The "born that way" argument was always a compromise/simplification.
The true argument is that gay relationships, regardless of cause, are just as worthwhile and life affirming as straight relationships.
But, if you're stubborn, and refuse to acknowledge that, "they're born this way" might temporarily get you to acknowledge the absurdity of your position. It feels cruel to condemn someone for something they can't control. But that's not much of an argument--I don't think pedophiles choose to be attracted to minors. The difference is that pedophilic relationships are harmful, not worthwhile and life-affirming.
1) Several other posts in this thread explain that genetics isn't the only way you can be born a certain way. The environment includes the prenatal womb. So the premise isn't false. It's part of a sound argument that you should not persecute homosexuals. It is just that the truth is that you should view homosexual relationships as the full equal of straight relationships, equally real and valuable. Once you realize that, the first argument is just a stepping stone.
2) Even more importantly, this discussion only happened because ignorant moral codes prohibited homosexuality. But such a moral principle is no better than demanding that people crack their eggs from a certain side. In fact, it's worse, because you can just switch sides of the egg with no consequences. Meanwhile, in the real world, these moral codes prevented people from experience love in peace.
You don't get to embrace an absurd and stupid moral code, then whine because someone didn't use a perfect argument to knock you out of your ignorance.
No. Being able to explain 25% of sexual behavior does not mean that the remaining portion has to be explained by other factors. Ignoring the fact that other things, like hormone profiles, have additional explanatory power, many biological processes are subject to noise. The best algorithm in the world can only predict a fair die toss 1 in 6 times.
It may be possible that culture is a factor, but literature reviews of sexual orientation incidence suggest that it does not vary significantly across time or place, which is a pretty compelling reason to think culture is an important factor.
Others are pointing out that non-genetic biological factors (e.g. prenatal hormones) can still mean that a person's sexuality could still be determined (or significantly predisposed) at birth.
And others are pointing out that gay people shouldn't need to argue that they were born gay, with the implication that if a choice were possible there would be a right or a wrong choice justifying marginalization or shaming or discrimination.
But I think it's worth flipping around: What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships? Whenever I encounter this behavior in others, I hope that it's just a phase that they'll grow out of. I worry that they'll pass these traits on to kids by modeling their behavior in public. I'm guessing the cause is cultural. I wonder if it can be fixed.
> What is the source of some people's persistent desire to legislate, regulate, punish, mock or vilify other people's loving relationships?
Western morals are still primarily rooted in Judeo-Christian beliefs which see any sexual expression other than heterosexual, monogamous sex within Christian marriage to be sinful, or at least taboo. The Bible condemns homosexual sex but in theory not homosexuality itself, as the "heterosexual/homosexual" dynamic is a modern invention which would not have existed at the time, but in practice Christendom considers any orientation besides heterosexuality to be at best a form of sexual deviance and immorality, sometimes seen as equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality, and at worst and affront to God.
LGBT sexuality is also often seen as undermining the mainstream paradigms of masculinity and femininity, and by extension gender roles, and by further extension the traditional foundations of society itself.
Yeah, but the bible also is disapproving of premarital sex between straight people, but I don't remember seeing people fight over whether fornicators should be allowed in the military, or could adopt children.
The Bible also disapproves of people who contact swine, but no one fights for the rights of employers to fire pork-eaters based on their religious convictions. Or people wearing clothing of mixed fibers, etc.
And Jesus said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god, but no one really debates whether Christians in the bible belt would be willing to vote for a rich guy.
All this is to say, I don't think "the Bible condemns it" is a sufficient explanation for some straight people's fixation with gay sex. That preoccupation seems downright unhealthy. Maybe someone should put it in the DSM.
Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].
This is a legitimate question. Has our sexuality changed in recent decades (in aggregate), or are we just more open about our differences which were always present?
> An argument for gay rights has been that people are "born that way". That appears to be false
Only if you take the strict literal definition of the phrase "born that way" to mean your genetic make-up.
A person has little to no control over their environmental factors during their upbringing. Everything from average air temperature, food nutrient makeup, airborne particles, etc are environmental factors that we know influence other aspects of human development.
Your comment is making the assumption that the environmental factor that causes homosexuality is witnessing other members of the species be homosexual, which is a large leap of logic to make. Especially knowing that homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom despite penguins not participating in Pride Months.
"Your comment is making the assumption that the environmental factor that causes homosexuality is witnessing other members of the species be homosexual, which is a large leap of logic to make."
I think research has found that people are more likely to engage in a behavior if they see others doing the same. For example, someone who would not ordinarily shoplift may do so during a riot where many people are looting stores. A 2019 survey found that "U.S. adults estimate that 23.6% of Americans are gay or lesbian", while Gallup estimates the fraction to be 4.5%. Link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/259571/americans-greatly-overes... . I think this overestimation may influence some behavior at the margin.
I'd be interested in hearing the voices of those downvoting this. Is one of the claims in the comment false, or do you disagree with the conclusion "I think this overestimation may influence some behavior at the margin." [note1] (or both)?
Additionally, what if the conclusion is right (hypothetically)? Is it really that improbable? And if the greater acceptance of homosexuality as of recently (compared to, say, the 19th century) does cause some otherwise-straight people to be gay, what exactly is the problem with that? Would that be something we should address?
And more generally, if we did find an environmental factor that was linked to homosexuality, would we want to address that factor?
Note 1: User Bostonian uses the term "at the margin" in their comment, and I don't know what they meant by that. I'm taking it to be the subset of people who are unsure of their sexuality, though perhaps the author was referring to something else.
The cultural factors related to being gay could easily be unrelated to how much being gay is accepted by society. Especially considering how many famous people are now known to have been gay during a time when it was not acceptable.
Also, there are lots of social studies that seem to suggest having gay family members can be beneficial to the family as a whole, so reducing the amount of homosexuality in the world may actually be undesirable.
