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.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 19 by Wootah]

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.

Yes but is that you being that way saying that the law is important or overcoming your being that way bias and suggesting the law is important? (perhaps that is rhetorical unless you have an answer that breaks through the conundrum and then I would like to hear it )

Can the law be morally neutral? Doesn't all laws imply something is bad or immoral? Can you explain that for me?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

Have you considered that possibility that no justification is required for someone to be homosexual or transgender?

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, it is presented as a direct response to the claim that homosexuality or transgenderism is a life-style choice, it is not meant as a justification for their behaviour. If someone were to claim that "paedophilia is a life-style choice" then the exact response would be applicable - no, they are born that way.

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

No, that is not wrong at all.

Is it 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?

"Possible" in the strictest sense of the word - as in there is no logical contradiction, it is however implausible.

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 the former is morally acceptable, where as the latter is immoral.

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?

They could try and see how far they get.

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.

In short, slippery slope argument.

[KingandPriest]

[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.

What legal precedence exists to unwind the 13th amendment?

I am not familiar with such case law or decision made by the US Supreme Court. If I am mistaken, please educate us all so we can be better informed in this debate.

When has this argument been dismantled? In public opinion or in a court of law?
I am talking about what could occur in a legal proceeding, not public opinion.

[KingandPriest]

[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

Adults have been able to use the bathroom of their choice for a long time, this I agree. But children in public schools have not. Especially in the sexually charged high schools were children are recording themselves having sexual activity in the bathrooms and posting these encounters online.

A parent can prove that a lack of bathroom monitoring can lead to child pornography, shaming and bullying which leads to depression and possible suicide attempts.

Do you consider the shame a teen could endure by having themselves published online a proven and genuine harm, or just percieved harm?

What about the teen who regrets their decision and is now facing the stigma of being "easy" or "loose" which drives the teen to insecurity and depression. Is this harm serious or only perceived?

Do these parents have genuine reasons for concern, or are basing their objections on fantasy?

Is it a fact or a myth that teens engage in far more high risk sexual activity because of social media, internet and increasingly advanced technology?

Is the harm from this increased activity real or only perceived by parents?


Here is an article discussing the real harm, not just perceived of the actions teens are engaging in today.
http://ikeepsafe.org/articles/high-risk ... ervention/

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

Laws don't make moral proclamations(typically). Take murder for example the law will usually describe what qualifies and what the ramifications for committing the act but it doesn't say you can't or shouldn't do it. The laws regarding murder exist to preserve order, if there was no law against murder society would disend into chaos as aggrieved parties take justice into their own hands. Most criminal laws are structured this way:

X action = Y consequence. It doesn't say you should or should not do something.

We as a society often do make moral proclamations like murder is bad but the law specifically usually does not do this.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 24 by KingandPriest]

Now you are talking about something entirely different, bullies using recording devices to invade privacy. That is something entirely different than using the bathroom of choice.... Now you go from bathroom of choice to social media and teen sex. Grasping at straws King grasping at straws.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

Laws don't make moral proclamations(typically). Take murder for example the law will usually describe what qualifies and what the ramifications for committing the act but it doesn't say you can't or shouldn't do it. The laws regarding murder exist to preserve order, if there was no law against murder society would disend into chaos as aggrieved parties take justice into their own hands. Most criminal laws are structured this way:

X action = Y consequence. It doesn't say you should or should not do something.

We as a society often do make moral proclamations like murder is bad but the law specifically usually does not do this.

Do consequences typically arise from good or bad actions?

For example if a person performs action X (go to work and do their job) they expect to receive Y compensation.

Is compensation in this example a consequence? Are things which are typically seen as good results considered a consequence?

For example a person performs the action X of following the law which results in them not having their freedom revoked by a law enforcement agency Y. Is this a consequence?

Or do laws only provide consequences for what are deemed as moral violations?

Does the law attempt to regulate morality?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 27 by KingandPriest]
Consequence

Noun
1.
the effect, result, or outcome of something occurring earlier:

The law regulates order and prevents disorder. Morality is something else, law can have the perception of morality but that is simply society ascribing moral values to laws. While there might be exceptions here or there such as in theocratic societies. We live in a secular law system though.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 13 by KenRU]

Who determines what causes harm?

Seems to me, while not perfect, we are currently able to determine when rape and psychological trauma occur now. Do you object to these methods under the current law?

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?

I imagine the school would try to accommodate a parent’s concern. However, I will need you to be specific, are you talking Elementary, Middle School or High School?

And, the parent should be able to explain what their fear/concern is. Can you give me a specific reason? It is, after all, your important to your argument.

What if the harm is not physical but psychological?

Please elaborate.

Should a parent be able to decide what is "harmful" to their children?

Yes, with a doctor’s support, of course. The cause, after all, may not be the gender bathroom issue, it may be something else (bad parenting, bigotry etc).

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

This is just a silly cop out, sorry, I don’t mean to be disrespectful. What harm are you talking about? If a child/parent has an issue, then with a medical note, an exception can be made. Much like we have medical exceptions for all sorts of disabilities.

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.

I believe this is in error, at least in the US:

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/public ... y-programs

This link form NCBI, says it best:
“These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.� https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/

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.

The data I researched does not comport with what you are presenting.

In fact, below you cite an article from NCBI, which is baffling to me because when I looked it up, I found that NCBI clearly advocates Sex Ed and condemns Abstinent Only Programs as being woefully ineffective and possibly part of the problem.

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.

Parents are free to teach their kids whatever they wish (whether based in science and accurate data or not).

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?

I have no issue if abstinence is taught as an option, BUT not the ONLY option.

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

What age are you talking about? 13 or 19? Somewhere in between? Your answer matters tremendously.

-all the best

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 21 by Wootah]

Laws don't make moral proclamations(typically). Take murder for example the law will usually describe what qualifies and what the ramifications for committing the act but it doesn't say you can't or shouldn't do it. The laws regarding murder exist to preserve order, if there was no law against murder society would disend into chaos as aggrieved parties take justice into their own hands. Most criminal laws are structured this way:

X action = Y consequence. It doesn't say you should or should not do something.

We as a society often do make moral proclamations like murder is bad but the law specifically usually does not do this.

I don't see any difference between immoral and law. Can you explain that?

Some immoral things might not have laws for them, but all just laws cover immoral things surely?