Homosexuality is a choice

The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous
 
INRM said:
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Worse, the reasoning is tenuous at best. It portrays a social structure based upon very old notions that predate scientific knowledge. It wasn't called Sodomy because it was a medical term (see Old Testament and Lot).

At best, moderate religions want to say that it we are afflicted and should not be punished but pitied (and hopefully shown the way out). At least that is a somewhat respectful, tolerant view compared to say, oh, Islam where the view is 'punish, torture, kill, mame, no remorse'. Gotta love empathic religions.........
 
UncaYimmy said:
I've used the same question, but it's not without its weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, there's actually a perfectly reasonable counter-argument to it. But so far, I've never actually heard it tossed back at me. :D
 
INRM said:
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous
Click to expand...

However we already do. The odds are that just as other sexuality is biological in form, so is pedophillia, and yet we do hold these people responsible. Note here that I'm not suggesting that doing so is right or wrong in either situation, and there are obviously other facts that can swing that part of the decision, however if the argument is purely based on "They can't control it so we can't hold them accountable" then....
 
PhantomWolf said:
However we already do. The odds are that just as other sexuality is biological in form, so is pedophillia, and yet we do hold these people responsible. Note here that I'm not suggesting that doing so is right or wrong in either situation, and there are obviously other facts that can swing that part of the decision, however if the argument is purely based on "They can't control it so we can't hold them accountable" then....
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. But whether or not the sexuality is 'perverse' is more a matter of what the actions and desires dictate rather than how we feel about them. Pedophilia is the sexual desire for a prepubescent child (who is neither capable of sexual interaction nor of informed consent). While it may be a predisposition, like other mentioned conditions (besides homosexuality), it doesn't make it allowable. It also doesn't make it a choice, unfortunately.

While I can see how bringing in natural propensities doesn't change the so-called moral argument, it doesn't get at the issue either. Homosexuality isn't about raping innocent people who don't want that type of sex or are forced to have sex against their will. When it is, it is no different than heterosexual rape, right? Basically, the argument goes that homosexuality is just plain wrong (for whatever reason, for a myriad of reasons, for many reasons which are ludicrous such as 'sanctity of marriage' or 'procreation' - puhhhleease). The moniker 'choice' is just a term to belittle an innate quality and to make it as loathsome as something like pedophilia (or misogyny or other sexual deviance).

My thoughts rest upon individual rights (and responsibilities). Hey, if a man thinks he is a woman trapped in a male body and wants to go through all of the crap required to have something similar to a female body then why do we put so much effort to prevent this? There is no harm to anybody. It really boils down to what the cost of the actions are to others. If a man thinks that he must have sex with ten year olds, then there is harm to somebody and it should be prohibited. Common homosexuality is where two people like, love, lust after each other and mutually participate in a relationship or sexual activity. Who is harmed in this situation, again?

"It's icky" and "Ewwww" and "Shameful" don't cover the repression and acts of violence perpetrated to stifle human existence and happiness because it is something that someone thinks is reprehensible, sick, unclean, or sinful to the harm of no one else.

No matter what homosexuality is - it isn't what the 'choicers' make it out to be.
 
I totally agree, I was pointing out the danger of the argument that someone can't control their choices so you can't hold them accountable.

Of course it should also be pointed out that while one can't necessarily control what you feel and want, you can control whether you partisipate. There is no law again a person being sexually attracted to a 10-year old, the law is against them taking active steps towards having sex with that 10 year old. Similarly just because a man feels he is trapped in the wrong sex body, doesn't mean he's going to rush out and get a sex change, he can choose not to do so, but remain as he was born for various reasons. Likewise those that identify as gay can choose not to participate in that lifestyle.

I firmly believe that our rational minds control the biological desires of our bodies, if they didn't, we'd be no better than animals.

Now again I'm not saying that one desire or another is wrong or amoral, nor that a particular choice is moral or amoral, quite obviously it involves more than that, for instance as you stated, on harm to those partaking for instance. But we need to be very careful with our arguments since in the end they can come back to bite you. For instance, if it can be shown that a certain 10 year was a willing partner in a relationshiop, was fully aware of the consequences, and was in this particular case really was mature enough to understand and willingly make the decision, since no one would be harmed in the action, should it still be amoral? Once again if you purely base your argument on harm done, the argument may fail. How about if we talk about two 15 year olds? What about a 15 year old and a 40 year old? Sometimes we just have to admit that we're inconsistant on these topics because they make us uncomfortable and just accept it.
 
While the centers of the higher brain that inhibit certain actions are central to our sentience I don't think that we have complete control over our actions by any measure. Yes, we have more controlling features in place than other animals. But we are still animals and we still have the systems in place that drive certain basal desires (cravings, addictions, sex, anger, rage, other emotions, and so on).

There are definitely borderline situations where our 'definitions' of acceptance and inappropriateness are muddied. We put laws in place to make those delineations and, occasionally, rectify them for new circumstances. If it can be shown that a 10 year old had complete consent and wasn't coerced it may be a case against pedophilia in this instance. But that is an exceptional case and we usually consider the general situation wherein one person is taking advantage of someone who is incapable of a proper response. One case wouldn't change the overall view on pedophilia. Even then, most cases involving supposed consent of minors (many of the school teacher-student cases) end up with prosecution of the teacher no matter what. In this case, the responsible adult is responsible for the actions involved despite consent. Here, I think, we are seeing application of the law in order to make the law clear so that similar events are not promoted or acquiesced since this is a matter of abstinence under better consideration.

Nonetheless, homosexuality is purported to be present in at least 5% of the population (350,000,000+ people). If there were a precedent wherein 30-50% were involved in unlawful sexual situations then it might start becoming a situation where homosexuality appears to be deviant and require some form of legal injunction. Except for archaic 'buggery' or 'sodomy' laws, there are few situations were mutually consenting sex - and especially long term relationships or love - are considered unlawful.

Here's the problem. Abstinence. No one (well, very few) are promoting heterosexual abstinence. Actually, even those very few are mainly promoting it only until the god-given sanctimonious act of marriage. Applying a double-standard only results in retaliatory actions. If it is okay for heterosexuals to hold hands, kiss, make out (in public even!) then why is it that homosexuals should refrain from just about any form of affection? Now I'm getting to the dichotomy. At one time, homosexuals may have been grouped with pedophiles (though they still are in many fundy minds), rapists, perverts, and other deviants. The picture has changed over the past fifty years (and it wasn't always the picture painted over the past millenium or so). Once you accept that your difference is a deviation then you are easily persuaded by arguments involving shame, abstinence, covering up, appearing 'normal'. Once you realize that your difference isn't devious and has no deviousness about it then it is difficult to accept such arguments. Pedophiles, unfortunately, can't remove the inappropriateness of their desires and actions even if they knowingly admit it!

Where is the deviousness, the harm, in loving another person who is of the same sex, especially if they respond similarly (and are of an appropriate age respectively)?
 
Last edited:
I agree with both Kuroyume0161 and Phantom Wolf. The past three posts you both put up were excellent.

If I might add another "sex-is-bad double standard", I've always seen the "abstain from sex until marriage" the ultimate form of prostitution.
 
INRM said:
The reason people want to believe it's a choice is simple; if a person chooses their lifestyle, they can be easily held accountable for their choices.

If they cannot control their choices, then it's hard to hold them accountable without looking heartless or monstrous
Click to expand...

So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?
 
Last edited:
brenn said:
So the people who want to believe it is genetic have the opposite agenda, of proving that it is not a choice and they can't be held accountable. That is pretty obvious. The problem is that both sides, as in this thread, are arguing for what they want the truth to be, rather than trying to determine what the truth is - that is why I objected to the moral arguments as obscuring the fact argument. Homosexuality doesn't become genetic, or not, because that's what you want, so the morality arguments are pointless without any fact basis.

In this thread, both sides seem to be arguing from the basis that they assume the fact that it is/isn't genetic and "here are the moral implications of that." You seem to have skipped the hard step, even though the thread seemed to start with the nature v. nurture argument.

So any thought on the idea that the “homosexuality is genetic” crowd is advancing a point of view about biological determination of fairly specific behavior that has implications for racism and similar "all people are not created equal" arguments?
Click to expand...

I've said it way back, though my analogy wasn't that great.

I've said it is a combination of three things: nature, nurture and circumstances.

Though the analogy was deemed not a good one, I'm going to use it anyway to illustrate my point:

We all have basic "tastes" - I don't like tomatoes but I like peanut butter. I could be forced into eating tomatoes but basically it isn't something I like. However, I would eat and enjoy tomatoes in a sauce, such as a pizza, but not in a salad or in a sandwich, etc. In fact, I could grow to like pizza almost as much as I like peanut butter, but would never like the tomato alone.

Now going to peanut butter, which is the human's closest version of "the perfect food" :), I could eat that so much that I'd go through a jar in a few days. However, since I want to remain looking acceptable, I deny myself peanut butter so I look good. No matter how much I deny it, however, my craving for it is there. In fact, it grows if I don't have some once in a while.

I think sexuality is the same thing: there are basic likes (nature) that can be adjusted depending on how it's used as one grows (nurture) and throw into the mix how it's presented (circumstances).

....I hope this made sense.....
 
brenn said:
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).
Click to expand...

The discussion has moved to more interesting points, but I hate to see something like this just left to dangle.

There are plenty of evolutionary reasons for homosexuality in a population. One does not have to contribute DNA to contribute to the survival of the family. This may be on reason why homosexuality is so common in other species, as well.
 
Thanks for injecting that. I too was troubled that brenn's point was left hanging without a response yet I was too lazy to post a rebuttal.
 
Dr. Keith said:
The discussion has moved to more interesting points, but I hate to see something like this just left to dangle.

There are plenty of evolutionary reasons for homosexuality in a population. One does not have to contribute DNA to contribute to the survival of the family. This may be on reason why homosexuality is so common in other species, as well.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to contain an argument. That animals may have sex with other animals of the same species doesn't necessarily take it beyond there being a biological sex drive. I haven't researched the issue, but I guess it would support your point better if you said there were animals that show a preference for having sex with other animals of the same gender. As far as evolution - contributing to the survival of the species without passing on DNA has one, very obvious flaw - the animals that do so, do not pass on DNA. Somehow this isn't very convincing to me - if anything, it makes me lean more toward the "choice" than the "biology" argument.
 
brenn said:
That doesn't seem to contain an argument. That animals may have sex with other animals of the same species doesn't necessarily take it beyond there being a biological sex drive. I haven't researched the issue, but I guess it would support your point better if you said there were animals that show a preference for having sex with other animals of the same gender. As far as evolution - contributing to the survival of the species without passing on DNA has one, very obvious flaw - the animals that do so, do not pass on DNA. Somehow this isn't very convincing to me - if anything, it makes me lean more toward the "choice" than the "biology" argument.
Click to expand...

This is where the On/Off switch on our genes that is being found through twin studies would seem to be a strong contender. It would mean that the Genes that when switched on (or off) cause one to be attracted to the other sex are possibly the same genes that attract people to the same sex. It could even be that in women they are generally turned on (attracting them to males) and in males they are generally turned off (attracting them to females.) In some people they are "incorrectly" switched meaning you have males attracted to males, and females attracted to females. This would quite happily explain a lot of the things we see, including why it hasn't been breed out of us.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
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.
Click to expand...

You definitely made my point for me. Yes, that is the problem. It isn't whether *we* think that the factors dictating the behavior change the morality. It is how it is framed by those who want to have control and say in what the behavior is where these factors become very important.

We can debate the morality and ignore the factors involved (genetics, hormones, society, environment, choice, whatever). It is the end result that matters - does the behavior promote behavior that does harm to others?

But those who rail against the behavior don't care about the end result. They only care about their agenda: homosexuality is abnormal, an abomination, sinful, evil, sick, immoral, bad, illegal, wrong, corrupt, gateway to worse behaviors, and so forth. It is total B.S. But what brainwashing isn't? Evolution vs Creationism. Armageddon/Rapture. America is God's Country. Scientists are Elitists. Communists are Evil Atheists. All of this is brainwashing B.S. programmed into the uneducated using emotional triggers and no factual information.

It has been used for so long that people still think that women are inferior, that certain ethnicities are inferior, that homosexuals are sexual deviants who will eventually steal your little boy and have a sex party with goats and sheep. Some people need to mature - too bad that they haven't yet.
 
kuroyume0161 said:
You definitely made my point for me. Yes, that is the problem. It isn't whether *we* think that the factors dictating the behavior change the morality. It is how it is framed by those who want to have control and say in what the behavior is where these factors become very important.

We can debate the morality and ignore the factors involved (genetics, hormones, society, environment, choice, whatever). It is the end result that matters - does the behavior promote behavior that does harm to others?

But those who rail against the behavior don't care about the end result. They only care about their agenda: homosexuality is abnormal, an abomination, sinful, evil, sick, immoral, bad, illegal, wrong, corrupt, gateway to worse behaviors, and so forth. It is total B.S. But what brainwashing isn't? Evolution vs Creationism. Armageddon/Rapture. America is God's Country. Scientists are Elitists. Communists are Evil Atheists. All of this is brainwashing B.S. programmed into the uneducated using emotional triggers and no factual information.

It has been used for so long that people still think that women are inferior, that certain ethnicities are inferior, that homosexuals are sexual deviants who will eventually steal your little boy and have a sex party with goats and sheep. Some people need to mature - too bad that they haven't yet.
Click to expand...

right on the mark.
excellent post.:)
 
PhantomWolf said:
This is where the On/Off switch on our genes that is being found through twin studies would seem to be a strong contender. It would mean that the Genes that when switched on (or off) cause one to be attracted to the other sex are possibly the same genes that attract people to the same sex. It could even be that in women they are generally turned on (attracting them to males) and in males they are generally turned off (attracting them to females.) In some people they are "incorrectly" switched meaning you have males attracted to males, and females attracted to females. This would quite happily explain a lot of the things we see, including why it hasn't been breed out of us.
Click to expand...

That does make sense, at least at my level of biology education (which, happily, was not required to go beyond Bio 101). Certainly an improved explanation over "animals do it."

I think, when I get time, I'll have to post a separate thread to get any response on my "unintended consequences of claiming behaviors or biological" question. Unfortunately, that may not get me any responses from the pro-genetic-explanation people who would post on a thread like this.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom