Debating Christianity and Religion

It's a heavily debated topic whether homosexuals are born this way or not. A lot of arguments over their rights hinge on this factor.

My question is: why is this important and relevant for homosexual rights? Let's say a homosexual came out and said he wasn't born this way. He says that over the course of puberty he developed to become attracted to the same sex.

What rights would he lose out on that homosexuals who were born homosexual would still be entitled to have?

Your example leaves open the blame game in terms of upbringing and logically, if someone can 'develop' to same sex feelings, the opposite remains possible. So they get condemned for not trying harder to develop opposite sex relationships, forcing minors into abusive 'therapy' remains legal, and there would never have been a movement to overturn centuries of intolerance

Just look at all the severe legal restrictions over "harmless" behavior. Roughly half of all prisoners were never convicted of violence. So "i literally cannot help this behavior" is the only argument the minority can use with persuasion. The majority and especially the wealthy gets to do what it wants of course

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Even though Global Warming is a heavily debated topic it does not mean Global Warming does not exist. The religious need to frame Sexuality as a choice to fit within the sin Paradigm. The LGBT argument of being born this way is pushback against choice. Attraction and who we are attracted to though is anything but a choice we don't choose to like certain foods we either do or don't. While that is a simplistic analogy, the point remains that choice is absent for those who are attracted to the same sex. Thus it becomes cruel to use force against LGBT individuals for their inherent attractions.

Your proposed individual should not lose out on any rights. Though as mentioned if certain religious groups and congressmen had their way they would be forced into camps and trained to be strait.

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Speaking in general:
I've always wondered why someone would care what his rights are or aren't if they don't impact that someone negatively?
If he was 'born that way' or if he 'changed his mind later in life' - why does someone care if he does or doesn't have right XYZ if it only impacts him and no other living thing?

Note: I'm not challenging the thread topic, only offering a POV from a different perspective.

jgh7 wrote: It's a heavily debated topic whether homosexuals are born this way or not. A lot of arguments over their rights hinge on this factor.

My question is: why is this important and relevant for homosexual rights? Let's say a homosexual came out and said he wasn't born this way. He says that over the course of puberty he developed to become attracted to the same sex.

What rights would he lose out on that homosexuals who were born homosexual would still be entitled to have?

Seems being 'born this way' and, as you say, over the course of puberty they developed to become attracted to the same sex, seem one and the same basically.
When you're born, you don't say "I'm gay now swaddle me and give me to my momma!" Being 'born this way' typically means, "I've felt this way for as long as I can remember" and those feelings start to be acted upon around puberty.
So there's no rights to loose or gain - they are the same.

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Just one warning: homosexuality may be "inflicted" on a baby by the (malicious) abuse or torture of it, just as I expect Leukemia to be inflicted in a similar way!

See personality conversion of psychiatry (Conversion disorder for now): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_disorder.

Aetixintro wrote:
Just one warning: homosexuality may be "inflicted" on a baby by the (malicious) abuse or torture of it, just as I expect Leukemia to be inflicted in a similar way!

Just two questions:

1. Can you provide evidence of your claim that, "homosexuality may be "inflicted" on a baby"?

2. Can you provide evidence that your expectation that , "Leukemia to be inflicted in a similar way!" is based on any medical facts?

If the answer to either or both of these is "yes", please provide the evidence to support your claim/claims.

[Replying to post 7 by Tcg]

I'd just like to say that obviously torture of people is possible, also the babies. So I bring to your awareness a kind of "educated" torture specialists, pediatric specialists or whatever and that they do a kind of documented "routines" in order to achieve a given condition in a victim baby.

There have been reports from police news, criminology and crime reports that pedophiles also prey on the youngest, the babies or even the unborn.

I'm sorry that the World is in this state, but saying nothing about seems not very constructive. Please, see DarkWeb or BlackWeb for further information because I'm merely inferring due to my investigations that this may be so.

[Replying to post 8 by Aetixintro]

I see. Your answer to question 1. is clearly, no. Your answer to question 2. is also clearly, no. Thanks for the reply.

Tcg wrote: [Replying to post 8 by Aetixintro]

I see. Your answer to question 1. is clearly, no. Your answer to question 2. is also clearly, no. Thanks for the reply.

I see. Your answer to question 1 is clearly not the evidence of the opposite. Your answer to question 2 is clearly not the evidence of the opposite. Thanks for the reply.

For all that I've done in science, I must be allowed to utter this by suspicion. Clearly, torture against babies occur, but what exactly are the effects on them, before and after? I can't see that this question is so easily answered and most certainly one can not go about torturing babies to find out either (because evil in the name of science is banned by criminal law and for ethical/moral concerns if nothing else).