Homosexuality is a choice

[JFrankA]

On this point, we're in violent agreement. The scale is a useful model, IMO, of our default or general position, but only with the understanding that other factors can alter our position on the scale.

So, you're on the far "don't like" end of the tomato scale, but, under certain circumstances, your dot moves to the "like" end. (Although, I'd suggest for this example that "raw tomato" and "cooked tomato" should not even be on the same scale.)

So, your general position is on the absolute "like" end of the peanut butter scale. But, in certain situations you could slide further down the scale. Even all the way to the very opposite end in some cases.

Similarly, you could be highly attracted to women in general, and be at the far end of that scale, but in some situations you can find yourself not attracted, or even repelled, by a particular woman and the particular circumstances you deal with her in.

Okay. Well, if you want to put it that way I have to violently agree with you on that.

OH YEAH!!! WELL THAT MAKES SENSE!!!!! GEEZ!

Seriously, that better explains what I'm trying to say.

 

[JFrankA]

There is an implication in some of these posts that there can't really be such a thing as a 100% heterosexual male, that given the right situation, any male could find himself persuaded to be attracted to another male.

It's a textbook example of projection, frankly. Just because some men are ambivalent, or 5% gay, or whatever you want to call it, doesn't mean that they all are.

If I see porn, I am not turned on by the male involved, I identify with him, I imagine what it would be like to be him. The porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement. Without the woman, however, the whole thing would be completely useless.

I don't think that that is meant to be implied. As someone posted before, being neutral towards a member of the same sex means that you are not sexually attracted to that person.

However, in your own words "the porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement" means that the fact he is there does something to enhance the sexual arousal, but it does not necessarily mean sexual attraction to that guy. This is where my hypothesis of situations comes in.

 

[Marcus]

I don't think that that is meant to be implied. As someone posted before, being neutral towards a member of the same sex means that you are not sexually attracted to that person.

However, in your own words "the porn wouldn't be as good without his involvement" means that the fact he is there does something to enhance the sexual arousal, but it does not necessarily mean sexual attraction to that guy. This is where my hypothesis of situations comes in.

In that case, I agree with you.

 

[ZirconBlue]

There is an implication in some of these posts that there can't really be such a thing as a 100% heterosexual male

I'm sure there are 100% heterosexual males, but I also think society tends to push people to extremes that are not innate. That is, I think there are a lot of, say, 90% heterosexual males who, due to societal pressure (or apathy), repress (or ignore) that 10%. People seem to want to round off to the nearest 0 or 100%.

, that given the right situation, any male could find himself persuaded to be attracted to another male.

Well, there is such a thing as situational homosexuality, after all. Prison inmates being one obvious example.

 

[Joecool]

This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[TheNooch]

This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Think about this bold part for a minute, perhaps a picture of Ted Haggard would help you contemplate?

 

[Wuglife]

I think defending homosexuality by saying "it's not a choice" is a moot point anyway. To me it relegates it to something shameful, or implies that gay people "should" change, but can't. Who cares? I don't care if it is a "choice" or not, and really dissecting this question can go deeper and deeper until it begins to segue into other topics. For me it simply doesn't matter.

I have no problem with LGBT people. I don't care if some of them "chose" to "be gay" (a concept I don't even think of, much) just like I don't care if someone "chose" to be "straight". In fact, I think that one day much of society will prefer to do without these distinctions altogether.

If a man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a woman another consenting woman, or either wants to get married, or any combination thereof, I really can't see the problem.

Personally, I think most people are naturally inclined to find one sex more attractive than the other, but I also think that most people may have some vague attraction to that other sex that is simply outweighed; in other words, I believe most people are "bisexual" on a low level, but are predisposed strongly towards being attracted to, or seeking sex/love with, either men or women.

Furthermore I don't think it really matters a lick to the anti-gay factions whether "being gay" is a choice or not. An analogy: the KKK knows full well that Black people didn't choose to be black, yet it still hates them.

 

[Taarkin]

This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Wrinkly pea skin is genetic, yet smooth-skinned pea parents can have wrinkly pea babies.

 

[PhantomWolf]

This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It seems to be more than just genetics as far as having genes that cause it. There are numerous cases of identical twins where one is gay and one not, and even cases of one twin being transgender and the other not. These are hard to explain on a pure gene based level.

I have seen research that is looking deeper though, and there is evidence that our genes can be switched on and off by chemicals that attach themselves to the DNA, and that it is this switching that has a lot to do with our sexuality, brain gender, and much more of who we are. It also shows that our experiences, both in the womb and beyond, can all effect these markers and how they act on our genes.

It seems that in the end we really are a product of our genes and our enviroment, right from the time of conception, though to death.

Following this, it is quite possible that there is no such things as a "gay" gene, but rather a set of genes that determine which sex we are attracted to based on which way those genes are switched, and in some people they are switched in the opposite direction of their physical gender.

 

[Jeff Corey]

... For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate...

I don't know of any clear evidence either way, but yours is faulty. Cases exist which disprove your generalization.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I think defending homosexuality by saying "it's not a choice" is a moot point anyway. To me it relegates it to something shameful, or implies that gay people "should" change, but can't. Who cares? I don't care if it is a "choice" or not, and really dissecting this question can go deeper and deeper until it begins to segue into other topics. For me it simply doesn't matter.

I have no problem with LGBT people. I don't care if some of them "chose" to "be gay" (a concept I don't even think of, much) just like I don't care if someone "chose" to be "straight". In fact, I think that one day much of society will prefer to do without these distinctions altogether.

If a man wants to have sex with another consenting man, or a woman another consenting woman, or either wants to get married, or any combination thereof, I really can't see the problem.

Personally, I think most people are naturally inclined to find one sex more attractive than the other, but I also think that most people may have some vague attraction to that other sex that is simply outweighed; in other words, I believe most people are "bisexual" on a low level, but are predisposed strongly towards being attracted to, or seeking sex/love with, either men or women.

Furthermore I don't think it really matters a lick to the anti-gay factions whether "being gay" is a choice or not. An analogy: the KKK knows full well that Black people didn't choose to be black, yet it still hates them.

This is a very interesting and intelligent reflection and I would have to agree.

 

[Skeptic]

One only need peruse the galleries of a fetish pornography website (I don't recommend it unless you're into that sort of thing) to see how vastly sexual preference can vary, even within the broad confines of "I like women" or "I like men".

Rule 34: if it exists, there's porn involving it.

 

[Skeptic]

Homosexuality might well be both inborn and morally neutral. It's just that the argument that it is morally neutral because it is inborn is a bad argument, for obvious reasons.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Homosexuality might well be both inborn and morally neutral. It's just that the argument that it is morally neutral because it is inborn is a bad argument, for obvious reasons.

Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

 

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Joecool
This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Total and utter crap. Most of my Gay friends have biological children. And we should not forget the Lesbian mothers. In one case the guy had 8 by two different women. And no he wasn't bisexual in orientation. He had always been from his early years overwhelmingly attracted to men. He had been under a great deal of social pressure to marry. It doesn't take more than one sexual act with another person to result in pregnancy. The fact that most Gay men are sexually uninterested in women doesn't mean they can perform the sex act with a women. Ditto for Lesbians doing it with a man.

As for the idiot question of is Homosexuality a choice? Get real! Like I choose to get turned on looking at a cute guy. Like I can just say "Today I choose to be turned on by Guys"!? God! what an idiotic view of human sexuality.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

There are plenty of dispositions, such as alcoholism or pedophilia, that are innate or genetic and yet many would not say are morally neutral. Of course, how illogical it is depends on the context of the original argument. Was it more about the status of "being gay" or wanting to commit actions that others do not want you to?

There are more positive arguments that can also stand by themselves.

 

[KingMerv00]

This is an interesting topic. I think if people are claiming it's genetic, that is debatable. For it to be genetic, gay parents would have gay offspring, but gay parents do not procreate. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Some causes of infertility are genetic.

 

[Alan]

Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

There's the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Skeptic]

Explain yourself. I find the opposite quite obvious: We don't hold people morally culpable for things that are beyond their control.

We are all born with a lot of tendencies -- whether sexual or otherwise. We have perhaps an inborn tendency to violence on the one hand and to generosity on the other. But if someone acts violently he is (usually) to blame, and if someone acts generously he is (usually) to praise. Because our actions, if not our tendencies, are within our control. So whether homosexual action is good, bad, or neutral has nothing to do with our inborn tendencies.

ETA: Mr. Buddha said it better.

 

[Dani]

Some causes of infertility are genetic.

I was going to point that out too. So far most responses have focused on the fact that homosexual people procreate, but it doesn't make any difference anyway. Genetic heredity is not copy & paste! There are blond people with dark haired parents, homosexual people can have heterosexual children and viceversa. There are countless examples. Just look at your parents and spot the differences.