Just a thanks to the OP for driving home the point that whether or not you think sexual orientation is a choice (I think it’s not, BTW), ideally that should have nothing to do with your view on gay rights. It’s always amazed me to talk to liberal, well-meaning people who say, “Well, gays didn’t choose to be born that way…so since they can’t help it, then yes: I support gay marriage.” I guess it’s better than nothing, but geez…does that mean that if someone did choose to be gay you wouldn’t support equal rights?
I’ve never been able to take the “homosexuality is a choice” position seriously, because it is in blatant denial of human nature. People don’t choose what we like, sexually or otherwise. I didn’t choose to like computer games, spaghetti, science fiction, or peanut butter cups; I didn’t choose to find girls sexy either. I see no reason to think that homosexuals are the only people who actually choose what they like, instead of just what they do.
I postulate a spectrum, where most people are polarized to one side or the other, and where the outliers (I never use that term pejoritavely) tend to fall in the middle. Someone with a 60/40 split is more open to changes or choices brought about by environmental factors.
…
First off, “biologically innate” and “personal choice” are not the only obvious options. The mainstream sociologists would have you believe that very little is biologically innate (“a tendency to breathe”) and that nothing is personal choice (“doesn’t exist”) and that the overwhelming vast majority of explainable human phenomenae are caused by socialization. Social determinism.
I don’t agree with them but my disagreement is more a matter of degree than an altogether dismissal of that perspective. I think it’s silly to deny that there is a lot that is innate, whether hardwired in our own biology or even more fundamentally hardwired to the abstract state of being an individual consciousness or a member of a social species.
On the other hand, we tend to think we know “how we are” when actually we only know the manifestations of “how we are” in the social context, and every behavior is potentially a communicative signal or response to a context, the signals having been learned and the context having been absorbed by growing up in it, and the observer observing interpreting and labeling the behavior is also doing so from a conceptual framework leanred and absorbed from the surrounding society.
The hardcord sociologist might deny that there IS a “sexuality” apart from behaviors we have learned. That’s one of the “stupid” assertions as far as I’m concerned. But the large matrix of “what is sexy” and “what is a sexualized behavior” and so forth is all interwoven, biology and culture intertwined.
You may have heard it said that until fairly recently the concept “gay/homosexual” did not exist. Not as a sexuality, not as a “way that someone is” as opposed to a behavior or set of behaviors in which a person might or might not engage. That’s a good example.
What may be less obvious is that the concept “heterosexual”, including everything from “a way that someone is” to pickup behaviors to interpretations of others’ behaviors to “what is sexy”, is also something that is “of our society”; being much more mainstream, it much more fully WAS in the past akin to what it IS today, but that’s not relevant: that just means its more established. It could be different; it could be set up differently, experienced differently, seen differently by observers, defined in different terms, from objective core meaning to smallest nuance.
And insofar as heterosexuality and homosexuality (as concepts) are more or less oppositionally defined (each is “instead of” the other), the entire constellation of what forms sexuality could take, with different identities and roles and behavioral norms for each, could be quite different.
And no, it does not “matter”, if by “mattering” you mean “is is somehow less OK to be gay if it is not biologically an innate difference”. It’s a silly queston to begin with; do people go around asking if it is ok or immoral to be HETEROsexual? Do folks go around wondering if straight people had a choice or if they were just born that way?
If it is OK with the gay person to be gay, that’s all that matters.
I think it’s most likely to end up being a complex superposition of nature and nurture, malleable and modifiable in various ways, not necessarily the same ways for everyone.
And it doesn’t matter (as long as nobody ends up being harmed against their will, or coerced, etc)
I’ve known two people who chose to jump from heterosexuality to homosexuality back to heterosexuality and neither used the dreaded “bi” label. It could be that both of them had no real desire to think of themselves as bi (which apparently is fairly common), but the conviction with which they talked about being gay (and then later about being straight) leads me to think there is at least some choice involved.
In other words, you are not aware of making a conscious choice, so as far as you know, you did not make a conscious choice to be heterosexual. Would you agree with this?
Does ‘choice’ in actuality mean concious choice to you, or not?
Do you think you possibly made such a conscious choice at one time but have forgotten, and this choice has become more or less locked in as habit?
If ‘choice’ doesn’t include the conscious element, is there much point to discussing it? I’m not sure how one would distinguish it from other actions that are autonomic.
This is basically what I wanted to say. How many of our personal preferences are the result of conscious choice? I like peanut butter cups too, but I sure don’t remember ever choosing to enjoy this particular taste sensation. If asked why I like peanut butter cups my best answer would be “They taste good to me”, which is really just saying that I like them because I like them. I have a choice as to whether or not I’m going to eat peanut butter cups, but I didn’t ever ponder the pros and cons of liking them and decide that I was going to like them.
Still thinking of food, my tastes have sometimes changed and this was also without any conscious decision on my part. According to my mother I loved bananas as a toddler, but as far back as I can remember I’ve found the smell and texture disgusting. So at some point I clearly stopped liking bananas. I disliked tomatoes throughout my childhood, but like them just fine as an adult. Again, this wasn’t something I decided to do. One day I just didn’t feel it was worth the trouble to pick the tomato slice off a sandwich I’d ordered, and I found that it actually tasted good to me.
I can make choices related to my personal preferences like trying new things to see if I discover something that I like, trying things I previously disliked to see if my tastes have changed, learning more about a subject so I can have a better understanding of why experts consider certain things to be “good” or “bad”, or forcing myself to do something that’s healthy until I get used to it, but I can’t say that I’ve ever sat down and said to myself “Okay, I’m going to start liking THIS now.”
Choice sort of implies you could have gone either way, choose one over the other.
I don’t think most people could have gone either way.
If you only drink Coke and can’t even bring yourself to put Pepsi to your lips I don’t think you are choosing. Because you ‘couldn’t’ select the Pepsi tells me it wasn’t about choice, all along. You have some innate predisposition, nurture or nature, (who cares?), to Coke. It wasn’t a truly choice, it was a default position; Coke drinker.
I don’t know about you, but I didn’t have to try both to know I was hetero, most people fall into the same group. That said, there is no black and white, there are people who’s sexual identity is not clear, who may choose one then another. I don’t envy them but I don’t think they just can’t make up their minds either.
If it was a choice why would anyone choose it? So they could be drummed out of their church, scorned by their family, tossed from the services, demonized by Christian fanatics and generally ill treated, all day long. It’s not like there’s perks.
What speaks loudest, that it is not a choice is that, as reviled as homosexuality is, in a large part of our country, still people identify as such. Surely if it were a choice they would choose an easier path!
I would agree, in so much as that is a leading and entirely biased question.
I don’t remember making a choice, in the same way that I don’t remember making a choice to be left or right handed, but clearly I did. I have the capability to write with either my left or right hand, I have the capacity to do anything with nearly equal prowess with either hand, and some things better with my left.
You don’t need to be conscious of something in order to make a choice about it.
Every time I stand up, both my feet are parallel, but I still choose to step with either my left or my right foot – I don’t know why, but I choose to step with my left foot first about 2/3s of the time (ballparking, because it’s difficult to get an actual statistic on this) , all other things being equal.
The fact that I wasn’t conscious of this choice, does that make it any less a choice?
Yes, I rather do. Much like my ambidexterity has given way to me writing exclusively with my right hand over the years (other than when necessary), I believe that it’s perfectly possible sexuality might be the same. Despite the fact that I don’t remember ever making the conscious choice… I’m quite certain I did.
Yes.
I did my best to describe, above, how.
There are people who choose to be outcast, throughout history, despite the negative consequences. For a variety of reasons, whether because they’re making a moral point or simply like being removed from society in some way or another.
Galileo chose to die rather than saying something he didn’t believe, much less changing his behavior. There are countless other instances of this, including Socrates agreeing to be put to death rather than go into exile.
Trying to use human behavior to explain human behavior is almost certainly a dead-end road.
???
Yes, but people who choose the most difficult path are a tiny, tiny minority. How many people were like Galileo?
Versus the number of homosexuals, transgender and bisexual.
Not a fair parallel, in my opinion.
Most people think the world revolves around them
What’s your question?
It’s a pretty well accepted fact that humans aren’t biologically driven to be monogamous. Men are predisposed to hump anything, to spread their genes to as many females as will let them, because they can reproduce a theoretically unlimited number of children.
On the other hand, women can only have a few children over the course of their life time, and fewer if they want to maximize their individual chances for success, so it’s their biological imperative to mate only with the ‘deserving few,’ rather than anyone — like males.
Depending on how you decide to exclude people… many.
If you include homosexuality, transgenderism, etc, than quite a few. If you choose to exclude them, you’d have to carefully examine the entirety of society. Do you include criminals, to which there are millions, do you include people who practice cult-like behaviors, etc?
You only consider them not part of the larger group because that’s your bias. If you include them, the number goes up significantly.
Why? Plenty of Jews chose to remain Jewish during the Inquisition, claim their heritage during the Holocaust or otherwise cling to their religion in times of prosecution… and religion is almost certainly a choice. Is anyone debating that point?
There are plenty of times people, en mass, have chosen a more difficult path than they must have, simply because it’s something that they wanted to do.
Your argument, while interesting, certainly doesn’t make it impossible that sexuality be a choice, it only makes it seem that people making that choice are making the wrong one, from a societal perspective (if it’s a choice at all).
If it’s a choice, then you can “catch teh gay”, or be recruited. Guess it’s time to buy toaster stocks!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And claiming that homosexuals alone of all humanity can choose their preferences is an extraordinary claim.
Again a false comparison; choosing not to have homosexual sex will make you no less of a homosexual. You keep trying to compare actions with desires.
On one hand you argue that people are pre-wired for certain behaviors (which I believe), then in the next sentence you say “in the end, claiming that someone is “wired” to behave a certain way, is bullshit”.
Uhm, lets rephrase that.
“Assuming that sexuality alone, in all human traits, is a chosen preference is an extraordinary claim.”
This, because homosexuality can’t be a choice without heterosexuality being a choice, fair enough?
I’ve already outlined above why sexuality wouldn’t be the only thing that can be chosen. I’m fully ambidextrous, admittedly few people are (and it could be the same way with sexuality), and yet I write exclusively with my right hand, and use the mouse exclusively with my right hand. That’s a choice I made a long time ago, even though I don’t remember consciously making it.
So why, if other things **can ** be chosen, is sexuality exclusive in that it can’t be?
Uhm, I don’t “keep trying” to do anything, I was only explaining what someone else said.
My entire point of this thread is that there isn’t sufficient evidence one way or the other. I haven’t seen sufficient evidence, and therefore I don’t understand why anyone – on either side of the debate – can claim with such absolute certainty one way or the other. Further, even if they could claim with absolute certainty, why it would matter.
ETA:
I claimed no such thing.
I only elaborated on someone elses post at your apparent confusion.
Is Tim R. Mortiss really that close to Todderbob, that two people confuse it?
Your opening clause is innecessary to this discussion and is unnecessarily provocative to keep bringing up in threads where it is irrelevant. (Unless you are claiming to have engaged in any specific action based on your provclivities that give you special insight, which might give management cause to take specific actions.)
Stop bringing this up in your posts.
If you feel a poster needs to be admonished, report the post, do not react, yourself.
[ /Moderating ]