Could any proof ever convince people that homosexuality is of NATURE?

[Neo-Logic]

Let's face it, the "nurture" and "choice" line of thinking is the default null hypothesis by the virtue of being the older doctrine. Ultimately, the pro-gay rights movement has to prove, somewhere and somehow that their being gay is NOT by choice, but by nature. This would be the most effective argument for equal legal rights and treatment.

The question is: what type of proof would actually do the trick? A genetic discovery? Some other conclusive scientific find?

I would hypothesize that the only way this will ultimately happen is through norm entrepreneurs and gradual change of homosexuality from a taboo to a norm. Unfortunately, this comes with a long wait as the norms will have to reach critical mass and may involve a generation or two dying off, assuming momentum can be sustained throughout the entire length of time.

[Sunstone]

Even if you demonstrated that homosexuality was not a choice, but a result of natural causes, you would not eliminate or even perhaps significantly reduce prejudice against homosexuals. People who are prejudiced against homosexuals are irrational. And no rational argument changes an irrational view.

[whereismynotecard]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Even if you demonstrated that homosexuality was not a choice, but a result of natural causes, you would not eliminate or even perhaps significantly reduce prejudice against homosexuals. People who are prejudiced against homosexuals are irrational. And no rational argument changes an irrational view.

Egsactly!

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

Let's face it, the "nurture" and "choice" line of thinking is the default null hypothesis by the virtue of being the older doctrine. Ultimately, the pro-gay rights movement has to prove, somewhere and somehow that their being gay is NOT by choice, but by nature. This would be the most effective argument for equal legal rights and treatment.

The question is: what type of proof would actually do the trick? A genetic discovery? Some other conclusive scientific find?

I would hypothesize that the only way this will ultimately happen is through norm entrepreneurs and gradual change of homosexuality from a taboo to a norm. Unfortunately, this comes with a long wait as the norms will have to reach critical mass and may involve a generation or two dying off, assuming momentum can be sustained throughout the entire length of time.

Remember a thread where we posted example after example of homosexual animals to prove it was natural, and the response was in line with "they are clearly just humping each other, like a dog humps my leg" or "don´t be irrational, you just don´t see what they really are doing... humping each other" and so on... appearently animals cannot be gay because it is not natural, and all the scientists that have observed the behaviour are blind or too proud to admit they are wrong .

Other people say that it may not be a choice to be homosexual, but to act on it is, so... they should still be oppressed... or something.

Personally I don´t get how we can call our society free when we don´t give people the same rights based on their sexuality. To me that argument is enough, because if we are to be free we must be free to be different. But I think it will get better with time, after all it was not that long ago black people where not considered equal (well, not that racism is dead, just saying it is much better now then if we go back, say, 50 years).

EDIT:

I believe education is a huge part of the solution, by the way.

[Baydwin]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

Let's face it, the "nurture" and "choice" line of thinking is the default null hypothesis by the virtue of being the older doctrine. Ultimately, the pro-gay rights movement has to prove, somewhere and somehow that their being gay is NOT by choice, but by nature. This would be the most effective argument for equal legal rights and treatment.

I would say their being human is the "most effective argument for equal legal rights and treatment."

Who someone chooses to love shouldn't be anyone else's business anyway.

[monta]

Why do you have to prove something is natural to be afforded your rights, should Donald Trump be banned from owning a hairbrush. People who don't have enough to worry about in their own life and have the time to devote trying to opress people, should just count their lucky stars and enjoy themselves.

Kerr;Remember a thread where we posted example after example of homosexual animals ...................

Good times we never do anything fun anymore

Spoiler for Fun things we never do anymore :sad::

[Dunemeister]

Besides, being natural wouldn't make the situation much easier. There are such things as natural disorders. Down's Syndrome, for instance, is quite natural; so is leukemia. But we don't "accept" these. We pour money (good after bad) into finding the causes and remedies for them. Similarly, those who wish to maintain their opposition to homosexuality need not be perturbed by the revelation that it is partly or wholly the result of genetic factors. They would simply say that it is a sexual disorder. Indeed, many of those who object to homosexual behavior have already made this argument, well in advance of scientific studies that suggested the possibility of a genetic link. (It should be pointed out that the notion that homosexuality is natural isn't new; Plato thought so, too. He also saw it as a political strategy, but The Republic is full of oddities.)

However, if it could be proven that homosexuality were a disorder, that would put an end to most forms of moral opposition, although as I've said, the opposition would shift ground.

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by Neo-Logic

Let's face it, the "nurture" and "choice" line of thinking is the default null hypothesis by the virtue of being the older doctrine. Ultimately, the pro-gay rights movement has to prove, somewhere and somehow that their being gay is NOT by choice, but by nature. This would be the most effective argument for equal legal rights and treatment.

The question is: what type of proof would actually do the trick? A genetic discovery? Some other conclusive scientific find?

I would hypothesize that the only way this will ultimately happen is through norm entrepreneurs and gradual change of homosexuality from a taboo to a norm. Unfortunately, this comes with a long wait as the norms will have to reach critical mass and may involve a generation or two dying off, assuming momentum can be sustained throughout the entire length of time.

I'm not sure what your point is. Just because something is in our nature doesn't mean that we should just indulge it. Natural does not mean good.

I believe that homosexuality is natural. I believe that homosexuals have absolutely no choice whether or not they have same-sex desires. So what? That doesn't make it OK.

Just because a man likes women doesn't mean he can go out and have sex with her, just because I like to drink blood doesn't' mean I can go out and kill creatures for blood. The naturalness of a desire does not validate acting upon the desire. I get angry and want to punch someone, it doesn't mean I'm allowed to punch that person. I get an andrenaline rush and want to go 120 mph on the freeway. That doesn't mean I'm allowed to.

Similarly, just because a person is attracted to people of the same sex, does not mean that it's OK for them to act on that desire. The only way it'd be OK is if you believe that people are animals. And, you're welcome to believe that. But I think that majority (as is often the case where gay marriage is voted upon in America) will disagree.

[Kerr]

Must point out that it doesn´t make homosexuality not ok either. Other factors come into play there, and so far I haven´t seen a good one. Have honestly never seen an objection that did not base on faith and an authoritative view on morality, bias, prejudice or ignorance.

[TheKnight]

Originally Posted by Kerr

Must point out that it doesn´t make homosexuality not ok either.

I agree. Whether or not one views homosexuality as a good thing depends on one's outlook on life. It depends on what one's goals and ambitions are.