to ask for help in 'winning' FB debate on homosexuality

[manicinsomniac]

I know, I know, FB interaction should never be serious. But this isn't a bunfight I promise, it's an incredibly civil and highly intelligent sounding (far too intelligent for me - hence the request for help!) debate!

The basic premise is, I suppose, 'is homosexuality a sin?'. I have written several long responses and one of them is based on the nature-nurture thing. I have said that people are born gay or straight therefore were created that way therefore it can't be a sin.

In response somebody has posted this:
dailycaller.com/2014/03/19/nobody-is-born-that-way-gay-historians-say/2/?onswipe_redirect=no&oswrr=1
Instinctively I feel it must be wrong but having read it twice, I'm wondering if I've been beaten (on that particular point!) and that we actually are not born with a sexuality.

If I'm wrong I'm very willing to accept it, it doesn't change my opinion. But if I'm right I'd like some stats or studies to support me. Does anybody know any?

I know the whole idea of this debate might seem very backwards and ludicrous to mumsnet readers but this is a church debate and I'm actually really excited that so many people are posting or considering the fact that being gay is fine and normal. So I'd hate the other side of the debate to come out on top!

You should dig out anything written by Myers & Briggs on 'preferences'. Not sexual ones specifically, but they contend that certain core behavioural preferences are something that we are born and die with, even if they are adjusted along the way for reasons that might include conforming to social norms, experience or necessity.

I would assume that sexual preference is a core behaviour rather than something completely innate (like being left-handed or having freckles). That sexual preference generally doesn't feature properly in many people's lives until puberty is not evidence that we are not 'born that way'. In fact, given the historical societal pressure on people to be 'straight' I would assume that there are a considerable number of gay people, even today, who have adjusted their core behaviour simply in order to conform.

All them when they made the decision to be heterosexual.

The nurture/nature debate is a complete red herring when it comes to sexual orientation.

If it is 'nurture' then the bigots will say 'it is a lifestyle choice, a product of lax moral discipline and decadence in 21st century secular western societies.' Therefore according to their (barking mad) logic it is possible to put in place policies to marginalise a 'lifestyle' choice.

Or if it is 'nature' the bigots will say 'They are pathological, there is nothing you can do to stop them they must be locked up/castrated/treated kept away from the rest of society.'

It is irrelevant why someone is gay or straight, but what is important is that they are allowed to conduct their lives with the same opportunities and freedoms to love who they want, marry who they want, live where they want without fear of discrimination.

Who someone loves or is sexually attracted maybe be a product of nature, nurture or a combination of both, but does it really matter? If it was decisively proved to be one or the other, would it make a difference to how gay people are treated?

My impression of reading US politics is that The Daily Caller website (where you've linked to) is not to be taken too seriously.

Thanks, I can try those.

It's odd because it just 'makes sense' that we are born with a preference. But, having googled it, a lot of the evidence is that we aren't; even the pro-gay/ written by LGBT groups stuff seems to suggest that it isn't that clear cut and that perhaps we aren't born with our sexuality. Unless they're just saying that whether we are or aren't shouldn't be the focus or the 'reason' for tolerance (instead of the reason being that people can do what they want to!)

or what composhat just said (that will teach me to type a bit of a post then come back to it and post anyway!)

That's useful thanks, Belfast - my first instinct was to try and discredit the source but I couldn't immediately see anything dodgy about it.

I think this is a bit like debating climate change or evolution - it will end in frustration.

The kind of person who honestly thinks God cares about whether somebody is gay probably also thinks that their whole religion will fall apart if Noah wasn't a real person or if dinosaurs were real. I'm not sure that you can use logic to win that kind of argument.

We are born with our sexuality - do you remember the day you chose yours? It's always been with you and you've always known it.

Not to say one can't be confused - societal pressure to be straight is huge and of course children pick up on these things. But your instinct, the thing you are drawn towards, has always been in you. I'm not even adding an 'IMO' because to me this is a complete truth. I've been straight since I was conscious. That's my sexuality.

I agree that it's a red herring, and the important thing is that people being gay doesn't hurt anyone else, while being homophobic does.

But I suspect that this isn't something where we're all the same. I think some people must be born with a very strong preference. I have friends who are gay and tried very hard to be straight, and it was just never going to happen, not possibly. I also have friends who (without being homophobic about it), just would never be remotely attracted to the same sex.

Then there are far more who are (or happily identifiy as) straight mostly because we're conditioned to be straight, and who might, in a world where it was less of an issue, have identified as gay or bi.

I suspect it is rather like gender identity. Some people have a really strong sense of which gender they must be; others just go along with what society expects and aren't really that fussed.

If it was decisively proved to be one or the other, would it make a difference to how gay people are treated?

I think it would make a vast difference if it was definitively proven.
If the 'we are born that way' option is irrefutably verified, then prejudice should reduce vastly because it's obvious that it's not a fad, a whim or a lifestyle choice.

In a religious debate, that verification would light the blue touchpaper within religions who have declared it's a sin amongst their members.

Agree with Wilson, ask them when they chose to be straight. They would probably reply that being gay never entered their head. Just like being straight never entered mine. Morons

The other problem is that sexuality can frequently 'evolve' during a person's lifetime and also flex in response to environmental stressors. Kinsey and then the institute have done some interesting work on this.

My instictive approach to the 'but it's unnatural' whinerss is
a) so are clothes, cooking and the internet
b) gay ducks therefore not unnatural.

Btw, I really disagree with wilson. I've certainly not always known mine, and I don't think it's because I was confused, either. I'm attracted to men and women. It's quite difficult working that one out because you keep thinking 'oh, whoops, ok, must be straight ... no, gay ... no, straight ... no, wait a minute'!

But being attracted to men and women is your sexuality in that case LRD, no? Which is totes fine by me, but even more of a head fuck in terms of societal norms and expectations.

You can't win an argument with people who have a mindset to be bigoted. The point is, the reason behind someone's orientation doesn't matter, they are who they are and have every right live their life.

You could argue about if being a bigot is nature or nurture, I know where I'd place my money in that one!

Google homosexual behaviour in animals, there's lots of evidence that other species hae homosexual behaviour as well.

But LRD is right, when determining if a behaviour is wrong or not, what matters is if it hurts someone else. Being gay does not hurt other people so it's not wrong.

You can't 'win'. They're bigots, move on with your life. Argue for fun if you want to bt don't expect to convince them with logic and reason.

YY, I know that now, wilson ... but I am pushing 30 and I reckon it took me most of that time to figure it out. I think it can genuinely be quite hard to figure out. Especially when you take into account how persuasive some social influences can be - my mate, who is very definitely gay, did have a time in his teens when he told himself he must be straight because he didn't actually find kissing women repulsive, so he couldn't be gay.

I think to say people have 'always known' is to underestimate how much you can second-guess yourself.

Who cares if it's a 'sin'?

Seriously, anyone who thinks along those lines is an irrelevant bigot.

(Sorry, that sadface makes my post sound as if I am applying my sadness to myself and doing a 'woe is poor misunderstood me'. That wasn't my intention - I was being sad for my mate. I am entirely comfortable in my own situation. )

It's not cut and dried, the nature/nurture debate will probably rage for ever because it's most likely a bit of both. That's not the issue really, whether it's nature or nurture still doesn't make it a choice. We've been socialised to behave in many ways which arent inherently natural, yet we would have a hard time altering it, this includes language, accent, gender roles, sexuality, taste etc.

Obviously even if it was a conscious choice (which would probably be rare) still doesn't make it a sin because it's not hurting anyone.

I think it would make a vast difference if it was definitively proven.
If the 'we are born that way' option is irrefutably verified, then prejudice should reduce vastly because it's obvious that it's not a fad, a whim or a lifestyle choice.

In a religious debate, that verification would light the blue touchpaper within religions who have declared it's a sin amongst their members.

It would probably be explained by religious in terms of 'original sin' or 'paying for misdemeanours in a previous life' type bullshit or they were simply born evil and therefore beyond redemption or as something akin to leprosy.

Same homophobia, same bigotry masked by a different language and justification.

at the woe is poor understood LRD. I completely take your point about second-guessing - I happen to have the sexuality that society expects me to have, so I've never had to go through that 'discovery' process. Must have been a toughie to figure out and I'm glad you're happy now.

Yep, I agree. It wouldn't make a difference.

In fact, I have had this debate with people who were utterly convinced people are born gay, and simply believe that if you are born gay, you are called by God to be celibate.

wilson - oh, it wasn't exactly upsetting, just strange.