In the “Homosexuality and evolution” thread in GQ mojo filter stated the often heard claim that homosexuality was a “choice” to which I replied:
The moderator of GQ - as I expected - asked us to take this to GD, so here I am.
No, mojo. Whether or not this is the way it is “supposed” to work has nothing to do with whether or not gayness is a “choice”. This can in no way be construed as being in support of you argument.
You say that this is a flimsy argument on several levels, but you don’t support that claim. Please indicate at least some of the “several levels” on which it is “flimsy”. Your only response so far is a dodge of the question I posed. Just so you’re clear on this, if I had been born in the body of a little girl I would today be a lesbian. I know what I like.
So I’ll ask the question again. Are you, mojo, able to CHOOSE the sex that you are attracted to?
I have asked this question many times and I have never once had “lifestyle choice” proponent give me a straight answer.
I always find the notion that a person would “choose” to belong to, or join a minority group that is repressed, oppressed, feared, hated, lynched, discriminated against, and generally given a raw deal in most facets of daily life, rather humourous.
“Whats that? I have the option to be disowned by my parents, discriminated against at work, and beaten up by red-necks who’ve had too much to drink? GREAT! Sign me right up…”
Alice – Clever post, but I think the question is broader. E.g., consider these aspects:
Is one’s sexuality fixed for life, or can a gay person change his or her sexuality through great effort or some special technique?
Can adult gays “recruit” children (who would otherwise be straight) into becoming gay?
Are there aspects of child-rearing that affect sexual orientation?
Is sexual orientation genetic, in whole or in part?
These questions have no clear answers today, but they’re important. If the answer to #1 were NO, then those who encourage gays to become straight would be totally misguided. If the answer to #2 were YES, then the Boy Scouts would have a good reason to prohibit gay scout-leaders.
My guess would be that people are different and that the answers might not be the same for everybody. But, I have no expertise and will happily read posts by those who know more than I do.
I find a better way to look at it is: Ask a straight guy if he can choose to be gay. He can’t. Its impossible to simply create an attraction out of nothing.
Because if you were born as a little girl, with your current mind you would be trangendered:)
I have read that some straight men practice gay sex in prison, and then go back to straight sex after they’re released. I’m not saying that Asmodean is wrong, but the matter doesn’t seem to be quite as simple as he implies.
Yeah that is prison. I don’t doubt some bisexual people might do that and then claim they are straight. However I very much doubt that they are not bi.
I would suggest that prison rape by otherwise straight men is an issue of power, not sex. The sexual contact is merely the tool used to exert that power.
No, they are not important. These are questions of mild scientific interest, on par with “is a taste for broccoli genetic? Can a taste for broccoli be the result of child rearing practices? Can one’s like or dislike of broccoli be changed?”
Any attempt to make the issue of “choice” a factor is discussing homosexuality is either (a)a weak arguement for why it is immoral or (b) a weak and unneeded arguement for why it is moral.
If they find a unambigous shiny glitter coated lavender gay gene tomorrow, nothing changes. If they prove conclusivly that every single homosexual undergoes a secret underground “choosing ceremony” tomorrow, nothing changes. It dosen’t matter why you want to fuck another person. All that matters is that they want to fuck you back.
Can you imagene if a memeber of another minority group said “Don’t hate me because I am Hispanic, I didn’t choose to be born this way!”?
The reason I jump on my high horse every time this issue comes up is that I have started to see people get used to the argument “homosexuality is OK because you can’t help who you are attracted to.” Nambla uses this arguement, too, folks. We refute it by saying “ah, yes, but the issue there is consent.” This begs the question: why isn’t consent the issue in the case of homosexuals? The answer, of course, is that consent **is[/is] the issue, and in fact the only issue. Let’s not let a sloppy, unneeded argument float around out there, gaining acceptance until it becomes a maxim–it WILL come back and bite us on the ass.
Personaly I can only think of 4 reasons one would be Gay or straight.
[list]
[li]Genetics:(ruled out as far as I can tell, not enough evidence or something)[/li]
[li]Choice:(doubtful that its merely some simple matter of, well, what the hell, ill go gay, No, this can be ruled out also][/li]
[li]Born that way: (Uh, see genetics, aside from genetics I don’t see how one can be “born that way”)[/li]
[li]Enviromental: This seems to me the most reasonable, Sort of social upbringing, morals taught, ect. Very vague too, Sort of all the little enviromental factors that cause a person to have the personality they have. And how many people really have a choice on what enviroment they are brought up in?[/li]
So is it a choice? nope. We all have the potential of being gay or straight, just depends on what happens to us from the time we are born till now that makes us go one way or the other.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Amedeus * [ul][li]Enviromental: This seems to me the most reasonable, Sort of social upbringing, morals taught, ect. Very vague too, Sort of all the little enviromental factors that cause a person to have the personality they have. And how many people really have a choice on what enviroment they are brought up in?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
I really doubt that it has to do with environment, social upbringing, morals taught; why would so many siblings and even twins have differing sexual orientations, and why would so many children of conservative, bible-thumping parents be homosexual or bisexual anyway? Maybe I’m reading your argument wrong, but it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Or of course it could be various combinations of the four. It seems likely to me that a certain amount of genetic predisposition can happen. Certainly, the fact that homosexuality occurs in animals would indicate the possibility of that.
I do agree with Manda Jo (and have argued so in the past) that it should not be argued that homosexuality is acceptable because it is not a choice. While it may be true, and it does make it seem all the more ridiculous to try to stop it, it avoids the larger argument that society as a whole has no right to control what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.
Ack, did not mean for those to end up as frowns, should have previewed. oh well.
Vengeance and Dust: What I mean is not that it is our moral lessons and such taught to us by our parents or teachers, but something a bit more complex and general. It has everything to do with how our personalities are developed. Im don’t know if I can possibly describe it good enough, but I suppose I can try
Other than small genetic differences in a person, when somebody is born their personality is pretty much nil. (No site, these are just my own conjectures and observations) As the things we see in our infancy add up, our brain develops its patterns. (Childhood being the time when are brains are the most maelable for obvious reasons.) Those patterns, caused by everything from the pattern of colors you first saw to reading this post right now, make up your personality.
What I am proposing is that something In that make-up makes a person straight or gay, as we prefer green to red, or hate meatloaf but love Jalepeneos. (sp?) What exactly is it? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt that it is a choice.
There would be a good reason for the Scouts prohibiting someone from carrying out an agenda of trying to change a youth’s sexuality for ideololgical reasons. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing that. I mean apart from the heteorsexuals.
And there would be a good reason for them to prohibit (as it would be well for anybody, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4H, the public school system) anyone who wanted to “recruit” someone by having sex with them.
Yes, I think the Boy Scouts should avoid self-involved, manipulative pedophiliac assholes. Why yes I do. What does that have to do with homosexuals, per se?
Why, I had a sixth grade teacher who wished to recruit me to heterosexuality. I mean he wanted to have sex with me. My god it worked! Because of him I like guys! Never mind it was a frightening and distrurbing experience that left afraid of male persons for years. He must have recruited me!
I will say, I think the question is more important that broccoli eating. Sexuality is important to us humans. So it’s a very interesting question.
But for most things? Bringing choice versus nature into a political debate about homosexual (read here human) rights is absurd. Very much like saying, well, why give Jews or Muslims or Buddahists equal right to live and to practice their religion? When they can always choose to convert?
Not really the point is is?
That is to say, I don’t think it is a choice, but that shouldn’t be the point. And I think your right about the ass biting.
Being gay isn’t a choice. I’m sure there are plenty of gay people who wish they weren’t gay, but they can’t help it. And if it was, who would want to be gay? I mean, with all the ridicule and such. That argument that being gay is a choice is something that religious people use to back up there statement that being gay is a sickness, and that it’s wrong. And also because if it wasn’t a choice, then god would be the reason for gay people, wouldn’t he?
