frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





theres nothing wrong with being LGBTQ+

Debate Information

Theres nothing wrong with being LGBTQ+ 

This is not to ignore that there are issues in the community, or to say that a gay person can do no wrong, but simply to say that being LGBTQ+ in of itself is not 'wrong' or 'immoral'. The fact that someone might be gay, trans, or otherwise queer is not grounds for harassment or loss of respect, as it does not directly affect anyone but the person themself and whomever they may seek romantic or sexual relationships with.
DreamerImposterSupermanDr_BatmanVictor_van_HelsingThe_LoremasterLeon_KennedyWonder_WomanGreen_LanternThe_Flash



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ImposterImposter 3 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Stop mentioning it.

    "The fact that someone might be gay, trans, or otherwise queer is not grounds for harassment or loss of respect, as it does not directly affect anyone but the person themself and whomever they may seek romantic or sexual relationships with.", then why make it such a big deal, if it doesn't affect others. Just stop talking about it then. 
    DreamerThe_Flash
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    What consenting adults prefer to do in their own bedrooms is their business.     But nobody can tell me that a man sticking his penis up another man's anus is a natural act.   It isn't.   An anus is a one way valve.   It did not evolve for two way traffic like a vagina.     Penetrating an anus the wrong way damages it and doctors called "proctologists" have to repair the damage.     Lesbianism is a lot less harmful.    But we can't have two standards for men and women, can we?  So, if male homosexuality is abnormal then female lesbianism is abnormal too.     
    DreamerZeusAres42The_Flash
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: I am sorry to tell you but your argument is illogical, appeal to nature fallacy.


    Quacks use this fallacy all the time. "An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'"."


    Botulinum is the most deadly toxin gram for gram and all natural. Source wikipedia and Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Factory produced artificial fertilizer and drugs have save many lives.

    ZeusAres42The_Flash
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @ironeyes
     but simply to say that being LGBTQ+ in of itself is not 'wrong' or 'immoral'. The fact that someone might be gay, trans, or otherwise queer is not grounds for harassment or loss of respect, as it does not directly affect anyone but the person themself and whomever they may seek romantic or sexual relationships with.

    I can agree that in our society, we should not physically harm or harass anyone because of their sexual orientation.  I wonder how you determine what is "immoral" though.  Is this different for each individual or does it come from external standard?  For instance, the Bible contains many verses that identify same sex acts as sin.  Are you saying that the Bible has no authority to call certain behaviors sin?  If so, then I disagree.

    If you are claiming that their is a gay gene, can you provide evidence for it?  There are 2 studies that have involved 470,000 people that have shown that there is not a gay gene (Harvard Magazine, There's (Still) No Gay Gene).  The research showed that several 'markers' that were thought to identify same-sex attraction were actually found in heterosexual people more frequently than those with same sex attraction.  Now, there are over 2 dozen theories about a genetic or bio-chemical connection, yet, none have shown in real predictive ability to determine someone's sexual orientation.  It seems more likely that people are not genetically predisposed to be same-sex attracted.
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @Dreamer

    Quacks use this fallacy all the time.

    So do intelligent and logical people, because it is logical and rational.
    ZeusAres42
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

     I wonder how you determine what is "immoral" though.

    "Morality" is the tacit understanding between a majority of people within a particular community as to what constitutes right or wrong behaviour.    Morality is usually based upon a sensible survival strategy that can change with time.     The very strict laws against homosexuality in the Christian and Muslim worlds probably came about because at that time, homosexuality had been proscribed by the priesthood as offensive to God.    Offending God was a very serious matter.    He might retaliate by sending plagues, pestilence, floods, droughts, and earthquakes.    So don't pi-ss off God.

    Morality is a factor of a people's culture.     Throughout the ages, story tellers and educators have fostered the culture and morality of their people by inventing stories and hero's who have fostered the long established survival strategies of their people.    But today, we live in a world of unprecedented change where the moralities which once formed the foundation of who we are being constantly challenged.   What is right and wrong today is more a factor of logical thought.    Although what is logical about agreeing that a man can be a woman if he just wishes it, is beyond me?


  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    Just sayin wrote

    If you are claiming that their is a gay gene, can you provide evidence for it?  

    Human behaviour is a factor of both nature and nurture.    That is, it is a product of genes and social learning.    Homosexual behaviour is obviously primarily a genetic factor because otherwise, you are tacitly advocating that homosexuality is entirely learned behaviour.    Any homosexual would consider that completely absurd.    You can not t
    "teach" a homosexual to not be a homosexual.   Sigmund Frued lived in a time when homosexuality was considered by nearly everyone to be illegal and morally wrong.    He had many patients who were suffering from all sorts of odd behaviours because they were homosexual and they, themselves, had been conditioned by their culture to believe that their own behaviour and desires were utterly wrong.    Frued noted that people who opposed their own genetic programming often exhibited strange and bizarre behaviour.    He coined the word "eccentric" to describe this.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @Bogan
    I gather for you "morality" is what the group thinks.  Personally, I think some things are wrong, even if the majority say they are right.  For instance, even though a majority of people in Germany supported Hitler, I would still suggest that the killing of Jews was wrong, even though it was socially acceptable by the dominate group then.  I would say the internment of Asians in World War II in California was also unjust even though the majority of citizens and the Supreme Court said it was OK.  I think morality based on group think, or morality that is what each person wants it to be, falls short.  Personally, I think that morality comes from an ultimate lawgiver.  I don't believe that God changes his mind based on opinion polls. I believe the Bible is an authoritative source on what is moral.  I would conclude that you do not based off of your comments and I would suggest that is the underlying reason why we differ on not just what is moral, but the source of morality.
  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    Good reply, "just sayin".   I think you might possess a functioning brain.

     

    "Just sayin: wrote

     I gather for you "morality" is what the group thinks.

     Of course it is.   "Morality" my dear "just sayin", is the tacit understanding among a majority of people within a particular community as to what constitutes right or wrong behaviour.    You seem to be claiming that morality is carved in stone and is unchanging.    That can never be.     Morality changes with the times.

     

    "just sayin" wrote

    Personally, I think some things are wrong, even if the majority say they are right.  For instance, even though a majority of people in Germany supported Hitler, I would still suggest that the killing of Jews was wrong, even though it was socially acceptable by the dominate group then. 

     The majority of Germans in WW2 had no idea that the Nazis were mass murdering Jews, and there was not much they could do about it if they did.     Morality in Germany was the morality of the National Socialist German Workers Party, based upon the writings of Adolph Hitler.     The Party was able to enforce this morality through force, the abolition of free speech, and total control of the media.   Such a scenario should make you think twice about what is happening in the western world today.     Our traditional morality is being displaced by corrupt politicians pandering to politically active minority groups, aided by a compliant media and press.  Free speech is under attack and any opposing view is labelled "hate speech" which must be censored.

     Morality in 1939 Germany was imposed top down by elites.    Today, the "deep state" elites in the western world are trying the same thing.     Please note, that it is now a criminal offence in Canada to "misgender" any ratbag who is suffering from Gender Dysphoria.   This moral shift did not come about because the "group thinking" majority wanted it.      It came about top down like in Nazi Germany.

     

    "just sayin" wrote.

     Personally, I think some things are wrong, even if the majority say they are right.

     That is fair enough. But the problem is, that in a democracy, majority rules.    That is why freedom of speech is critically important.  What is right or wrong morality must be thrashed out among the electorate so that they can make either the right, or at least the best, choice.

     

    "just sayin" wrote

     I would say the internment of Asians in World War II in California was also unjust even though the majority of citizens and the Supreme Court said it was OK. 

     I think that you have been conditioned to think that what the US did to Japanese/Amerian citizens was unspeakably wrong?      But I don't think you are a student of history, and you are only parroting what you think is immoral, as preached to you by the left.

     Consider this.     In Europe, every East European country usually had significant minorities of  ethnic Germans within their countries.     This was used as an excuse for Germany to invade those countries, as the Nazis claimed that these countries were "oppressing" Germans.    Putin is using the same excuse in Ukraine, today.     After Germany conquered these countries, the ethnic Germans, who were trusted by the Nazis, were promoted to control, the civil services of those imprisoned countries.    This they did with a gusto.     Germany looked unbeatable, and the rewards were there for any person of the right ethnicity.  But what also happened, was that these "Germans" also became the Einsatztgruppen who went around mass murdering Jews or anybody else who opposed the Nazis.

     In Ukraine 446 days ago, the Russian Army was able to take Melitopol because the ethnic Russians in the Ukrainian Army, who's loyalty was to Russia, did not blow the bridge across the Dnieper River.    

     In the Pacific, Hawaii had a very large proportion of Japanese/Americans who's loyalty was in doubt.    And if you think I am wrong, well the Japanese Imperial Forces High Command did not agree with you.    The leaders of Imperial Japan believed that if they invaded Hawaii, that the ethnic Japanese would automatically side with Japan and help them rule Hawaii.     I don't know if they were right or wrong.    But the example of eastern Europe and Ukraine is instructive.  

      I am certain that you are ignorant of all this because the lefties who want to portray the white Western world as villains never told you this.

     The upshot of my essay is this.    Morality is never black and white, as morality can change as different times create unforeseen circumstances, and society must always adapt.    Nor is there ever a complete consensus as to what is right or wrong.     Leftists and other totalitarians do not agree with that principle.    They think that their morality, no matter how bizarre it is, is noble, holy, and infallible.     And it must be imposed upon the plebs by force if necessary.

     

    "just sayin" wrote

      I think morality based on group think, or morality that is what each person wants it to be, falls short.

     But it is never based upon what an individual wants it to be.   "Sovereign citizens" are considered kooks.  In a democratic country, there is supposed to be from some sort of consensus.    In totalitarian countries, it is imposed, top down.   Which is where the western world is heading.

     

    "just sayin" wrote

      Personally, I think that morality comes from an ultimate lawgiver.  I don't believe that God changes his mind based on opinion polls. I believe the Bible is an authoritative source on what is moral.

     So ,you think that witches and homosexuals should be executed?      The church was once the ultimate source of what was considered right and wrong behaviour.    But because it had almost absolute control, it became absolutely corrupt.     That corruption became so acute that it spawned The Reformation, when people started thinking outside the constricts on the mind caused by the unreformable Catholic Church.   This freed the minds of smart people in the west, which is why the west accelerated away from the rest of the world in technology, prosperity, and social progress.

     

    "just  sayin" wrote

      I would conclude that you do not based off of your comments and I would suggest that is the underlying reason why we differ on not just what is moral, but the source of morality.

     That is true.  I am not religious in any way.   If you believe in an unchanging Revealed morality set in stone, then you should still be advocating for witches to be executed.     I think that that idea was abolished in Britain in the mid 1600's.     The British did not care what God ordained, they were not killing people accused of witchcraft who could not conjure up enough magic to get themselves a square meal.


  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Bogan ;
    "That is, it is a product of genes and social learning.    Homosexual behaviour is obviously primarily a genetic factor because otherwise, you are tacitly advocating that homosexuality is entirely learned behaviour.    Any homosexual would consider that completely absurd.    You can not t
    "teach" a homosexual to not be a homosexual. "

    I dont really have a full opinion on the primary reason but i do not agree fully with your statement.
    Just because homosexuals may find absurd doesnt mean it is.  There are plenty of learned/nuture behaviors that a person wouldnt recognize is a learned behavior.
    Likewise just because a behavior/preferrence may be hard to turn away from doesnt mean it wasnt learned in the first place.
  • Imposter said:
    "The fact that someone might be gay, trans, or otherwise queer is not grounds for harassment or loss of respect, as it does not directly affect anyone but the person themself and whomever they may seek romantic or sexual relationships with.", then why make it such a big deal, if it doesn't affect others. Just stop talking about it then. 
    @Imposter
    Welcome back Nomenclature. How is the proton VPN treating you? ;)



  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    If you do not "fully" agree with my statement that homosexuality is primarily caused by genetics, it would be helpful if you explained why you think that way.

     Human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture.     Homosexuals have always existed, but I am not aware of any culture which taught or instructed young people to be homosexual.    Far from it.  Usually, homosexuality was legally proscribed behaviour.    Obviously, it is innate.     Homosexuals are to one extent or another, born that way.    Cultural conditioning can either reinforce or detract from a homosexuals innate feelings, but unless a homosexuals genetics are only mildly homosexual, social learning can not stop a homosexuals sexual desire for members of their own gender.   

     Most people are heterosexual because their genes tell them to be sexually attracted to the opposite sex.     Nobody "teaches" children to be heterosexual, that feeling is innate.  It is instinctive.    If it is innate and instinctive, then it is genetic.


    The_Flash
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    I need to do more research to decide that, i just disagree with your reasoning behind your sentiment that it must be primarily genetic.

    There are behaviors expressed  by individuals that havent been learned by positive reinforcement.
    For instance there are many studies that have found links between childhood abuse and homosexuality.

    Also you seem to believe just because it may be hard to socially condition out homosexuality that it must be genetic.
    That is not true.  For example there are plenty of addictions that are hard to uncondition that can be originally driven by ones environment.
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Some believe that Jesus is gay.


    Not everyone agrees with your interpretation.

    "The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong." Paul Oestreicher


    I personally believe Jesus was a historical person, he really did exist but no miracles and Jesus was gay.

  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    I need to do more research to decide that, i just disagree with your reasoning behind your sentiment that it must be primarily genetic.

     That is good, Michael.     I respect contributors who have opinions that they can not presently justify, but are willing to do some research and collect data in order to come back later and formulate a reasoned argument.      That puts you miles ahead in terms of IQ to some of the intellectually challenged hecklers on this site who have strongly held opinions that they can not even justify to themselves, and who have no intention of ever researching anything.


    MichaElpers wrote

     There are behaviours expressed  by individuals that haven't been learned by positive reinforcement.

     I am unable to understand what point you are making here?       If a person's behaviour is not learned, then it stands to reason that it is instinctive and innate.       If it is instinctive and innate, it is genetically directed behaviour.    .      

     

    MichaElpers wrote

     For instance there are many studies that have found links between childhood abuse and homosexuality.

     You could be right for all I know.    But I am unaware of any studies linking homosexuality to childhood abuse.   That is the first time I have head that one.

     

    MichaElpers wrote

     Also you seem to believe just because it may be hard to socially condition out homosexuality that it must be genetic.

     Yes, I do.    I consider that not only to be a reasonable assumption, but a provable premise.    If you think that sexuality is simply learned behaviour, then how much social learning would it take to make you change from a heterosexual to a homosexual?     I think I can answer that for you.    It ain't gonna happen.    You were born heterosexual and nobody had to teach you to be a heterosexual.   Your sexuality is instinctive and innate.    You are not going to turn into a homosexual just because somebody may "teach" you that you should be a homosexual.   The same logic applies in reverse. 

     

    MichaElpers wrote

     That is not true.  For example there are plenty of addictions that are hard to uncondition that can be originally driven by ones environment.

     In western and Muslim societies for over two Millennia, homosexuality was legally proscribed behaviour that could get you imprisoned in ghastly conditions, or even executed, if you indulged in it.     That was a very convincing reason for people not to "learn" to engage in this behaviour, if sexuality is indeed learned.     But no amount of legal sanction has ever eradicated homosexuality because people are born that way.     Sigmund Freud discovered in the late 1800's that homosexuals could not change their sexuality.     He even had patients who agreed with their own societies social norms, and who really did believe that their own homosexual feelings were disgusting and reprehensible.     But they could not change who they were.     If homosexuality is simply learned behaviour, it should be easy to unlearn it.     Especially if a homosexual believes that his or her behaviour is objectionable and wrong, and wants to change in order to conform to what their own society considers to be the correct social norms. 

     During the 20th century, well off parents who discovered that their sons or daughters were homosexual, often sent their children away to special schools, often run by a religious organisations,  where they were subjected to intense moral and religious instruction, in order to change their sexuality.     These schools were a total failure.     Homosexual people who underwent this enforced social conditioning are still bitter about the way they were treated, and they often ended up hating their own parents.    


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    ironeyes said:

    Theres nothing wrong with being LGBTQ+
    Hello i:

    In this great country of ours, as long as you don't require anything from anybody, you're FREE to BE anything you want to be..  

    excon

  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    I don't mean to be disrespectful to you, but the argument that "Homosexuality has to be biological because no one would choose to be that way" is kinda insulting and really could be made for any sexual preference.  Would you agree with what is essentially the same logic if someone said "Pedophilia has to be biological because no one would choose to be that way"?  The evidence for a gay gene isn't there.  Among the 2 dozen or more bio-chemical theories, none have any predictive power, with many actually having higher representation among heterosexuals than the homosexual population.
  • just_sayinjust_sayin 853 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @Bogan

    So ,you think that witches and homosexuals should be executed?      The church was once the ultimate source of what was considered right and wrong behaviour.    But because it had almost absolute control, it became absolutely corrupt.     That corruption became so acute that it spawned The Reformation, when people started thinking outside the constricts on the mind caused by the unreformable Catholic Church.   This freed the minds of smart people in the west, which is why the west accelerated away from the rest of the world in technology, prosperity, and social progress.

     I feel like I have answered this several times on this site.  Not faulting you.  I don't think we've had this discussion.  I do not think witches and homosexuals should be executed - nor did the Christians who wrote the Bible - as Paul himself said 

    "Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,  or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.  Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

    So obviously there were some who had practiced homosexuality in the Corinthian church and they were still alive.  There is a wide spread misunderstanding about the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.  Even though Paul talks about the division in just about every one of the books he wrote, there are still a lot of people who confuse the issue.  

    Have people in the church been corrupt, yes.  I think your argument on the Renaissance's causes is a bit to narrow.  

    That is true.  I am not religious in any way.   If you believe in an unchanging Revealed morality set in stone, then you should still be advocating for witches to be executed.     I think that that idea was abolished in Britain in the mid 1600's.     The British did not care what God ordained, they were not killing people accused of witchcraft who could not conjure up enough magic to get themselves a square meal.

    Uh no.  The church has never held the view that it must hold to all of the laws in the Old Testament.  It is emphatic, that covenant is past and a new covenant has been established.  God did not change.  The provision of Christ on the cross happened at a point in time.  The circumstances changed.  In the same way if you were driving straight down a road and then came to a curve and followed it, you did not change qualitatively.  Your reaction was due to the circumstances.  I am more than happy to go into why Christians can eat shrimp, cut their sideburns etc.  but suffice it say that what you suggest is not how Christians have understood their faith or the Bible.

    Again, you seem to think that mob rule is infallible; that what the mob says is always right.  So if a gang decides its OK to gang bang a little girl, then that's "moral" in your view.  If one group has 50.1 percent more people then it is moral if they decide to kill the other group in genocide.  If I'm misrepresenting your argument please let me know, but it certainly sounds like the "moral majority" can never be wrong or immoral in your view.  So what the group decides is moral and moral truths can switch even daily - there can't be any absolutes in this view since a group could decide tomorrow that it is OK to rape a child, kill an innocent, take all of your possessions, etc.  Seems like a very flawed view.  


  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

     I do not think witches and homosexuals should be executed - nor did the Christians who wrote the Bible - as Paul himself said 

     Then you are violating the direct written instructions of your God in the Old Testament (Exodus 22-18) which is a perfect example of how morality changes over time, regardless of what your God or Gods instructed.

     

    "just sayin" quote

     Uh no.  The church has never held the view that it must hold to all of the laws in the Old Testament.  It is emphatic, that covenant is past and a new covenant has been established. 

     That excuse looks lame as the church was sanctioning the murder of "witches" right up to the mid 16th century in Europe and America, with religious leaders directing and approving of the murder of innocents, often in the most horrible way.   If "the covenant is past an a new covenant has been established" then your Christian values are not, and never have been, absolute.    They changed with the times, regardless of what your God or Gods previously instructed.   And nowhere in the Bible does God say "you remember that old law where I instructed you to burn witches?    Well, I rescind that order because I changed my mind."     What changed, is that people became less superstitious and began to realise that the whole idea of "magic", witches, elves, fairies, and sorcerers was claptrap.    So they changed their laws to reflect a new morality based upon a new realisation of the natural sciences, regardless of what God instructed.

     

    "just sayin" quote

     God did not change.  The provision of Christ on the cross happened at a point in time.  The circumstances changed.  In the same way if you were driving straight down a road and then came to a curve and followed it, you did not change qualitatively.  Your reaction was due to the circumstances.  I am more than happy to go into why Christians can eat shrimp, cut their sideburns etc.  but suffice it say that what you suggest is not how Christians have understood their faith or the Bible.

     If God did not change, then He is still demanding the execution of "witches".     You are violating your God's direct, written command, which is sinful.   You are going to burn in hell, you naughty man.     The reason why you ignore God's instruction is because no matter how superstitious you are, you realise that the concept of "magic", or that anybody can have supernatural powers, is hilarious.    People are just not that superstitious anymore.    And you know that your religion can no longer sanction the mass  murder of innocents for such an obviously st-upid reason.  Morality is not absolute, regardless of what God instructs.

     

    "just sayin" quote

     Again, you seem to think that mob rule is infallible; that what the mob says is always right. 

     Please do not put words in my mouth that are false.     What I am saying, is that in democratic countries which are usually full of good, compassionate, and fair minded people, who have a free press and a free exchange of ideas which they are willing to defend or oppose in free debate, they can usually be relied upon to enact laws for the common good, which are just and appropriate.     And they change those laws when changing circumstances alters the fundamental and usually good premises upon which the old laws were based.     Morality and culture are constantly in a state of change.     Sometimes it is for the better, and sometimes for the worse.    But there is no moral absolute, other than the right of a free people to free speech.

     "just sayin" quote

     So if a gang decides its OK to gang bang a little girl, then that's "moral" in your view.  If one group has 50.1 percent more people then it is moral if they decide to kill the other group in genocide.  If I'm misrepresenting your argument please let me know, but it certainly sounds like the "moral majority" can never be wrong or immoral in your view.  

     Yes, you are misrepresenting my view by inferring that majorities of any group of people, no matter how small or criminal, are always right.     That is a classic straw man argument.     What constitutes morally correct behaviour in any society can be enforced top down by tyrants and priests, or it can be thrashed out by the population themselves using free speech.    If it is implemented by the population themselves, it can still be wrong, (according to other perspectives) but it is usually appropriate for the times and circumstances, and the people can change it themselves when they realise that the moral imperatives which once formed the foundation of their morality are now out of date and inappropriate.      Mass murdering witches because of a direct and written instruction from God is a perfect example of that.   

     "just sayin" quote

      So what the group decides is moral and moral truths can switch even daily - there can't be any absolutes in this view since a group could decide tomorrow that it is OK to rape a child, kill an innocent, take all of your possessions, etc.  Seems like a very flawed view.  

     Using your brains to decide what is morally right or morally wrong, instead of relying upon moral absolutes which can be clearly inappropriate and outdated, as knowledge and wisdom expands, looks to me to be a lot more reliable way of  deciding which behaviours are appropriate.     Burning "witches" to death on God's (never rescinded) instruction is the perfect example of that.



  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    'just sayin" quote

    "Pedophilia has to be biological because no one would choose to be that way"? 

    Pedophilia probably is biological although it is almost impossible to find any data on this subject that is not written by shrieking moralists.   I think that paedophilia is biological and it came about because primitive societies, the old men got all of the virgins,.    Even advanced western societies today can not agree on when a girl can give sexual consent.     In Spain it is 13, in Eastern Europe 14, in France it is 15, in much of the western world 16, in the Australian state of Queensland until recently it was 17, and in the USA 18.      Old men from primitive societies thinking that they can do whatever they please with young women sems to still exist among Australian aboriginal "big men" today, as many young aboriginal women and girls routinely accuse old tribal leaders of rape. 

    In probably all primitive tribal societies girls were married at the onset of mensus, usually to old men.     This was probably because the old men were the real power in most tribal societies and they could do what they wanted with the girls.    It may even have had a practical reason for it, allowing young men to mate with young and fertile women would probably cause a population explosion which would outrun the tribes food supplies and resources.     Better to give the most fertile females to the least fertile men for sex.     Old women were given to the young men for sex, which is why there are so many instances of the rape of old women by African (and possibly aboriginal) males.     The rape of old women is almost always the crime of African men, because for thousands of years, they were forbidden to touch the young women, so they evolved to become sexually attracted to old women.

    Most criminals grow out of their criminal ways in their 40's.   It is like they suddenly grow up and realise that they are part of a community which they can no longer regard as their prey.    Pedophilia and financial fraud are the primary "old men's crimes."    The marriage of old men to very young women was considered to acceptable behaviour right up until the mid 18th century, when attitudes began to change.    Up until the 1970's some very elderly women were still drawing pensions from the US government for being the widows of long deceased civil war soldiers.

    Then comes the thorny question of female paedophilia.     I assume that many men do not see female paedophage as any problem at all.    This is especially so in the USA. where a very long parade of sometimes very beautiful female teachers have been convicted of having sex with their young male students.     I opine that most men would respond to that circumstance with "you lucky little bastard.".  In the non fiction book "Charlie Wilson's War" a CIA operative recounted how he had sex at 15 with his best friends mother, "an experience I thoroughly recommend."
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 2160 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Argument Topic: There is everything wrong with lgbtpedos. Anyone who is against what I have said are invalidated heterophobes, truthphobes, Christophobes, binaryphobes, genderphobes and infantrphobes plus hypocrites

    Tempus est Iocundum "Codex Buranus, 179"
    Tempus est iocundum, o virgines!
    modo congaudete, vos iuvenes!
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Iam amore virginali totus ardeo;
    Novus, novus amor est, quo pereo!
     
    Cantat philomena sic dulciter,
    et modulans auditur; intus caleo.7
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Flos est puellarum, quam diligo,
    et rosa rosarum quam sepe video.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Mea me confortat promissio,
    mea me deportat negatio.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Mea mecum ludit virginitas,
    mea me detrudit simplicitas.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Sile, philomena, pro tempore!
    surge, cantilena, de pectore!
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Tempore brumali vir patiens,
    animo vernali lasciviens.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Veni domicella, cum gaudio!
    veni, veni, pulchra! iam pereo!
    O! o! totus floreo!
    https://lyricstranslate.com


    Marriage and true love is between one human biological male and one human biological female. 

    In the Book of Matthew Chapter 18 verse 5 to 6, it speaks of children and that those who bring children to Christ will be blessed but those who cause the little ones to sin should be punished by drowning. This is just a fact. Homosexuality is a sin. It remains a sin and a crime. Homosexuality is usually linked towards pedophilia and incest etc. Those who say homosexuals should not be executed are lukewarm, ignorant and lost. Lgbtpedos are targeting our children and youth today, so in violation of the little ones' innocence, they deserve to die. AIDs/HIV will kill them and yes, they should be jailed and even executed if their crimes are severe. Most are and most hide it. These are just facts. Anyone who denies these facts will be exposed as a lukewarm who allows evil doers to get away with crime. Drag shows should be banned immediately and pride parades should also be banned immediately. Permissive laws are unjustified. 
    The_LoremasterVictor_van_HelsingLeon_KennedySupermanGreen_LanternWonder_WomanThe_Flash
  • Victor_van_HelsingVictor_van_Helsing 148 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: There is also no gay gene my common sensible friend of the objective truth

    Dr_Batman said:
    Tempus est Iocundum "Codex Buranus, 179"
    Tempus est iocundum, o virgines!
    modo congaudete, vos iuvenes!
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Iam amore virginali totus ardeo;
    Novus, novus amor est, quo pereo!
     
    Cantat philomena sic dulciter,
    et modulans auditur; intus caleo.7
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Flos est puellarum, quam diligo,
    et rosa rosarum quam sepe video.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Mea me confortat promissio,
    mea me deportat negatio.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Mea mecum ludit virginitas,
    mea me detrudit simplicitas.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Sile, philomena, pro tempore!
    surge, cantilena, de pectore!
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Tempore brumali vir patiens,
    animo vernali lasciviens.
    O! o! totus floreo!
     
    Veni domicella, cum gaudio!
    veni, veni, pulchra! iam pereo!
    O! o! totus floreo!
    https://lyricstranslate.com


    Marriage and true love is between one human biological male and one human biological female. 

    In the Book of Matthew Chapter 18 verse 5 to 6, it speaks of children and that those who bring children to Christ will be blessed but those who cause the little ones to sin should be punished by drowning. This is just a fact. Homosexuality is a sin. It remains a sin and a crime. Homosexuality is usually linked towards pedophilia and incest etc. Those who say homosexuals should not be executed are lukewarm, ignorant and . Lgbtpedos are targeting our children and youth today, so in violation of the little ones' innocence, they deserve to die. AIDs/HIV will kill them and yes, they should be jailed and even executed if their crimes are severe. Most are and most hide it. These are just facts. Anyone who denies these facts will be exposed as a lukewarm who allows evil doers to get away with crime. Drag shows should be banned immediately and pride parades should also be banned immediately. Permissive laws are unjustified. 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9qqocovoWc

    Anyone who thinks "you are born gay and that it is genetic" are fully invalidated. The same who deny the facts that homosexuality is not genetic but in fact a mutation will be impaled by the truth. There will be no mercy. You will be destroyed by the facts that I hold. Fight an uphill battle that will result in your own perilous end. You have been warned, heterophobes, Christophobes, truthphobes, binaryphobes, genderphobes and infantphobic sexist racist hypocrites. 
    Dr_BatmanSupermanThe_LoremasterGreen_Lantern
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @just_sayin

    I never said it had to be biological i was quoting Bogan.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    "If you think that sexuality is simply learned behaviour, then how much social learning would it take to make you change from a heterosexual to a homosexual?"

    First i do not agree with your premise that if heterosexuality is not a learned behavior so must homosexuality.
    Heterosexuality is a required evolutionary premise.

    Second, even if now i couldnt see myself being persuaded to homosexuality doesnt mean there is no influence. Our environment has the ability to influence our decisions all the time and it isnt required there be a direct correlation between the nutured behavior and the environment.  Thats my point on positive reinforcement. Someone may choose to want to be successful because theyre surrounded by successful people other because theyve seen unsuccessful people, others maybe because of something completely random they didnt even know had an inluence.
    So I have no idea if i had different influences if id be homosexual.  I think thats a possibility though.

    Some things id like to see.  If it is indeed biological, is there a bilogical marker scientists can point to?

    As homosexuality has been accepted has there also been a rise in the number of people identifying as homosexual?  Would that show it is more nuture than nature?

    From my limited research perspective i imagine it is similar to something like alcoholism.  There may be genetic markers that make you more prone to it but environment can also play a role in deciding it.
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 2160 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    Argument Topic: Michael has a point

    @Bogan

    "If you think that sexuality is simply learned behaviour, then how much social learning would it take to make you change from a heterosexual to a homosexual?"

    First i do not agree with your premise that if heterosexuality is not a learned behavior so must homosexuality.
    Heterosexuality is a required evolutionary premise.

    Second, even if now i couldnt see myself being persuaded to homosexuality doesnt mean there is no influence. Our environment has the ability to influence our decisions all the time and it isnt required there be a direct correlation between the nutured behavior and the environment.  Thats my point on positive reinforcement. Someone may choose to want to be successful because theyre surrounded by successful people other because theyve seen unsuccessful people, others maybe because of something completely random they didnt even know had an inluence.
    So I have no idea if i had different influences if id be homosexual.  I think thats a possibility though.

    Some things id like to see.  If it is indeed biological, is there a bilogical marker scientists can point to?

    As homosexuality has been accepted has there also been a rise in the number of people identifying as homosexual?  Would that show it is more nuture than nature?

    From my limited research perspective i imagine it is similar to something like alcoholism.  There may be genetic markers that make you more prone to it but environment can also play a role in deciding it.
    It is definitely nurture as we do see many kids being indoctrinated in schools etc. It's absolutely and objectively wrong to influence kids to see this stuff and to do this stuff. It is justified to ban lgbtpedos because it is destroying society. Drag shows are not normal, it is to groom children and it is immoral. Very immoral to do that. It is usually environment that affects how people behave and animals too. If it is genetically linked, it is a mutation. However, there is no gay gene naturally. It is unnaturally caused either by a mutation or environmentally. There is tons of evidence to support that children are being nurtured in the wrong direction to identify as gay or even cause them to think they can become the opposite sex when it is not biologically possible nor is self mutilation okay nor is hormone blockers acceptable. Parents are already stating this and homeschooling is the result because schools don't care to even listen to the parents' concern. Heterosexuality has always been natural and it remains natural. Evolution isn't occurring because of heterosexuality, rather heterosexuality has always been by default, a natural part of human life. Think about animals. They are different from us right? Yes. They can't talk like us, they are certainly very different in terms of what food they eat etc etc. They also don't know right from wrong. We humans do. While animals can perform homosexual acts and while we can consider that natural for them, humans know it is wrong and unnatural to do that because it brings AIDs/HIV and other sexual diseases. Humans are not animals. We are definitely more superiorly intellectual than animals in terms of logic and moral principles. 60% of bisexuals and homosexuals have 1000 partners per year. True Heterosexuals don't even have that many partners. Each man and each woman who are truly heterosexual only have one marriage partner of the opposite sex. We, humanity, men, women, boys and girls, all learn what puberty is and than puberty leads towards learning how a man and a woman eventually settle to have a family, just as animals do the same. Animals do it in a certain way and us, humans, we do it most certainly differently. I will argue that sometimes, yes, we humans can act all animalistic in a humorous way, however, that does not make us apes nor Neanderthals. We are heterosexual by nature because that is how we were biologically designed. Males each have a penis. Females each have a vagina and breasts. We are not designed to be asexually productive, meaning, unlike certain organisms in nature, we cannot reproduce without a partner of the opposite sex. Heterosexuality is indeed to advance towards producing more human beings. It is not an aspect of evolution though. It has always been part of us as it has always been part of animals. There has been studies conducted about human DNA disproving that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will still occur. DNA has disproved Darwin's Evolution overall. Henry M. Morris managed to explain this as has Ken Ham, who can explain everything in biology in depth, perfectly and flawlessly. He can explain molecular biology and so many things that disproves Darwin's Evolution. We are not transforming into different beings, we are not changelings after all. Darwin's Evolution remains a theory, a disproven one at that. Another thing is, it is in us to be dominant over all creatures, as God created us that way. He created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. It is a fact that there are only 2 genders; male and female. That is one thing the Bible does get correct that aligns with biological facts. I remember learning in biology that the whole sexual reproduction between a man and a woman is still unexplainable on how it was possible or how it originated. Therefore, this proves one thing; Biologists and scientists don't have all the answers. Galileo Galilei always did say, God and science do go together not against each other. But who violated this statement? The false roman catholic church. Galileo was right! Near the end, I am absolutely correct whether people believe it or not. All humans; male and female are born heterosexual. It is up to each individual to either stay the same or divert away and do what is unnatural. This is biologically correct because I have seen it. I have witnessed former friends, who are now not in the right place in life and yeah, they CHOSE to go that path. They COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT BUT THEY CHOSE TO BE GAY OR BISEXUAL. They even tried to influence me into the unnatural and I refused to.
    Victor_van_Helsing
  • Dr_BatmanDr_Batman 2160 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Absolute Objective Universal Truth: Heterosexuality is naturally within us all. Homosexuality is unnatural and will be rejected as wrong.

    @Dr_Batman

    @Bogan

    "If you think that sexuality is simply learned behaviour, then how much social learning would it take to make you change from a heterosexual to a homosexual?"

    First i do not agree with your premise that if heterosexuality is not a learned behavior so must homosexuality.
    Heterosexuality is a required evolutionary premise.

    Second, even if now i couldnt see myself being persuaded to homosexuality doesnt mean there is no influence. Our environment has the ability to influence our decisions all the time and it isnt required there be a direct correlation between the nutured behavior and the environment.  Thats my point on positive reinforcement. Someone may choose to want to be successful because theyre surrounded by successful people other because theyve seen unsuccessful people, others maybe because of something completely random they didnt even know had an inluence.
    So I have no idea if i had different influences if id be homosexual.  I think thats a possibility though.

    Some things id like to see.  If it is indeed biological, is there a bilogical marker scientists can point to?

    As homosexuality has been accepted has there also been a rise in the number of people identifying as homosexual?  Would that show it is more nuture than nature?

    From my limited research perspective i imagine it is similar to something like alcoholism.  There may be genetic markers that make you more prone to it but environment can also play a role in deciding it.
    It is definitely nurture as we do see many kids being indoctrinated in schools etc. It's absolutely and objectively wrong to influence kids to see this stuff and to do this stuff. It is justified to ban lgbtpedos because it is destroying society. Drag shows are not normal, it is to groom children and it is immoral. Very immoral to do that. It is usually environment that affects how people behave and animals too. If it is genetically linked, it is a mutation. However, there is no gay gene naturally. It is unnaturally caused either by a mutation or environmentally. There is tons of evidence to support that children are being nurtured in the wrong direction to identify as gay or even cause them to think they can become the opposite sex when it is not biologically possible nor is self mutilation okay nor is hormone blockers acceptable. Parents are already stating this and homeschooling is the result because schools don't care to even listen to the parents' concern. Heterosexuality has always been natural and it remains natural. Evolution isn't occurring because of heterosexuality, rather heterosexuality has always been by default, a natural part of human life. Think about animals. They are different from us right? Yes. They can't talk like us, they are certainly very different in terms of what food they eat etc etc. They also don't know right from wrong. We humans do. While animals can perform homosexual acts and while we can consider that natural for them, humans know it is wrong and unnatural to do that because it brings AIDs/HIV and other sexual diseases. Humans are not animals. We are definitely more superiorly intellectual than animals in terms of logic and moral principles. 60% of bisexuals and homosexuals have 1000 partners per year. True Heterosexuals don't even have that many partners. Each man and each woman who are truly heterosexual only have one marriage partner of the opposite sex. We, humanity, men, women, boys and girls, all learn what puberty is and than puberty leads towards learning how a man and a woman eventually settle to have a family, just as animals do the same. Animals do it in a certain way and us, humans, we do it most certainly differently. I will argue that sometimes, yes, we humans can act all animalistic in a humorous way, however, that does not make us apes nor Neanderthals. We are heterosexual by nature because that is how we were biologically designed. Males each have a penis. Females each have a vagina and breasts. We are not designed to be asexually productive, meaning, unlike certain organisms in nature, we cannot reproduce without a partner of the opposite sex. Homosexuality does not work humans nor animals in terms of reproducing nor is it healthy for both. Us humans can control that by following moral principles but animals can't and some humans believe themselves to be animals, which presents just how much of a fallen race we are.....Humanity can be redeemed still but the immoral and the wicked will not survive because they are wrong and succumb to evil. Heterosexuality is indeed to advance towards producing more human beings. It is not an aspect of evolution though. It has always been part of us as it has always been part of animals. There has been studies conducted about human DNA disproving that evolution has occurred, is occurring and will still occur. DNA has disproved Darwin's Evolution overall. Henry M. Morris managed to explain this as has Ken Ham, who can explain everything in biology in depth, perfectly and flawlessly. He can explain molecular biology and so many things that disproves Darwin's Evolution. We are not transforming into different beings, we are not changelings after all. Darwin's Evolution remains a theory, a disproven one at that. Another thing is, it is in us to be dominant over all creatures, as God created us that way. He created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. It is a fact that there are only 2 genders; male and female. That is one thing the Bible does get correct that aligns with biological facts. I remember learning in biology that the whole sexual reproduction between a man and a woman is still unexplainable on how it was possible or how it originated. Therefore, this proves one thing; Biologists and scientists don't have all the answers. Galileo Galilei always did say, God and science do go together not against each other. But who violated this statement? The false roman catholic church. Galileo was right! Near the end, I am absolutely correct whether people believe it or not. All humans; male and female are born heterosexual. It is up to each individual to either stay the same or divert away and do what is unnatural. This is biologically correct because I have seen it. I have witnessed former friends, who are now not in the right place in life and yeah, they CHOSE to go that path. They COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT BUT THEY CHOSE TO BE GAY OR BISEXUAL. They even tried to influence me into the unnatural and I refused to.
    Victor_van_Helsing
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -  
    Anything can only be "moral" or "immoral" within a specific moral framework which, in itself, is intrinsically subjective (albeit not arbitrary). In some moral systems being a sexual minority would be considered wrong, in others not. 

    From the practical standpoint of the effect of actions of the individual on the well-being of the society (assuming the latter can be properly defined, and assuming that we are talking about a moral system declaring maximizing it the ultimate goal, which is the conventional view of morals), there are certain benefits to widespread conformity, making existence of such minorities undesirable - yet, at the same time, there are benefits to outliers who push the boundaries of what is conventional and acceptable, as they are the ones discovering new ideas and modes of behavior that allow the society to evolve. The former is a biological and social reason for "LGBTQ" individuals being a minority in every existing population, and the latter is a biological and social reason for them existing in many (all?) populations.

    Personally, I can say that, while I do not see any intrinsic advantages or disadvantages to someone being a sexual minority (reproductive issues excluded), I certainly prefer to live in a diverse society where people think and act differently, to living in a monolithic society where everyone abides by a rigid set of rules and traditions. That is another advantage of having people who push the boundaries: they just make life more fun. Imagine if the old tradition of parents negotiating marriages on behalf of their children was still alive today... Yet arguments against sexual minorities being accepted can easily be applied to this as well. There was a time when asking out someone who you found attractive without their parents' permission was viewed with extreme prejudice, and from the point of view of people living at that time every Westerner today is a sinner acting against what mother nature had in mind for them.
    John_C_87
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    MayCaesar said:

    Anything can only be "moral" or "immoral" within a specific moral framework which, in itself, is intrinsically subjective (albeit not arbitrary).
    Hello again, May:

    Thanks for bringing me back home...  I hate to be the only one beating this drum, but.......

    To me, what's MORAL isn't the issue..  What's LEGAL is.  Therefore, I have maintained from the beginning, as long as you don't require anything of anyone, you're FREE to BE whatever you want to BE..  Using FREEDOM instead of MORALITY as the benchmark for what's permitted, what you have in your pants and what you do with it, is NOT the business of government.. That's the American way. 

    Ain't this a great country or what?

    excon
    John_C_87
  • Argument Topic: We hold these truths to be Self-evident.

    "To me," what's MORAL isn't the issue.
    What's LEGAL is.  "What is Legal is." (Translation)
    based on the law.
    Legal Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary

    When governing is based on law nothing is legal. Laws are written to expedite court proceedings. A law is not written to ensure a better connection to justice and the justice system the principle of making a better connection to justice is a sales pitch for legislative approval of any given law written.

    There is nothing wrong with being LGBTQ. If this had been a United States Constitutional right to be held as true it would start with the common defense of right when claiming LGBTQ. what you have in your pants and what you do with it, is NOT the business of government. The united state America holds on the word goverment is much larger than that found in a dictionary and due to the state of the union America holds with the methods of governing I must disagree. 

    Let’s start with fact one. What is the first thing wrong with a Binvir. It is a state of the union between two men, and it is not representative to a condition of preamble of United States Constitutional Right. What part of the preamble is not part of this state of the union. Posterity to men as a couple cannot create posterity and enter a civil union of law once science involves itself with the conception and immigration of posterity.

    Now let’s go over the second possible wrong in LGBTQ it is creating a state of the union between women and men that share a state of the union with the loss of a preamble Constitutional Right which is posterity. Meaning the second thing wrong is that Onus Mulier is a state of the union between two women and is not reported to a condition of preamble of the United States Constitutional Right. 

    Third possible wrong is the accumulation of National Debt by malpractice of law and the use of state licensed medical personnel as witness to civil unions that are to be transparent and open to witness objection as they are creating constitutional posterity which is addressed as introduced of fact in the preamble of American Constitution specifically. The whole truth here is that governing the LGBTQ is more costly for as a group they can be witnessed as any one of these couples married, civil union, Uno’s mulier, and finally Binivir, and both Civil union / Binvir or Civil union / Uno’s Mulier. The bigger legal relevance is medical licensed personnel who take part in the conception of posterity are not treating a patient in a statement describing on truth any longer.

    What has been broken in a moral sense is there are multiple people who are becoming the parents of a child and it is by law no longer just one man and one woman. The man and women have only donated the tools for the creation of posterity. While it is a group of others who are by fact and truth responsible for the creation of life and areto be listed as witness to a civil union in addition to Binvir and uno's mulier. The legal malpratice of law is taking not to prevent the establishement of United States Consitutional Right. The malpratice of law is to ensure that a complete conneciton to estabished jsutice is never seved for it would negate the civil litiations of marriage being a point of descrimination against alterative lifestyles

    The damming evidence created by the outcome of law is that a couple consisting of two men is Binvir as a legally documented social record. And after the introduction of posterity created by a women’s help one of the males is witnessed as having been legally bound in a civil union with a woman. The identical applies to women with the only fact of truth that is changed as united state by American Constitutional right the witness account of the state of the original union of Uno’s Mulier.


  • BoganBogan 419 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers

    MichaelElpers wrote

     First i do not agree with your premise that if heterosexuality is not a learned behavior so must homosexuality.      Heterosexuality is a required evolutionary premise.

     It stands to reason that if heterosexuality is instinctive, then heterosexuality is instinctive too.      Your claim that homosexuality is not instinctive because it does have a evolutionary reproductive function is a very good point.    I would counter that by saying that genetics does not always make perfect human beings.      Some people are born with all kinds of genetic defects and my supposition is that homosexuality is simply a common genetic defect.

     

    MichaelElpers wrote

     Second, even if now i couldn't see myself being persuaded to homosexuality doesn't mean there is no influence. Our environment has the ability to influence our decisions all the time and it isn't required there be a direct correlation between the nurtured behaviour and the environment.  That's my point on positive reinforcement. Someone may choose to want to be successful because they're surrounded by successful people other because they've seen unsuccessful people, others maybe because of something completely random they didn't even know had an influence.

     As homosexuality has been accepted has there also been a rise in the number of people identifying as homosexual?  Would that show it is more nuture than nature?

    Once again, you have made a very good point which has some validity.    (You also admitted that there is a genetic component for homosexuality with your "Would that show it is more nurture than nature) remark.  You just crossed the Rubicon.   Checkmate.   

    Human behaviour can be very much affected by social learning to the point of self destruction.     A perfect example of that phenomenon, is the censorship in every civilised country of the glorification of suicide.     Europeans learned the hard way in the 18th century with the publication of Goethe's book "The Troubles of Young Werter", that glorifying suicide to the young would cause large numbers of young people to commit suicide.     Even today, we are tolerating the production of movies and "rap" artists who glorify violence, misogyny, gang behaviour, and the misuse of firearms, and then we wonder why so many young males, especially from intellectually challenged races, run around in gangs shooting each other and beating up their wives and girlfriends.

     In the case of homosexuality, one program I watched on youtube claimed that 20% of US high school students in the USA today now claim to be homosexual or "non binary" (whatever that means).     I think that this is because for the last thirty years or so left wing teachers in US schools have promoted homosexuality and other perversions to kids as being normal, as well as being fashionable.    So yes, I agree that social learning can play a part in whether a normally heterosexual young person decides to be engage in homosexual practices.        But the fact remains, that most people who are homosexual and continue in that lifestyle for their entire lives, are born that way.    Nobody had to teach them to be homosexual, and nobody can teach them to ignore their natural feelings and stop being homosexual.    Freud found that even those homosexual patients that he treated who really did believe that their own homosexual feeling were disgusting, sinful, and reprehensible, could not change their sexuality, even though they wanted to.

     

    MichaelElpers quote

    Some things id like to see.  If it is indeed biological, is there a biological marker scientists can point to?

     My opinion, is that there must be.     What I know about genetics today is that the advances in genetics are almost unbelievable, with at least some of the scientist's findings being suppressed from public knowledge because it is political and social dynamite.     I don't know what your opinions on racism are, but here are the unpleasant facts.     Some races are always dysfunctional within western societies because collectively, they are not intelligent enough as a group to compete with other races.   That does not mean that all of them are du-mb.     It is just that the majority of them have a much lower IQ than the majority from the successful races.  

     This scientific fact, goes against every sacred principle of multiculturalism, and the idea of human equality.    So any scientist, even the most eminent ones, who dares to tell the inconvenient truth, gets booted out of his job, has his career destroyed, and has his name chiseled off any plaque celebrating his advancement of science.     This happened to James Watson, the co-discoverer of the double helix and a Nobel laureate.     He is so widely respected in science that he was appointed the head of the prestigious Human Genome Project.   But when a journalist who was interviewing Watson made a remark about how African countries would someday make contributions to science too, Watson simply said that would not happen, because their genetics meant that they were just not smart enough.

     That was all it took to end Watson's eminent career.     When the Pope wanted Galileo to , he had him arrested and shown the instruments of torture if he did not .     Today, if a scientist tells a scientific fact that the powers that be do not want disseminated, they just "cancel" the scientist.      In Galileo's time, regardless of what the Pope ordained, the leading astronomers of the day agreed that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, and they routinely exchanged letters among themselves taking it for granted that the Earth orbited the sun, not the other way around.     Today, genetic international conferences are held in camera with the press pointedly excluded.     What geneticists really know about genetics today I can't say.     But I suspect that it is a lot more than they are letting on, because they know what happened to Galileo and Watson.   (and Arthur Jenson)


    MichaelElpers quote

    From my limited research perspective i imagine it is similar to something like alcoholism.  There may be genetic markers that make you more prone to it but environment can also play a role in deciding it.

     Once again, you are confirming that human behaviour is a product of nature AND nurture.    My own family had a problem with alcohol and my belief as a kid was that there was some weakness in my families genetic makeup that made us prone to alcoholism.    My response was to become a teetotaler.      No amount of social pressure or advertising will shift me on that.      It does not mean that if I drink alcohol I will automatically become a drunk.    It just means that my family genetics makes me more prone to that behaviour. 

     Lastly, could I congratulate you on your civilised way of debating?    There are just too many brain deads on this site who's only motivation is to disrupt and heckle.   Others engage is dishonest tactics like attacking your submissions while never explaining or defending their own.    It is refreshing to debate against a person who has opposing views to me, but who debates intelligently, who asks pertinent questions, and submits well thought out premises. 


    John_C_87
  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: As for the rise in people identifiying as LGBTQIA+ is simple, we are getting better at detecting them.

    "“Increases in the percentage of LGBQ+ students in YRBSS 2021 might be a result of changes in question wording" by Lexi Lonas


    I will make an analogy we are getting better at detecting and diagnosis everyone who is on the autism spectrum. At first we could only detect the severely disabled autistic people. Now we can detect people who are barely autistic. High functional autistic people like Greta Thungberg. Soon we may be able to finally detect and diagnosis 100% of autistic people and then the number will remain static. The number of autistic people was always the same.


    The same with the rise in LGBTQIA+ we are now getting closer and closer to detecting 100%. The number of LGBTQIA+ people has remained the same.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 1121 Pts   -  
    @Bogan

    Thanks for the compliment.  I can also appreciate you not misinterpreting or taking all my statements out of context.

    "I would counter that by saying that genetics does not always make perfect human beings. Some people are born with all kinds of genetic defects and my supposition is that homosexuality is simply a common genetic defect."

    Then I would think we could find the genetic defect.

    "But the fact remains, that most people who are homosexual and continue in that lifestyle for their entire lives, are born that way. Nobody had to teach them to be homosexual, and nobody can teach them to ignore their natural feelings and stop being homosexual. Freud found that even those homosexual patients that he treated who really did believe that their own homosexual feeling were disgusting, sinful, and reprehensible, could not change their sexuality, even though they wanted to."

    That could be true.  It is also possible, even if less likely, that a person is nurtured into homosexuality and it has become so engrained that they do not switch back.
    If you think the large increase in homosexuality and non binary is associated with teachers that would point to a large nurture component.

    Without talking in circles my personal opinion is that there is a genetic (prone to behavior) not necessarily like a disease or marker and is also influenced.  I do not have a set opinion on whether that is 70/30 or vice versa 
  • “For the sake of understanding how malpractice of law in America might become an intentionally stall to be a cause for increases of National Debt. If you cannot first ever honestly in truth describe the wrong in something, it can never be rewritten as a United States Constitutional Right.”

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    jack said:

    Hello again, May:

    Thanks for bringing me back home...  I hate to be the only one beating this drum, but.......

    To me, what's MORAL isn't the issue..  What's LEGAL is.  Therefore, I have maintained from the beginning, as long as you don't require anything of anyone, you're FREE to BE whatever you want to BE..  Using FREEDOM instead of MORALITY as the benchmark for what's permitted, what you have in your pants and what you do with it, is NOT the business of government.. That's the American way. 

    Ain't this a great country or what?

    excon
    You are still constrained by demands of physical reality and logic. You are free to be who you can practically become as a free person, but you certainly not free "to be whatever you want to be" - say, you are not free to be a fire-breathing dragon, however much you might want to. You are free to strive to become a fire-breathing dragon to the best of your ability, but the harsh reality is that it is an unachievable dream.

    Similarly, it is important to distinguish someone wanting to associate themselves with a certain group from someone being a member of that group: claim of membership does not imply membership. If I say that I am a pilot, yet I have never flown a plane, then I will be wrong. Similarly, if I say that I am a woman, yet I have every biological trait of a man, then I will be wrong. Does it mean that I cannot present myself as a woman and be accepted by certain people? Certainly not. But it does mean that I do not magically become a woman by nature of me "identifying" as one.

    Freedom goes both ways: you are free to make any claims you want, and other people are free to tell you what they think about your claims. People are free to criticize someone for being gay, but are not free to take coercive action against them for being gay. A business owner in a free society should be able to say, "We do not serve lesbian customers" - and customers should be able to say, "Cool, I will go elsewhere, you piece of buttocks".
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @MayCaesar

    It is a lie to say or suggest for a person to be free, a person is by truth only ever able to experience liberty and then from state of liberty describe things that are associated to the experience of living as freedom or freedoms. It is a simple change for all people as a United State, the whole truth of a free people is easy show to others as true with displaying with life comes no cost. Can you do this simple task? Do you know anyone who can show us with life comes no cost?

     There is an old proverb. "What one fool can do, another can."

    The A.I. here might be a person who studies law and American Constitution is a person who is licensed to practice states of the union set by United States of Constitutional Right, they are not. Lawyers are only licensed to practice law and the lies people may tell their legal council is a liberty that falls on the person who hires them. A problem of malpractice of law can occur over time as legal counsel believes a whole truth could not be proven and it turns out to be proven. The same principle applies to educational institutions with a difference of fact they are not protected by principle of malpractice of law.


  • DreamerDreamer 272 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: A lot of this anti-lgbtqia+ bigotry comes from the moral majority.

    "Although it disbanded in 1989, the Moral Majority helped to establish the religious right as a force in American politics"


    Ronald Reagan worst president ever. After watching the below video I believe I have underestimated the Christian right.




  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    MayCaesar said:

    You are still constrained by demands of physical reality and logic.

    Hello again, May:

    Not if I don't require you to believe my proclamations.  Whether you think it's logical or not, has NOTHING whatsoever to do with my freedom.  I don't NEED you to acquiesces. 

    Lemme try again..  As long as I require NOTHING of you, in a FREE nation, I could declare myself to be a fire hydrant, logical or not.  Fortunately, my freedom is not based on what you think is logical..

    This is not a difficult proposition, unless you don't quite understand freedom.. You're still trying to say that a gay person, can't BE gay unless he gets someone to AGREE with him..  That ain't what freedom is.   I can BE a fire hydrant, and as long as I DON'T require anyone to believe I'm a fire hydrant..  Being FREE requires NOTHING of anybody..

    Freedom is scary..  Who am I hurting sitting on my lawn or in my house BEING a fire hydrant..  Should men with guns be sent to convince me that I need help??  What is it about freedom that you don't understand?  Freedom is about being left alone.

    excon
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5967 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @jack

    You can declare whatever you want, of course. But your declaration does not in any way affect reality. You are not "free to be whatever you want to be" as you previously asserted, although you are certainly free to make false statements about what you are.

    A person is either gay or not. Whether he is gay does not depend on what he claims he is, but on his biological makeup. He is free to make true or false statements about his biological makeup, but he is not free to make his biological makeup whatever he fantasizes it to be. "Freedom" here refers not to the government not punishing him for something, but to him being metaphysically unable to do that something.

    You are responding to a completely different argument than the one I made. I believe that I understand the concept of freedom quite well, and it is not scary in the slightest. What I am saying here is not a product of emotions, but a calm and rational reasoning. Something that appears to be in shortage on this website these days.

    jack said:

    You're still trying to say that a gay person, can't BE gay unless he gets someone to AGREE with him.. 
    I would ask you to refrain from slandering me, for I have never implied such a ridiculous thing.
  • What is it about freedom that you don't understand?
    How freedom as a word is used by people in any way other then to express those things we prove as to have no cost.  If in America and you struggle to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution as a President you have a constitutional liberty to call yourself a fire hydrant

    Freedom is scary. Nothing that is truly held without cost whatsoever is ever scary. It is a self-evident truth.

    Who am I hurting sitting on my lawn or in my house BEING a fire hydrant.
    The person who is simply taking liberties under premise of freedom is who might spread both fear and hate without governing. Antecedently, they believe the constitutional right of freedom is before a constitutional right of liberty in perfection to established justice and hurt everyone as they feel they have no burden of proof on establishing zero cost as that which is to be free as freedom. The grievance made with a broken part of the 1st Amendment is to become an attempt to break another principle of note American constitutional preamble apart as a state of the union described for test on prefect unions.
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    MayCaesar said:
    jack said:

    You're still trying to say that a gay person, can't BE gay unless he gets someone to AGREE with him.. 
    I would ask you to refrain from slandering me, for I have never implied such a ridiculous thing.

    Hello May:

    Slander?  SLANDER???  DU*DE???????  Slander is a SPOKEN lie, and libel is a WRITTEN one.  Both are defamatory, and I did NEITHER.  A disagreement is NOT a lie.  In fact, if I was you, I'd refrain from throwing serious charges like that around, cause ONE of us might actually get SUED.

    excon
  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    Who am I hurting sitting on my lawn or in my house BEING a fire hydrant.

    and hurt everyone as they feel they have no burden of proof
    Hello J:

    So, if I wanted to start a civil war, all I gotta do is sit on my lawn pretending I'm a fire hydrant???  Du*de!

    excon

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @jack
    So, if I wanted to start a civil war, all I gotta do is sit on my lawn pretending I'm a fire hydrant???  Du*de!
    No of course not jack the question was who do you hurt and I said everyone. How well are you pretending?  You hut everyone by sitting in your yard and pretending your are a fire hydrant. You side stepped the Preamble consitutinal requiement of free. To hold cost the Preamble of the American Constitution has assembled a state of the union of constitutional principle. This is what I wrote. "Antecedently, they believe the constitutional right of freedom is before a constitutional right of liberty in perfection to established justice and hurt everyone as they feel they have no burden of proof on establishing zero cost as that which is to be free as freedom." 

    I think you need to be reminded that when sitting on a law you are say to everyone this is my more perfect state of the union with constitutional preamble. When everyone does this, we are all establishing the most perfect union with established justice and the rest of our constitutional requirements of limited cost. This will not work for me because where I live every dog that goes down the street may urinate on me thinking I am a fire hydrant. At the least.

  • You can declare whatever you want, of course. But your declaration does not in any way affect reality. You are not "free to be whatever you want to be" as you previously asserted, although you are certainly free to make false statements about what you are.

    We are neither free to declare whatever we want nor are we free to do whatever we want as a whole truth. We are at liberty to make a declaration of independence. The Constitutional preamble gives instruction on how a person can hold cost to grievance or liberty take or given free. Period. The first hurdle to jump in this argument of yours is in identifying the first Amendment as a change of constitutional preamble or an addition to constitutional preamble by its creator in grievance. This is important because those who ratified Amendments may not have weighed out how any amendment change can past articles. An amended Article is still the Article it has ever been it is either rewritten directly to hold truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth, Or, the Article is given additional Section to apply the same principle, are last choice is to amended the American Constitution by change described as amendment change itself.

    We are at liberty to test the preamble quality of freedom against all forms of change that comes with Amendment Constitutional Right including Executive order, and Malpractice of law. So, how is the 1st Amendment proven used by case for grievance to influence United States Constitutional States of the Union? Does it (a) abolish states of the preamble union. (b) Does it add to the state of the preamble 


  • jackjack 447 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:

    You hut everyone by sitting in your yard and pretending your are a fire hydrant.
    Hello John:

    Nahhh..  Freedom hurts NOBODY..  Oh, it's scary alright.  Look at you..  Apparently, you're soo scared of people who don't conform to your version of freedom, that you label 'em a danger to society.

    Oh yeah, freedom is indeed, scary.

    excon
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited May 2023
    @jack

    It isn't my version of freedom It is freedom as described and created by the preamble of the United States American Constitution as creator. I fear people who cannot tell the difference between freedom and liberty, I fear them so much I have filed grievance in the form of an acknowledgement of a declaration of independence from them and I, on many levels. I agree freedom hurts no-one, But! I say no and disagree you are undertaking a United States Constitutional freedom for I have not shared in that freedom, and it comes at a cost to me, again I say clearly true and real freedom is not scary it is by truth provably of having no cost it is by all accounts free. The fear you see is created in how people seize liberty which is scary. ow they take hold of liberty, I am telling a truth, a whole truth and nothing but truth as witness when I repeat this fact to you, over, then over, and over again. I have even in advance taken liberty to file a declaration of GOD as a non-religion entity.

    I object to being ordered to be an illegal witness by Executive order Executive officer or by agent of law. In which the laws are unconstitutional in an illegal way as they describe a lie on official document… two men are best bound as legal partners in an unsexual way to established justice as describing for them in an independent method of Binvir. I bind two women in a more perfect connection to established justice as Unosmulier for the same legal cause. I describe both couples who conduct forms of natural immigration by providing materials of birth of a child as civil unions named Virmulier as the more perfect connection to established justice. In your world judicial prejudice may rein down in Americas by legal malpractice indefinitely in my world it does not.

     The funny thing here is that a democracy in public affairs which are events of legal witness by law. Are not dependent on the number of witnesses who witness in similar ways. The legal bonds can be set by only one legally credible witness. FYI a person following an Executive order to witness in and order of this way and this way alone is not ever a credible witness.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch