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.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 30 by Wootah]

There is an overlap sure, laws also cover things like traffic. You must wait 3 seconds at a stop sign or be 3 car lengths behind a vehicle on the highway. There is nothing moral about that these are safety guidelines.

Laws simply function differently than morality.

Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Law
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 29 by KenRU]

The age range I was speaking about with the bathroom issue was high school age teens. This includes teens as young as 13 and up to 19. Is it logical or wise to allow teens who are more than likely sexually active to choose the bathroom of their preference?

Security guards who are there to ensure the safety of the students are now placed in a difficult situation to prevent male students from entering female bathrooms. Due to the changes in what qualifies as title IX discrimination, adults are now required by law to turn a blind eye to what will most likely lead to harmful sexual activity (in the form of broadcasting sexual encounters online) by students.

More teens are engaging in porn related activities in this generation than ever before. In the past, teens would have just looked at a magazine or a porn film. Now the teens themselves are filming there own videos and uploading to get increased views and followers.

http://www.stanfield.com/blog/2012/07/c ... ial-media/

https://www.teensafe.com/blog/5-sext-ap ... strangers/

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/s ... teens-love

Schools are not allowed to stop kids from sexting which plays a greater role in why the youth of today are far less able to perform as well as generations prior in academics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/d ... eport.pdf

http://ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/relations ... h-sexting/

BTW, I was not saying schools should teach abstinence only. I only demonstrated that the way schools teach abstinence makes no sense. Why use the same tactic as antidrug campaigns?

[ttruscott]

Psa 139:13
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

This scripture tells us that any leanings we have were specifically designed to be there by god. So if we have paedophilic tendencies, then it is God who created us with those. Likewise with homosexual tendencies.

Please consider the option
that GOD created us ingenuously innocent with a free will so that we could chose our eternal relationship with YHWH as our GOD or as our enemy by choosing to believe HE was a false GOD.

Then it is no great leap to think that if we chose sin, if we separated ourselves from HIM and self created our essential natures as sinful, our minds and desires became clouded by sin like an addiction. Then too it is not a great leap of pre-existence logic nor faith to see that if we were then sent into humans bodies that we would bring our addiction to sin with us and once grown, our sinfulness, not created by GOD but by ourselves, would be expressed in all manner of sin in our human lives.

IF GOD by giving us lives wherein we can express our sinfulness perfectly tuned to our sinful desires in response to our free will decisions, how can HE be guilty of 'making us this way?' Our lives are perfectly in tune with and reflect our rebellion, pre-earth, to the purpose of opening the eyes of HIS sinful elect to their sin so they can feel/experience their guilt and repent and so be redeemed.

In other words, Pre-Conception Existence is the only theory of our creation that makes us 100% responsible for our lives here on earth and our ultimate fate. GOD let us choose and is following our lead...until HE brings the end.

[checkers]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

It all boils down to not understanding this one sentence;

Genesis 1
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by KingandPriest]

It all boils down to not understanding this one sentence;

Genesis 1
27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

Please do elaborate?

[KingandPriest]

I had to repost, one of the links did not have the right format.

[Replying to post 29 by KenRU]

The age range I was speaking about with the bathroom issue was high school age teens. This includes teens as young as 13 and up to 19. Is it logical or wise to allow teens who are more than likely sexually active to choose the bathroom of their preference?

Security guards who are there to ensure the safety of the students are now placed in a difficult situation to prevent male students from entering female bathrooms. Due to the changes in what qualifies as title IX discrimination, adults are now required by law to turn a blind eye to what will most likely lead to harmful sexual activity (in the form of broadcasting sexual encounters online) by students.

More teens are engaging in porn related activities in this generation than ever before. In the past, teens would have just looked at a magazine or a porn film. Now the teens themselves are filming there own videos and uploading to get increased views and followers.

http://www.stanfield.com/blog/2012/07/c ... ial-media/

https://www.teensafe.com/blog/5-sext-ap ... strangers/

https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/s ... teens-love

Schools are not allowed to stop kids from sexting which plays a greater role in why the youth of today are far less able to perform as well as generations prior in academics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/opini ... .html?_r=0

Sexting PDF

http://ikeepsafe.org/be-a-pro/relations ... h-sexting/

BTW, I was not saying schools should teach abstinence only. I only demonstrated that the way schools teach abstinence makes no sense. Why use the same tactic as antidrug campaigns?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 36 by KingandPriest]

Transgendered individuals are not choosing bathrooms of their gender choice to perform sexual activities. Transgendered individuals often identify as hetero with respect to their gender choice as well. They are not sneaking into bathrooms for sexual gratification, they want bathroom choice with respect to their gender because it is ackward when you identify as a boy you look like a boy and your forced into a girls bathroom.

It really bugs me that religionists always focus on boys going to girls bathrooms when it is just as likely the other way around.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 36 by KingandPriest]

Transgendered individuals are not choosing bathrooms of their gender choice to perform sexual activities. Transgendered individuals often identify as hetero with respect to their gender choice as well. They are not sneaking into bathrooms for sexual gratification, they want bathroom choice with respect to their gender because it is ackward when you identify as a boy you look like a boy and your forced into a girls bathroom.

It really bugs me that religionists always focus on boys going to girls bathrooms when it is just as likely the other way around.

I agree that "transgendered individuals are not choosing bathrooms of their gender choice to perform sexual activities."

Allowing teens in high school to choose the bathroom of their preference without supervision can lead to undesired abuse for sexual activities. Ignoring this fact is to ignore common sense and the fact that teens will take advantage of loop holes or gaps in monitoring to engage in sexual activities.

This is like saying, because some teens don't sneak out the window, all teens wont sneak out the window.

I agree it is just as likely the other way around. There are many girls who are very mature and desire sexual activity far more than boys. These girls can just as easily self identify as a boy to meet up with their boyfriend in the bathroom.

Focusing solely on what a child who is struggling with gender identity will do, ignores the fact of what the reaming students will do.

Do you dispute that heterosexual teens can take advantage of bathroom self identification? Remember, teachers and school officials cannot discriminate and speculate whether a boy is struggling with their gender identity.

Should we just ignore the loop hole, and hope the students abide by the honor system and do not abuse the policy for their own benefit?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 30 by Wootah]

There is an overlap sure, laws also cover things like traffic. You must wait 3 seconds at a stop sign or be 3 car lengths behind a vehicle on the highway. There is nothing moral about that these are safety guidelines.

Laws simply function differently than morality.

Morality
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Law
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

I would call them regulations. Yes there is something immoral about not following them

[benchwarmer]

Allowing teens in high school to choose the bathroom of their preference without supervision can lead to undesired abuse for sexual activities.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. If teens want to hook up, do you think this whole bathroom broohaha makes any difference? You seem to be suggesting that currently the doors to all bathrooms are monitored somehow and teens are unable to slip in and have sex together under the current scheme.

What about boys having sex together in the bathroom? Girls having sex together in the bathroom? How come you are not all up in arms about preventing that with some other draconian bathroom laws?

It seems like a big red herring and a convoluted excuse to put down transgender people.

Frankly they should just make all bathrooms unisex such that everyone has privacy. I think that's the only sane move going forward. I realize retrofitting existing bathrooms will be cost prohibitive, but probably cheaper than the avalanche of ridiculous law suits that will soon emerge as this silliness continues to grow.