Homosexuality - Choice or Not?

[BUDDY]

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?

Sorry, but no. I'm not that trusting. I used to be with all kinds of things, but not anymore.

If it was, then people telling me that just feel that there is a God, or they just feel that the flood really happened, or they just feel that universe was created in seven days and seven nights would work for me as well. It seems hypocritical for me to accept someones feelings as evidence in this case and yet not in things like the subjects above.

 

[TurtleGirl]

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.

But that's where the problem lies. You state here that you are unsure of genetic evidence. You point out if not genetics there might be some other biological explanation. How then can you say that if there is no genetic evidence, then it MUST be choice? You can't logically reason out that since one possible explanation was ruled out that only one other possibility holds true. You now propose a third explanation, and I'm sure there are many other plausible explanations other than just genetics. Why then if not genetics MUST it be choice?

And perhaps I don't know anything. And why would I know anything about choice versus nature in sexual orientation? It's not like I'm experiencing it being bisexual or anything...

And you still haven't answered my question about your personal choice to be heterosexual. When did you choose and why? I don't understand your choice because I never made it. I just am bisexual and transgendered. I never chose, it just is that way.

 

[standing_alone]

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.

Nah, I understand what you mean about suspending judgement not doing much for a debate. Looking back, my responses to you were phrased poorly, as it wasn't your position that sexual/affectional orientation is a choice that I was taking objection to (while I happen to disagree with you), but your statement that since there is no evidence to support that sexual/affectional orientation as being genetically-determined that it is most logical to go with sexual/affectional orientation as being a choice. I see that as possibly falling into the "either or" fallacy (I'm not the best with logic, I freely admit, though) and think it most logical to suspend judgement on the issue until evidence regarding the subject is obtained. The problem I had was your claim that it was logical to accept one position over the other since no evidence is in, not your personal opinion that sexual/affectional orientation is a choice. Hope I make more sense now.

 

[BUDDY]

But that's where the problem lies. You state here that you are unsure of genetic evidence. You point out if not genetics there might be some other biological explanation. How then can you say that if there is no genetic evidence, then it MUST be choice? You can't logically reason out that since one possible explanation was ruled out that only one other possibility holds true. You now propose a third explanation, and I'm sure there are many other plausible explanations other than just genetics. Why then if not genetics MUST it be choice?

And perhaps I don't know anything. And why would I know anything about choice versus nature in sexual orientation? It's not like I'm experiencing it being bisexual or anything...

And you still haven't answered my question about your personal choice to be heterosexual. When did you choose and why? I don't understand your choice because I never made it. I just am bisexual and transgendered. I never chose, it just is that way.

Okay, how can you definitively say that it is something a person is born with when there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is? It seems to me that to reverse it is just as shortsighted on your part. You base this on your personal experience. You just are the way that you are and you believe that you are born that way. I am not trying to judge you, I am just stating my opinion.

Usually, you collect evidence, test and observe it, and then create a reasonable conclusion based upon it. In this case we are talking about having a conclusion already reached, and then trying to go looking for evidence that supports the claim. This is totally backwards to the scientific method. If there is evidence (I'm not talking about feelings) that can be tested and observed, and the obvious conclusion is that a person is naturally born homosexual, then I will gladly change my mind, regardless of where that evidence comes from.

As far as my personal sexual preference goes, it is none of your business. It is personal and private and I choose to keep it that way and out of this discussion. I don't see that it has anything to do with this debate anyway.

 

[BUDDY]

Nah, I understand what you mean about suspending judgement not doing much for a debate. Looking back, my responses to you were phrased poorly, as it wasn't your position that sexual/affectional orientation is a choice that I was taking objection to (while I happen to disagree with you), but your statement that since there is no evidence to support that sexual/affectional orientation as being genetically-determined that it is most logical to go with sexual/affectional orientation as being a choice. I see that as possibly falling into the "either or" fallacy (I'm not the best with logic, I freely admit, though) and think it most logical to suspend judgement on the issue until evidence regarding the subject is obtained. The problem I had was your claim that it was logical to accept one position over the other since no evidence is in, not your personal opinion that sexual/affectional orientation is a choice. Hope I make more sense now.

Absolutely. I should be clear as this is such a touchy subject and I don't want to hurt feeligns (although it seems I have already in one case). I don't see the evidence to show that it is something a person is born with, but I am not opposed to the idea and I will be changing my mind once the evidence is in.

 

[Buttercup]

but I am not opposed to the idea and I will be changing my mind once the evidence is in.

What do you mean exactly by changing your mind once the evidence is in?

 

[TurtleGirl]

Okay, how can you definitively say that it is a choice when there is no scientific evidence to prove that it is? It seems to me that to reverse it is just as shortsighted on your part. You base this on your personal experience. You just are the way that you are and you believe that you are born that way. I am not trying to judge you, I am just stating my opinion.

Okay, so then we can both agree that we are wrong to believe that since one supposition is not true, the other must. As you point out here, we are both flawed in assuming that one supposition is true if the other is not. We are both then stating opinion. My opinion was stated because the claim was made that it is a choice. My experience is that it was not a choice.

Usually, you collect evidence, test and observe it, and then create a reasonable conclusion based upon it.

So again I ask: where is you collected and tested evidence that it is a choice? You conclude that if it is not genetics then it must be a choice. You conclusion is not based on evidence that led you there, it is based on your assumption that if it is not A then it must be B, which is a logical fallacy and not at all scientific.

As far as my personal sexual preference goes, it is none of your business. It is personal and private and I choose to keep it that way and out of this discussion. I don't see that it has anything to do with this debate anyway.

Then why did you claim to have chosen heterosexuality? I raised the question not of some voyeuristic curiosity or to invade your privacy but because you brought it into the discussion yourself. If you are going to claim that you made a choice to be heterosexual, you should be prepared to back your claim. If you wanted to keep it out of the discussion, you should never have posted...

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.

 

[doppelganger]

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.

It wasn't directed in response to you in particular, Buddy. The point is merely that what we call "evidence" and "science" is far less important than the psychological filter through which it is perceived, processed and interpreted. We tend to find what we are looking for with uncanny synchronicity, and through the eyes of the finder, it always seems to be "true." :rainbow1:

 

[BUDDY]

Okay, so then we can both agree that we are wrong to believe that since one supposition is not true, the other must. As you point out here, we are both flawed in assuming that one supposition is true if the other is not. We are both then stating opinion. My opinion was stated because the claim was made that it is a choice. My experience is that it was not a choice.



So again I ask: where is you collected and tested evidence that it is a choice? You conclude that if it is not genetics then it must be a choice. You conclusion is not based on evidence that led you there, it is based on your assumption that if it is not A then it must be B, which is a logical fallacy and not at all scientific.



Then why did you claim to have chosen heterosexuality? I raised the question not of some voyeuristic curiosity or to invade your privacy but because you brought it into the discussion yourself. If you are going to claim that you made a choice to be heterosexual, you should be prepared to back your claim. If you wanted to keep it out of the discussion, you should never have posted...

Simply put, it would be incredibly hypocritical of me to state that in my opinion homosexuality is a choice, but that heterosexuality is not. My attempt was to be consistent. But if you must know, I first had a crush on a girl named Tendal when I was six years old. We climbed a tree and kissed.

 

[BUDDY]

What do you mean exactly by changing your mind once the evidence is in?

Once there is evidence that shows a sexual predisposition, I will be able to believe that a person is born with a particular sexual preference.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't think we can really call it a choice. Who knows why something gets us excited? Heterosexuals have a certain type of person they are attracted to as well. Some women like older men. Some men like big women. Some women like women and some men like men.

If I happen to like skinny blond women, would I be told that I must date a larger brunet? We may choose our mate, but our preference is really not a choice.

 

[McBell]

My question is, in all honestly, what difference would it make?
I mean, really, what difference?

Are there people out there who think that if it is proven 100% one way or the other that anyone is actually going to change their mind on the matter?
I rather doubt it.
Everyone will merely move on to the next part and it being a choice or not will be a long forgotten argument.

 

[Aqualung]

Gay threads get long fast.

 

[Blindinglight]

why not use common sense and reason rather than doing years of research to try an justify something?

Because years of research has given us understanding and knowledge. I personally wouldn't appreciate a hole being chipped in my skull if I suddenly started acting weird.

I do not have a problem with Homosexual equal rights as individual citizens of the United States.
I do have a problem with Marriage for Homosexual couples.

You seem to contradict yourself here. You support their equal rights as citizens, yet you do not support their equal rights to marriage.

Being homosexual is not a choice.

It's is always a choice to make any action. to follow through with an urge, it is always a choice. It's a choice to be Hetrosexual. It's always a choice. choices are made every day. Nobody twists your arm into being straight or gay.

You wish it was. Care to give your credentials on why we should take your opinion over the psychologists and scientists, who have the schooling, training, and degrees as credentials.

The prostate in males is inside the anus and, from what I've been told, feels very good when stimulated.

I will vouch that it does indeed feel very good.

 

[BUDDY]

My question is, in all honestly, what difference would it make?
I mean, really, what difference?

Are there people out there who think that if it is proven 100% one way or the other that anyone is actually going to change their mind on the matter?
I rather doubt it.
Everyone will merely move on to the next part and it being a choice or not will be a long forgotten argument.

It matters on a number of levels to some. If it can be proven that someone is born with a certain sexual inclination, then the entire way that people (especially religious) look at homosexuality will inevitably change. There are also political ramifications.

 

[Booko]

please... you chose to be gay, you chose to act on your urges, you chose not to be attracted to people of the opposite sex.

So tell us, madhatter, on what day did you choose to be attracted to members of the opposite sex? It must've been a memorable occasion, surely.

You cannot tell me that you were never ever attracted to a member of the opposite sex in full honesty.

Can you tell the LGBT folks here that you were never ever attracted to a member of the same sex in full honesty?

If you told them that and they said you were lying, which is exactly what you've said to them, how would you react?

Don't you think maybe we owe it to each other to at least imagine the possibility that each of us knows what goes on in our own heads better than others do?

 

[Booko]

The Inheritance of Homosexuality

In the debate over the genetics of homosexuality, the data supporting a genetic basis are similarly weak.

Buddy, there's more to "inheritance" than genetics. Conditions in utero also have implications for the offspring.

For example, I have some food allergies. I didn't know about it during pregancy and was eating those foods. That triggered an allergic reaction in me and the faulty immune response got sent down to my poor kids. Provided my daughter is careful about her diet during any pregnancy she has, her offspring will not have food allergies as she and I do.

Also, there have been animal studies from years back (mid-to-late 80s) showing some effects on hormonal levels in utero that resulted in increased homosexual behaviour in the offsping. The studies I know of were done with dogs (mammals at least) and only concerned male offspring, but I would be surprised if physiological psychology hasn't done more work on this subject in a couple of decades.

Finally, just because we don't have all the answers science might provide at this point doesn't make it seem too rational to take the stance "it's a choice" when the vast majority of those who actually are homosexual say it isn't. The more rational view would be to go on the evidence we have, subjective as that may be, which comes from peoples' experience, until science says otherwise.

Your argument about taking it as a choice until proved otherwise is similar to the argument that because (until quite recently) we did not understand the aerodynamics involved in flight for bees meant that bees couldn't fly. Do you see the illogic in such an argument?

 

[Booko]

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 don't even get the "unnatural" argument anyway. Homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore it is "natural."

The question is whether it's moral, but the author of the OP claims he doesn't want to deal with religious issues.

 

[Booko]

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.

What testable evidence?

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

I don't. It's not like I have a dog in this fight anyway. But I do believe those who maintain, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary from people who actually are gay, are mistaken.

I can't imagine why anyone would "choose" to undertake a life of abuse, rejection, and cognitive dissonance when the other option would be to "choose" to avoid all those things.

People are wired to avoid pain. So what's so different about homosexuals that they would seek out so much of it? I haven't seen it.

And I know you haven't said anything so stupid, Buddy, and you're unlikely to, but please I beg you do not type the word "drama" in response to this question. :cover:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Usually, you collect evidence, test and observe it, and then create a reasonable conclusion based upon it. In this case we are talking about having a conclusion already reached, and then trying to go looking for evidence that supports the claim. This is totally backwards to the scientific method.

Actually, the standard scientific method goes like this:

- formulate a hypothesis, which is not a "conclusion already reached", but a position one intends to evaluate for whether it's true or not (e.g. "gravitational force on an object is proportional to its mass", "the planet Earth has a cream-filled centre", or "people are born gay")
- determine a method to evaluate this hypothesis
- collect evidence according to the determined method
- analyse the resultant evidence to determine whether it supports or refutes the original hypothesis
- formulate and state a conclusion based on the results of the investigation (e.g. "yes, gravitational force is proportional to an object's mass", "no, the planet Earth is not cream-filled", or "yes, people are born gay")

For more support, this process is repeated many times for the same hypothesis, both with the same method (to confirm that no significant errors occurred) and with different methods (to confirm that the conclusion wasn't the result of some unforeseen consequence of the chosen method).

If there is evidence (I'm not talking about feelings) that can be tested and observed, and the obvious conclusion is that a person is naturally born homosexual, then I will gladly change my mind, regardless of where that evidence comes from.

Just curious: why would it matter? Does the fact that a behaviour is genetic or learned make any difference in its validity or morality?

After all, religion is clearly a "choice"... there is no gene that decides whether a person is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or what-have-you.