Is homosexuality a choice? (Improved OP)

[The Nuclear Fist]

Going to need a scientific source for that.

Human being can decide to not have sex.
Sex is a choice.
Even though our genetics greatly encourage us to have sex.
Eviourmental factors can cause us to not want sex.
They can also be changed and controlled.

You can't just pull things out of your ass and assume we'll believe them, no offense. Please provide a scientific source for your claims.

[Lessnt]

And a man can have kids and **** a child.
Yet many would say this is wrong.
Why is this wrong and not homosexuality?
Why is ****ing animals wrong?
Why is ****ing corpses wrong?
What is next?

Because an adult male can give informed consent. An animal cannot. A corpse cannot. And a child DEFINITELY cannot.

A child can.It has been done so in the past.
The only reason it is outlawed is the same reason why homosexuality use to be outlawed.
Many *children* continue to give consent even today.

[Frayham]

And a man can have kids and **** a child.
Yet many would say this is wrong.
Why is this wrong and not homosexuality?
Why is ****ing animals wrong?
Why is ****ing corpses wrong?
What is next?

because fucking a little kid can cause gnarly emotional trauma to that child and fuck their lives up real hard where as homosexually, in general, does not.

and who said fucking corpses is wrong

[Lessnt]

And a man can have kids and **** a child.
Yet many would say this is wrong.
Why is this wrong and not homosexuality?
Why is ****ing animals wrong?
Why is ****ing corpses wrong?
What is next?

because fucking a little kid can cause gnarly emotional trauma to that child and fuck their lives up real hard where as homosexually, in general, does not.

and who said fucking corpses is wrong

The emotional trauma comes from being raped or assaulted.
Sorry but that is the truth.
It is not as if a child has sex suddenly = trauma.
If they understand it.
If they consent.
There is no trauma.

[United States of Cascadia]

Because an adult male can give informed consent. An animal cannot. A corpse cannot. And a child DEFINITELY cannot.

A child can.It has been done so in the past.
The only reason it is outlawed is the same reason why homosexuality use to be outlawed.
Many *children* continue to give consent even today.

Please read what I said again.

[Franco-Philia]

As long as there are people, homosexuality will always be questioned.

Not really, the idea of doing so is really an invention of the 18th and 19th centuries. In Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, however, there was a very much different attitude, Emperors were openly homosexual, and in Ancient Greece the hero Iolaus was the homosexual lover of Heracles, and gay couples would visit his shrine to make their vows.

As much as I am a lover of anything that supports gays, this is really historical revisionism. In Greece and Rome, homosexuality as we understand it didn't exist. That is to say, there was no concept of a defined homosexual orientation. The laws forbade homosexual intercourse for citizens in Rome, except for slaves which it was ok to penetrate (bascially the law allowed for the rape of slaves). Also, in Greece it was pederasty that was praised and I really don't want to use pedophilia as an example of tolerance. Also, the facts are just not there to support that Greece had any sort of recognition that vows between homosexual couples anything akin to a marriage or union of any sort were publically recognized, particularly in a religious setting. There is some evidence, but it is shaky at best. There were emperors and prominent mythological characters that had a homosexual flavor to them, but it hardly shows societal acceptance for the act outside the aforemention cases of rape or in the cases of privelaged emperors who didn't have to worry about societal pressures as much as a commoner.

[Maurepas]

Because an adult male can give informed consent. An animal cannot. A corpse cannot. And a child DEFINITELY cannot.

A child can.It has been done so in the past.
The only reason it is outlawed is the same reason why homosexuality use to be outlawed.
Many *children* continue to give consent even today.

I believe "Informed Consent" was the term he was looking for, a child doesn't have fully developed reasoning capabilities, ergo he or she cannot give consent.

And you didn't even address the rest of your slippery slope fallacy. One does wonder why every segregationist brings up the very same fallacy in defense of their arguments.

[Zebbstar]

I believe

Its just how you are
You can't help it

[Maurepas]

Not really, the idea of doing so is really an invention of the 18th and 19th centuries. In Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece, however, there was a very much different attitude, Emperors were openly homosexual, and in Ancient Greece the hero Iolaus was the homosexual lover of Heracles, and gay couples would visit his shrine to make their vows.

As much as I am a lover of anything that supports gays, this is really historical revisionism. In Greece and Rome, homosexuality as we understand it didn't exist. That is to say, there was no concept of a defined homosexual orientation. The laws forbade homosexual intercourse for citizens in Rome, except for slaves which it was ok to penetrate (bascially the law allowed for the rape of slaves). Also, in Greece it was pederasty that was praised and I really don't want to use pedophilia as an example of tolerance. Also, the facts are just not there to support that Greece had any sort of recognition that vows between homosexual couples anything akin to a marriage or union of any sort were publically recognized, particularly in a religious setting. There is some evidence, but it is shaky at best. There were emperors and prominent mythological characters that had a homosexual flavor to them, but it hardly shows societal acceptance for the act outside the aforemention cases of rape or in the cases of privelaged emperors who didn't have to worry about societal pressures as much as a commoner.

Well, the legal system wasn't there to accomodate it as we'd understand it today, like I said that's a modern invention. Gay relationships weren't viewed out of the ordinary in that time period. Yes, in Greece they were usually paedophilic, but it doesn't change the fact that male on male relationships were indeed common.

Further the idea of marriage at the time would've been mostly useless to a commoner of the period. Only the upperclass had a need for the contract, due to the need to pass down land, and add to their fortunes.

It's not revisionism to say that "homosexuality" was accepted in the Ancient world, it definitively was, it's not just "some" heroes, it's a great deal of them, Heracles, Achilles, Iolaus, Odyseus, etc., nearly all of the Gods. The problem is they didn't render a distinction, and the social contract of marriage was for land and other inheritence.

Would it be revisionism to apply modern terms of marriage and sexuality to them? Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.

[Centraliza]

[Post Deleted by Author.]

[Lessnt]

A child can.It has been done so in the past.
The only reason it is outlawed is the same reason why homosexuality use to be outlawed.
Many *children* continue to give consent even today.

Please read what I said again.

because a child can be INFORMED.
or do you believe that children cannot learn and understand?

[Maurepas]

Please read what I said again.

because a child can be INFORMED.
or do you believe that children cannot learn and understand?

Children physically lack a fully develop brain. "Learning and understanding" are irrelevant.

[Franco-Philia]

As much as I am a lover of anything that supports gays, this is really historical revisionism. In Greece and Rome, homosexuality as we understand it didn't exist. That is to say, there was no concept of a defined homosexual orientation. The laws forbade homosexual intercourse for citizens in Rome, except for slaves which it was ok to penetrate (bascially the law allowed for the rape of slaves). Also, in Greece it was pederasty that was praised and I really don't want to use pedophilia as an example of tolerance. Also, the facts are just not there to support that Greece had any sort of recognition that vows between homosexual couples anything akin to a marriage or union of any sort were publically recognized, particularly in a religious setting. There is some evidence, but it is shaky at best. There were emperors and prominent mythological characters that had a homosexual flavor to them, but it hardly shows societal acceptance for the act outside the aforemention cases of rape or in the cases of privelaged emperors who didn't have to worry about societal pressures as much as a commoner.

Well, the legal system wasn't there to accomodate it as we'd understand it today, like I said that's a modern invention. Gay relationships weren't viewed out of the ordinary in that time period. Yes, in Greece they were usually paedophilic, but it doesn't change the fact that male on male relationships were indeed common.

Further the idea of marriage at the time would've been mostly useless to a commoner of the period. Only the upperclass had a need for the contract, due to the need to pass down land, and add to their fortunes.

It's not revisionism to say that "homosexuality" was accepted in the Ancient world, it definitively was, it's not just "some" heroes, it's a great deal of them, Heracles, Achilles, Iolaus, Odyseus, etc., nearly all of the Gods. The problem is they didn't render a distinction, and the social contract of marriage was for land and other inheritence.

Would it be revisionism to apply modern terms of marriage and sexuality to them? Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.

The myths though often contain things that were taboo in the culture itself. What the gods do are not always things the mortals do. Zeus was a philanderer, does that mean adultery was completely acceptable to the Greeks? Artemis was a fighter, a warrior, ever virgin and a badass, does that mean women in ancient Greece weren't opressed and the culture patriarchal? Hermes was an accomplished thief. Aphrodite cheated on her huband...often.

Also, again, it was pederasty that was the most oft praised, not simple homosexual relations. Many Greek theatre pieces and poems describe pederastic love in detail, but that is not something I want associated with homosexuality between consenting adults.

And again, the passive partner in the homosexual relationship was considered immoral because de-masculinzation was a horrible concept to the culture.

I'm just saying that the idea of a homosexuality-accepting Greece or Rome is something akin to the idea of pre-patriarchy matriarchal theories. They have certain grains of truth but are largely not based in hard fact.

[Four-sided Triangles]

because a child can be INFORMED.
or do you believe that children cannot learn and understand?

Informed consent is more complex than you think it is. There's still an active debate in the philosophy and medical ethics communities over exactly how to define it.

Needless to say, very few children would fit its requirements. Assuming that a small number actually do, it's still far better for the majority of children if we just have an unambiguous, blanket ban on child/adult sexual relationships.

[Lessnt]

because a child can be INFORMED.
or do you believe that children cannot learn and understand?

Children physically lack a fully develop brain. "Learning and understanding" are irrelevant.

18 year olds lack a fully developed brain and yet it is OK?

[Xercon]

It is not a choice as I would rather be gay than straight. (Ever tried dealing with women? It's awful I tells ya.)
Sadly I still find myself attracted to the opposite sex.

It certainly isn't a mental disorder, as a disorder is something that harms the self and others and homosexuality does neither.

It is not genetics as genetics suggests that if you have homosexual relatives you are likely to be gay and that there is a gay gene that can be isolated, which is provably untrue.

Hence why I voted "other".

[Maurepas]

Children physically lack a fully develop brain. "Learning and understanding" are irrelevant.

18 year olds lack a fully developed brain and yet it is OK?

For some things, yes, but that is the arbitrary line society places it at. Personally I'd say that is far too young to marry or anything like that.

But that has nothing to do with my point, which was that a child cannot consent because they don't have fully developed reasoning capabilities. Your strawman does not dispute that.

[United States of Cascadia]

Children physically lack a fully develop brain. "Learning and understanding" are irrelevant.

18 year olds lack a fully developed brain and yet it is OK?

But an 18 year old (hopefully) understands the consequences of sex, both physical, emotional, or otherwise.

[Maurepas]

Well, the legal system wasn't there to accomodate it as we'd understand it today, like I said that's a modern invention. Gay relationships weren't viewed out of the ordinary in that time period. Yes, in Greece they were usually paedophilic, but it doesn't change the fact that male on male relationships were indeed common.

Further the idea of marriage at the time would've been mostly useless to a commoner of the period. Only the upperclass had a need for the contract, due to the need to pass down land, and add to their fortunes.

It's not revisionism to say that "homosexuality" was accepted in the Ancient world, it definitively was, it's not just "some" heroes, it's a great deal of them, Heracles, Achilles, Iolaus, Odyseus, etc., nearly all of the Gods. The problem is they didn't render a distinction, and the social contract of marriage was for land and other inheritence.

Would it be revisionism to apply modern terms of marriage and sexuality to them? Yes, but that's not what I'm saying.

The myths though often contain things that were taboo in the culture itself. What the gods do are not always things the mortals do. Zeus was a philanderer, does that mean adultery was completely acceptable to the Greeks? Artemis was a fighter, a warrior, ever virgin and a badass, does that mean women in ancient Greece weren't opressed and the culture patriarchal? Hermes was an accomplished thief. Aphrodite cheated on her huband...often.

Also, again, it was pederasty that was the most oft praised, not simple homosexual relations. Many Greek theatre pieces and poems describe pederastic love in detail, but that is not something I want associated with homosexuality between consenting adults.

And again, the passive partner in the homosexual relationship was considered immoral because de-masculinzation was a horrible concept to the culture.

I'm just saying that the idea of a homosexuality-accepting Greece or Rome is something akin to the idea of pre-patriarchy matriarchal theories. They have certain grains of truth but are largely not based in hard fact.

If you say so, I think you're simply trying to put a victorian value on an ancient society. I'm merely stating the fact that the sexual urge being present was never disputed in their society, whether they considered it moral or not was never the issue, nor whether they considered the "top" or "bottom" to be preferrable being the issue neither.

You have to keep in mind, the post I was responding to was talking about the "Choice" or "Not a Choice" argument, not whether it was moral, or the legal nuances, or what have you.

[Lessnt]

18 year olds lack a fully developed brain and yet it is OK?

For some things, yes, but that is the arbitrary line society places it at. Personally I'd say that is far too young to marry or anything like that.

But that has nothing to do with my point, which was that a child cannot consent because they don't have fully developed reasoning capabilities. Your strawman does not dispute that.

18 year olds still have not fully developped their reasoning capabilities.

[United States of Cascadia]

For some things, yes, but that is the arbitrary line society places it at. Personally I'd say that is far too young to marry or anything like that.

But that has nothing to do with my point, which was that a child cannot consent because they don't have fully developed reasoning capabilities. Your strawman does not dispute that.

18 year olds still have not fully developped their reasoning capabilities.

That's better than the almost none that most children have.

[Maurepas]

For some things, yes, but that is the arbitrary line society places it at. Personally I'd say that is far too young to marry or anything like that.

But that has nothing to do with my point, which was that a child cannot consent because they don't have fully developed reasoning capabilities. Your strawman does not dispute that.

18 year olds still have not fully developped their reasoning capabilities.

Your point? My post has nothing to do with the line society has currently placed between "consent" and "not consent", but with the physical properties of such.

What you seem to be arguing for, for reasons known only to yourself, is that 18 year olds shouldn't be able to consent, a point of your own making. Not my point of children not being able to.

As I said, your strawman has nothing to do with my argument.

[Lessnt]

18 year olds still have not fully developped their reasoning capabilities.

That's better than the almost none that most children have.

Then exactly how much is ok?
And exactly how little is not ok?
How would these things be measured?

Assuming that a 13 year old Girl had enough reasoning ability.
What makes it so wrong for an adult man to have sex with said girl?
And why would homosexuality be excluded from being wrong?

It is my belief that having sex is a choice regardless of how much you WANT to do it.
After all it is natural human male nature to want to have sex with younger females.It is in our genetics.
Yet it is viewed as wrong.

[United States of Cascadia]

That's better than the almost none that most children have.

Then exactly how much is ok?
And exactly how little is not ok?
How would these things be measured?

Society has drawn an arbitrary line. If said line did not exist, then we would begin to get a grain of sand fallacy.

Assuming that a 13 year old Girl had enough reasoning ability.
What makes it so wrong for an adult man to have sex with said girl?

Honestly, nothing, but again society needs to have some line, and we have one.

And why would homosexuality be excluded from being wrong?

Because it is victimless. If both parties provide informed consent, then no one gets hurt (unless they're into that kinda thing).

It is my belief that having sex is a choice regardless of how much you WANT to do it.

Having sex is, who you're attracted to. Is not so.

After all it is natural human male nature to want to have sex with younger females.It is in our genetics.
Yet it is viewed as wrong.

Again society. However, just earlier you said genetics don't shape us. How hypocritical.

[Maurepas]

Assuming that a 13 year old Girl had enough reasoning ability.
What makes it so wrong for an adult man to have sex with said girl?

There's your problem. They don't.

And it's the fact that he has much more intellectual and physical development than her, he is in a coersive position. Not that it has any relevance to the point of the thread. Don't get me wrong, I've never been a fan of stupid law enforcement getting involved in Middle and High School romances, it's stupid and it ruins lives, I've always felt a legitimate guideline would be something like 1-2 years age difference between the individuals before reaching the age of consent.

But that has nothing to do with the point of the thread, nor the slippery slope argument concerning where we "draw the line".