The nature versus nurture argument is a good one to defend a position of denial. I think its the best one. You assume homosexuality is a choice. I equally and strongly believe that it is predetermined (as does Olson). At that point, there is no real constructiveness to further discussion because we will never come to common ground as long as each believes what he/she believes. There it is just best to agree to disagree.
But without opening a new line of debate because we did all that over the gays in the military thing last April. I still wonder why someone would CHOOSE to be denied jobs, denied respect, forced to live a secret life, choose to never be married, never have children, denied housing, publicly mocked, ridiculed, arrested, beaten and in many cases killed...it just does not sit with me that someone would ever CHOOSE that life (other than Christ who offered himself up for us all).
Why does that even matter? Existing anti-discrimination laws cover both inborn traits (race) and choices (religion).
I don't. I have a gay brother. I have met his friends. I know why they CHOSE to be gay. I heard the stories.
I still wonder why someone would CHOOSE to be denied jobs, denied respect, forced to live a secret life, choose to never be married, never have children, denied housing, publicly mocked, ridiculed, arrested, beaten and in many cases killed...it just does not sit with me that someone would ever CHOOSE that life (other than Christ who offered himself up for us all).
They are NOT denied all of that. Leave out the melodrama, ok? They claim it because being a victim suits the special rights they are trying to get. You don't get special rights unless you are a victim minority. This was all mapped out in the 1970's. And it's working. They liken their behavior to being black and the civil rights of blacks. Something that you fell for. They mapped out being victims. The victim card works like the race card.......right up until someone sees the Folsom Street Fair.
Their status depends on behavior. They are not "born this way".
Homosexuality is not biologically determined - latest research.
As to the exact causes of homosexuality, the medical jury is still out. But the baseless claim, promoted by Justice Michael Kirby and others, that gays are just born that way, is given no support by the American Psychiatric Association. Their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000) sums it up: "There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality".
BORN OR BRED? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic PDF
In 1993, Columbia University psychiatry professors Drs. William Byne and Bruce Parsons examined the most prominent “gay gene” studies on brain structure and on identical twins, and published the results in the Archives of General Psychiatry. They found numerous methodological flaws in all of the studies, and concluded that:
There is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory. … [T]he appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from dissatisfaction with the present status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data.1
Simon LeVay, whose brain study in 1991 “jumped from the pages of the periodical Science to The New York Times and Time, then to CNN and Nightline, and from there to the dinner tables and offices of the country,” according to writer Chandler Burr, was quite open in his assessment of the possible impact of his work. “[P]eople who think gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”
I equally and strongly believe that it is predetermined (as does Olson)
Your strongly held belief is based on belief only and has no evidence whatsoever to back it up. Homosexuals have been trying to find hard evidence but have failed to so do.
OTOH, there are countless numbers of former homosexuals. If they were born “gay”, they could not change. But many have.
Yet another weak, pathetic homosexual agenda talking point lie.