Is being alcoholic a choice? If not, are drinking binges OK? (An Analogy)

Great Debates
21

Well, yes, but you’re talking about two different issues. In your original post, you seemed to ask why psychologists stopped considering homosexuality a mental illness, hypothesizing that it was because homosexuality was found to be innate. Now you seem to be asking, “Can’t society condemn it, whether it’s psychologically healthy or unhealthy”, and of course, the answer to that is that society can condemn it, and many societies have. Whether society should condemn it or not is another issue entirely.
Also, please remember that Dr. Sptizer’s study, whether it’s correct or not, doesn’t place a normative value on homosexuality. I think a lot of people trumpeting the results of the study seem to think it does, but nothing in his study suggests that homosexuality is harmful. What the study suggests, even if it’s true, is not that it is beneficial for homosexuals to change their sexual orientation, merely that it is possible in some cases. Of course, the study also has numerous methedological flaws that have been discussed in other threads, but I just wanted to point that out.

Alcoholism is considered a disorder because it

  1. Causes a marked decline in social and vocational functioning.

  2. Causes marked emotional distress.

  3. Makes people forget to say “Hi, Opal!”

I think there are one or two other attributes of a disorder, but I forget them right now. Homosexuality does not cause a decline in social or vocational functioning, except so far as homosexuals are discriminated against by people who don’t like them. What I mean is, there isn’t a marked difference in what a homosexual can do as compared to a heterosexual. The same isn’t true for an alcoholic, who will show decreased ability and social isolation, not because of society’s attitudes towards alcoholism, but because it’s inherantly difficult to perform certain tasks and maintain relationships if you are an alcoholic who has not gone through treatment.

As for the “I can’t help myself” argument, I don’t think many gay people are making that argument at all. I think most people who argue for gay rights base their argument on the grounds that, in a democratic society, the government shouldn’t interfere with the sexual activity of consenting adults, and that people shouldn’t suffer from discrimination because of private actions that harm no one. The closest people come to the “can’t help myself” argument is the conservative argument for gay marriage laws; that it is more beneficial to society to encourage gay people to form monogomous relationships, and that current policies and attitudes towards gay people, instead of doing that, instead encourage gay people to be promiscuous.

However, even the conservative argument doesn’t rely on the “we can’t help it” argument, and certainly doesn’t use it as an excuse, because the conservative argument still is discussing those gay people who are happy with their sexuality.

22

Sorry, but this analogy is ridiculous.

Comparing alcoholism and homosexuality because “years ago, society condemned the practice of homosexuality”? OK, not too long ago society also disaproved of single mothers, the left handed, and women who spoke up for themselves(or witches, as they liked to call them). Are any of the above comparable to alcoholism perhaps?

23

Having a “gay identity” is not the same as “basing one’s entire sense of self on what one prefers to do in bed”. It’s about accepting yourself as gay. I’m sure you don’t go around thinking of youself as a Doggy-Position-American, but you do accept that that’s what you like to do. Your liking of it is a part of you, just as is your liking of (say) pepperoni pizza and of women (not necessarily in that order). It’s probably never been much of an issue for you to accept it, because you’ve probably never been faced by a society that places huge pressure on you not to do it doggy-style. But forming a “gay identity” is about accepting that your attraction to members of the same sex is not some horrible monstrous part of yourself that needs to be hidden away or denied, but just another part of who you are.

You could possibly say that having a “gay identity” is basing some of your self worth on *your acceptance of *what you prefer to do in bed.

I have no idea what “acting gay” means either. (At least I’m in good company.)

I’m trying to think of how I could possibly ‘act more gay or less gay’. Three things come to mind:
[LIST=1][li] Increasing or decreasing public displays of affection. (Nothing to do with some kind of “gay construct”, and it wouldn’t really affect my identity.)[/li][li] Getting physical with members of the opposite sex as well. (Well, yeah, some people do.)[/li][li] Hi, Opal![/LIST=1]That’s about it. Anything else is either stereotyping or cultural identity, not sexual identity.[/li]

I think that’s where much of the confusion in this dicussion is coming from.

Let’s throw in orientation as well:

Orientation: Who you’re attracted to

Identity: Your view of youreself that ideally includes recognising and accepting your orientation

Behaviour: Who you actually sleep with

Think of orientation as something internal and unchangeable, and of identity as your view of yourself that incorporates that. The behaviour is external, and prone to all sorts of things. (Self-acceptance, personality, environment, culture, ability to get lucky, fondness for experimentation, and of course blood-alcohol level.)

Yes.

Yes.

(At least, the orientation is. The behaviour is a choice.)

It’s different from the other behaviours because there’s nothing wrong with it.
[sub][sup]My first Hi Opal! Yay![/sub][/sup]

24

So being “gay” is kind of defined as an individual defensive mechanism against society’s judgement? Again, based on my spare knowledge, it sounds a little like what I’ve heard about “deaf culture” activists who paint cochlear implants as equivalent to “genocide”. (Here’s a web page I ran across after a brief Google search..) It looks like because society has trouble accepting an ostensibly neutral physiological condition, people with that condition band together and create an edifice of community or culture–a modern, artificial construct, but one that is nonetheless powerful for its members. Does that sound more like it?

On a side note, your definition of “gay” here makes me even more skeptical of the oft-cited “10%” figure, and of the critics of Dr. Spitzer who say that anyone who claims to have stopped being gay must be “deluding” him- or herself. I think that only a tiny, tiny minority of individuals find themselves attracted to one gender with absolute exclusivity–say, 1% on either side. Based on what you say, Nicko, I think the middle 98% have the ability to accept either side of their sexual nature, thus making their “gay” status a choice.

25

Okay, I’ve skipped over some of the posts here, but so far everybody seems to be making four assumptions, all of which bug me:

*1. Alcoholism has a single cause.

  1. Homosexuality has a single cause.

  2. Once a drunk, always a drunk.

  3. Once a gay, always a gay.*

I dispute all four of these assumptions. Some people drink compulsively because they have a strong genetic predispostion to drink excessively. These folks are addicted the second they take their first sip. Others drink heavily due to environmental factors, e.g. they fall in with a crowd that drinks heavily and they simply get into the habit of drinking heavily. Others are situational drunks, e.g. they drink to escape the pain of a specific situation. Examples would be soldiers in a combat zone or someone stuck in a painful family situation. One woman I knew told me she drank to escape loneliness and boredom. In my own case, I drank heavily and smoked a lot of dope attempting to relieve severe depression; when I finally sought treatment and the depression was relieved, I dropped down to a very moderate level of alcohol consumption and quit using drugs altogether.

I have no doubt homosexuality is much the same. Some people are simply “born that way,” and expecting them not to be gay would be like expecting a dog not to chase cats. One gay friend told me he had fantasized about men well before he’d ever reached puberty. Others become gay due to environmental factors; I remember one gay woman I knew who told me her father had repeatedly attempted to rape her when she was a teenager, and that was the main reason that sex with men was a turn off for her. In prison, some men are forced into submissive female roles and actually learn to enjoy it. And let’s face it, some people get involved in gay relationships simply because they think it’s cool. (Hell, some people would become cannibals if they thought it was the cool thing to do this year.)

There is generally no single cause for either of these conditions. Only sometimes is one factor so overwhelming that it can be considered the sole reason for the condition. Each person has his own unique history as a human being, and his reasons for choosing a religion, his sexual partners, his living quarters, his profession and so on and so forth are generally pretty complex. Often even the individual in question is unaware of all the reasons he made certain choices.

Likewise, the “Once an X, always an X” idea is pretty stupid. Alcoholics Anonymous may insist that once you’ve had a problem with alcohol you will always have a problem with alcohol, but researchers have found that many people who develop alcohol and/or drug problems in their teens or twenties will either quit entirely or drop back to moderate levels of consumption when they get tired of all the problems their substance abuse keeps causing. People who drink compulsively to escape a painful situation may moderate their consumption or stop completely when the situation changes for the better.

Likewise, we know that some people go through a “gay phase” in their lives, while others may indulge themselves in a gay relationship or two at some point in their lives. Similarly, some people who are primarily gay may have a straight relationship or two while still remaining primarily gay. Still others turn to gay sex when straight sex is unavailable to them for one reason or another and pop right back into straight mode when the opportunity arises. You may be having gay sex when you’re twenty, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that you’ll be having gay sex when you’re thirty–and vice versa.

So to sum up:

People are complex entities, and generally their behavior can’t be explained with a single cause or reason.

And:

People can change radically. They can. They really can. Honest.

26

Well, now you’re talking about gay community and culture, rather than an individual’s identity or behaviour, which are all together different issues. (Sorry for not answering this further, I really have to make this quick.)

Sorry if what I said gave that impression - I certainly don’t think of “gay” as meaning exclusively attracted to the same sex, more as being primarily attracted to the same sex. (I don’t think the 10% figure - and I have no idea where it comes from, and no particular reason to believe it myself - is supposed to refer to people who are exclusively attracted to the same sex. Although of course I can’t say for sure because it’s just one of those numbers that seem to be out there, like drinking 8 glasses of water a day.) I simplified things because I was trying to be as clear as possible, but the arguments apply even for someone who is equally attracted to both men and women. It’s still a part of you that you have to accept.

But again we have the confusion over orientation (or identity) and behaviour when using the term “gay” as a descriptor. Anyone’s “gay status” is a choice if you’re talking about behaviour - I chose to acknowledge my attraction to other guys, I chose to come out, and chose to have sex with other guys. In that particular sense I chose my “gay status”. (I still haven’t received my memebership card though. And my friend got his toaster oven!) But I didn’t choose to to be attracted to guys in the first place, that’s just the way it turned out. In that sense I did not choose my “gay status”.

27

You have so far refused to acknowledge the one point that has been clearly and repeatedly stated:
Alcoholism damages the person afflicted with it.
Homosexuality damages no one.

Alcoholism is not “socially unacceptable.” (In some strange celebrity circles, its almost a perverse point of pride.) Drinking alcohol is this society’s accepted mode of mind/mood-alteration. Alcoholism, however, causes the person who suffers from it to perform this activity to the destruction of their body.

You have even gone out of your way to avoid the point others have made:

(Smoking does damage the body and nicotine is recognized as an addictive drug.)

Alcoholism does not destroy the body’s health, itself, but it reduces or eliminates a person’s ability from avoiding destructive behavior.

Homosexuality neither harms a person’s health, nor does it cause a person to lose the ability to maintain their health.

Despite this clear difference–noted several times previously–that utterly destroys your analogy, you persist in maintaining it.

OK. You proposed an analogy. It has been shown to be utterly inadequate to the task you set it. At this point, you might consider withdrawing the analogy with a simple “Well, I wanted to explore the idea.”
Or,
you might persist in trying to maintain the anaology, giving your readers the distinct impression that you have some sort of ulterior motive or agenda that seems to be in direct opposition to the basic concept of “Fighting Ignorance.”

28

I need to make it quick too, since I’m supposed to be studying for my last final. For now, just wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful replies. It’s an interesting topic.

29

Our topic of interest in this thread is whether we should regard homosexuality as a pattern of behavior that can be changed, not whether it should be changed. Along the way, we’ve also had an interesting side discussion on how homosexuality relates with one’s sense of identity, and what being “gay” really means.

I started off using alcoholism as an admittedly rough and ready analogy since it came to mind as a more extreme example of another pattern of behavior with causes that are assumed to be innate, but whose external manifistations seemingly can be changed with effort. I’d like to continue discussing the issue dispassionately. Sorry that doesn’t suit your agenda, but I think you can find plenty of other threads to trumpet the innocuousness of homosexuality as a lifestyle–that simply isn’t what we’re discussing here.

30

We don’t seem to be discussing anything, here. Your most recent post is the first one in which you did not actively assert the validity of your analogy. Since you have insisted on maintaining this fatally flawed analogy throughout the thread, we have not figured out what you thought you were discussing.

You now claim that

OK. No problem.

Homosexuality is not a pattern of behavior.*

Now that we have that out of the way, do you have anything else on your mind?

*(Homosexuality is not and cannot be defined as “people of the same sex engaging in erotic activity.” A single act may be described as a homosexual act, however, homosexuality is an attribute of a person’s personality. If a person is primarily attracted sexually to persons of the same sex, regardless whether they ever touch another human, they are homosexual.)

31

I can help with this!

YES! The behavior can be changed. Any human can willfully change any behavior that doesn’t go against the laws of Physics.

I could deside that I’m only going to have sex with dogs, cats and horses for the rest of my life and go right on and do so. I could even pay some quack to tell me daily a)how much men suck, b) how much I suck for liking men, and c) how much God loves me for cleaning up my act. It’d be perfectly possible.

Clear that one up for you?

32

Ah, the worm has turned. Once you drop the analogy, we have a question that has been answered, and repeatedly at that, in the parallel thread about Spitzer’s foray into telephone surveys. Why don’t you jump over there?

33

Oh, cool! Tom, you never told me you had an agenda! Can you let me know what time my staff meeting is next monday?

34

Z said I had an agenda, not a schedule.

Given that I have only addressed the facts and errors of this thread, I am not sure why Z assumes I have an agenda–particularly for something as nebulous as trumpeting “the innocuousness of homosexuality as a lifestyle”. (I’m sure glad I “chose” the heterosexual “lifestyle,” it makes it so much easier to find home furnishings.)

35

As if there’d be an Ikea or Crate And Barrel without gay folk! :smiley:

36

Mmm… Ikea…

Esprix

37

Drinking IS a choice.

It has never been proven that alcoholism is a disease. I believe the disease myth is harmful insomuch as it is used as an excuse by people who choose not to take responsibility for their drinking problems.

Many problem drinkers use AA to justify dodging their responsibility for their own welfare. After all, the most basic tenet of AA is “I accept that I am powerless to deal with my drinking problem” or, in other words, “I accept no reponsibility for my drinking behavior. I leave it all up to some real or imagined “power”.”

Whether to drink or not is a choice. Whether to drink to the point of harming oneself and/or others is also a choice. In some people the desire to drink abusively may be extremely compelling-- to the point where it may seem that one has no choice but to drink. But of course, in the end, only YOU-- not God-- not Allah or Jesus or your Sponsor can decide whether or not your arm muscles put that bottle to your lips.

I suspect that sexuality may also be a preference. Albeit a very strong one in most people. However, since choosing to love one gender or another harms neither you nor anyone else (unlike abusive drinking) there is no need to modify ones behavior-- except in the case of some individuals who may feel the need to try to change the orientation of their sexuality. This is, of course, their choice.

Just like it is your choice whether, and how much, you drink.

38

OK, now you’re cooking with charcoal. When you say “they are homosexual”, you’re talking about that person’s identity. But Nicko says,

Now going by Nicko’s definition, it looks like your statement “If a person is primarily attracted sexually to persons of the same sex . . . they are homosexual” is false. That person’s orientation may be 70% homo and 30% hetero, but apparently there’s still the question of whether that person chooses to identify himself as gay. Unless he falls within that miniscule 2% on the extreme end of the homosexual or heterosexual sides of the scale, there still appears to be some element of free will in how he chooses to define himself.

I may not have stated things clearly enough while my thoughts were still developing in this thread, but for me the main question all along has been whether there is some kind of predestination involved–as LonesomePolecat said, X is always X, gay is always gay, alcoholic is always alcoholic–or whether people have free will in choosing how to define themselves. And that in turn addresses Dr. Spritzer’s study: if people have no free will in this, then obviously reparative therapy or whatever it’s called is a destructive exercise. But if people do have free will, then maybe it’s not.

39

OK. Now you have a discussion. Not everyone will be pleased with it, but at least we’re not working off misunderstandings and have the chance to get past assuming what the “other guy” means.

My personal belief, (and having not been homosexual or bi-, I can’t “really” speak for anyone else), is that there is not much personal opportunity to make choices in this arena.

While I am sure that a guy could apply the right pressure to the right areas of skin or mucous membrane to give me erotic pleasure, I cannot ever imagine a situation where I would be comfortable engaging in that with a guy. I have a very strong eeeew factor even seeing movies where the mafioso don (non-erotically) kisses the newly “made man” on the mouth or encountering a “three-way” description in a novel, and I simply cannot picture myself in any role where I could interact with a man, sexually.
There is simply no “choice” there.

I have to believe that if a man or woman has the same reaction to people of their sex that I have toward women and the same reaction to people of the opposite sex that I have toward men, I cannot see much choice available.

Perhaps I am simply part of the 1% or 2% that is “extreme” in their orientation. I dunno. I cannot imagine it being a choice for most people, however. (Whatever “most” means.)

Obviously, people who are sexually attracted to people of both sexes are able to make behavioral choices. At this point, I have no idea how many people fall into the different categories (and since it is such a politically charged subject, I doubt that we have any way of genuinely getting those numbers).

40

I appreciate your patience in sticking with the discussion, tomndebb. I don’t know what it is about message boards that requires us to spend umpteen posts clarifying some tone or implication that a raised eyebrow or inflection of the voice would make clear in an instant, if we were talking face to face. Unfortunately, though, I really have to sign off at this point in order to study for my last final. Y’all carry on if you like, and I’ll be back on Monday.

Zarathustra