Is "being born this way" an acceptable justificati

[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.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

As an aside, it would be helpful if you quote complete sentences from my posts so I dont have to go back and see whether you are taking something out of context.

What makes it an absurd legal argument?

In the past, a persons desire for equal rights for the LGBT community was seen as an absurd legal argument. Are you saying everything that is considered absurd today, will always be considered absurd?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

As an aside, it would be helpful if you quote complete sentences from my posts so I dont have to go back and see whether you are taking something out of context.

What makes it an absurd legal argument?

In the past, a persons desire for equal rights for the LGBT community was seen as an absurd legal argument. Are you saying everything that is considered absurd today, will always be considered absurd?

Because the two are not comparable, they are not analogous. Your argument is equivalent to me saying we should ban Christianity because some religions practice cannibalism and human sacrifice.

I don't doubt for a second that some religionists will try and bring back slavery and child marriage because these abhorrent practices still exist today...

[KenRU]

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?

1) Having an attraction doesn't mean it has to be acted upon. 2) Consenting adults should be allowed to "love" each other, sure.

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.

Once again, being attracted to something doesn't mean it has to be acted upon. Clearly, and I doubt (and hope) that you won't argue otherwise, that pedophilia is harmful. So, this comparison is a false one.

Is it wrong to condemn these individuals for their attractions but praise or support an individual who has homosexual feelings?

It is not wrong to condemn someone for acting on the drive to commit pedophilia, as it causes harm. It would be right to offer help to those who do have the urge to commit pedophilia.

If the only answer is because they are breaking the law,

It is not. Don't you think harm (psychological and physical) is also at play in pedophilia?

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?

No, no precedent need to be set. One causes harm, one doesn't. One involves consent, one doesn't.

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?

Asked and answered.

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?

Different states have different ages of consent, and some have conditions, such as parental consent is needed as well. Once the age is reached where legal consent is attained, then no crime can be committed, correct? So - no legal precedent is set. You have answered your own question.

A different conversation may need to be had regarding when the Age of Consent actually is.

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.

Since objects and animals cannot give consent, then no risk of precedent exists.

-all the best

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 10 by DanieltheDragon]

As an aside, it would be helpful if you quote complete sentences from my posts so I dont have to go back and see whether you are taking something out of context.

What makes it an absurd legal argument?

In the past, a persons desire for equal rights for the LGBT community was seen as an absurd legal argument. Are you saying everything that is considered absurd today, will always be considered absurd?

Because the two are not comparable, they are not analogous. Your argument is equivalent to me saying we should ban Christianity because some religions practice cannibalism and human sacrifice.

I don't doubt for a second that some religionists will try and bring back slavery and child marriage because these abhorrent practices still exist today...

How is that my argument when I am not talking about banning anything?

All I am talking about is legal precedence.

For a person to apply legal precedence is to find a similar legal application. The new case does not even need to match the same circumstances as the original.

In legal systems based on common law, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.
...
Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

So if a person brings a case or lawsuit regarding a civil liberties violation, it could be deemed similar enough to apply the legal precedent set by US Supreme Court decisions.

What legal precedent would someone have for bringing back slavery?
(Side note, slavery is still legal in the US for anyone convicted of a crime. Here is the 13th amendment if you think I am lying:

"The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteent ... nstitution )

If these practices still exist today, what is there to bring back?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 13 by KenRU]

Who determines what causes harm?

If a parent feels their child is unsafe by allowing children to "choose which gender they identify with" and use the bathroom of their choice in a public school, should this parents interpretation of harm be ignored?

What if the harm is not physical but psychological?
Should a parent be able to decide what is "harmful" to their children?

Who gets to determine what is harmful vs acceptable? The government, a group of psychologists, parents, the children themselves?

Studies which have attempted to monitor the long term effect of sex education courses have demonstrated that these courses do not result in young people having "better" or "safer" sexual encounters than those with no such education. In fact in comparison to those programs that promote abstinence and solely heterosexual relationships, those students who did engage in sexual activity were at a much lower rate, and reported a higher usage rate of condoms during first sexual relationships.

http://sheu.org.uk/sites/sheu.org.uk/fi ... /294dw.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586352/

http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... -an-update

So, some could argue that it is a harm to the teens, and society as a whole to foster an educational environment that supports teaching sexuality on the bases of natural desires, rather than teach abstinence. Do you realize the "modern" sex ed classes in school today teach abstinence in the same manner as drug awareness with "Just say no" campaigns?

Is teen pregnancy harmful to the development and growth of a developing teen?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 14 by KingandPriest]

There are already legal precedence a upholding slavery one would simply need to unwind the 13th. Which is theoretically possible. It doesn't matter if your not proposing banning anything the example was to show how unrelated the two are gay marriage in no way sets a legal precedence any more than hetero marriage for pedophillia or marriage with adults and minors that would be consider pedophilic.

Your arguing an old argument that has already been dismantled. Why you persist is beyond me.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by KingandPriest]

If a parent feels their child is unsafe by allowing children to "choose which gender they identify with" and use the bathroom of their choice in a public school, should this parents interpretation of harm be ignored?

No it should not be ignored but, harm would still need to be proven the perception of harm is not enough to justify legal action without a direct threat being made. The whole bathroom baloney is mostly a non issue it has only recently been brought up since the end of the gay marriage battle as the next front for religionists trying to enforce their religious ideology in our secular government. This might be news to you but transgendered individuals have been going to the bathroom of their choice for a lot longer than this most recent brouhaha

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 15 by KingandPriest]

The first two studies you put up from Britian have nothing to do with abstinence one was comparing the efficacy of experimental sex education programs vs the current standard in Britian. The second compared the efficacy of student vs teacher sex education. The heritage foundation is not a scientific foundation it is a Christian propaganda think tank that is known for cherry picking data and distorting information...

When grasping for straws one might find themselves without merit.

http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/

Teen pregnancy is on a decline in the US sharply dropping with the introduction of comprehensive sex education in 60% of public schools.

Comprehensive sex education is 50% more effective than abstinence only at reducing teen pregnancies.

http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/

Abstinence only education is a waste of federal dollars and was positively correlated with teen pregnancies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

Abstinence only education has the highest rate of std transmission.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378905

They would literally be better off not having any sex education than abstinence only.
Which is not surprising given the information of abstinence only education.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

As you can see from other replies you are making a slippery slope argument and whilst logical is not emotionally valid. Born this way is a self justification to do what we want. Many therefore don't care what others might want on the basis of being born this way but what they want.

I wouldn't use pedophilia or beastiality because the arguments can be dismissed on emotional repugnance grounds.

Should a proclivity towards anything be considered immoral? What if the rich 1% are born that way. Given the 1% is less than the rates of homosexuals it's even more likely they are born that way. (The absurdity of that argument distracts however the absurdity is in reality not mine.)

The problem with born that way arguments is that if we think outside yourself and apply it to others you can judge no one.

I think you noted that Christians do think we are all born that way, as sinners. I think that knowledge helps me in dealing with others.

The problem for born thus way proponents is that everything becomes justifiable.

So, if we can resist our born this way proclivities then what ones should we resist and why and if we can't then is morality an illusion (people that say they are moral simply are born that way to act that way to persecute other people born to be immoral)?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 19 by Wootah]

Well there might be a point to the wealthiest being born that way, very rarely do anyone outside the 1% ascend to that wealth rung. If anything is true the 1% were born that way lol.

I do think you bring up an interesting point with what proclivities do we resist. I firmly believe biology is a huge component in human behavior. Sociopaths have unique brain structures for example. People who suffer brain trauma exhibit significant personality changes especially when the temporal regions are effected. Pedophiles seem to be born that way in the sense that there seems to be a strong biological link to their arousal. Perhaps rapists murders etc are "born" that way.

Legally the law should be morally neutral and specific to damage done to aggrieved parties. If you are religious feel free to let your religious teachings be your guide on moral behavior. We don't need the law to be moral though. The law is simply a tool to keep order in a society. Given the diverse nature of religious beliefs and philosophical moral principles the law cannot please everyone by trying to be a moral arbiter and that would lead to disorder.