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 48 by KingandPriest]

Teens hooking up is not the only consequence. Teens are posting their sexual encounters online for each other to see. This leads to bullying, shaming and increased psychological consequences than in prior generations. Do we ignore these facts, for the

Which has nothing to do with transgendered teens and everything to do with failing public policy and an insufficient sex education program. The US has one of the worst sex Ed programs in the developed world. Some states don't have a sex Ed program other teach abstinence only(which exasperates many of the issues you bring up) and other states only have partial sex Ed programs.

Teens don't know the laws, they don't generally know what is and is not consensual sexual activity, they don't know how to prevent std's or pregnancy, nor do they know personal responsibility. Keeping them in the dark won't fix these problems.

We also need new laws to deal with the distribution of sexual content between minors. Currently minors can face up to 99 years in prison for possessing sexual content from other minors. This has several problems, the consequence is more damaging than the crime which creates situations where adults in charge would rather handle it in house rather than bringing it to the authorities because of the disproportionate allocation of justice. Our current child pornography laws were not designed for this.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 48 by KingandPriest]

Teens hooking up is not the only consequence. Teens are posting their sexual encounters online for each other to see. This leads to bullying, shaming and increased psychological consequences than in prior generations. Do we ignore these facts, for the

Which has nothing to do with transgendered teens and everything to do with failing public policy and an insufficient sex education program. The US has one of the worst sex Ed programs in the developed world. Some states don't have a sex Ed program other teach abstinence only(which exasperates many of the issues you bring up) and other states only have partial sex Ed programs.

Teens don't know the laws, they don't generally know what is and is not consensual sexual activity, they don't know how to prevent std's or pregnancy, nor do they know personal responsibility. Keeping them in the dark won't fix these problems.

We also need new laws to deal with the distribution of sexual content between minors. Currently minors can face up to 99 years in prison for possessing sexual content from other minors. This has several problems, the consequence is more damaging than the crime which creates situations where adults in charge would rather handle it in house rather than bringing it to the authorities because of the disproportionate allocation of justice. Our current child pornography laws were not designed for this.

So with your statements above, would you agree that changing the laws to make teens responsible for "self policing" is not wise?

Should adults who are school administrators be able to step in, or should teens who "don't know the laws" be able to do as they please with no supervision?

I agree that the sex ed in the US is horrible. Since we know the education is horrible, should the laws be changed to enable further loopholes and lack of adult guidance?

Once again, I wish to discuss the ramifications of legislation that has already been passed or decided by judges.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 47 by KingandPriest]

never implied that transgendered teens were the problem. I am talking about legal decisions and the implications of these decisions.

There are times when public safety requires us to give up some of our basic freedoms. In the setting of a public high school, is it reasonable or wise to allow all teens to choose the bathroom of their choice without supervision?

The highlighted red implies transgendered teens choosing their bathroom of choice is part of the problem. That issues related to teen sex would be partially solved by prohibiting them from choosing a bathroom related to their gender indetification.

This is simply a gross misunderstanding of the transgendered issue and teen sexuality. How about instead of policing transgendered teens, we invest in a robust sex education policy that involves informing students the legal and emotional ramifications of sex?

I never stated that transgendered teens were part of the problem. These are your words and what you imply. Since you bring it up so often, are you sure you are not speaking about your own bias. All I discuss is the legal ramifications on the adolescent population as a whole.

That statement above shows that we as a people often give up certain freedoms in order to ensure public safety. This has nothing to do with gender identity, but about the freedoms some people have to give up for the benefit of others. Though the constitution supports freedom of speech, as a society we agree that people cannot truly "say what ever they want" with no consequence. Some forms of speech are deemed hate speech, and in certain environments these form of speech have severe consequences. Making false statements in a police report or as sworn testimony can lead to severe penalties. We give up our freedom to say what ever we choose, for the common benefit of all.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 52 by KingandPriest]

Bathroom of choice is specific to transgendered individuals it is not with respect to the populace as a whole. Why bring it up? You started this thread with a comparison with LGBT and pedophiles, is it not fair to address your comments with this respect? Perhaps a new thread should be started since we have travelled so far off topic.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 52 by KingandPriest]

I think you misunderstand free speech with regards to speech and the first amendment. Our individual rights are limited with respect to others rights. In cases of certain applications of hate speech and making false statements to police or perjury in court these are instances where your words cause direct or inderect harm to others. We are not giving up freedoms as the freedom to harm others is not a protected right in the constitution.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 51 by KingandPriest]

Should adults who are school administrators be able to step in, or should teens who "don't know the laws" be able to do as they please with no supervision?

I agree that the sex ed in the US is horrible. Since we know the education is horrible, should the laws be changed to enable further loopholes and lack of adult guidance

Not knowing the law is not an excuse for not following the law which is why it is encumbent for educators and parents to inform teens on the law. Since we know the education is horrible we should work to improve it not create loopholes for abusive, coercive, and exploitive behavior.

Supervising bathrooms won't have much impact on any of these issues and would be a horrible waste of money. That money would be better spent on comprehensive sex education and enforcing the laws we currently have for those that offend it. Putting guards inside bathrooms would be horribly expensive and would exasserbate already thin education budgets.

[KenRU]

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?

We already have rules governing inappropriate behavior. No need for a change. It would be redundant - IF this is your primary concern.

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.

You really think that this is all about preventing teenagers from finding ways to hook up? Seriously?

Not allowing one to choose their bathroom based upon gender identity because of a concern about teens having sex is (imo) a pretty weak excuse.

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.

Sorry, I don't see how this concern is relevant.

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

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion, sorry.

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?

I'm confused. You support sex ed in schools?

[marco]

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.

The professor should have examined the situation more carefully. The supposition is that because people are born that way, what they do should be legalised.
If one is born with psychopathic tendencies, it may be that rather than making the resulting actions legal, we should prevent them one way or another.

If one is born with a proclivity towards taking sexual advantage of children, then again such people should be restrained, if identified. There is no question of making their actions legal.

It was once believed that homosexuality, per se, was bad. Homosexuals were imprisoned or, in the case of Alan Turing, given medicine to "cure" their defect. It is now accepted that these attitudes are wrong; it is accepted that people are born homosexual but the laws have been changed NOT because it is accepted that people are born that way but because we see that people have a right to choose what they want to do, when it harms no one.

[KingandPriest]

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.

The professor should have examined the situation more carefully. The supposition is that because people are born that way, what they do should be legalised.
If one is born with psychopathic tendencies, it may be that rather than making the resulting actions legal, we should prevent them one way or another.

If one is born with a proclivity towards taking sexual advantage of children, then again such people should be restrained, if identified. There is no question of making their actions legal.

It was once believed that homosexuality, per se, was bad. Homosexuals were imprisoned or, in the case of Alan Turing, given medicine to "cure" their defect. It is now accepted that these attitudes are wrong; it is accepted that people are born homosexual but the laws have been changed NOT because it is accepted that people are born that way but because we see that people have a right to choose what they want to do, when it harms no one.

So as time continues to roll forward, is it possible that what we consider bad or harmful today in the form of adult and adolescent sexual activity, could be deemed acceptable in the future?

Just as you state above, homosexuality was seen just as perverse as pedophilia in the past. Is it possible, that what is considered harmful today, will change and allow for a broadening of legal morality of sexual behavior?

What would prevent this change from occurring?
It was once inconceivable to think that homosexual relationships would enjoy equality in public opinion.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by KingandPriest]

So as time continues to roll forward, is it possible that what we consider bad or harmful today in the form of adult and adolescent sexual activity, could be deemed acceptable in the future?

It is also possible slavery could be deemed acceptable. This does not make it related.
There is not a broadening of morality of legal sexual behavior. Merely laws that were put in place to ban Homosexual acts and marriage were deemed unconstitutional.

Are you trying to advocate for pedophillia, because I am really confused where your arguments headed.