It is not a choice (Homosexuality)

Great Debates
61

But why should people who are homosexual make the choice to be celibate? (If that is in fact what is being argued with the analogy of homosexuality with alcoholism.) Alcoholics need to make the choice not to drink because chronic abuse of alcohol can cause severe damage to the liver, heart problems, damage to the nervous system, and brain damage. Using alcohol also causes behavioral changes, and people who abuse alcohol may not be able to hold down jobs, meet their family obligations, or otherwise function normally in society because they spend too much of their time intoxicated; they may also present an immediate threat to others if they drive drunk or otherwise operate heavy machinery or do other potentially dangerous tasks while under the influence.

Now, it’s certainly possible for people to have sex in ways that are dangerous or unhealthy. For example, both heterosexuals and homosexuals are capable of having unprotected sex with large numbers of anonymous partners, and both heterosexual or homosexual acts may be abusive, coercive, or even violent. But just as there are heterosexual “swingers”, there are homosexuals who are in stable monogamous relationships. So, what is it about homosexual acts as such that makes choosing to do them equivalent to an alcoholic choosing to drink?

62

sigh

So. In Christian terms, to have sex outside the confines of marriage is fornication, which is a sin.

Do you remain celibate?

And why do you persist in comparing being gay to being an alcoholic.

You don’t really answer anything, keep throwing out what comes off as crackpot theories as “fact”, and ignore anything which contradicts you.

What are you gaining from this, except your previous statement about trolling?

63

I think maybe where im losing some people is that I like to break things down to their simplist component.

I applaud your willingness to share your ideas and your beliefs. I think some things lend themselves to simplicity and some things do not.

Your experience, orientation, and being is unique. If I really want to understand who you are and what makes you who you are, I must not begin with a notion that I have it all figured out. Actually, I should begin with the idea that there could be some surprises and some things that don’t fit or add up. Some stuff can be explained by biology, some by environmental, some by choice. A good way to initiate the process of understanding a person would be to listen to what they have to say for themselves. In fact, it would be difficult to find a better source.

64

Let’s not forget very bad hangovers.:smiley:

65

See… while having a coyote date is bad, it’s not like a hangover.

:smiley:

66

You know, I almost posted this exact comparison about an hour ago. I think I’m going to make you start logging in when you riffle through my brain files from now on, Mockingbird. :slight_smile:

67

I know I’m going to be stepping on at least 3 toes here (Guin’s in particular), but:

  1. Sexuality and sexual acts are not inseparable terms. Who you have sex with, for example, and whom you sexually desire aren’t necessarily the same person or even gender.

  2. Furthermore, sexuality is not even determined by sexual activity. It is determined by the desire inside a person, which might or might not be acted upon.

  3. Sexuality is, as you indicated above (as a possible definition), a matter of what you want, not what you have. Therefore your analogy about alcoholism is flawed because to become an alcoholic one must drink alcohol (unless some new information has come out about that, in which case I await correction:)). Y’ain’t gotta do anything to be gay/straight/bi/whatever. Ya just is:slight_smile:

68

All I did was fluff and arrange them decoratively.

Is that wrong?

:confused:

:smiley:

69

I don’t see how that was stepping on my toes, Patrick.

See, I don’t see what’s wrong with having what one wants, when it doesn’t hurt anyone.

70

Nothing to debate - homosexual orientation is the romantic attraction to someone of the same gender. This, of course, usually leads to having sex with them.

So, to sum up - being homosexual isn’t a choice; having gay sex is.

I realize this was your point all along, but you weren’t making the distinction between the two.

Esprix

71

Just to quickly address something MEBuckner brought up earlier – celibacy is a legitimate choice for some people based on what they consider to be the most important thing for themselves. I gave as examples, in a post that the hamsters ate, Fr. Mychal Judge’s choice to be a Franciscan friar and priest, and a gay woman of my acquaintance, seven years in a committed relationship with another woman, who remained celibate until her marriage because she believed that to be the proper moral course for her.

The problem lies in the wishes of some people to usurp God’s place and decide on the basis of their opinion of His word to judge when other people may legitimately have sex and when they must not. Celibacy is a legitimate choice for some; it must never be the mandated behavior of any.

72

The Bible was once quoted in the 20th and 21st centuries to uphold traditional religious prejudice against homosexual people. That is also a fight that the Bible is losing and will lose as medical and scientific evidence mounts daily, making it abundantly clear that sexual orientation is a given and not chosen. Sexual orientation is thus more like being left-handed than itis about being morally defective. When this definition permeates fully the consciousness of this nation, as itis very close to doing today, then one ore more ancient prejudice buttressed by biblical quotations will come to an end. The Bible cannot continue to be used in such an ill informed and dramatically wrong way. The Christian Church has also, with enormous ignorance, enforced its prejudice against homosexual persons by burning so many of them at the stake that the little stick which to ignite the fire, called a “faggot,” became a derisive slang word applied to the homosexual person.

73

Out of curiosity, syjstr can you link me somewhere or quote these daily findings? I should like to read them.

74

Not according to this Straight Dope Staff Report.

75

There have been several, but the largest and most quoted was the study by J.M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard in 1991 and published as

“A genetic study of sexual orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry 48:1089-1096.

A synopsis of the study:

110 sets of twins were chosen, each with at least one gay twin. 56 sets were identical, 54 sets were fraternal. All were male. The study was compared to a previous study that was of non-twin siblings of gay men.

There is heated debate as to what percentage of men are gay (i.e. men who are exclusively or at least primarily homosexual in the object of their sexual stimulation), but the usual estimates range between 5% and 10%, with most people who have studied the phenomena tending to side with the lower figure rather than the higher.

For gay single births who have at least one brother, the occurence of a brother being gay was roughly 11%, between double and slightly higher than average.

Where there was a fraternal gay twin, the occurence of his twin being gay was 22%, roughly double the occurence found among non-twins.

Among identical twins, the occurence of the twin being gay was 52%, just over 2.5 x more likely than a fraternal twin and just over 5 times the likelihood of a non twin brother.

(The study neglected to give some pertinent information that would have been very helpful, most particularly swimsuit photographs and telephone numbers of the gay identical twins.)

Incidentally, other studies among twins have found the following:

Among identical twins, if one brother is left-handed, the occurence of his twin being left handed is approximately 72%.

If one brother develops male pattern baldness later in life, the odds of the other brother developing it is approximately 81%.

In a study among six sets of identical twins in which at least one brother developed testicular cancer before the age of 30, the results were 50/50 as to whether the other brother developed the disease.

76

A week ago there was an interview on NPR with two Episcopal ministers, one male and one female. This, of course, all centered around the appointment of V. Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop. (No assumptions as to whether he’s actually the first gay bishop or not)

The woman was in favor of his appointment, the man was not. At one point in the discussion, when the subject of gay marriage was introduced, he brought up the fact that he had been married for 40 years and had committed to spending his life with a woman, and he felt that was a choice that any man could make, regardless of his sexual preference. He was making the suggestion that being homosexual is a choice and any man could choose to live as a heterosexual.

And in terms of it being a possible choice, he’s right. Any man could make that choice, even if he wasn’t heterosexual.

A thought occurred to me though. What if, 40 years ago, when he and his wife were planning to get married, somebody had come up to him and said “no, you can’t marry this woman because she’s…whatever, white/black/redhead/left handed. You have to marry a woman the church approves of, or you must remain celibate.” What would he have done then? Would that have been right? I say no. The church would have been trying to tell him who he could and couldn’t marry, and forcing him to live in a situation he didn’t want. He might have made a choice, of course, but it wouldn’t have been what he felt to be…true. It would have been a forced choice, between two options, neither of which was what felt natural to him.

Why should anybody else be forced to make a “choice” between options that disregard the primary and natural one that a person feels?

Basically what I’m trying to say is, I don’t believe homosexuality is a “choice” any more than heterosexuality, and any organization or government that actively discourages or tries to outlaw a person behaving in a way that’s natural to that person (and involves another consenting person, of course) is a seriously flawed organization (or government) and should be avoided and/or replaced.

77

And what if his church insisted that he marry a man and spend his entire life pretending to be attracted to men? And what if his church told him that if he so much as touched a woman erotically he would burn in hell forever?

78

Exactly panache.

79

Devils advocate for a moment…

Let’s say we were able change the minds of everyone who says “homosexuality is wrong and disgusting”. Basing that ability on the arguments made thus far would be impossible.

Mentions of necrophilia or pedophelia fall right into the Santorum trap. Even doing as much as giving lip service to acts of deviance and then contrasting them to same-sex relationships is in itself an apples and oranges comparison.

Something I’ve yet to hear batted down in a fair-minded & intelligent manner, (especially in the case of same sex marriage), is the issue of polygamy. If we’re going to tout the free-will, consenting adults arguments, logic demands we must either call for the elimination of all laws that prohibit polyandry & polygyny or come up with better, more distinct contrasts between same-sex and multiple partner relationships.

80

GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Once and for freaking all, they’re entirely separate issues!

I am so incredibly tired of this “argument” I could, and in fact I do, scream. What is so amazingly complex about the idea that two people of the same sex getting married is different than three or more people of various sexes getting married? This is Sesame-Street level stuff, here, and has in face been addressed any number of times.

Dealing with the idea of gay marriage does not, in any way, shape or form, imply that the issue of polygamous or polyandrous marriage needs to be dealt with. Nor does the issue of gay marriage shed much light on how the issue of multiple marriage should be dealt with legally. They are, as I keep howling, entirely separate issues.

I will be happy to support the issue of polygamous marriage however I can; I’ll march in their parades, vote for politicians in favor of multiple marriage, help out at their events.

However, conflating the issue of gay marriage and the issue of polygamous marriage is simply burdening a potentially-successful effort to get one group recognized legally with the impossible task of getting another group recognized as well. It’s like telling the people trying to get miscegenation laws abolished in the 1960s that they should have been campaigning for the rights of gay people as well.

What’s odd is that I’ve never heard any organization that supports multiple partner marriages supporting this position; it’s only the opposition to the gay-rights movement that’s bringing up this enormous red herring. “Damn, people aren’t scared of hommasexshuls anymore! Well, maybe we can scare them off with… POLYGAMY!”

By getting the government to redefine the laws pertaining to marriage, the gay rights movement may well open the door for multiple marriages somewhere down the line. It’s going to take a lot of work to get the issue in front of the public in a favorable light, and to get legislation enacted to protect these families. The gay movement may well provide a model for how to proceed, just as the interracial marriage movement helped the gay rights movement to map out a strategy. But they’re all separate issues, that need separate legislation to deal with them.

Not all problems in the world can be righted all at once. The idea that gay people can’t be treated fairly by the law unless they can ensure that polygamists do too makes no sense whatsoever.

Unless you still can’t tell a same-sex couple from a multiple marriage. In which case, I recommend any good kindergarten for counting lessons.