Homosexuality - Choice or Not?

[Buttercup]

Wrong, this is not a religious debate, this is merely a matter of choice

Then, what's the problem if it's simply a matter of choice?

Does it matter to you if homosexuality is by choice or not? Or, do you just want some people to admit that it could be?

I'm not understanding your motive for the thread.

 

[Ðanisty]

I wasn't sure whether your poll was supposed to be for everybody or just for homosexuals, so I didn't vote. The fact that you voted indicates to me that the poll was for everyone to vote on. On the other hand, the way you worded your question and the available choices, it was hard to tell. Anyway, if I had voted, I would have voted "No, I was born this way," because it's true that I was born the way I am.

This is precisely why I've asked twice about changing the wording in the poll and it's been ignored both times.

Have you tried anti-latex hormones?

Really easy to use and they are on special. If you buy now, it comes with free tupperware.

Phil could always try latex condoms...might make things feel more familiar.

 

[standing_alone]

Yes, they did choose to go through all of this "drama" because they chose to be gay.

Willful ignorance...

Every single gay and lesbian person (myself included) that I know (and I know quite a few) did not choose to to be gay or lesbian. Most of them discovered their same-sex attraction during adolescence/puberty (a pretty standard time for sexual/affectional attractions to begin occuring). Very many of them (again, myself included) tried to fight off this same-sex attraction and to become heterosexual--and guess what? It didn't work. The same-sex attraction persisted. Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me, but what do I know? I'm only lesbian and went through the process of coming to terms with my sexual orientation in an intolerant society. I should just listen to some straight dude with no clue's speculations on the matter. Please.

For anyone interested, here's some stuff from the APA:

Publications and Reports from the Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Concerns Office of APA

Just go through and look for whatever interests you. I suggest:

Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

 

[Buttercup]

Every single gay and lesbian person (myself included) that I know (and I know quite a few) did not choose to to be gay or lesbian. Most of them discovered their same-sex attraction during adolescence/puberty (a pretty standard time for sexual/affectional attractions to begin occuring).

I knew I was attracted to boys in kindergarten. I can assume that many gays find out that early as well.

 

[TurtleGirl]

by the way there's plenty of people who enjoy the attention and drama and choose to do things that cause it for themselves.

They chose to "come out fo the closet" or however you want to put it, they chose to be gay, they chose to be attactied towards members of the same sex.

I BEG YOUR PARDON?!

I suggest you need to try living every day of your life hiding how you truly feel and who you truly are and tell me that you CHOOSE to come out of the closet because you like the attention, or because your depression and loneliness and thoughts of suicide drive you to the point where it's either pretend to be the person that the whole of modern society expects you to be and go nuts or die or come out and deal with the harrassment from the lot of close-minded people who can't let you be yourself but at least have the relief of knowing you can be yourself. Perhaps some people like attention, but in general the act of coming out of the closet is more an act to save yourself from anguish and suicide than it is to satisfy a craving for attention. It's an act of being more open with those around you and accepting of and confident in your nature.

You obviously have no concept of what it's like and you also seriously lack any sort of empathy and compassion if you can honestly accuse lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders of being self-agrandizing attention-whores who choose to be homosexual, bisexual or gender-variant because it gets them more attention.

As for my personal experiences with bisexuality and being transgendered (which by the way have no link, I just have the happenstance of being in two boats at once), it was never something I chose. In fact many times during my life I "chose" due to societal pressure to pretend to be anything but. I chose to hide from myself, to deny that I couldn't prevent myself from being sexually attracted to both males and females, to regularly try to resist the urge to wear the clothes of my gender identity and to stop praying every night until I was in tears that God would turn me into a girl overnight while I was sleeping (as young as ten years old!).

Why is there anguish? Because some people feel it is unacceptable or immoral for people to be themselves, even if it varies from their personal world views or spiritual beliefs. The anguish isn't created by the lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders, it's created by the close-minded that refuse to see anything but their narrow scope of the world.

But hey, you've managed to attract quite a bit of attention for yourself, now haven't you madhatter85? Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[BUDDY]

Homosexuality - Choice or Not?

Until I see concrete research on the subject, I have no option but to believe that homosexuality itself is a choice. I have read the research by LeVay, and I have read the research of others who have disproved it. I am not convinced of LeVays research. I am open to the possibility, but just don't see the supporting science for it.

 

[TurtleGirl]

Until I see concrete research on the subject, I have no option but to believe that homosexuality itself is a choice. I have read the research by LeVay, and I have read the research of others who have disproved it. I am not convinced of LeVays research. I am open to the possibility, but just don't see the supporting science for it.

Okay, so let's logically reason out this theory of choice. The logical alternatives to choosing homosexuality are to choose heterosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. If it stands to reason that homosexuals must choose their sexual orientation then one must conclude that sexual orientation is a choice for all humans. Now I am curious about you Buddy. Are you homosexual, bisexual, asexual or homosexual? When did you make this choice on your sexual orientation?

Another general curiosity: do those supporting the concept of homosexuality as a choice also purport that asexuality is a choice? There are some people in the crazy, mixed-up world that genuinely have no interest in sex. Do they also choose this? How do you know for certainty? Where is your scientific proof?

 

[doppelganger]

Then, what's the problem if it's simply a matter of choice?

Does it matter to you if homosexuality is by choice or not? Or, do you just want some people to admit that it could be?

I'm not understanding your motive for the thread.

It's real simple. He wants to smugly sit in judgment on people and call them sinners and imagine their condemnation because their sexual preferences are different from his. When they respond that they are "born that way" and have no "choice" about their sexual preferences, this causes two problems for him: (1) it takes the bluster out of his projected judgments; and, (2) it means his "God" (who, in his mind, abhors homosexuality) might be responsible. In order to remedy these two problems, he must maintain a state of denial about homosexuality being natural or anything other than a choice so it can safely fall within the realm of "sin." This prevents him from having to pass judgment on the prejudices of the "God" he has created in which to contain these prejudices, and gives him safe distance from which to go on judging people for their differences instead of breaking down barriers and getting to know those who are different from his as real people.

I think that pretty much covers it.

 

[BUDDY]

The Inheritance of Homosexuality

In the debate over the genetics of homosexuality, the data supporting a genetic basis are similarly weak. One study by Michael Bailey, a Northwestern University psychologist, and Richard Pillard, a psychiatrist at Boston University, found that about half of the identical twins (52 percent) of homosexual brothers were homosexual themselves compared with about a quarter (22 percent) of fraternal twins of homosexuals. But this study recruited subjects through ads in gay publications. This introduces a bias towards the selection of overtly gay respondents, a minority of all homosexuals.
Moreover, other results of the study do not support a genetic basis for homosexuality. Adopted brothers (11 percent) had as high a "concordance rate" for homosexuality as ordinary brothers (9 percent). The data also showed that fraternal twins were more than twice as likely as ordinary brothers to share homosexuality, al-though both sets of siblings have the same genetic relationship. These results suggest the critical role of environmental factors.
One study that focussed on an actual homosexual gene was conducted by Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer found a possible genetic marker on the X chromosome in 33 of 40 brothers who were both gay (the number expected by chance was 20). Earlier Simon LeVay, a neurologist at the Salk Institute, noted an area of the hypothalamus that was smaller among gay than heterosexual men.
Although both these findings were front-page stories, they provide quite a slender basis for the genetics of homosexuality. Hamer did not check for the frequency of the supposed marker in heterosexual brothers, where it could conceivably be as prevalent as in gay siblings. Hamer has noted that he doesn't know how the marker he found could cause homosexuality, and LeVay likewise concedes he hasn't found a brain center for homosexuality.

Here's my favorite part:

But for many, the politics of a homosexual gene outweigh the science. A genetic explanation for homosexuality answers bigots who claim homosexuality is a choice which should be rejected. But to accept that nongenetic factors contribute to homosexuality does not indicate prejudice against gays. David Barr, of the Gay Men's Health Crisis, puts the issue this way: "It doesn't really matter why people are gay.... What's really important is how they're treated."

From Psychology Today, July/August 1995 Issue
Psychology Today

 

[doppelganger]

It's never about the evidence or the ontology. It's always about the psychology of the individual observer.

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. - Paul Simon

 

[BUDDY]

Okay, so let's logically reason out this theory of choice. The logical alternatives to choosing homosexuality are to choose heterosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality. If it stands to reason that homosexuals must choose their sexual orientation then one must conclude that sexual orientation is a choice for all humans. Now I am curious about you Buddy. Are you homosexual, bisexual, asexual or homosexual? When did you make this choice on your sexual orientation?

Another general curiosity: do those supporting the concept of homosexuality as a choice also purport that asexuality is a choice? There are some people in the crazy, mixed-up world that genuinely have no interest in sex. Do they also choose this? How do you know for certainty? Where is your scientific proof?

The question int he OP was what do you believe homosexuality do be, a born or inherited trait (i.e. "born with it") or a choice. Until there is evidence to support the claim that genetics can point to or predetermine sexual behavior, then there is really no logical alternative than to believe sexual preferences are by choice. As for me, I choose to be a heterosexual.

 

[standing_alone]

The question int he OP was what do you believe homosexuality do be, a born or inherited trait (i.e. "born with it") or a choice. Until there is evidence to support the claim that genetics can point to or predetermine sexual behavior, then there is really no logical alternative than to believe sexual preferences are by choice. As for me, I choose to be a heterosexual.

If there is no evidence to claim that genetics are responsible for sexual/affectional orientation, rather than just assuming it must be choice, wouldn't it be more logical to suspend judgement on the matter until evidence is in?

 

[BUDDY]

It's never about the evidence or the ontology. It's always about the psychology of the individual observer.

All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. - Paul Simon

I assume that this is refeing to my post. The article appeared is Psychology Today, but that does not mean that the findings are less true.

I like Paul Simon. The Boxer is a great song. Not quite fair to assume that it applies to me though. I could easily do the same in kind, but I don't know enough about you or the way you research to do so.

 

[TurtleGirl]

The Inheritance of Homosexuality...http://psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-19950701-000024.html

That's all fine and well, but genetics simply addresses the science of how a homosexual parent could pass homosexuality on to their child, and this is not the subject of debate here. Humans are born to naturally develop the ability to walk upright. Can you provide the scientific evidence for the genetics of this trait with which we are all born?

If homosexuality is "unnatural" and not supported by genetics, then let's see the scientific prrof that there's a heterosexual gene and that heterosexual is a natural condition of human beings.

 

[TurtleGirl]

The question int he OP was what do you believe homosexuality do be, a born or inherited trait (i.e. "born with it") or a choice. Until there is evidence to support the claim that genetics can point to or predetermine sexual behavior, then there is really no logical alternative than to believe sexual preferences are by choice. As for me, I choose to be a heterosexual.

I would like to know when you made that conscious choice to say "I will be heterosexual instead of homosexual, bisexual or asexual based on the evidence before me."

 

[BUDDY]

If there is no evidence to claim that genetics are responsible for sexual/affectional orientation, rather than just assuming it must be choice, wouldn't it be more logical to suspend judgement on the matter until evidence is in?

No. I don't believe to consider it a matter of choice is wrong or judgemental. It is just a conclusion formed out of observation of testable evidence.

Do you believe that those who believe it is a choice are being judgemental or somewhat immoral?

 

[TurtleGirl]

No. I don't believe to consider it a matter of choice is wrong or judgemental. It is just a conclusion formed out of observation of testable evidence.

Do you believe that those who believe it is a choice are being judgemental or somewhat immoral?

So you have a forum thread with plenty of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders telling you they never made a conscious choice to be that way: it just happened. This comes from their first-hand, personal experience. The concept of this aspect being a choice demands a deliberate consideration and decision to be homosexual or bisexual over heterosexual. Yet there are plenty who have experienced the situation that tell you that never happened. Is that not evidence enough to tell you that you cannot assume it to be a matter of choice?

 

[standing_alone]

No. I don't believe to consider it a matter of choice is wrong or judgemental. It is just a conclusion formed out of observation of testable evidence.

Do you believe that those who believe it is a choice are being judgemental or somewhat immoral?

I wasn't using the word "judgement" in that regard. I meant it as making a judgement (or forming a conclusion, preferably based on decent evidence) on the matter of sexual/affectional orientation and whether it is choice. What I mean is, rather than going with the "either or" of genetics being the "be all end all" of it not being a choice and believing it is a choice, why not just form no conclusion ("suspend judgement") on the matter until there is concrete evidence about sexual/affectional orientation and whether it is a choice or not?

 

[BUDDY]

That's all fine and well, but genetics simply addresses the science of how a homosexual parent could pass homosexuality on to their child, and this is not the subject of debate here. Humans are born to naturally develop the ability to walk upright. Can you provide the scientific evidence for the genetics of this trait with which we are all born?

Nope. Besides, what would be the purpose besides bating me? No genetic research into this human trait have been done as far as I know, and I have never been interested enough in the genetics of this trait to find out. Have you? Not that it has anything to do with the OP. The only reason I introduced the question of genetics is that it seems to me that most of those who believe that someone is born gay, believe that the genetic research done by LeVay, Bailey, Pillard and others. I just wanted to show that there are plenty of problems with their research and it is inconclusive.

As to the genetic question, it appears that you do not know what you are talking about. LeVay tried to show that the size of the humans INAH3 was corresponded to a persons sexuality (smaller means predisposed to homosexuality).

If homosexuality is "unnatural" and not supported by genetics, then let's see the scientific prrof that there's a heterosexual gene and that heterosexual is a natural condition of human beings.

I never called homosexuality unnatural. You are seeing what you want to see in regards to my post. I was very very careful in stating what I believe and why, so please do not try to paint me as someone who is unthoughtful ro uncaring. I said that there is no conclusive evidence for the genetic homosexual trait, which is the subject of the OP. I am not sure that there is genetic evidence to show predisposition for heterosexuality either. The same should hold true. Genetically it can't be proven. That's when you turn to human biology.

 

[BUDDY]

I wasn't using the word "judgement" in that regard. I meant it as making a judgement (or forming a conclusion, preferably based on decent evidence) on the matter of sexual/affectional orientation and whether it is choice. What I mean is, rather than going with the "either or" of genetics being the "be all end all" of it not being a choice and believing it is a choice, why not just form no conclusion ("suspend judgement") on the matter until there is concrete evidence about sexual/affectional orientation and whether it is a choice or not?

Well, it is just an opinion and I am willing to change it at a drop of a hat if the evience supports. I have come to the conclusion that all the studies done to try and show homosexuality to be a gentic trait, are faulty. I see what you mean, but the old "I don't know" doesn't do much in a debate format. If it did, then this thread would have died a while ago. I guess I don't know, but I lean more towards the belief that it is a choice because I see no evidence to support the other, and I see a lot of evidence to support that biologically the male and female natural design points toward to two being sexual partners. That is the only answer that I know to give. Sorry if that doesn't answer your questions, but I do know what you are talking about.