The Homosexuality "Slippery Slope"

[Nexus]

Homosexuality is still a controversial topic, especially in the United States. This debate typically takes place between liberal progressives and conservative groups, including the religious right. One of the most common arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage is the slippery slope argument, and this is how it usually goes:

Person 1: Homosexuality isn't a choice and we should be tolerant of other people's lifestyles. They can't change who they are, and they have just as much of a right to be married as any straight person.

Person 2: If we become tolerant of homosexuality, then why not pedophilia or bestiality? After all, pedophiles say that it's not a choice for them. They can't change who they are. They were just "born that way." If you're going to accept one group for that reason, then you should be tolerant of all of them.

Now, this argument is also applied to the Same-Sex marriage debate as well. The idea is that if same-sex marriage is legalized, then it'll act as gateway legislation to later justify things like marriage with relatives, children, or even animals. The line of reasoning, I believe, for this is that just because someone doesn't believe it's a choice (and it may in fact not be a choice), it doesn't mean we should allow it, because we outlaw many things that people don't consider to be their choice.

The reason I post this is because I want to hear what your analysis of this argument is and why it is or is not a valid one. I'd prefer that your argument be logical ones and not just conjecture or a reiteration of the actual argument I've outlined. I also just want to say that for the purposes of this thread we'll consider marriage and civil unions to be the same thing. What I'm looking for is a reasonable analysis of the argument, and not necessarily a debate.

And one more thing, I know that there are other threads about the homosexuality controversy. I wanted this thread to be specifically about this one particular argument.

So please, discuss.

[PHS Philip]

With regard to pedophilia vrs. homosexuality: pedophilia causes harm to children. Homosexuality causes no harm. As for bestiality, an animal cannot give consent, whereas an adult human, same sex or not, can. My take on it is that just about anything that doesn't cause some sort of harm or infringe on another's rights should be allowed, and same sex marriage neither infringes on rights nor causes anyone harm.

[Nexus]

With regard to pedophilia vrs. homosexuality: pedophilia causes harm to children. Homosexuality causes no harm.The hole in this argument is "What if an underage child (say 14 years old) consents to a relationship with a 27 year old?" If both parties consent, then by your line of reasoning there is no harm, and thus it is acceptable despite it still qualifying as pedophilia.

[Karamazov]

Actually, the reasoning behind this is that children are too young to know of the consequences associated with sexual intercourse. Now, you could try and reason that It could be beneficial for the child by having an adult "teach" him/her what sex is in a nurturing and non-predatory way (within a reasonable age). The thing is, that is rarely (in fact never) the case, since the children are always used as a means to an end.

Of course, assuming this discussion is within the context of the American legal system.

[Antisocialite]

The hole in this argument is "What if an underage child (say 14 years old) consents to a relationship with a 27 year old?" If both parties consent, then by your line of reasoning there is no harm, and thus it is acceptable despite it still qualifying as pedophilia.

Your question is covered by the age-of-consent laws in each state. Pedophilia is not like homosexuality.





Antisocialite added to this post, 1 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Of course, assuming this discussion is within the context of the American legal system.


Oh yeah. And that. ;-)

[blueback]

True. It is always good to establish context.

Bestiality is wrong, not because of the sex act, but because of the harm it causes to the animal. Torturing animals is always wrong. Causing any unnecessary pain is always wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual gratification.

I suppose many of the people who are against homosexuality would consider homos animals, and so it would be a legitimate comparison to them.

It seems to me like it would be a relatively simple thing to find out. Just ask a bunch of pedophiles whether or not they started out gay. Do the same of those who are into bestiality and find out whether or not human ass is a gateway-drug for animal ass. I suspect that we will find that people attracted to animals/children didn't go through an "attracted to members of the same sex" phase.

However, it doesn't actually matter. The people making that argument are fully aware of how absurd it is. They are not making a rational argument. They are making an emotional argument. The people it doesn't work on don't need it explained to them and the people it does work on won't listen to the explanation.

[Claptonian]

Bestiality doesn't always involve torturing animals, so I don't think it should be illegal. I also think people should be free to marry whoever and whatever they want, and I think the government should stay out of it completely.

Why would anyone care if some random guy in Nebraska wants to have a little ceremony and call his pet parrot his wife? There are better things to worry about.

[Karamazov]

Bestiality doesn't always involve torturing animals, so I don't think it should be illegal. I also think people should be free to marry whoever and whatever they want, and I think the government should stay out of it completely.

Why would anyone care if some random guy in Nebraska wants to have a little ceremony and call his pet parrot his wife? There are better things to worry about.

Generally, nobody would care. Seeing as though animals have no legal standing, it wouldn't be recognized. Contact with animals on that level is anything but loving.

[Claptonian]

Generally, nobody would care. Seeing as though animals have no legal standing, it wouldn't be recognized.

Right, but as I said, I don't think the government should be involved at all. I don't see why "marriage" is a legal matter. I don't see why it needs to be officially recognized and I don't see why it's subsidized through tax benefits.

If the Catholic church doesn't want to recognize homosexual marriage, that's fine. If the Jones Family down the street doesn't want to recognize interracial marriage, that's fine. If the entire state of New York doesn't want to recognize the union of Jimbo and Polly the Parrot, that's fine. But the government shouldn't tell people what is and isn't marriage. Let us make up our own minds and live accordingly.

[Karamazov]

Right, but as I said, I don't think the government should be involved at all. I don't see why "marriage" is a legal matter. I don't see why it needs to be officially recognized and I don't see why it's subsidized through tax benefits.

If the Catholic church doesn't want to recognize homosexual marriage, that's fine. If the Jones Family down the street doesn't want to recognize interracial marriage, that's fine. If the entire state of New York doesn't want to recognize the union of Jimbo and Polly the Parrot, that's fine. But the government shouldn't tell people what is and isn't marriage. Let us make up our own minds and live accordingly.

Well, considering my own thoughts on the sheer "joy" of marriage and where it lexiconically fits in the legal system, it would make this discussion moot...but! let's assume, just for a moment, that I'm a big fan.

When speaking of marriage, it will always come down to 2 things: Property and the of protection bloodlines. Ancient societies needed a secure environment to perpetuate the species, so thus, it became an institution. Marriage, for the most part, was simply a contract between 2 individuals (and the community) so that they may breed and rear the next generation. Love was never a factor, for a while.

The government should never promote a specific brand of morality and enforce that upon others, I agree, however, marriage has always been formal, institutionalized and only legitimately recognized between Homo sapiens. So if Jimbo really loved Polly, he would recognize that they don't need a piece of paper to consummate their "union" together, in which case he could care less what the government says.

Anyway, to save myself from completely going off topic, there is no slippery slope, just slippery logic.

[Claptonian]

The government should never promote a specific brand of morality and enforce that upon others, I agree, however, marriage has always been formal, institutionalized and only legitimately recognized between Homo sapiens. So if Jimbo really loved Polly, he would recognize that they don't need a piece of paper to consummate their "union" together, in which case he could care less what the government says.

Wasn't marriage also originally only recognized when both members were of the same race?

I don't think it really matters what the history of marriage is. Personally, I agree with you that no one should care if the government recognizes their marriage or not. But I think that the fact that the government recognizes some relationships and not others leads to people feeling discriminated against. So, as I said before, I think the best thing would be for the government to get ouf the marriage business altogether.

Really, unless the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning to an individual, then it's just a label. It seems silly for the government to waste time deciding who gets the label and who doesn't, and the government certainly shouldn't be involved in the religious aspect of it.

[Nexus]

I don't mean to be a thread Nazi, but I just want to remind you that this thread is about examining the specific argument I outlined in the OP.

[stasis]

The reason I post this is because I want to hear what your analysis of this argument is and why it is or is not a valid one.
It isn't valid because it depends upon an essential commonality in character or class between homosexuality and bestiality or pedophilia that isn't otherwise established by the argument. This qualitative association is merely presupposed. The rational bankruptcy of such a presupposition is perhaps best illustrated by applying it to heterosexual marriage: Allow two heterosexuals to become bound together in marriage? What's next, social contract between people and necrotized ducks?!

Why would that be next?

The fact that bestiality and pedophilia seem to arise in clockwork manner whenever homosexuality is discussed politically suggests that the (unsurprising) gist of the opposition in the United States is "homosexuality is perverted," making this particular application of the argument akin to "if we start allowing things that I don't like, what's to stop more stuff that I don't like from being allowed?" That's an aesthetic argument, not an ethical one. Another reproach, then, would be to put the aesthetic argument into an ethical context: how far does the forcible imposition of distaste justly go? In what context should putting up yellow wallpaper become a crime? And that'd depend upon who is putting up the wallpaper and where. Since the basic question of homosexuality is applied to two consenting adults, the question becomes one of ascertaining what rights adults have.

It's difficult to justify the curtailing of civil rights for fashion's sake, gaudy trends or not.

[blueback]

I don't see why "marriage" is a legal matter. I don't see why it needs to be officially recognized and I don't see why it's subsidized through tax benefits.

For the same reason that school zones are "legally recognized." It helps stabilize society.

The government benefits from a predictable population and the economy benefits from people who have something to work for. Children help tie people down in one spot and encourage them to invest in the future. Therefore, it makes sense for the government to encourage people to raise children responsibly. Even the union between two people helps somewhat. Two people have a harder time doing random things than one person. So, if people are restricted to make decisions with another person they become more predictable.

There is an important difference between the religious idea of marriage and the legal one. The government doesn't care about what your religion says about marriage, they only care whether or not you have filled out the proper paper work and pay the right taxes. The gov. wants to encourage the sorts of things that generally result from marriage, so it encourages marriage with tax breaks and legal protection. That is, marriage in the legal contract sense and not in the religious sense.

So, in reference to the OP, legal marriage is about political and economic benefits. However, that doesn't mean that people won't try to abuse the legal system to enforce their own standards of morality. The anti-gay crowd recognizes that if gay unions are granted the same legal status as hetero unions it will encourage people to be openly gay. For people who think that the American legal and political system is "God's will on Earth" that is unacceptable because God hates gays. If the American government officially recognized gay unions as equal to hetero unions it would become a rallying point for all the people who are doing Satan's work.

[Lights]

First off, if anyone invokes a slippery slope, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how one event will follow from another.

If somebody argues that allowing same sex marriage will lead to polygamy and people marrying their barn animals, then they need demonstrate cases of where this has occurred in the past or some sort of evidence that supports this assessment, otherwise it is simply a fallacy.

It's even easy enough to provide evidence of the opposite. In neither of the two states in the US, nor in any of the six countries that allow same sex marriage, has there been laws passed to support polygamy or bestiality.

[zibber]

(NB: homosexuality and pedophilia are in entirely different classes. The suffix -sexuality implies (active) sexual attraction, where -philia implies general attraction. If you're comparing, homosexuality would be compared to pedosexuality and homophilia to pedophilia. (This exposes how interchangable romantic and sexual attraction apparently are in our language, but that is a different discussion altogether.))

Whether homophilia is as involuntary as pedophilia, zoophilia and other traditionally "deviant" philias seems quite irrelevant in terms of their legality, to me. What matters here is whether it is ethically acceptable, right? Whether pedophilia and zoophilia are ethically acceptable are two different discussions in their own right, well removed from this debate.

I'm not going to rehash what others have already pointed out, but I will point out this trap: "Homosexuality" usually refers to men engaging in relationships with other men, while "pedophilia" and "bestiality" generally refer, in popular speech, to creeps fucking kids and animals, respectively. In order to properly compare homophilia to pedophilia and zoophilia, however, which the slippery slopers claim to be doing, the pedophiles and zoophiles in question should have counterparts. A homophilic relationship consists of two homophiles, while active pedophilia and zoophilia are expressed by single pedophiles and zoophiles to children and animals who at best consent. If you find me a couple consisting of one pedophile and a minor who is attracted to adults in the same way that the pedophile is attracted to minors, we can compare. This is actually not that outlandish, so a pure comparison is feasible, but in the case of zoophilia you'd run into some trouble trying to answer my demand.

The hole in this argument is "What if an underage child (say 14 years old) consents to a relationship with a 27 year old?" If both parties consent, then by your line of reasoning there is no harm, and thus it is acceptable despite it still qualifying as pedophilia.

This is interesting, as I do believe this debate hinges on whether both (or indeed all) parties consent. The problem with your criticism is that "consent" has an entirely different meaning when we're talking about a (possibly drugged) minor that has been manipulated into something they don't fully understand, and a fully consenting adult. (It is also quite vital to note that two homosexual adults are a hell of a lot more equal mentally than one adult and one minor.)

(Possibly off topic!) Luckily, most places have fairly reasonable laws about the proper age of consent. My biggest problem with these laws, however, as with most laws, is the utter lack of nuance. What if one particularly mature and intelligent 12-year-old is mentally more qualified to consent to sex than a backwards, shitfaced 24-year-old? If consenting means "agreeing while aware of all the implications of what you are consenting to", it is a problematic term. Who really is fully aware of the consequences sex may have? What dire consequences does unforced pedosexual sex have, anyway? Everyone always assumes the child will be broken forever, but since this is such an emotional topic, causing even the most calm and reasonable people to go by their knee-jerk, gut reaction, I'm interested in seeing some solid research on that. This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is the first Google hit following the query "consequences of pedosexual relations" which, however propagandistic and biased it seems to be, offers a different perspective.

[stasis]

Whether pedophilia and zoophilia are ethically acceptable are two different discussions in their own right, well removed from this debate.
While I agree that these subjects are properly removed, the "Person 2" argument in the OP does attempt to bind them to homosexuality by presupposing a commonality in quality between all these things and then using that supposed commonality to portray homosexuality as an almost causal portent of the other two. That's (seems to be) the entirety of the problem presented.

[zibber]

While I agree that these subjects are properly removed, the "Person 2" argument in the OP does attempt to bind them to homosexuality by presupposing a commonality in quality between all these things and then using that supposed commonality to portray homosexuality as an almost causal portent of the other two. That's (seems to be) the entirety of the problem presented.

True, and I added some chunks to my post indicating why presupposing that commonality can be so problematic!

[Undead Bonzi]

Person 1: Homosexuality isn't a choice

So what if homosexuality is a choice? Do we then have the right to spank someone and take away their birthday because they made the choice of being homosexual? The few 'out' homosexuals I know prefer to call it a choice. Why? Because if you say it isn't a choice then it is a disease or flaw and can be treated as a favor to those poor souls who are afflicted. You can't 'treat' or 'cure' a choice, it simply is.

In my mind it doesn't matter if it is a choice or if it isn't. What someone else does in their relationship is their buisness, not mine. I have no right or reasonable justification to tell a gay couple that they can't be together. Now at the same time I do recognize a churches right to deny a marraige that goes against it's beliefs, but a government does not have the right to use its power to impose a religious moral on ithe general population.

[stasis]

You can't 'treat' or 'cure' a choice, it simply is.
Hm? Presuming the choice in question is something that warrants reversion, of course an effort can be made to correct it. Especially if the choice being made is arbitrary. The values that informed the choice can be assailed, the line of reasoning that terminated in the choice can be reconditioned, and the choice itself as an action can be counteracted.

[Undead Bonzi]

Hm? Presuming the choice in question is something that warrants reversion, of course an effort can be made to correct it. Especially if the choice being made is arbitrary. The values that informed the choice can be assailed, the line of reasoning that terminated in the choice can be reconditioned, and the choice itself as an action can be counteracted.


Outside of splitting hairs, the difference of implication between homosexuality as a choice and as a condition are obvious and I can understand why many homosexuals prefer to claim it is a choice.

[stasis]

the difference of implication between homosexuality as a choice and as a condition are obvious
False dichotomy.

[127001]

Person 2: If we become tolerant of homosexuality, then why not pedophilia or bestiality? After all, pedophiles say that it's not a choice for them. They can't change who they are. They were just "born that way." If you're going to accept one group for that reason, then you should be tolerant of all of them.

That one's easy to refute: children and animals are incapable of giving consent.

Two consenting adults should be allowed to live as they may, provided that it doesn't infringe upon any other adult's right to do the same.

[Undead Bonzi]

I am not pointing out the 'truth' of the situation. I am pointing out how it seems to be seen by the general public and by the limited homosexual community that I have contact with. It is indeed a false dichotomy, yet if people take action on or belive in something (whether it is true or false), it still has effect. Lies can make the world turn if you get enough people to believe in them.

[Antisocialite]

So what if homosexuality is a choice? Do we then have the right to spank someone and take away their birthday because they made the choice of being homosexual? The few 'out' homosexuals I know prefer to call it a choice. Why? Because if you say it isn't a choice then it is a disease or flaw and can be treated as a favor to those poor souls who are afflicted. You can't 'treat' or 'cure' a choice, it simply is.

In my mind it doesn't matter if it is a choice or if it isn't. What someone else does in their relationship is their buisness, not mine. I have no right or reasonable justification to tell a gay couple that they can't be together. Now at the same time I do recognize a churches right to deny a marraige that goes against it's beliefs, but a government does not have the right to use its power to impose a religious moral on ithe general population.

That issue has always intrigued me. If I were a lesbian, I would tell people that I chose to be gay just to thumb my nose at this judgemental-ass society.

Oh, on topic, I do think it's a choice in some cases. And I don't think anyone is born gay, though. No one's born heterosexual either. I think that those who say that homosexuality wasn't a choice for them, were simply recipients of reverse gender-role nurturing as children because heterosexuality, in my opinion, is the result of standard (societal) gender-role nurturing.

And then there's child abuse to consider, which some have claimed as the thing that enforced their homosexuality. It's different for each person, I think.

Oh and I agree with the thing about a church's right and the gay couple's right under law.

[Lights]

That issue has always intrigued me. If I were a lesbian, I would tell people that I chose to be gay just to thumb my nose at this judgemental-ass society.

Oh, on topic, I do think it's a choice in some cases. And I don't think anyone is born gay, though. No one's born heterosexual either. I think that those who say that homosexuality wasn't a choice for them, were simply recipients of reverse gender-role nurturing as children because heterosexuality, in my opinion, is the result of standard (societal) gender-role nurturing.

And then there's child abuse to consider, which some have claimed as the thing that enforced their homosexuality. It's different for each person, I think.

Oh and I agree with the thing about a church's right and the gay couple's right under law.

And yet there are still homosexuals who were raised in highly traditional fashion in normal nuclear families. Believe me, when you have lived in Utah and Idaho and watch these people from LDS families come out, you really have to wonder how strong the biological factors are because they were in no way raised in "reverse gender-role nurturing". And of course, the fact that they are often ostracized by their families and community when they do come out doesn't lend much credence to the "choice" theory.

I think it is usually a mixture of biological, psychological, and societal factors to different degrees within different individuals. Arguing that its completely biological, behavioral, or societal in most cases is ludicrous.

[Supreme Dick]

Homosexuality is still a controversial topic, especially in the United States. This debate typically takes place between liberal progressives and conservative groups, including the religious right. One of the most common arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage is the slippery slope argument...



Homosexuality is still a controversial topic? You can't be serious. It's still a convenient and high profile "wedge" issue for cranking up the religious right and getting them into action on election day, but even that is fading with time. Apart from that its about as controversial as human rights for minorities and women. The ship sailed on this one about a quarter century ago.

The best evidence for this is, as you say, that one of the most common arguments against ... is the slippery slope argument ... which is just about as desperate, weak and convoluted an argument as you can get.

[Karamazov]

Homosexuality is still a controversial topic? You can't be serious. It's still a convenient and high profile "wedge" issue for cranking up the religious right and getting them into action on election day, but even that is fading with time. Apart from that its about as controversial as human rights for minorities and women. The ship sailed on this one about a quarter century ago.

The best evidence for this is, as you say, that one of the most common arguments against ... is the slippery slope argument ... which is just about as desperate, weak and convoluted an argument as you can get.

Agreed. I wish it was simple as finding that hospital room where this decrepit body of an issue rests between intermittent states of consciousness and unconsciousness, and just pull the plug.

[Antisocialite]

And yet there are still homosexuals who were raised in highly traditional fashion in normal nuclear families. Believe me, when you have lived in Utah and Idaho and watch these people from LDS families come out, you really have to wonder how strong the biological factors are because they were in no way raised in "reverse gender-role nurturing". And of course, the fact that they are often ostracized by their families and community when they do come out doesn't lend much credence to the "choice" theory.

I think it is usually a mixture of biological, psychological, and societal factors to different degrees within different individuals. Arguing that its completely biological, behavioral, or societal in most cases is ludicrous.

I'm not talking about the type of family they grew up in, necessarily. It really has more to do with the gender-roles that are nurtured with a each child. Perfect example, I grew up with this guy who came out when we were in high school. We were raised in the same neighborhood and attended the same stringently fundie church (Southern Baptist) BUT he was raised alone by his smothering grandmother who was the long-running Women's Mission president that spent the majority of my friend's childhood in all-female Mission meetings which she forced him to attend, in the beginning. I attended many of those meetings because my mom was on the Mission board for a while, but you'd only find girls tagging along with the adults to those meetings. He was the only boy child I'd ever noticed that was there for every single meeting for nearly two decades. He was 'petitioned' to leave the group when it got around that he wanted to run for Women's Mission president because his grandmother had resigned.

He was socialized, very much so, like a female in the community we grew up in and I do think that had a lot to do with his homosexuality.

There's no need for homosexuality to be anything but a choice. Science has yet to prove that it's anything but a choice. I just think folks are too afraid of the judgement of others, so much so that they look for some kind of immunity in their biological make-up.

[Shakyamuni]

Here is another slippery slope. This time the other way around. Sorry to go slightly off topic, but it would be interesting to see a refutation of both the OP and this.



Two consenting adults should be allowed to live as they may, provided that it doesn't infringe upon any other adult's right to do the same.

This is based on the assumption that you live in a western democracy with basic rights and freedoms. The underlying assumption is that the government has already given people the right to do as they please as long as it isn't detrimental to society. People can spit on the street and chew gum without being arrested as these are considered harmless activities. We may view them as disgusting, or a bad influence on our children, but there is no direct harm to society. Similarly, provided the gays involved are consenting adult they do not harm anyone in society by their relationship. Nevertheless, one could argue that society (depending on where you live) views the homosexual relationship as disgusting, or a bad influence on their children. Again, there is no direct harm to society, so by virtue of the individual rights granted by most western democratic governments, gay marriage should similarly be made legal if it isn't already. For this slippery slope, if you allow the one (spitting), then why shouldn't you allow the other (gay marriage).

However, let us consider if basic rights are not granted to the citizenry, for example in the case of an authoritarian system. In this case, I can't possibly see why anyone would expect to be granted marriage to a member of the same sex if other civil liberties are restricted such as freedom of speech.

[Antisocialite]

Here is another slippery slope. This time the other way around. Sorry to go slightly off topic, but it would be interesting to see a refutation of both the OP and this.



This is based on the assumption that you live in a western democracy with basic rights and freedoms. The underlying assumption is that the government has already given people the right to do as they please as long as it isn't detrimental to society. People can spit on the street and chew gum without being arrested as these are considered harmless activities. We may view them as disgusting, or a bad influence on our children, but there is no direct harm to society. Similarly, provided the gays involved are consenting adult they do not harm anyone in society by their relationship. Nevertheless, one could argue that society (depending on where you live) views the homosexual relationship as disgusting, or a bad influence on their children. Again, there is no direct harm to society, so by virtue of the individual rights granted by most western democratic governments, gay marriage should similarly be made legal if it isn't already. For this slippery slope, if you allow the one (spitting), then why shouldn't you allow the other (gay marriage).

However, let us consider if basic rights are not granted to the citizenry, for example in the case of an authoritarian system. In this case, I can't possibly see why anyone would expect to be granted marriage to a member of the same sex if other civil liberties are restricted such as freedom of speech.

I think the discussion is about the rights all humans should have.

[Brutananadilewski]

I think the discussion is about the rights all humans should have.

By what standard can you verify these "should haves" as truly being immutable?

[Shakyamuni]

By what standard can you verify these "should haves" as truly being immutable?

Haha. you beat me to it Brutananadilewski.

"should" is based upon the society we are brought up in. In a democracy, yes, if we give x y z rights based upon freedom of choice, expression etc. then it stands to reason that we should also give freedom of choice regarding sexual orientation.

But, my point is this is based upon rights given in a democracy! If you say "should" (i think) this is based on your inherent belief in what you believe is moral. What another person believes is immoral could be sticking your cock up another man's ass (pardon the vulgarity but it is a good attention grabber). I think we should leave morality out of this discussion. How is one to determine which is the "better" morality? You can't, so let us leave it alone.

[NephilimAzrael]

If one sexual preference brings about the inclination to experiment with other forms, why does it surprise anyone that homosexuality should emerge, considering heterosexuality has been widely endorsed for millenia. Is it not possible with such an increase in population and increase in the standard of living that we can dismiss certain comfort zones in light of new options sexually. It is even true that reported paedophilia has risen, yet paedosexual practice is as prevalent as it has always been, just now with a new sense of expression is reported on occurrence.

[Lights]

I'm not talking about the type of family they grew up in, necessarily. It really has more to do with the gender-roles that are nurtured with a each child. Perfect example, I grew up with this guy who came out when we were in high school. We were raised in the same neighborhood and attended the same stringently fundie church (Southern Baptist) BUT he was raised alone by his smothering grandmother who was the long-running Women's Mission president that spent the majority of my friend's childhood in all-female Mission meetings which she forced him to attend, in the beginning. I attended many of those meetings because my mom was on the Mission board for a while, but you'd only find girls tagging along with the adults to those meetings. He was the only boy child I'd ever noticed that was there for every single meeting for nearly two decades. He was 'petitioned' to leave the group when it got around that he wanted to run for Women's Mission president because his grandmother had resigned.

He was socialized, very much so, like a female in the community we grew up in and I do think that had a lot to do with his homosexuality.

He was raised by a smothering grandmother. I'm talking about gay people who were raised in very traditional nuclear families to follow very traditional gender roles. I'm sure in some cases you are right, but certainly not all or most. If you were, then gay people would only come from families like the one you mentioned in your example. However, I have literally met dozens of gay people who came from two parent homes and who were raised in a traditional fashion, so the gender role argument can't possibly apply to them.

There's no need for homosexuality to be anything but a choice. Science has yet to prove that it's anything but a choice. I just think folks are too afraid of the judgement of others, so much so that they look for some kind of immunity in their biological make-up.

The twin studies, the creation of homosexual animals in the laboratory via altering hormones, and other scientific endeavors do provide strong evidence that it isn't just choice. While I agree with you that for some people it is largely choice and that very few people are truly born gay, to suggest that so many gay people would voluntarily choose to be persecuted and ostracized by their family and friends is ludicrous. I understand where you are coming from, but the reality is that telling a very religious family that you are "born gay" doesn't hold much weight, and many gay people would love very much to be attracted to the opposite sex for the sake of pleasing their family and friends. To suggest that they choose to be the way they are and to suggest that they have chosen to go through so much pain and to put the people who love them through so much pain, is very offensive. There is credible evidence to support that biology is a factor, and to outright dismiss it as an "excuse" in all or even most cases makes no sense whatsoever.

I can also tell you that I was never raised to be anything but a boy. I was told all the same thing boys are told, such as to never cry, to stand up for yourself, to never take shit from anybody, and so forth. I also mostly hung out with boys. So I don't see how your gender role theory applies to me. I also certainly didn't choose to be attracted to the same sex. I've just been that way since I was a young kid before I even hit puberty.

To be honest, the whole "blame how they were raised" argument is rather old and outdated. I think Freud was the first to suggest it and it has been adopted by NARTH since then. NARTH is obviously religiously biased, as is apparent by their refusal to release studies that don't support their position because they love to argue that homosexuality is a developmental disorder that can be treated.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[hypervel]

I'll see your gay marriage, and raise you polygamy.

[Lights]

I'll see your gay marriage, and raise you polygamy.

At least polygamy is supported by the Bible.

[hypervel]

Agreed. I know how to get what I want....