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?

[Replying to jgh7 in post #1]

why is this important and relevant for homosexual rights?

Because people tend to like to dislike/hate/chastise/belittle those that are different from them and, if it were a choice, it allows them to continue to dislike/hate/chastise/belittle. Admitting this is how one was born makes it a lot harder to dislike/hate/chastise/belittle (though not impossible).

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.

Gay people aren't born thinking 'Well, I like people my own sex!' It develops around the same time it does for all people - puberty. When puberty rears its ugly head, people decide they like whatever they like. That's not to say, by doing this, they negate the fact they were 'born this way'.

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

None. No one should miss out on rights that allow them to live their lives, sexually, as they see fit so long as it doesn't harm others purposefully and they're consenting human adults.

steellord123 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:28 am 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

This post really nailed it. We need the argument that people can't change so that the people who want them to change will leave them alone, because they ought to leave them alone and not try to change them.

It doesn't matter as much whether it is strictly true or not because forcing people into conversion therapy is evil regardless of whether it works or not.