- Joined
- Jun 30, 2019
- Posts
- 250
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 531
- Points
- 138
- Location
- Dallas (Oregon, United States)
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I want to discuss the matter philosophically as politics is a no-go. So what are your thoughts?
Why “yes”? Why is the right assumed?Do People Have The Right To Be Anything Other Than Straight?
This isn't a discussion. The answer is Yes.
Why is it nonsense?This is nonsense on so many levels.
This isn't a discussion.Why “yes”? Why is the right assumed?
Don't fall into his trap. I am VERY concerned about his second question.It isn't a choice.
Why isn’t that a discussion? Are rights supposed to be sacred?This isn't a discussion.
It seems you are the one who assume people do not have that right. So you tell me and the world why they don't.
You didn't answer my question. Or rather you sidestepped what I am looking from you.Why isn’t that a discussion? Are rights supposed to be sacred?
If you want to discuss this philosophically, you should not have chosen such an illogical and inane title. This has the appearance of a post made in bad faith, and the onus is on you to prove otherwise, @SmallteaplantI want to discuss the matter philosophically as politics is a no-go. So what are your thoughts?
This isn't a discussion.
It seems you are the one who assume people do not have that right. So you tell me and the world why they don't.
I agree with you. Even if a guy professes as straight but has thoughts of being with another guy, was born with inclinations. I don't think it's EVER a conscious choice. It's not like you wake up one day and go, geez I think I'll start being with a man occasionally. Even if they have never been with a man, the thought process in already inherent and there. This is for identifying straight guys that do have those thoughts. Like you, I don't understand the confusion. A guy that is straight COMPLETELY, is inherently straight from birth. What needs to be understood but sadly isn't is it goes the other way as well.It isn't a choice.
With the exception of being able to bear a child, what makes you say homosexual unions do not provide society or the government any resources etc..... There are plenty of gay man who adopt children that many straight couples wouldn't think of adopting. Or even if the child considered for adoption is 100% healthy etc., what makes you say that? Gay couples want the same things as hetero couples in every aspect and want equal rights, that's all. Not more, and certainly not less.I am more agnostic on this question. It assumes that rights are guaranteed to the individual regardless of circumstances. Secondly, homosexual unions do no provide society or the government any resources when compared to heterosexual unions.
I see you mentioned agnosticism and I noticed you mentioned "sacred" before. Which is odd to me because neither were being mentioned or discussed. I mean, I'm agnostic as well.I am more agnostic on this question. It assumes that rights are guaranteed to the individual regardless of circumstances. Secondly, homosexual unions do no provide society or the government any resources when compared to heterosexual unions.
I am more agnostic on this question. It assumes that rights are guaranteed to the individual regardless of circumstances. Secondly, homosexual unions do no provide society or the government any resources when compared to heterosexual unions.
I see you mentioned agnosticism and I noticed you mentioned "sacred" before. Which is odd to me because neither were being mentioned or discussed. I mean, I'm agnostic as well.
I don't quite understand what you mean about "IT assumes that rights are guaranteed to the individual regardless of circumstances" What assumes that? What is "It"?
Homosexual unions do not provide society or the government ANY resources when compared to heterosexual unions? I hope you actually mean they don't provide THE EXACT SAME?
Okay. I see. So therefore you feel people don't have the right to BE anything other than straight? Is that your final a
This is either nonsensical or a bad faith argument. Either way, I’m out.By sacred, I mean do people should be able to discuss whether rights exist and whether they are granted to everyone.
By it, I meant the premise of your question. You’re starting from the premise that everyone has rights.
For the last half, I meant what I said. Heterosexual unions provides societies and governments future workers, tax base, and army pawns.
People can be whatever they want.
By sacred, I mean do people should be able to discuss whether rights exist and whether they are granted to everyone.
By it, I meant the premise of your question. You’re starting from the premise that everyone has rights.
People can be whatever they want.
I'm confused by the question. Can you be more specific? Are you asking whether homosexuality is more of a function of nature versus nurture? If so, than that's a debate that can go on forever! People have literally written books on that issue, as well as volumes of research on that issue. So that's not a debate that's going away anytime soon.I want to discuss the matter philosophically as politics is a no-go. So what are your thoughts?