choose what to believe in?

[Your Computer]

If a person is attracted to animals, then he/she is a "zoophile". And that's not illegal. He/she only becomes a criminal when he/she abuses animals.

Basically, the zoophile CANNOT choose his/her sexuality, but he/she can choose to NOT commit crimes. So to answer your question, YES, we can't deny anyone any form of sexuality.

By labelling someone one word and not labelling them anything else, are you not denying them other forms of sexuality? Don't you find yourself within a paradox? Afterall, weren't they born with the capacity of entering these other forms of sexuality? Therefore, is homosexuality (and any other form of sexuality) natural or a choice? (Are you going to respond to this with the same response i replied to?)

If homosexuality really was a choice, then it should NOT be denied, because two homosexuals having consensual sex are NOT hurting anyone.

So only under the condition that it is a choice, consensual and they don't hurt themselves during sex should we not deny them the opportunity? You do realise, following from your statement, such an event can happen in both private and public areas, regardless of whose property that may be, do you? Likewise, following from your statement, if it were natural we would be allowed to deny them the opportunity for any reason. Note, also, the implications if you were to change "choice" to "natural" within your statement. To what degree would you allow it, then?

[eliasfrost]

Zoophilia, pedophilia and whatever-philia is not equal to homosexuality or heterosexiality.

[Your Computer]

Zoophilia, pedophilia and whatever-philia is not equal to homosexuality or heterosexiality.

Ipse dixit, lest ad nauseam.

[spukrian]

By labelling someone one word and not labelling them anything else, are you not denying them other forms of sexuality?

No, I'm not denying them anything. A person could be both a zoophile and a homosexual. A person could have several labels. But what's important is what the person him/herself identifies with.

Don't you find yourself within a paradox?

Please point out where I have contradicted myself.

Afterall, weren't they born with the capacity of entering these other forms of sexuality? Therefore, is homosexuality (and any other form of sexuality) natural or a choice? (Are you going to respond to this with the same response i replied to?)

I'm not a scientist so I won't speculate what causes homosexuality, but the fact is that some babies grow up to be homosexual adults and this is not their own choice. It's as simple as that. Some people are left handed, should they be denied to use their left hand when writing?

So only under the condition that it is a choice, consensual and they don't hurt themselves during sex should we not deny them the opportunity?

What they do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my, or your, business, as long as it is consensual and everyone involved are adult humans.

You do realise, following from your statement, such an event can happen in both private and public areas, regardless of whose property that may be, do you?

No, that doesn't follow my statement at all. People having sex in public and people trespassing on private property has nothing to do with whether homosexuality should be allowed or not.

Likewise, following from your statement, if it were natural we would be allowed to deny them the opportunity for any reason. Note, also, the implications if you were to change "choice" to "natural" within your statement. To what degree would you allow it, then?

It is totally irrelevant if homosexuality is a choice or not, it should be allowed regardless. Please enlighten me to the implications of homosexuals being born that way?

What degrees? Either homosexuality is allowed or it isn't.

[Your Computer]

Please point out where I have contradicted myself.

While a paradox doesn't necessarily mean a contradiction, here is nevertheless what you requested for:

Exhibit A:

Spoiler below!

No, I'm not denying them anything. A person could be both a zoophile and a homosexual. A person could have several labels. But what's important is what the person him/herself identifies with.

contradicts Exhibit B:

Spoiler below!

Basically, the zoophile CANNOT choose his/her sexuality[...]. So to answer your question, YES, we can't deny anyone any form of sexuality.

Identifying oneself with another is a conscious decision driven by choice. Potential, that is, "could"; realising just how dynamic, not static, the outcome is; as the case of "born as" is static.

I'm not a scientist so I won't speculate what causes homosexuality, but the fact is that some babies grow up to be homosexual adults and this is not their own choice. It's as simple as that. Some people are left handed, should they be denied to use their left hand when writing?

"Not their own choice" does not follow from "growing up to be a homosexual." Without any debatable science, your left-handed analogy has no bearing on homosexuality.

What they do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my, or your, business, as long as it is consensual and everyone involved are adult humans.

No, that doesn't follow my statement at all. People having sex in public and people trespassing on private property has nothing to do with whether homosexuality should be allowed or not.

If it didn't follow from your previous statement, you would not have modified your statement to include private property owned only by the consensual, homosexual couples. After all, your previous statement allowed homosexuality so long as three conditions were met: consensus, (and therefore) choice, and not damaging to anyone. Of course, even your current statement is limited to sex, for if we were to include, say, kissing, such an act could potentially be committed within the public domain, therefore becoming other people's business.

It is totally irrelevant if homosexuality is a choice or not, it should be allowed regardless. Please enlighten me to the implications of homosexuals being born that way?

What degrees? Either homosexuality is allowed or it isn't.

You have since then modified your previous statement. This tells me you already know of the implications of your previous statement if being born a homosexual were to be the premise of your previous statement. Must i really state what i previously said against your previous statement and modify the few words required to get across what i have already gotten across?

Nevertheless, my point exactly: To what degree is homosexuality allowed? You changed your position to consensual, non-damaging sex within the couple's private homes. Do you now promote homosexuality without exceptions?

[eliasfrost]

Zoophilia, pedophilia and whatever-philia is not equal to homosexuality or heterosexiality.

Ipse dixit, lest ad nauseam.

Oh, you play that card. Sorry I won't argue with you then ignorant one, since you think we are equal to pedophiles.

[spukrian]

Identifying oneself with another is a conscious decision driven by choice. Potential, that is, "could"; realising just how dynamic, not static, the outcome is; as the case of "born as" is static.

Choosing to label something as something else is not the same as being the label. Or are you arguing that it should be ok to be a homosexual as long as the homosexuals choose to identify themselves as heterosexuals?

"Not their own choice" does not follow from "growing up to be a homosexual." Without any debatable science, your left-handed analogy has no bearing on homosexuality.

It's the other way around, "growing up to be a homosexual" follows from "not their own choice".

Why doesn't my analogy have any bearing?

If it didn't follow from your previous statement, you would not have modified your statement to include private property owned only by the consensual, homosexual couples. After all, your previous statement allowed homosexuality so long as three conditions were met: consensus, (and therefore) choice, and not damaging to anyone. Of course, even your current statement is limited to sex, for if we were to include, say, kissing, such an act could potentially be committed within the public domain, therefore becoming other people's business.

Oh, I understand, you like to nitpick. I haven't actually modified my arguments at all, I've just tried to clarify them. You, however, seem to get hung up on details. The reason I mentioned "people having sex in public" and "people trespassing on private property" is because those are two acts that are illegal, even when heterosexual people do them.

So, do you think that two homosexuals kissing in public are hurting people? Please explain.

You have since then modified your previous statement. This tells me you already know of the implications of your previous statement if being born a homosexual were to be the premise of your previous statement. Must i really state what i previously said against your previous statement and modify the few words required to get across what i have already gotten across?

Like I said, I haven't modified anything. But hey, why do you think homosexuality should be forbidden? I'd honestly like to know.

Nevertheless, my point exactly: To what degree is homosexuality allowed? You changed your position to consensual, non-damaging sex within the couple's private homes. Do you now promote homosexuality without exceptions?

Oh, I see, do you want me to give you a list of what activities of homosexuals that I condone of? What I'm trying to get across to you is that homosexuality should be judged by the same criteria as heterosexuality. I'm sorry that I didn't spell this out from the start.

[Acies]

I hold a neutrality on homosexuality. I wouldn't advocate for it, neither look down on it. I accept it.

On the matter of being a choice vs. Something you are born with I believe it's something you are born with (genetically or programmed to during your upbringing). I assume homosexuals feel love or attraction in the same way as heterosexuals. Love and attraction isn't something you derive from a logical conclusion, ergo you cannot choose to love someone.