Can homosexuals be changed? ( Genetics is the topic ) page 27

Its not legal because of the amount of opposition it has against it.

But two posts back you mentioned you never said anything about a majority. That is pretty inconsistent.

Your asking me if people should be allowed to have gay sex? That’s kind of a broad question. The context and situation could dictate the answer to that question. In general, yes they should be allowed.

So, they should be allowed, but you’re against homosexuality? Or are you simply against the thought of being a homosexual yourself?

Show my lack of consistency or refrain from calling out my lack of consistency.

Pointed out one above.

You can talk all day long, but you will never be able to prove that people deserve equal rights.

It doesn’t matter what people deserve. What matters is what would work. Treating everyone unequally is bound to face resistance.

I would more or less simply say I dont have an opinion for or against it.

I think that’s the answer we were all looking for.

There is nothing inconsistent there. You CAN be against something but think that it should be allowed, can you not?
“What matters is what would work” That statement is really broad and could be incorrect in so many different situations.

Anything and anyone can be ‘changed’ with time and/or force.

Originally posted by Florados:

Anything and anyone can be ‘changed’ with time and/or force.

Already you stated a constant (time) which cannot be changed by any other means.

Originally posted by Florados:

Anything and anyone can be ‘changed’ with time and/or force.

Try unfrying an egg and get back to me on that.

You CAN be against something but think that it should be allowed, can you not?

The inconsistency was where you first denied using the factor “majority” as a reason against homosexuality, but then say homosexuals do not have equal rights because there is so much opposition against it. Do you feel the latter is right? If yes, you’re inconsistent. If no, then I don’t know why we’re discussing about the matter.

That statement is really broad and could be incorrect in so many different situations.

Reply to what I said after that.

We shouldn’t have to prove that people deserve equal rights. Look at yourself and think if you want to have less equal rights to another person, then apply that to others. In the end, everyone is selfish in that they want equal rights to others, and if we start removing those equal rights, we might end up in such a situation ourselves.

Darkruler, Your wrong.

You said “so because your in the majority you can…”
I said “where did i say anything about majority?”

So show me where I had said something about majority prior to you mentioning it.
Pro tip: you wont. I hadn’t said anything about majority.

Thats a cute reason for equal rights, but it still does not prove everyone deserves equal rights.

So show me where I had said something about majority prior to you mentioning it.
Pro tip: you wont. I hadn’t said anything about majority.

So you were arguing just because you love to prove people wrong about completely insignificant points? You are whining that I say you base something off of the majority when you didn’t, but consequently begin making all kind of arguments for majority rule.

Thats a cute reason for equal rights, but it still does not prove everyone deserves equal rights.

It’s not a cute reason. It’s a fact that you do not want less equal rights than others. It’s a fact nobody wants that (now you’ll come up with extreme examples of depressed people saying they want to die). You keep on hammering on “you can’t prove this or that!”, but it’s really useless what you’re doing. What does it matter we can’t prove it? What matters is that everyone wants it, and for that to happen, everyone should want it for everyone.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Darkruler, Your wrong.

You said “so because your in the majority you can…”

I said “where did i say anything about majority?”

So show me where I had said something about majority prior to you mentioning it.

Pro tip: you wont. I hadn’t said anything about majority.

Thats a cute reason for equal rights, but it still does not prove everyone deserves equal rights.

because some people just dont matter. wow. i cant believe you said that.

I love the irony going from the “majority doesnt mean anything” attitude to this:

“What does it matter we can’t prove it? What matters is that everyone wants it”

I didnt say some people dont matter. You need to understand writing better so you dont confuse yourself. I said you can’t prove people deserve equal rights. There is no fundamental truth that we deserve equal rights. Prove me wrong, dont insult me or what I say, especially when you fail to prove me wrong.

Finally Darkruler you fail to understand the concept of cause and effect, just like in our other convo about being born gay. I dont think im right b/c im in the majority. I think im right and I am in the majority. Those are completely 2 differnt statements which you are getting confused.

There is no fundamental truth that we deserve equal rights

Just because we don’t fundamentally deserve equal rights does not mean that they should be treated as if we don’t deserve them. Nobody ‘deserves’ anything, so it’s up to us to decide what we deserve. Humanity decided that it deserved rights, which is why we have them. In other words, you’re asking us to prove that a subjective concept is objectively true, which of course is impossible and an odd thing to ask.

What exactly is the purpose of asking the question anyways? So far all it seems to be is a way of countering other people’s posts, rather than forming your own argument.

Im showing you that the rights we say we deserve are because we say we deserve them. Its a VERY important concept to understand.

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Im showing you that the rights we say we deserve are because we say we deserve them. Its a VERY important concept to understand.

Which I agree with. My issue is that you’re acting as if that makes a difference. If a society is based on the idea that a certain right exists (in this case, basic human rights), then there is no difference between that right being natural or manmade.

It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

Why are they not entitled to them?

Originally posted by pacaholic:

It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

UN declaration of Human Rights speaks otherwise.

Originally posted by Jabor:

People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

Why are they not entitled to them?

Why are they entitled to them?

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

UN declaration of Human Rights speaks otherwise.

lol…

Originally posted by pacaholic:

Originally posted by SithDoughnut:

Originally posted by pacaholic:

It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

UN declaration of Human Rights speaks otherwise.

lol…

Why lol? We are bound by the laws and rules of society. Society has decided (at least in a large number of countries) that they should be entitled to certain things. They make a legal declaration stating what these entitlements are (doesn’t have to be the UN declaration, most countries have their own). Therefore, they are entitled to these things. You can say that they fundamentally are not entitled to anything, but legal rights trump natural rights. If you’re American, you have the right to bear arms. That is an entitlement.

Why are they entitled to them?

Because the law says so.

You need to understand writing better so you dont confuse yourself.

You need to stop with the personal attacks.

I said you can’t prove people deserve equal rights. There is no fundamental truth that we deserve equal rights. Prove me wrong, dont insult me or what I say, especially when you fail to prove me wrong.

Sith covered this basically. You can’t prove a subjective issue as if it’s objective.

I dont think im right b/c im in the majority. I think im right and I am in the majority. Those are completely 2 differnt statements which you are getting confused.

It’s actually worse, and I never implied the first statement. The majority thinks they’re right, which is fine, as long as this doesn’t mean the minority suffers.

Im showing you that the rights we say we deserve are because we say we deserve them. Its a VERY important concept to understand.

Who says who deserves what? To keep it simple, who has decided that we aren’t up in equal rights?

It does make a difference. Its a the key fundamental problem I have with how people think. People act as if they are entitled to things that they arent.

Who decides who is entitled to something and who isn’t, and why can they decide over others?

Why are they entitled to them?

No, your counter points do not make sense. Why do some people have less equal rights than others?

@Darkruler – I stopped reading after you accuse me of attacking you personally. U need to slow down and read so you understand better so you dont confuse yourself. Im not attacking you, im trying to help. EDIT not arguing with someone who seems angry and distraught
@SithDoughnut – There is a diffence between legal entitlement and real entitlement. Blacks have always deserved the right to vote, but at one point in time they weren’t legally entitled to do so.

That is the most interesting form of debating I’ve ever seen. Upgraded your Skip All Points In Discussion to level 10?

Don’t make statements if you are going to ignore all arguments made against them.

@Darkruler – I stopped reading after you accuse me of attacking you personally. U need to slow down and read so you understand better so you dont confuse yourself. Im not attacking you, im trying to help.

You need to understand writing better so you dont confuse yourself.

Your words. Sounds like a personal attack to me. That or an assumption that Darkruler is an idiot, which is still your problem, not his.

@SithDoughnut – There is a diffence between legal entitlement and real entitlement. Blacks have always deserved the right to vote, but at one point in time they weren’t legally entitled to do so.

I thought no one deserves anything? Anyways, I agree with what you say, but where exactly are you going with this? Because if this is all you are trying to say, then we agree (more or less) and no further debate is necessary.

The crux was that he’s rather selfish. He seems like he’s seeing his point of view as the only right one. I may be misinterpreting, but it doesn’t seem like he’s trying to understand what homosexuals see in their own life.

His point of view is pointing to the only available next step. Homosexuals can remain childless as a choice. He was then(and still is) and decided to get an offspring which he found was good (at least for himself). He’s making an appeal, a honest attempt to introduce another way of life to homosexuals. Nothing selfish about that. How can you say he doesn’t understand?

We shouldn’t have to prove that people deserve equal rights. Look at yourself and think if you want to have less equal rights to another person, then apply that to others. In the end, everyone is selfish in that they want equal rights to others, and if we start removing those equal rights, we might end up in such a situation ourselves.

It’s not a cute reason. It’s a fact that you do not want less equal rights than others. It’s a fact nobody wants that (now you’ll come up with extreme examples of depressed people saying they want to die). You keep on hammering on “you can’t prove this or that!”, but it’s really useless what you’re doing. What does it matter we can’t prove it? What matters is that everyone wants it, and for that to happen, everyone should want it for everyone.

The above is based on the presumption that all is entitled to “rights”. Sublimely implying that “rights” are provided not born with. There will always be discontentment as there can’t be “equal rights” to all.
I say “rights” should be earned and cherished, not taken for granted or believing that some system will provide….

I say “rights” should be earned and cherished, not taken for granted or believing that some system will provide….

Then they would be called privileges…