Is consciously chosen homosexuality more valid than congenital homosexuality? Do people have the right to be anything other than straight?

Cum_is_Great

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
5,281
Media
95
Likes
11,781
Points
493
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Why “yes”? Why is the right assumed?
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.
 

Cum_is_Great

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
5,281
Media
95
Likes
11,781
Points
493
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Why isn’t that a discussion? Are rights supposed to be sacred?
You didn't answer my question. Or rather you sidestepped what I am looking from you.
 

Twunkening

Experimental Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 7, 2023
Posts
2
Media
0
Likes
22
Points
103
Location
Toronto, Ontario, CA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
I want to discuss the matter philosophically as politics is a no-go. So what are your thoughts?
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, @Smallteaplant

First, you should not have started with baseless assumptions, as they are invalid from the start. Your question is nonsense because of this. Begin with the below questions, and start proving you are acting in good faith.

Is a consciously-chosen straight lifestyle more valid than congenital homosexuality? In what value system would a society force one to choose a lifestyle over their congenital sexuality? Given there is no evidence sexuality is "chosen," what kind of damage does the narrative of choosing a sexuality do to peoples around the world? Where did this narrative arise?
Do governments have the right to police sexual relationships between consenting adults?
Should governments intercede in marriages made out of anything but love? To what degree should secular society reclaim marriage as a legal process and not a religious one?
How far are we willing to take genetics in a discussion of human rights? How have our forebearers misused genetics to root out persecuted demographics? How can we learn from past crimes to safeguard human rights in the future?

Take your time.
 

Smallteaplant

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Posts
250
Media
0
Likes
531
Points
138
Location
Dallas (Oregon, United States)
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
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 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.
 

Stephenmass

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Posts
2,589
Media
2
Likes
2,254
Points
333
Location
Boston
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
It isn't a choice.
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.
 

Stephenmass

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Posts
2,589
Media
2
Likes
2,254
Points
333
Location
Boston
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
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.
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.
 

Cum_is_Great

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
5,281
Media
95
Likes
11,781
Points
493
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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 answer?
 

englad

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Posts
2,881
Media
28
Likes
7,904
Points
468
Location
Germany
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

If you are going to get that utilitarian a perspective on this, you could argue that same sex couples are far more financially beneficial than opposite sex couples because generally people are most expensive at the beginning and end of their lives, and the financial costs of having children mean that plenty of parents of any orientation do not have anywhere near the same level of disposable income to put back into the economy. But fundamentally, that viewpoint seems a bit fascist. Supporting and caring for each other is what brought us from being an unusually hairless and sweaty bipedal hominid confined mostly to the Great Rift Valley to inhabiting every continent on earth except Antarctica.

There are also so many factors that are completely glossed over in that lazy bollocksy analysis of yours, like the existence of bisexual, asexual, and trans people, the hefty number of gay couples who adopt or go through surrogacy/IVF, the large (and growing number) of opposite sex couples who either can't or don't want to conceive.

Fundamentally, sex is primarily based on pleasure and connection, pregnancy is just one outcome of one form of sex people have.
 

Smallteaplant

Loved Member
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 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?

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.

Okay. I see. So therefore you feel people don't have the right to BE anything other than straight? Is that your final a

People can be whatever they want.
 

MarioGolden

Legendary Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jul 31, 2023
Posts
369
Media
0
Likes
1,015
Points
428
Location
Muncie, IN, USA
Sexuality
Unsure
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.
This is either nonsensical or a bad faith argument. Either way, I’m out.
 

Cum_is_Great

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2006
Posts
5,281
Media
95
Likes
11,781
Points
493
Location
Connecticut (United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
By sacred, I mean do people should be able to discuss whether rights exist and whether they are granted to everyone.

You lost me. This is a different topic than what you originally asked.

By it, I meant the premise of your question. You’re starting from the premise that everyone has rights.

I didn't ask any questions so I don't have a premise. You did. I wanted to know where YOU came from and YOUR premise because no one asks the questions you asked unless they had some differenting viewpoint that they don't agree with the general public.

People can be whatever they want.

This is a statement, though not answering my actual question of clarification. So I ask again, is it for the reasons you stated above that you question that "people have the right to BE anything other than straight"?

By the way, unions aren't what the original question was about. All these problems I and others have seen show this is a bad faith argument. You may not have meant to, and we all learn on our own pace to improve but people do not generally like it when questions are loaded and assumptions are made before being able to even answer the question. This comes across as you asking a question and wanting to use answers as evidence to fuel a different topic you may be engaged with. Somewhat deceptive and the ulterior motives shine through.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MisterB

Blondeblowjob7

Loved Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Posts
190
Media
0
Likes
705
Points
323
Location
Springfield, MO, USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I want to discuss the matter philosophically as politics is a no-go. So what are your thoughts?
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.