Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

Debating issues regarding sexuality

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

Post #1

Post by KingandPriest »

An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way. As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.

Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.

As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."

This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?

I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child. Is it wrong to condemn these individuals for their attractions but praise or support an individual who has homosexual feelings?

If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?


In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #71

Post by KingandPriest »

Youkilledkenny wrote: [Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Being 'born this way' isn't a justification but a point of biology. Meaning people are born with certain personality traits, biological and mental differences, social abilities, etc. In other words, no one is the same in every aspect.

Why people concern themselves with another's sexuality if it has no negative impact on their lives is disturbing to me.
The secular law concerns itself with a persons sexuality all the time. There are laws which govern sexual activity between 2 consenting adults when it comes to prostitution. There are laws which govern an individual watching porn in their own home if the porn includes an under age teen or minor. These laws are just a few that are enforced in various places around the world. Acting as if the religious community is the only one that governs sexual activity is a false notion. The context of this thread is about the implications of legal decisions regarding what can occur in the future based on the simple notion of legal precedence.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #72

Post by DanieltheDragon »

KingandPriest wrote: [Replying to post 59 by DanieltheDragon]

I agree slavery is not a sexual act. Here we are talking about sexual actions.
So the previous legal precedent for slavery and the loophole in the 13th amendment with regards to slavery, could not be used to legalize pedophillia?

Are you saying an unrelated precedent does not set precedent for something else that is out of the scope of the precedent?

I think we are finally in agreement then. Just because something sounds similar doesn't mean it is similar. I could just as easily argue that marriage certificates sets a legal precedent for pedophilia. I could just as easily say legalization of heterosexual behavior sets a legal precedent for pedophillia.

Yes we are talking about sexual activities. There seems to be some confusion on your end in how they relate.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Canada Supreme Court: Beastiality

Post #73

Post by marco »

KingandPriest wrote:
This is the point of this thread, not whether or not I or anyone else thinks the bible is right. I am just trying to perceive logical consequences and long term effects of legal decisions.
Then if you are speaking entirely in terms of legal decisions and their consequences, then you have a point; the point being that humans make mistakes in their judgments. Judges in the past have condemned people to death and later it has been discovered they were innocent. So yes, people make mistakes and the law may not be an ass but it is fallible.

I can't see what this has to do with the treatment of homosexuals. Because one case is dubious does not mean that other changes in our legal system were also questionable. What we did in the past was reprehensible. We have made amends, to some extent.

Youkilledkenny
Sage
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 6:51 am

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #74

Post by Youkilledkenny »

[Replying to post 70 by KingandPriest]

Agreed. But the laws don't just 'appear' - they come from people who, at least in part, feel the need to live lives for others without being asked. And that still is confusing to me especially when these things don't impact everyone but the people directly involved in any negative way.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9457
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #75

Post by Bust Nak »

KingandPriest wrote: The context of this thread is about the implications of legal decisions regarding what can occur in the future based on the simple notion of legal precedence.
A lot could happen in the future based on legal precedence, did you have a particular scenario in mind? The mention of paedophiles in the OP is screaming slippery slope argument to me. Won't you think of the children?

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #76

Post by KingandPriest »

Bust Nak wrote: A lot could happen in the future based on legal precedence, did you have a particular scenario in mind? The mention of paedophiles in the OP is screaming slippery slope argument to me. Won't you think of the children?
I am trying to think of the children by examining the future implications of current legal decisions. In post 64 I posted a few links about recent Supreme Court decisions in Canada about certain forms of beastiality being deemed legal. Similarly, a person would say who is going to protect the animals which do not have the ability to defend themselves or speak for themselves (in a legal setting).

As the feelings in society changes about what is acceptable sexual behavior, the thoughts on "the age of consent" will undoubtedly change. Currently 18 is the current consensus, but what prevents this from changing just like public perception of homosexuality has changed because of forced changes to social norms. 50 years ago, it would have been inconceivable to think same sex marriage would have been deemed legal. 50 years from now, the perception about age of consent may also change.

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #77

Post by wiploc »

KingandPriest wrote: An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way.
As long as your team insists that homosexuality is a choice, you can expect our team to keep pointing out that it's not. And by the way, at what point did you choose to be heterosexual?


As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.
Insult isn't useful in a civil discussion. Nobody can stop you from calling homosexuality a sin, but you aren't likely to get meaningful interaction if you keep it up.


Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.
They made the same argument about interracial marriage. They could make the same argument about slavery. "You're telling me I can't own people? Will you next tell me that I can't own horses?"


As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."
No, the slippery slope argument doesn't work if there are "undesired effects." If there were undesired effects, you could articulate them. Then, no more slippery slope.

SSG (Slippery Slope Guy): "If we allow X, we'll have to allow Y."
RG (Regular Guy): "Golly, is Y bad?"
SSG: "No, it's not, or else we could forbid it on its own merits."




This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?
No, no, your people argue that homosexuality should be forbidden because it is a choice. Then our people point out that it's not a choice.

If you want to criminalize homosexuality, you have to say why it is bad. We aren't going to argue that anything that's not a choice should be legal, no more than you are going to argue that everything that is a choice should be illegal.

So the issue is this: Why--regardless of whether it is a choice--should homosexuality be illegal? Where is the harm?

My position is this: If homosexuals had enough votes to make heterosexuality illegal, it would still be wrong of them to do so. Therefore, making homosexuality illegal just because heterosexuals have enough votes, that's also wrong.

If you want make it illegal, you have to say why it's wrong.


I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child.
That's a perfect example. Is pedophilia wrong on its own merits? If so, then we can keep it illegal even if homosexuality is legal.

That's the end of the slippery slope argument. If Y is bad, then legalizing X won't lead to legalizing Y.

If, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with Y, then there's nothing wrong with legalizing Y after we legalize X.

So, either way, the slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia? If so then there is, according to your logic, no reason to criminalize homosexuality.

Or do you agree with me that pedophilia hurts people? If so, then, once again, there is no reason to criminalize homosexuality.

And this is true regardless of whether homosexuality (or pedophilia) is a choice.


...
If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Lending money at interest was once illegal in many nations. Does that mean we'll legalize murder next?



Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?

Because people who act on pedophiliac impulses cause damage. By using the slippery slope argument, you are implicitly saying that you don't see this, that you don't see anything wrong with pedophilia.

If there is something wrong with pedophilia, we can ban it on its own merits; we don't have to ban homosexuality too.


In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.
Your law professor isn't an idiot. He's not really saying that if one thing is legal then everything must be legal. That would be nonsense. No, he was challenging you to figure out how some things can be legal while other things aren't.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #78

Post by KingandPriest »

wiploc wrote:
KingandPriest wrote: An all to common argument I have heard to support homosexuality or transgender-ism is the concept of being born this way.
As long as your team insists that homosexuality is a choice, you can expect our team to keep pointing out that it's not. And by the way, at what point did you choose to be heterosexual?
What "team" are you referencing here. It seems you have apparently created a battle or competition in your mind. On the contrary, I wanted to stimulate a conversation while you are choosing teams, winners and looser's.
KingandPriest wrote: As a Christian I could relate to the concept of being born with a proclivity towards a certain activity which may lead to sin.
Insult isn't useful in a civil discussion. Nobody can stop you from calling homosexuality a sin, but you aren't likely to get meaningful interaction if you keep it up.
If calling a persons actions a sin is deemed an insult, then it shows how twisted your viewpoint on sin is. I can offer some clarification in the hopes it corrects your misconception.

The term sin and all of the applications of the word is a description of missing the mark. The simplest application would be for an archer or marksman which misses the bulls eye or misses the mark. Instead of missing a physical target such as a bulls eye the "mark" is the original intent of God for humanity. This speaks more about the intent and accompanying actions of a person. A secular example would be when a person follows the letter of the law regarding a tax regulation but violates the intent of the law. Even though the person has the appearance of following the law, they can still be found liable in a court of law because they violated the intent of the law.

So its a matter of the heart. If you consider talking about a persons intentions and actions as an insult, then it appears you would have to deem all laws as an insult because secular laws govern this same arena of humanity.

KingandPriest wrote: Recently, I heard a discussion which reminded me of one of my undergraduate law courses. This was years ago, so I apologize if I do not present as good an argument as this professor. In the course, the professor argued for maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman because in the court of law, setting a legal precedence on one matter can lead to unintended applications of the decision later on.
They made the same argument about interracial marriage. They could make the same argument about slavery. "You're telling me I can't own people? Will you next tell me that I can't own horses?"
Well some people feel it is immoral to own animals as pets. Nevertheless, comparing owning humans to owning animals shows a blatant strawman argument and a weak presentation of incompatible scenarios. Humans and horses or other animals are not even on the same field of play. But if in your mind owning a horse is on par with owning another person, that speaks more about you and your "team" than anything else.

KingandPriest wrote: As we know, the law is tricky in that a judge may be forced to rule one way based on precedence rather than fairness or equity. To this end, the professor argued that if the law was changed (as it has been today) because one judge or a few judges deemed it acceptable to broaden the definition of marriage, then a precedent could be set for future changes resulting in "undesired effects."
No, the slippery slope argument doesn't work if there are "undesired effects." If there were undesired effects, you could articulate them. Then, no more slippery slope.

SSG (Slippery Slope Guy): "If we allow X, we'll have to allow Y."
RG (Regular Guy): "Golly, is Y bad?"
SSG: "No, it's not, or else we could forbid it on its own merits."
I don't follow the logic of this example. You ignore the complex process of how laws actually come into place and how the legal system depends heavily on precedent.

A conversation between 2 people, SSG and RG would have little to no impact on the legal decisions which a judge can make in the future or the defenses an attorney can use in a future case.
KingandPriest wrote: This now leads to the conversation on being "born this way." When a person is making an argument from the position of being "born this way" are they arguing that any person who is born with certain attractions should be allowed to love who ever they wish?
No, no, your people argue that homosexuality should be forbidden because it is a choice. Then our people point out that it's not a choice.
Once again what team are you talking about. This is a conversation about the impact of legal decision, not a battle between teams.
wiploc wrote: If you want to criminalize homosexuality, you have to say why it is bad. We aren't going to argue that anything that's not a choice should be legal, no more than you are going to argue that everything that is a choice should be illegal.
Who said anything about criminalizing homosexuality?

wiploc wrote: So the issue is this: Why--regardless of whether it is a choice--should homosexuality be illegal? Where is the harm?
Whether something is a sin or not has no bearing on what is or should be legal.

For example there are minimal laws in most states about a child obeying their parents. Generally it is not illegal for a child to disobey their parents, but without this simple principle communities and society as a whole would not exist. All large societies are built as a collection of families. Within the family their is a hierarchy and some actions are deemed as unacceptable even if there is no law prohibiting these actions.

Likewise, since God is the Father of all creation, His authority and intent distinguishes what is a sin, (missing the mark or missing the original intent).

Whether homosexuality is legally supported or outlawed is irrelevant as it pertains to sin. Not every lawful act is morally acceptable. Just look at the financial crisis of a few years ago. In retrospect it is easy to say that the leaders of the large banks were acting immorally by making bad loans, then selling these loans as "safe investments", then betting against these same investments for large profits. These actions were totally legal but based on sinful greed.


wiploc wrote: My position is this: If homosexuals had enough votes to make heterosexuality illegal, it would still be wrong of them to do so. Therefore, making homosexuality illegal just because heterosexuals have enough votes, that's also wrong.

If you want make it illegal, you have to say why it's wrong.
Why would it be wrong to make homosexuality illegal?

On what basis can you make this statement?

Is this based on your opinion or an objective moral standard?

If so, where did this standard come from?
If not, how do you arrive at your conclusion that it would be wrong?

KingandPriest wrote: I ask, because many individuals who are currently considered sexual pedophiles can argue that they were born this way, and were attracted to younger people since they were a child.
That's a perfect example. Is pedophilia wrong on its own merits? If so, then we can keep it illegal even if homosexuality is legal.

That's the end of the slippery slope argument. If Y is bad, then legalizing X won't lead to legalizing Y.

If, on the other hand, there is nothing wrong with Y, then there's nothing wrong with legalizing Y after we legalize X.

So, either way, the slippery slope argument doesn't work.

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with pedophilia? If so then there is, according to your logic, no reason to criminalize homosexuality.

Or do you agree with me that pedophilia hurts people? If so, then, once again, there is no reason to criminalize homosexuality.

And this is true regardless of whether homosexuality (or pedophilia) is a choice.
As of today pedophilia is seen as harmful. So is teenage pregnancy. There are many things which are harmful to minors and I do believe as adults it is our responsibility to protect the welfare of children from predators. With that said, I also see a devaluing of what used to be deemed sacred or worthy of protection. As a society we used to do far more to protect children from being exposed to explicit sexual activity at a young age. Now internet porn agencies have more rights and protections than the minor, even though it is essentially the same thing as prostitution.

Having sex for money is illegal in most places unless you do so on camera and sell the footage as pornography. This results in sex trafficking which is ignored by nearly all media and government platforms.

KingandPriest wrote:...
If the only answer is because they are breaking the law, then it is fair to argue that homosexuality was once illegal in many nations in the world. Is is possible that a precedent has been set to allow those who were once demonized and criminalized as pedophiles to join the LGBT community, as another misunderstood and rejected people group?

Lending money at interest was once illegal in many nations. Does that mean we'll legalize murder next?



Why treat those who have been "born with a attraction" to the same sex differently from those who have been "born with an attraction" to a younger individual?

Because people who act on pedophiliac impulses cause damage. By using the slippery slope argument, you are implicitly saying that you don't see this, that you don't see anything wrong with pedophilia.

If there is something wrong with pedophilia, we can ban it on its own merits; we don't have to ban homosexuality too.

There are many who do not act on these impulses and only "watch" porn with people who look very young or have very small frames. These individuals can still be prosecuted even though they are only watching.

BTW, I obviously see something wrong with pedophilia if I am pointing out the future harm which could happen in the future.
KingandPriest wrote: In some places, consent for marriage can occur as young as 13. Could those individuals who desire to have relationships and marriage to 13 year old, use the precedent of changing the definition of marriage to expand the parameters on consent as well?

What about being born with an attraction towards animals, or physical objects? The porn industry is evidence that people have these desires. Should they be allowed to marry what they love as well? In short, the professor argued that the court of law does not ask, "where does it end" if precedent has been set and no new laws are written.
Your law professor isn't an idiot. He's not really saying that if one thing is legal then everything must be legal. That would be nonsense. No, he was challenging you to figure out how some things can be legal while other things aren't.
I am amused that you know claim to know what my former law professor was thinking and his intent even though you were never in the class, and only have a few sentences from me that describe the sequence of events. Bravo on your speculation, but as the one who was actually in the classroom I think I would be more qualified to speak on what the professor intended.

steellord123
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:24 am

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #79

Post by steellord123 »

[Replying to post 75 by KingandPriest]

Age of consent may very well change, but for entirely different reasons. In fact, it's changed many times before and no two states seem to be the same even now. The science and obvious age of body development doesn't support the current laws. It's too absurd that a person magically becomes mature to do everything at exactly 18, so we're a long ways from perfecting the rights and protections of minors in any respect. I don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality, other than that the advent of science allows us to learn more about human behavior, in various ways

Public perception certainly has not been forced either. You think 50 years is a snap of the finger? It has dragged way behind the science, if anything

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Re: Is "being born this way" an acceptable justifi

Post #80

Post by KingandPriest »

steellord123 wrote: [Replying to post 75 by KingandPriest]

Age of consent may very well change, but for entirely different reasons. In fact, it's changed many times before and no two states seem to be the same even now. The science and obvious age of body development doesn't support the current laws. It's too absurd that a person magically becomes mature to do everything at exactly 18, so we're a long ways from perfecting the rights and protections of minors in any respect. I don't see what any of this has to do with homosexuality, other than that the advent of science allows us to learn more about human behavior, in various ways

Public perception certainly has not been forced either. You think 50 years is a snap of the finger? It has dragged way behind the science, if anything
To your question about homosexuality, the context of this thread was about legal impact and future rulings based on precedent. Changing perception about laws regarding a minors ability to consent can use prior case law to substantiate that two consenting individuals can decide to get married with no regard to age. Gender identity used to be a qualifier for marriage, and is no longer. One may be able to make the argument (legally) that age falls into the same class as gender. All other benefits regarding the protection of discrimination by gender fall into the same class as age, race, religion, etc. My point was to show how a legal case could be presented. I am not saying it should or would, just how it could occur.

Post Reply