Is homosexuality a "choice"?

Great Debates
21

“Certainly, the fact that homosexuality occurs in animals would indicate the possibility of that.”

Hmmm… Not totally sure how to quote here but…

If homosexuality occured in all species of animals on a regular basis (like as in the ten percent or whatever is stated as the percentage of homosexuals in humans) then this would hold some water but I believe (and feel free to bring out some quotes on this one… I am not entirely sure) that the cases that are cited for homosexuality in animals are only based on one species of monkey (perhaps a couple more species–not quite sure) and on only that particular species. So this sort of statement doesn’t really hold water.

I read an article a while back that scientists have not found a ‘gay gene’ yet and that people that have claimed that they have found one have been refuted (or at least in part)…

I have also heard that some (or maybe many) homosexuals were abused when children. No dang idea whether this is true but perhaps it might be a learned behavior (at least for some).

Sigh. No citing for any of the above (I might have some of the articles bookmarked but my bookmarks are a mess:( ).

Ander

22

I think the stuff about child abuse was the APA’s former way of explaining homosexuality, back when it was still considered a mental disorder. I haven’t seen this explanation seriously put forth by any reasonably group, to the best of my knowledge.

Likewise, I believe there have been several studies of homosexuality in animals. On the GQ thread, I believe dolphins, bonobo monkeys, and lizards were mentioned, and perhaps more. I also recall a yeaar or so ago hearing mention of a study that found a correlation between homosexuality and the relative length of people’s first and third fingers, but haven’t heard much since.

Also, there need not necessarily be a gay gene, but perhaps a number of different combinations of genes that all have some influence on a person’s sexuality.

23

Oh, no. Let’s not. Expanding the question is just another dodge.

The question I originally posed is whether or not you - and I mean YOU, not some hypothetical entity out there, but YOU - can YOU choose to be attracted to either men or women? The question is really directed to straight folks who claim the homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”. Obviously there are a lot of bisexuals that will say “Sure!”. As I said earlier, I have asked this question many times and I have yet to get a straight answer. So, mojo filter, I’m still waiting.

( Aside to the moderators: The title should be “Is homosexuality a choice” not just “Is homosexuality a”. I don’t know what happened to the last word. Can you fix that? )

24

I don’t think that arguement holds up. People choose to do things that have adverse consequences all the time because they feel that those actions have other positive consequences that are more important to them. Example the Falun Gong in China, joining it can get you arrested and beaten up. Yet thousands of chinese have chosen to join. Gang membership in the US is very likely to get you killed or put in prison and yet thousands of people join gangs. People do so because these organizations offer something the members value more than what they give up. Perhaps being gay offers benefits which are not readily apparent and some people value highly.

25

The Gay Guy checks in…

Yes, homosexuality occurs in all higher primates.

Yes, prison homosexuality is a legitimate form of transient sexuality - there are quite a few studies on it.

Homosexuality is, after 35 years of studying it, a complex combination of both genetics and environment that will never be fully understood, and, IMHO, that’s all it needs to be.

It doesn’t matter if it were a choice - religion is a choice, but we don’t discriminate over that, do we? Last time I checked America was supposed to be about freedom to live one’s life as one chooses anyway. If both people in a relationship are consenting partners, that ought to be enough.

And the benefits to being gay are numerous - better sense of style, better dancer, and chicks dig ya. :wink:

Esprix

26

Well, except that you can’t get kicked out of the military for disliking broccoli.

You probably won’t get beaten or killed for disliking broccoli.

As a teenager, you won’t have an increased risk of suicide if you don’t like broccoli.

With the exception of some REALLY strict folks, you probably won’t be disowned for disliking broccoli.

Your comparison holds no water. Or broccoli.

Al.

27

Standard quibble:

Sexual orientation is not chosen. Sexual behavior is. A heterosexual can have the impulse to act out sexually in some way that is immoral, but choose not to. Same for homosexuals.

The evidence for a genetic component for homosexual orientation is extremely slight (one study of eight people, all of whom died of AIDS, with no control group. The researcher who did the study was, possibly, jumping to conclusions based on a personal agenda.)

Almost all sexual molestation of children is committed by males. Some child molestors preferentially attack girls, some attack boys, some have no preference. If you define as ‘gay’ a child molestor who preferentially attacks boys, then ‘gays’ (by that definition) are disproportionately over-represented.

Homosexual behavior among primates other than man (and other mammalian species) tends to be a dominance function, and not caused by what is referred to as ‘sexual orientation’ in humans. That is, I am not aware of any members of other species who copulate with members of their own gender, and bypass opportunities to copulate with the other gender, when these are available and willing. Thus we see homosexual activity in chimpanzees, for instance, but not gay chimps. Does anyone know differently?

Regards,
Shodan

28

december

How so? If someone can do something, does that guarantee that they will do it?

If NAMBLA claims that being attracted to underage people is not immoral because it is not a choice, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that reasoning. If NAMBLA claims that people are unable to choose whether or not to have sex with underage people, then I’d really like to see some evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

The only two options I can see for what “it” can refer to is either the claim that being attracted to underage people is not immoral or that having sex with underage people is not immoral. If the former, you are implying that you believe that being attracted to underage people is immoral. If the latter, then the fact that you must introduce the concept of consent implies that you agree that there are indeed people unable to refrain from having sex with underage people. Either way, I find your position rather strange.

Because it is quite obvious that that is not a persuasive argument. If it were, drugs, birth control, interracial marriage, premarital sex, pornography, prostitution and polygamy would never have been illegal. It is a pretty safe bet that anyone who believes that homosexuality is immoral believes that consent is not the basis of morality.

29

alice_in_wonderland:

How do your examples relate to the issue of choice? I really don’t understand what you are getting at, but two possibilities spring to mind:

  1. We need to know what causes homosesxuality becasue if we find out it is involuntary, we can’t discriminate, but if we find out it is voluntary, we can.

or

  1. We need to find out what causes homosexuality because if it is enviromental or genetic it may be preventable, and considering the degree of abuse of homosexuals recieve in this contry, this ought to be done, if possible.

I am not sure, by any means, that you are implying either of the above, but they are my best shot at understanding your point. To ask my question in a different way–if they found out tomorrow with 100% certainty that X causes homosexuality in all cases, how would that change anything?

I am not argueing that a person’s sexual orientation is not an important part of who they are, and that it can cause great problems and trials in one’s life. I am just saying that the origin of that orientation is immaterial. I myself suspect that there are as many causes of homosexuality as there are homosexuals, and I think that, socially speaking, Suzy who decided at 35 to go gay because really, honestly, oral sex is the only thing she likes and women smell nicer is not different that Jenny who knew she was attracted to women from her earliest memories.
If they find a “gay gene” or some sort of “gay phermone” or sometihng and it turns out that 95% of the homosexual populatoin has it, do you think that they should all turn their backs on the remaining 5% as “not real”?

30

No, same sex activity and individuals with same sex preferences have, in fact, been documented in a number of species, not only primates, and often without dominance or availability issues. Permanent pair bondings between female cheetahs are the first things coming to mind.

For way more info along these lines than you really wanted, see Bruce Bagemihl’s Biological Exuberance. There are some excerpts at QT. It describes same sex activity, duration, frequency, orientation, and relationships- including lifelong bonds and trysts among couples, triads, even mulit-gender quads- of and between dozens of mammal and bird species. There’s even (gasp) pictures!

A very interesting read (some 700 pages!), and certainly changed my ideas regarding “homosexuality” among animals.

31

To your first two points, I have to respond “No” and “No”.

Nobody has to justify who they fall in love with to me, or anyone else, as far as I’m concerned.

I agree that the origin is immaterial, as far as real people are concerned. Do I care if my friend Dave tells me that he DID infact choose to be gay? Will I regard him as more hetro now? Of course not.

However, at least where I live, it is currently illegal to discriminate against me, because of my gender. This is true for all professions, with the possible exception of Wet-nurse. (And if a fella could make a good argument for being a wet-nurse, then probably not even then). It is, however legal to descriminate against me because of my sexual orientation, or more specifically, its not illegal.

As far as I’m concerned, I can no more choose to be born a woman than I can choose to be born straight or gay; therefore, discrimination on EITHER point should be illegal. Period.

So, to sum up, no the origin of sexuality isn’t important to me, PERSONALLY, but it could be a key issue legislatively.

That would be one arguement.

hehehehe. I’d like to see THAT conversation…

“Well, hon, I know we’ve been together, having sex now for 10 years, but I just realized that you’re not GAY enough for me…”

Anyhow, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point of view - how someone became gay is really of no concern to me what-so-ever. Unfortunatly, people don’t live in in a vacuum. If homosexuality is looked upon as a natural deviation from the norm, like red hair or green eyes, making a good argument for bigotry and hate becomes alot more difficult.

(I hope that made sense - I had onion rings for lunch and all that grease doesn’t agree with me…)

Al.

32

Let’s say it is a choice.

Let’s take me. I’m 32 and straight.

Let’s say that tonight I decide that this straight thing hasn’t worked out for me - all I’ve gotten is a string of broken relationships, two failed engagements, etc. Accordingly, I decide to become gay.

I wander down to the Village and, nervously, enter a gay bar. I sit at the bar for a while until I notice a guy checking me out. Summoning up my courage, I send him down a drink. We end up talking, go back to his place, and fuck like bunnies.

Pray tell, how would that affect anyone else besides me and the guy? (Well, my mom would have a heart attack, but hey – collateral damage. ;))

That’s really the question for me (and yes MANDA JO said this better). Personally, I am supportive of gay rights because I don’t care. You want to blow another guy? I don’t care. You want to strap on a dildo and get down with another woman? I don’t care. AND I WILL FIGHT FOR MY RIGHT TO NOT CARE!

Sua

33

And this is exactlywhat I am saying is a bad, bad idea. The issue of choice should never, ever, under any circumstances be used as the justification for whether or not you can discriminate against someone. Especially not as the legal justification in a piece of legislation. Some reasons:

  1. As has been pointed out, religion is a choice. That does not make discriminating based on someone’s religion ok or legal.

2)As has been pointed out, behavior is a choice. Saying “You can’t discriminate against Gays, they didn’t chose to be that way” opend one up to the retort: “they did chose to ACT that way”

Corrolary to point 2: If people say 'They do chose thier actions" and the response is “Oh, you expect people to be celebate, then?”, well, NAMBLA comes walking on in saying “ditto”. The fact is, we DO expect pedophiles to be celebate.

  1. As has been pointed out, justifying homosexuality on the grounds that it is not a choice builds a vunrability into Gay Rights legislation–there is always the possibility that science will prove homosexuality is a choice in some way for some number of homosexuals. Do we want to construct legislation that potentialy leaves these people with fewer legal rights than “born” homosexuals?

  2. (Ok, a minor quibble more than a point) As has been pointed out, it sounds whiney. “Don’t hate me, I didn’t want to be gay.” It sounds like the person saying it still feels guilty or ambigous about thier own homosexuality. It is apologizing for something that needs no apology.

Ok, so there are three good reasons and one quibble why the “not a choice” defense is flawed. If it were the only leg the Gay Rights Movement had to stand on, these flaws could be worked around or something. But the fact is, the “not a choice” arguement is totally superfluous. The “consent” arguement is, in itself, sufficient to justify full civil rights for homosexuals. Thus, continuing to use the “not my fault” argument simply introduces liabilities into the overall arguement without adding anything substantative.

34

There’s developmental factors. Hormone exposure in utero, and so forth. Frankly, this is my personal hypothesis.

Ditto Esprix & Manda JO’s comparisons with choosing religion. My state legislature has a bill coming up to give religious practitioners special legal protection (like the federal RLUIPA passed last year). I can’t wait for the anti-gay rights crowd to scream, “Equal rights, not special rights!” Which they won’t, of course. And I shall damn them as hypocrites, chuckling all the while.

And when they’re done debating that bill, they’ve got another adding sexual orientation to the existing “hate crime” statute. What a circus that will be.

35

Three cheers for all the people saying “Choice, shmoice.”

I can’t begin to express how sick I am of this topic. Manda Jo and alice have it bang on when they say that the whole question is a sidetrack and the pursuit of an excuse to discriminate and persecute.

Since no one has yet answered the OP, I’ll go:
No, I am not able to choose the sex(es) I am attracted to, any more than I am able to choose the individuals I am attracted to. I am, however, able to choose which attractions I act upon, and here’s where the fundies get wrapped up; “love the sinner, hate the sin” kind of stuff.

But because, so far, my attractions have limited me to sexual relations with men (and I’m a woman), no one minds the choices I’ve made (at least not enough to get on a soapbox about it). So I’m free to make those choices.

What I’d like to know is, among those of you burning to find an answer to the question of choice v. genetics with regard to sexual orientation: Why?

from december:

The above is one question re-worded 4 times, each one illustrating a political perspective.

…paraphrasing myself from a similar thread over a year ago:
The issue is not whether anyone can choose whom they love; it is whether anyone else has a right to say they can’t.

… and thanks to preview, I have this gem from Manda Jo, who’s said it all better than I have:

36

Drat you people. I hate this message board: every neat thread I see, you folks always say the very things I wanted to before I get a chance to :smiley:

smaft, I’ll have to get that book. Comprehensive information on it is hard to find, but it’s great to have a solid cite to give to people under the oh-so-mistaken belief that “homosexuality is only a human perversion” that the religious types so love (because of the whole free will thing, I assume)

And Esprix, I have no style, I cannot dance and the women I run into on campus don’t quite know how to act with someone that doesn’t even notice they’re flirting. Guess I should turn in my membership card.

Anyway, if I’m going to post here, I better give my two cents. No, preference is not a choice. Yes, acting on that preference is a choice. No, the issue of choice has no impact where basic civil rights issues are concerned.

37

Sorry, The Ryan, i missed your post earlier, it must have come up while I was responding to alice_in_wonderland.

When people argue that homosexuality is not immoral because it is not a choice, they lump action in with desire. When pedophiles ape this arguement, they do the same. I am not saying it is agood argument–in fact, it is a very bad one, and one easily refuted by pointing out that desires and actions are seperate. However, “It’s not a choice, so it’s OK” can at times become a slogan for homosexual apologists, and I find this disturbing, to say the least. People have a tendency to internalize slogans as “truths” and then be less critical when those slogans are transposed to a different group than they might have been otherwise.

The antecedent of “it” here is the arguement that pedophilia (both desire and action) is acceptable because it is not chosen. When pedophiles make this arguement (and we have had people make this argument on this board)it is always answered by someone saying “yes, but children can’t gve consent, even if they think they can.” Thus, consent is revealed as the core issue in most peoples minds in deciding what sexual activities are acceptable, and the entire “choice” issue is a distractor. If whether or not consent is involved is sufficent to brand pedophilic actions immoral (which it is), then whether or not consent is involved is enough to determine whether or not homosexual actions are moral (which they are).

Surely you’ve noticed that all of these things (with the exception of prostitution and some drugs) are legal now? We have to base our arguements on the commonly accepted princeples of today, not those of 20 years ago. There is a widesread general trend towards the idea that consent is the deciding factor in determining acceptable behavoir. I am suggesting that Gay Rights legislation and education will find a much more solid foundation in this trend than by basing itself onthe issue of choice–an issue that is more and more superfluous and which is vunrable to being undone by inconvinent facts, should they arise.

38

I have this sudden urge to say “me, too.”

I tend to liken it to my own situation. I have no discernable sex drive. I have never looked at a man (or a woman) and thought, “wow, s/he’s hot. Gotta have him/her.” Ever. I have had a sexual response to another human being exactly once in my life. Ever.

Did I choose to be this way? Hell no! Does it matter whether I made a choice or not? Only in the minds of those who feel they have to sit in judgement of those of us who don’t feel the way they do.
So I guess I’m just echoing MandaJo and Esprix.

Oh well.

39

And my point is that it is. The number of times that I have heard the argument that gays do not deserve spousal support, or marital benefits, or the same protection under the law as hetro’s, because they CHOOSE to live a deviant lifestyle is astounding. (Granted, I live in Alberta, which is red-neck central).

The people making these comments are voters. The elect representatives. The representatives do what the voters tell them. Discrimintory legislation is born.

I have also heard members of Canada’s right-wing party saying the exact same thing. (scary)

While I agree that, fundamentially, CONSENT is the ONLY issue that should be addressed when discussing what people do in their bedrooms (or the back seat of their car, or the shruberies, or whatever) it’s not. If people (read the vast, unwashed millions) are going to base their opionions/votes on incorrect information, it seems prudent to address that.

Al.

(Damn those onion rings, I’m going to be up all night)

40

Uuuumm, how would a prisoner choose straight sex in that particular situation? Seeing as how there are no women in the men’s prison and all??