Why does it matter if homosexuality is a choice? Does it really hurt anyone either way? I have heard that it is not choice as homophobic. As if saying, “homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but homosexuals have no choice in the matter.” So it is homophobic to say homosexuality is not a choice? I don’t think there is any scientific evidence that proves homosexuality is genetic. After why does it matter if it a choice in regard to morality?
If it is not a choice, homosexuals can use the “well, we just can’t help it!” card. If it is, homophobes can use the “Then you can choose not to!” card. That, I have been lead to understand, is the crux of the debate.
FWIW, my own opinion is that the object of sexual desire is primarily a learned behavioral feature, mostly solidified in young adulthood. Though it may very well be capable of modification as an adult, it is for the most part not a “choice” - you can’t help what turns you on. Furthermore, I admit the possibility of some genetic modifiers - population pressure, for instance, but by and large I feel it’s a learned thing.
Though it does seem that I have my ass covered appropriately, there still exists wiggle room within my argument. On the one hand we have definite room in society for gay behavior. On the other hand, the argument is a slippery slope: “I just get turned on by dead bodies. I can’t help it.”
The argument raised due to the notion that homosexuality is a choice rests, IMO, in the belief that the choice is one to, among other things (borrowing a phrase from an acquaintance) “sin against God.” As such, it enables those who believe such (re: choice) to say that homosexuality (as opposed to two gay men having consentual sex) is a sin. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about what that can do, and often does.
However, there is a certain element of “do you think I’d choose to be this way” that some read into the studious insistence that it is not a choice (which is more to assert “you cannot discriminate against me based on who I am rather than what I do”). I do not believe that is valid for the most part, but it does exist.
The genetic facet of homosexuality (which is part of the argument that it is not a choice, as one hardly chooses one’s genes from a pull-down menu) is, of course, hotly debated (and it will be interesting to see what course this thread takes). A useful FAQ of sorts for all these questions is here.
All I know for certain is that I never had a choice in the matter.
Whatever statistics, studies and political evaluations you apply to the matter, that remains, to me, an incontrovertible fact.
Many gay people will confirm that they also had no choice.
So, either you admit that there are at least some gay people out there who never had a choice.
Or you call us all liars.
Not so slippery as you might think. A dead body, while it may well be human and adult, cannot consent to sexual activity. A live adult human can;) That is one of the distinctions made between, say, engaging in sexual activity with a 21-year-old woman with her approval, as opposed to if she is dead (though I suppose you could raise the argument that she told you she’d let you do whatever to her re: sex once she was dead, but that seems particularly nitpicky:)).
I’ve yet to see a slippery slope argument that wasn’t seriously flawed; can a corpse be a fully consenting partner in a sexual act? - same applies for “permitting homosexuality means we will have to permit paedophilia/bestiality/violent crime” arguments.
I’ve never been attracted to women.
That there are groups out there who actively desire to “change” my sexuality to suit what they think it should be disturbs me.
Free will doesn’t seem important to these people.
My understanding is that sexual orientation is certainly not a “choice” in the sense that some people just wake up one morning and say “Gee, I think I’ll be attracted to people of the same sex!” There is some evidence from identical twins studies that seems to indicate that there is a genetic component–if one identical twin is gay, there is a greater chance that the other twin will also be gay than is the case with pairs of merely fraternal twins. On the other hand, the same studies clearly show that homosexuality is not purely genetic, since there are cases where one identical twin is gay and one is not.
Of course, there is lots of room between “casual whim” and “genetically determined”. Homosexuality could be caused by some factor that developing babies are or are not exposed to in the womb. (Hmmm…I believe some identical twins share a placenta, and some don’t. I wonder if there would be any way of testing if twins who shared a placenta have a higher correlation of sexual orientation than identical twins who didn’t?) Homosexuality could be a deep-seated psychological trait that gets set very early on in childhood. (This is the classic explanation for the origins of homosexuality; that is, after people stopped just saying “It’s an abomination perpetrated by depraved, sinful rebels against the will of Almighty God!”) Homosexuality could have multiple causes. Lesbianism and male homosexuality might have completely different origins. And then there’s bisexuality…
Certainly there’s plenty of testimony from homosexuals that their feelings of sexual attraction go back as far as they can remember: when heterosexuals are having grade-school crushes on members of the opposite sex, homosexuals are frequently often having grade-school crushes on members of the same sex.
At any rate, I tend to agree that the question of the origin of homosexuality, while scientifically interesting, is morally and ethically largely irrelevant. Surely pedophilia isn’t a “choice” either. I don’t think anyone chooses to be sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Child molestation, on the other hand, is a choice–because one has a sexual orientation does not mean one must act on it. If pedophilia has a genetic cause or a genetic component, then I would say it is a genetic or partially genetic disorder.
The moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality, on the one hand, and pedophilia on the other, isn’t in their origins, but in their consequences. I just don’t see how homosexual orientation, and homosexual actions between consenting adults, does anyone any harm. (And as far as the need for sex to take place between consenting adults goes, I don’t think homosexual relations between consenting adolescents are any more or any less harmful than heterosexual relations between consenting adolescents.) By contrast, sexual relations between adults and prepubescent children are inherently exploitative and abusive–young children simply cannot give consent to all sorts of things, including sex.
Homosexual acts may be abusive, criminal, dishonest, exploitative, uncaring, or emotionally vacuous; or loving, passionate, friendly, or recreational–the same as heterosexual acts. But they don’t have to be any of those things, any more than all heterosexual acts are rape, or are all deeply intimate acts of love within the context of matrimony.
Homosexuality is non-procreative–but heterosexuals engage in a truly vast amount of non-procreative sex, for reasons good and bad, including simply as an expression of love and tenderness. Heterosexual couples who choose to marry and form committed relationships with no intention of ever having children are, at most, subjected to a certain amount of comments along the lines of “Oh, you two should really have children! You make such a lovely couple, I’m sure your children would be wonderful!” No one suggests that heterosexual, sexually active couples who can’t or even won’t reproduce be declared to be criminals, or discriminated against in housing or employment. If certain churches disapprove of such relationships on purely theological grounds, it’s understood that that’s between those churches and those people who voluntarily subject themselves to the moral discipline of those churches, and not even remotely a question of criminal law or state sanction.
Homosexuality is “unnatural”–it remains to be seen just how true that is; at any rate, so what? Homosexual acts are no more “unnatural” than many things heterosexuals do–just how natural is kissing anyway? God (or Natural Selection) intended for our mouths to be used for eating, breathing, and speaking, not this perverse slobbering all over each other! And which of the following are “natural” or “unnatural”: flying to the Moon, composing music, wearing polyester, communicating over the Internet with people all over the world on a “message board”, living in close proximity to millions upon millions of other ape-like primates in only a few dozen square miles of territory, adopting children who are biologically unrelated to you and raising them as your own, dying for your country, eating fresh fruit in the winter in non-tropical climates, living a life of total celibacy, or dying a martyr for one’s “faith”.
Of course the Bible condemns homosexual acts–the Bible also strongly condemns worshipping “false gods”, yet many Americans now subscribe to notions like “there are many paths to God” or “there are many paths to the truth”; heck, some Americans these days even admit that atheists can be good citizens and good people. At any rate, as I said above, purely religious taboos are not acceptable as a basis for law-making; the state does not refuse to recognize the marriages of people who were wedded in heathenish un-Biblical rites, nor does it seek to take away their children. Beyond politics, in the workplace, and much of society generally, we expect people to get along with each other regardless of whether or not they violate each other’s religious taboos.
Whatever the origins of sexual orientation, the sex lives of homosexuals aren’t anyone else’s business to any greater or lesser extent than the sex lives of heterosexuals. Rape ought to be a crime, whatever the genders of the persons involved. Sexual harrassment at work should get you disciplined or even fired, with the same rules for everyone. If a friend or loved one is in a bad relationship (that is, their partner is manipulative, lying, selfish, an all-around jerk, or otherwise just not good enough for someone you care about), you’ll be tempted to say something about it (although it will probably be a waste of your time). If straight guys shouldn’t put up pin-ups of pretty girls in the workplace, then gay guys shouldn’t put up pin-ups of pretty guys. If a heterosexual man can have a picture of himself and the woman he loves sitting on his desk, a homosexual man should be able to have a picture of himself and the man he loves sitting on his desk. And so on.
MEBuckner, you said it better than me.
The issue I have run into is that people who have some sort of homophobia or straight supremacy (the latter meaning not so much that they have a problem with people being gay as that they think it’s just better somehow to be straight) usually equate homosexuality with pedophilia; that is, that a man who molests children (generally male) is a homosexual. They also generally will agree with the statement that a man who molests girls is heterosexual, but since the majority of pedophile targets are male (let’s see if we can avoid an unnecessary reference to Catholic priests, eh?) the assumption is that the pedophiles are gay and attracted to children.
This is in error on several levels, notably:
-
That the targets of pedophiles are more often chosen for the likelihood that the pedophile will not get caught/otherwise in trouble with an adult, and thus the gender of the child is essentially irrelevant (anyone who has read any of my posts on this will remember my grandfather did not discriminate in who he molested; 5 boys, 5 girls);
-
That there is some sort of sexual desire (for those who remember reading Polycarp’s post in the pit dealing with this subject, I for one am still struggling in trying to incorporate this information in a new perspective) being gratified or fulfilled or expressed by the actions of the pedophile (thus linking child rape to gay sex, for example);
-
That the pedophiles themselves are gay (there is no negative* correlation between homosexuals and heterosexuals regarding pedophilia; that is, one is not more likely to be a pedophile based on sexual orientation any more than eye color);
-
That sexuality is primarily expressed in the sexual acts of the person in question (or, more commonly, that homosexuality is expressed solely or primarily in sexual acts);
-
That homosexuals are undiscriminating in finding/choosing their sexual partners as pedophiles do not thusly discriminate (except as in the aforementioned “will I get caught/in trouble” aspect).
*I don’t remember if it’s negative that runs less to more or more to less. At any rate, here (search for Marshall on the page) is some information on the issue. Two relevant quotes from the posted letter of Dr. Marshall’s:
At the risk of being brusque: who cares? I mean, I know dozens of people - at work and elsewhere - fairly well; given the quoted percentages for homosexuality in the general population, this means I know at least several Homsexuals/Lesbians. I have no idea who they are, as we rarely if ever discuss sex at work…, and I don’t really care. I choose my friends based on many traits, but I couldn’t care less what their sexual orientation is, much less whether they had any “choice” in the matter.
The OP cares, for one. I’m interested in seeing others’ thoughts. And certainly as a member of the GLBT community I’m interested in that respect as well. Because the fact of the matter is that some people care to disturbing levels that someone is gay because of all the “bad” things it says/means/indicates about that person.
Pat Robertson cares.
James Dobson cares.
Jon Paulk used to care… then he got caught drinking a beer and not caring… not sure if he still cares.
Fred Phelps cares.
Pat Buchanan cares.
Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Don Nickles, and many other senators and representatives care.
The Defense of Marriage Act shows that people care.
You may be mature enough not to care, but that trait is not universal.
What about homophobes? Is it possible that they don’t have a choice about their homophobia? I bet that many of them don’t recall making a choice either. People may have a genetic predisposition toward homophobia. Can they be excused for their uh unusual proclivities?
Homophobia, which (IMO) is a specific term for someone who exhibits bigotry toward another group of people, does not seem to me to be founded in any genetic predisposition so much as the assembly of misinformation etc. such that one’s view of a particular group of people is unnaturally skewed. I do not think that, once presented with factual information as replacement for that which lacks credibility (i.e. the stuff that ain’t true) in a manner that clearly demonstrates the errors in question, the bigotry can be further excused.
IMO:)
No.
It’s social conditioning and a poisoned idea of gender identity, IMHO.
Hmm…
Me: “Can I sleep with you?”
Everyone I ask: “Over my dead body!”
The implications are staggering.
I put being gay on the same level as being an alcoholic. Alcoholic’s will tell you they have no choice either, but they do. You can choose to drink or not to drink. Will not drinking make you happy? Will denying that urge until the day make you fuffiled? Probably not. I think of being gay in kinda of the same way. Anyone could choose or not choose a voluntary act.
No matter what your ‘genes’ may be telling you going out and picking up a member of the same sex takes concisous effort, ie a choice. To say you have no say in that choice is absurd. Your genes may make you ‘want’ something, but they dont make your legs take you to the nearest bar, nor your mouth move as you ask someone out for a date.
I only mention this because by saying you had no choice is, to me, like saying your a slave. If you find being gay is right for you, dont hide behind your genes and say you had no choice. Stand up and say I choose to be this way EOS. Same for alcoholics, dont hide behind your genes, stand up and say I have a choice and I choose not to! or you chose to…
This is a bit off topic… but why should we worry about the consent of a dead person? Even if you believe in a soul, that soul has left the building so to speak. If there is no soul, than it doesn’t matter either. So necrophilia is just an extreme form of masturbation…
Oh, and just to talk about the actual topic. Can anyone actually cite those twins studies that always seem to be brought up in this type of discussion? I can’t imagine that the study would constitute a large number of participants and I’m always wary of studies with such a small sample.
MEBuckner, that was eloquent. Well done.
Dob, stop having sex. Now. No more relationships. No more intimacy. None of it. I mean, after all, it’s just an innocent, innocuous, unimportant choice, right? Doesn’t affect the rest of your life, does it? Something you can just do without at a moment’s notice, correct?
And also, please explain how homosexuality hurts the homosexual in any way, shape or form.
:rolleyes: