Homosexuality is a choice

[Soapy Sam]

Consider the boarding school examples above, they are people who have engaged in sexual behaviour (and other types of behaviour) with people of their own sex (so homosexual acts) yet I doubt that in later life they would describe themselves as "homosexual/gay" the way I do. That is because in their sub-culture those homosexual acts are not the definition of a homosexual. Who is considered a homosexual is therefore not about the homosexual acts but something more, i.e. the social construct of homosexual/gay identification. (I think the issue is often confused because we use the same label for two different things; a certain type of behaviour is labelled "homosexual" i.e. sexual behaviour with a person of the same sex, and we use the same label for the social construct of the identification of someone as a "homosexual" e.g. people can identify themselves as homosexual even if they have never engaged in homosexual acts.)

OK, then I did understand you- that's sort of what I was getting at with my later example of the guy who dies a virgin at 98. The problem of defining a "type" of personality by attitude rather than overt behaviour is simply that it may be impossible for anyone other than the individual himself to understand. (You might respond that we should not need to identify personality facets this way anyway and in general I'd agree- but isn't this very largely what the whole Gay Liberation movement was about?- defining the real and objective relationship of homosexuals to society as a whole? )
To do that, we need a way to define "homosexual".
You could substitute the word "intellectual" for "homosexual" there and have a practically identical discussion.

(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

That's an interesting insight. One I could never have thought of.

 

[HansMustermann]

So Hans... when do I get to the digging up corpses?

Good grief, why would you want to dig up a rotting corpse? You nail them fresh at the morgue or at the wake. On the upside, you don't even have to bring her flowers. Usually the flowers are already there

But to answer your question, probably at some point after even wanking to kiddie porn is no longer enough. Just guessing.

I'm still just at having a fetish about women's feet, so I'm only guessing what comes further down that slippery slope

 

[Soapy Sam]

Further down than their feet?
Beats me.
Tried standing 'er on her head?

 

[HansMustermann]

This is the same reasoning that fundamental believers (a lot of times in this thread, fundamental Christian can be replaced by fundamental Muslim or Jew) use about porn. According to them, reading Playboy (or softer) will invariably lead to reading (well, reading... ) more hardcore stuff, up until kiddie porn apparently. I don't have to tell the readers here that that is not true, do I?

To the OP, I know a couple of gay guys who, in their youth/puberty would have loved to have had a choice about being gay. In this case, more NOT being gay.

Yes, well, Paul didn't say you'd get a choice if you're not faithful enough. You skip sunday school once too many and don't say grace at dinner, and *bam* suddenly you're saying it over a cock

But yes, the slippery slope argument is used a lot. Whenever an idiot (not even necessarily religious) wants to condemn something otherwise not particularly bad, it must be a gateway to harder drugs, or a slippery slope to shooting people, or yes to kiddie porn.

 

[Dani]

Well, saying that homosexuality is a choice is similar to saying that there are diferences between races. From a humanist perspective, this wouldn't change a thing, but from the bigoted perspective it's an important argument. Of course, bigots don't necessarily accept scientific authority.

Seriously, it's a lost battle for bigots in the western world. Every generation is more tolerant than the previous one because it's so obvious that what adult people do privately in their sexual lives with mutual consent is nobody else's business.

In Spain, 35 years ago we had a catholic dictatorship in which open homosexuals were sent to therapy programs, and nowadays a couple from the same sex can get married. And, in fact, even if the right wing party wins the next elections (very likely) they won't even think about abolishing this right, since the catholic church is no longer the authority it used to be. It would be suicidal from an electoral point of view.

 

[Soapy Sam]

You're all GOING TO HELL.
Serves you right for molesting cows. Or something.

 

[Shrike]

You're all GOING TO HELL.
Serves you right for molesting cows. Or something.

Well, cows are the only who can, well, accomodate me

 

[marplots]

Good grief, why would you want to dig up a rotting corpse? You nail them fresh at the morgue or at the wake. On the upside, you don't even have to bring her flowers. Usually the flowers are already there

But to answer your question, probably at some point after even wanking to kiddie porn is no longer enough. Just guessing.

I'm still just at having a fetish about women's feet, so I'm only guessing what comes further down that slippery slope

"slippery slope" -- I see what you did there.

 

[Uncayimmy]

(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

An old joke from when I was coming up was to say something like, "Bob? Oh, he's not gay. He just has sex with a guy whose boyfriend is."

 

[Dr. Keith]

(As a slight aside I think this is why some of the politicians and preachers who are "outed" act so surprised - the surprise is quite genuine as they did not consider themselves homosexual even though they participated in homosexual acts.)

This is so true that I didn't think it needed to be said.

Well said, nonetheless.

 

[brenn]

Aside from wondering what country the OP’s “almost South Africa” flag is from, this is a pretty interesting debate for its unintended implications.

I’m no expert, but my general idea would have been that sex-drive is a genetic factor, but the specific behaviors used to satisfy the sex drive are more likely environmental. Then again, I can see where a genetic component could be involved, since the survival of a species is obviously affected by the choice to have sex that results in reproduction and all sexually reproducing species do so. That would make it seem that homosexuality is the result of a genetic flaw (I say “flaw” because, if genetic, it is contrary to adaptations that reproduce the species). I guess, without being interested enough to do a lot of research, the guys who say “part nature, part nurture” get my vote.

Here’s the part the interests me – I realize the social goal of those who argue that homosexuality is genetic is to decrease discrimination. BUT, if such specific behaviors are genetic, what does that say about other schools of thought that behavior can be predicted genetically? If the majority of people, for instance, want sexual partners of another gender because of genetic predisposition, doesn’t that same fact lend itself to arguments like, “people with a particular genetic background are more likely to be violent” or “dishonest” or some other undesirable trait? In the alternative, couldn’t it be used to argue for racial superiority if certain groups of people could be said to be genetically predisposed to desirable behaviors? My point being that proving specific behaviors like sexual preference are genetic would seem to support all sorts of racist theories that have otherwise been refuted with the claim that people aren’t genetically predisposed to behaviors.

Any thoughts? Does an argument for genetic predisposition for sexual orientation that is popular with the left turn out to support racist theories popular with the right?

The second thought that just occurred to me is that a genetic predisposition to be gay would have to be eliminated from a species pretty quickly…but I’m no scientist, so somebody feel free to explain why that didn’t happen.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

 

[brenn]

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion that can't be objectively true or false, so all anybody could do is try to change your mind, which would make no difference to anybody else. It does, in fact, seem to be completely irrelevant to the debate or whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.

 

[HansMustermann]

Whether it's a choice or not is irrelevant. Those who thing homosexuality is wrong have to show that it is wrong, not that it's a choice or not.

I dare say that if a murderer was born a murderer, I'd still consider that person wrong.

But unfortunately, as I was getting at before, its being genetic or not is actually an important factor even in debating morals with the bigots.

As I was saying, in their world, being gay is just another perversion in a slippery slope of increasingly grave perversions that has screwing children as the next step. Or for some the same step. You start from screwing women being boring old hat, and next thing you know even screwing adult men is boring old hat, and next thing you know you're balls deep in some 5 year old... or so some people think. So even if you argued with them that being gay is harmless, the next step in their BS slippery slope isn't. But if it's a born condition then it's basically anchored in a single point and doesn't slide as they think.

Another important point in their BS propaganda is that basically you can teach people to be gay, and in fact that there's some kind of "homosexual agenda" to take over their schools and teach their children to be gay. But if it's a born condition, then you can't teach someone to be gay if they weren't already born wired that way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate?

My opinion is based on rational thought. Those who think homosexuality is wrong need to demonstrate that it is wrong. They have yet to do so.

Choice or genetics may come into play once they establish that homosexuality can be, indeed, wrong.

 

[themusicteacher]

The bottom line is that some people believe that everything in life comes out of cookie-cutters, that everything has clear definition, shades of gray and ambiguity are for losers and sissies and that there is such thing as "normal." These sorts of people spend their entire lives trying to prove how normal and right they are by attempting to prove how degenerate, wrong, immoral and "unnatural" others are and that goes double for sexuality. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is passed off as sensible and sane.

 

[kuroyume0161]

What is the point of posting your moral opinion in a factual debate? "Wrong" is a matter of opinion that can't be objectively true or false, so all anybody could do is try to change your mind, which would make no difference to anybody else. It does, in fact, seem to be completely irrelevant to the debate or whether homosexuality is nature or nurture.

Because those positing the "homosexuality is a choice" slogan are using it to allow homosexuality to be covered by a banner of morality (and probably sin, which is an entirely religious construct which has no relevance to the real world anyway). Once you can relegate nature and nurture away and replace it with 'choice' you can then proscribe moral values and judgments upon those who 'made the choice' since now their actions and thoughts are conscientious rather than caused by other factors.

It is very relevant!

 

[kuroyume0161]

The bottom line is that some people believe that everything in life comes out of cookie-cutters, that everything has clear definition, shades of gray and ambiguity are for losers and sissies and that there is such thing as "normal." These sorts of people spend their entire lives trying to prove how normal and right they are by attempting to prove how degenerate, wrong, immoral and "unnatural" others are and that goes double for sexuality. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking is passed off as sensible and sane.

::Thumbs Up!::

 

[brenn]

Because those positing the "homosexuality is a choice" slogan are using it to allow homosexuality to be covered by a banner of morality (and probably sin, which is an entirely religious construct which has no relevance to the real world anyway). Once you can relegate nature and nurture away and replace it with 'choice' you can then proscribe moral values and judgments upon those who 'made the choice' since now their actions and thoughts are conscientious rather than caused by other factors.

It is very relevant!

Only because you have somehow decreed that something can't have moral implications if it is a result of a biological urge. What moral system agrees with that belief? Any? Hedonism, even? All sexually-related morality is based on controlling and directing a biological drive, so using the nature vs nurture debate to try to settle a moral question isn't very smart.

If your moral system says sleeping is immoral, then it is to anyone who believes in that system - that has nothing to do with whether it is biologial or avoidable.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Only because you have somehow decreed that something can't have moral implications if it is a result of a biological urge. What moral system agrees with that belief? Any? Hedonism, even? All sexually-related morality is based on controlling and directing a biological drive, so using the nature vs nurture debate to try to settle a moral question isn't very smart.

If your moral system says sleeping is immoral, then it is to anyone who believes in that system - that has nothing to do with whether it is biologial or avoidable.

What moral implications?

I'll add that I agree with you about the debate and the reasons to an extent. The problem is that, as I specified, the opponents don't want homosexuality to be natural in order that it falls under their domain so as to be completely under their rules of morality. The question of importance is whether or not homosexuality is 'moral' (indirectly: if it is a 'choice' then it is a human conscientious decision or, at the least, a propensity that can be curtailed or cured because it is a non-biological abnormality). Morals are relative and human constructs. By noting that it has natural components it is thus removed from relativistic and human constructivism since it is not based upon social or developmental constructs but something not directly related to humans, society, religion, and so forth (i.e.: it has biological components).

So far, the stats say that curtailment results in fascination leading to excess and that cures lead to remission in most cases. The definition as a form of insanity has been removed so psychoanalysis and other psychiatric forms of treatment are considered meaningless. And, morally, who is hurt by this not-so-normal condition? Most would say, "think of the children". Sorry, go down the block to the section on pedophilia. Homosexuality has nothing to do with it! Do I need to quote the percentages on pedophilia (most are men desiring/raping young girls - heterosexual as you can get)? Leave slippery slopes and forced prison sex in your locker. We're talking about, eh hem, mature, consensual homosexual desire and sex - not perversions which go beyond that!