Homosexuality is a choice

[Dorian Gray]

Agreed.

I've always seen sexual attraction like food attraction. I compare it to ice cream flavors. For example, a person might prefer vanilla or chocolate or strawberry, and usually eat that flavor, but when presented with a different kind of dish, with different toppings put together by a different cook, that person would enjoy rocky roads.

IMHO, if the process that produces people's tastes in sex is exactly like the process that produces people's tastes in food, then it is from a mixture of nature, nurture and circumstance: in other words, it just is. It's like asking a person "Why don't you like bananas????" or "Why do you like very spicy food?"

In fact, it's exactly like asking a person why they don't like bananas.

 

[qayak]

Homosexuallity is wrong.

So are Spaniards.

 

[IMST]

Homosexuality is no more than a depraved degeneracy.
It is the most horrible thing in the world to be.
That's why no queer chooses to be that way.
They cannot help themselves.
Pity the fairies and their poor lot in life.
They did not ask to be born a perverted mockery of nature.

But it gets better once you get out of the closet. You should give it a go.

 

[Dani]

in a reproductive way yes, that doesn't work, but most of them know that, and still seem fairly happy with it. so other than reproduction, what is wrong about it?

No, what I meant is that "homosexuallity" is wrong because the correct spelling is with only one "l".

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Dani]

Spelled wrong.

Oh, now I see. You beat me to it.

 

[HansMustermann]

So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

ie you would completely ignore their actual behaviour?

If we adopt a behavioural criterion, we can be objective. If we adopt a mental one, how do we apply it?

1. I don't see a problem. Most people can jolly well have both criteria in the back of their head, without needing a dichotomy between them. We can talk about being wired gay or about having gay sex without getting totally confused which is which.

Actually, probably the best example are lesbian porn flicks or all the college girls who "experimented with lesbianism". One can be wired as hetero even if they are having gay sex right at the moment.

2. In the end, does it matter if you can neatly divide the world or not. It seems to me that the world would actually be a better place if we cared less about knowing who is what.

 

[IMST]

Meh, I prefer to know who the gays are. Makes dating 'em easier.

 

[Piggy]

Granted "sexual" behaviours are certainly not a social construct but how we divide people into "gay" and "straight" is.

Fundamentally, it is not. Of course, every culture has its own socially constructed memes built around it. But every culture makes some sort of gay/straight/bi distinction, as far as I know.

Given the importance of sex to evolution, it would be extremely surprising if it turned out any other way, of course.

 

[Piggy]

So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

I would, certainly.

 

[Alan]

So , would you say a man who had sex with other boys at school, but shows no such interests in later life, marrying and having a string of affairs with women, is heterosexual, but a man who has only ever sexually fantasised over other men, yet dies, a virgin, at 98 was homosexual?

ie you would completely ignore their actual behaviour?

If we adopt a behavioural criterion, we can be objective. If we adopt a mental one, how do we apply it?

There are different aspects of sexuality. Behaviour, romantic attractions, sexual attractions, identity and so on. They do not always align, which is why it's important to recognise the different elements. In those examples where they don't align, trying to sum them up with one label isn't as good as saying that behaviourally they're this and romantically they're that and so on.

What I go by when thinking of them is the attractions they report. To me, attractions (sexual/romantic) are the orientation: not the behaviour. But that doesn't mean ignoring that behaviourally, for example, the first person was bisexual. That doesn't mean exaggerating the importance of the homosexual behaviour to him, since in that example it doesn't seem important.

If you don't like the self-reporting of the mental factors because of the possibility of the person engaging in deception or self-deception, that problem exists with reports of the behavioural criterion too.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It is not about grouping people together it is exposing a fundamental flaw in the whole idea behind the concept of the opening post, the opening post arises only if we accept that when we label someone "homosexual" or "heterosexual" we are labelling something that is objective.

Have to totally agree. I can even use myself as an example.

I'm going to note here that this is something I have told very few people, so you could say it's a sort of coming out.

Because I am physically male and sexually orientated as male, it's easy to label me as "straight". However those aren't the sum total of what makes up our sexuality and gender.

What few people know about me is that when it comes to the other important parts, the Brain Sex and Gender Identity, I test as female. This means that my brain is more female in the way it thinks than it is male, and while physically male, I would prefer to be female physically. If I'd grown up in a different place and time, then becoming transgender would have been a very likely option for me to choose, though due to my body size and shape it's not one that I am likely to do now simply because even with a $1 million in surgery the results would be a very heavy, set 6' 3", ugly, and un-feminine woman. Nor do I plan to become a drag-queen because my body is well and truly male whether I like it or not.

But what does it all mean? Had I been in a position where I had understood the way I was as a kid and that there was a way to "fix" it which I could have done, I'd likely be a female now, not a male, but my sexual orientation would still be male meaning that as a transgender, I'd have been considered gay.

So which am I? I know a lot of guys joke about being lesbians trapped in a man's body, but for me it's really true. What it means to me is that sexuality and even gender identity can be very subjective and labelling it based on only what we see doesn't cover the entire gamut of possibilities out there.

 

[Uncayimmy]

My question for men who think it's a choice is this: "Are you saying that you could choose to achieve and maintain an erection and have sex to orgasm with another man?"

If the answer is "No", then you're saying homosexuality is not a choice.

I've used the same question, but it's not without its weaknesses. Men can be raped and achieve erections and even orgasm. It results in a lot of guilt and confusion, much as it does for female rape victims who respond physically to stimulation. Your larger point, however, is well taken.

I view "fetishes" the same way. I don't know why the things that turn me on do, and I don't judge others for their proclivities. Some men get insanely jealous if their wives even talk to other men while some men film their wives at mandingo parties (Google it). Foot fetishes are another example. Some people are really into it, but for the life of me I just can't see the appeal of a woman in heels squashing a blueberry muffin.

Whether it's a choice or not doesn't really address the morality issue. We can form a rational basis argument against pedophilia in that prepubescent children do not understand sexuality and cannot consent. It becomes less clear with adolescents. Many 16 year olds are sexually active, but society says adult prospective partners have to wait until s/he's 18 (varies by jurisdiction, of course). The rational basis argument for pedophilia starts to falter in this case because we would have no problem trying a 16 year old as an adult for felony crimes.

And then there's just plain old promiscuity. Generally speaking society frowns upon taking on "too many" partners or having "casual" sex. Society generally frowns upon "cheating" on a partner, but the drive is a perfectly natural one. Swingers have their own sub-culture that's bigger than most people realize. Then, of course, we have prostitution. There are segments of society who view those things as immoral yet the underlying drives are still "natural."

So, even if homosexuality is not a choice, does that cancel out the moral objections? I think it cancels out most of the rationalizations, but it really won't cancel out "god said so" arguments. Personally, I don't have an issue with what consenting adults do together so long as no third parties are hurt. However, I can see how people would find it repugnant (to answer the question I quoted, I couldn't do it). The emotional reactions are not unexpected. I think it will take a few more generations before it's not so contentious.

 

[kerikiwi]

Deleted: far too slow I am

 

[Halfcentaur]

If it's a choice doesn't that mean each and every one of us has the capacity to find members of the same sex attractive? if it's a choice, wouldn't that mean all heterosexuals are secretly resisting and denying sexual arousal by the same sex, and only those who choose to become homosexual indulge in this choice?

If not, then these people are saying that gay people are forcing themselves to find others of the same sex arousing. Why would people force them self to find something arousing that does not arouse them? Just to be contrary?

 

[HansMustermann]

If it's a choice doesn't that mean each and every one of us has the capacity to find members of the same sex attractive? if it's a choice, wouldn't that mean all heterosexuals are secretly resisting and denying sexual arousal by the same sex, and only those who choose to become homosexual indulge in this choice?

If not, then these people are saying that gay people are forcing themselves to find others of the same sex arousing. Why would people force them self to find something arousing that does not arouse them? Just to be contrary?

Well, you have to understand that a lot of these people take their "facts" from deranged preachers and the stupidity of Paul.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

It's the couple of verses which probably did the most harm, as well as the only place in the bible that even mentions lesbianism at all. It presents homosexuality as some kind of divine punishment for not being faithful (enough.)

It's not as much forcing yourself to like guys. Just, you know, you skip your prayers a few days, and suddenly you start liking guys and knowing what colours go well with a fuchsia shirt, see?

You can probably see how those guys aren't going to be all tolerant of that, when their BS book says you could jolly well just have more faith instead.

Also, well, another part of the answer you'll start to understand when you read some of the bigotted messages against it. To a lot of people it's just a part of a surprisingly linear spectrum of fetishes and perversions. Sorta one day you start trying different positions with the missus 'cause missionary is so old hat, then you try something with oral sex and dildoes 'cause even cowgirl is old hat and boring now, then you start paying a dominatrix, maybe a bit of swinging and a threesome or two on the way down, then you start having sex with guys 'cause women are old hat and boring. And then you end up raping children 'cause now both adult genders are old hat and boring.

Which not only is offering them a ground to be against it as it is, but also creates the fear that one of those will teach their children that such perversions are OK. They can practically imagine little Timmy listening to a gay neighbour and going, "wait, so I could skip courting that moody bitch at school and just get to the really kinky parts involving three guys and a goat? Sign me up!"

 

[marplots]

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

 

[Shrike]

<snip> the stupidity of Paul. </snip>

Oi, watch it!
Oh, hang on. THAT Paul. NM

Well, you have to understand that a lot of these people take their "facts" from deranged preachers and the stupidity of Paul.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

It's the couple of verses which probably did the most harm, as well as the only place in the bible that even mentions lesbianism at all. It presents homosexuality as some kind of divine punishment for not being faithful (enough.)

It's not as much forcing yourself to like guys. Just, you know, you skip your prayers a few days, and suddenly you start liking guys and knowing what colours go well with a fuchsia shirt, see?

You can probably see how those guys aren't going to be all tolerant of that, when their BS book says you could jolly well just have more faith instead.

Also, well, another part of the answer you'll start to understand when you read some of the bigotted messages against it. To a lot of people it's just a part of a surprisingly linear spectrum of fetishes and perversions. Sorta one day you start trying different positions with the missus 'cause missionary is so old hat, then you try something with oral sex and dildoes 'cause even cowgirl is old hat and boring now, then you start paying a dominatrix, maybe a bit of swinging and a threesome or two on the way down, then you start having sex with guys 'cause women are old hat and boring. And then you end up raping children 'cause now both adult genders are old hat and boring.

Which not only is offering them a ground to be against it as it is, but also creates the fear that one of those will teach their children that such perversions are OK. They can practically imagine little Timmy listening to a gay neighbour and going, "wait, so I could skip courting that moody bitch at school and just get to the really kinky parts involving three guys and a goat? Sign me up!"

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.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Not sure I'm understanding you here. Care to expand on this?

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.)

(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.)

 

[Darat]

Fundamentally, it is not. Of course, every culture has its own socially constructed memes built around it. But every culture makes some sort of gay/straight/bi distinction, as far as I know.

Or introduce a third gender and so on -your comment actually supports my assertion rather than undermining it.

Given the importance of sex to evolution, it would be extremely surprising if it turned out any other way, of course.

 

[Alan]

Yeah (with regards to the post above that one), most of us on this board would see how easy it is for people to believe things that are demonstrably false, with evidence staring right at them. That can include sexualities too.