Victim of what?
I don’t think anybody would argue that it’s never a choice. Lots of people experiment sexually, whether with the same gender or opposite gender or whatever. However, most people have a “basic” orientation that they’re venturing out from when they do so.
Also, speaking only for myself, I think female sexuality is extremely different from male sexuality. It has the the same basic animalistic biological origins of course- the body’s encouragement for the user to procreate and pair bond (as a matter of biological self interest with no real ethical or moral value) but it’s driven by different mixture of hormones and involves passive rather than invasive sexual organs and a woman’s needs are not synonymous with a man’s needs. You’ll probably find MANY more women who identify as straight who have had same-gender sexual experiences than you will men who identify as straight who have had voluntary same-gender sexual experiences, especially since adulthood.
A change I’ve noticed in gay men is that most of the older gay men I have known (40 and over let’s say) had their first sexual experiences with females. This was what was socially acceptable and available when they were teens and young adults. A lot of the younger gay guys I’ve known have started their sexual careers with same-sex partners because it’s not as huge a stigma and gays are so much more known as a group than ever before. (Those who are under 35 or so and or grew up in a large metropolitan area wouldn’t believe the misconceptions otherwise intelligent people had about gays back before cable and the Internet and openly gay mainstreamers- most gays were pedophiles, cross-dressers, went through hundreds of sex partners a week practically, and were attracted to anything male from age 5 to age 80; middle aged men who were 100 pounds overweight and had body odor and a mole on their nose would still be concerned gays were checking out their ass.)
Damn I hope this was deliberate. Because if it is it’s the best pun of the year.
This seems to be skirting awfully close to a genuine scotsman. If the person involves says they are gay, they exclusively bonk members of the same sex and they say they are exclusively and genuinely to members of the same sex, that makes them gay by any conceivable standard and definition that I can think of.
To say that they weren’t genuinely attracted because at some later date they don’t meet some other standard that you would like to apply to gay sure seems like a classic True Scotsman.
I could just as easily say that gay is always matter of choice, and any counterexamples you produce I can dismiss be saying they aren’t they weren’t genuinely attracted to members of the same sex.
The overwhelming reason I and my peers strongly stress that homosexuality is not a choice is because the most strident and intolerant opponents of our rights are those who insist that homosexuality is “sinful”. These people strongly insist homosexuality is a choice primarily in order to accuse us of deliberately choosing a sinful way of life.
By emphasizing that homosexuality is not a choice, we take most (but admittedly not all) of the wind out of their sails on the “grounds” that something that is not chosen cannot be judged a sin as persuasively as they could if homosexuality is considered to be a choice.
As individuals, of course we do not have to accept their moral reasoning as valid, but it’s not we and those who already support our rights that are the principal targets of this emphatic insistence that homosexuality is not a choice; instead, the targets of this argument are people who insist it is a choice so that they can argue that it is sinful.
I’ve seen a great many people pose the question in the OP, and I’ve been astonished at how many people aren’t aware of the extremely important consideration I’ve just outlined. It’s actually quite simple!
[Edited text per poster’s req.—G]
Because for many people, the realization that someone didn’t choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight leads to acceptance of gayness.
It worked that way with several of my relatives. Their mental process once I convinced them that being gay isn’t a choice was, more or less:
- ‘They’ can’t “choose” to stop being gay.
- ‘They’ can choose to perform gay acts or not, but not who are they attracted to.
- Same as me, ‘they’ sometimes want to have sex with a person out of lust (=bad) and sometimes out of love (=good).
- If family/society had gotten between me and my SO, I would have been extremely miserable.
- There is no reason to refuse two people who do love each other the right to love each other.
Correct me if I am wrong but this sounds like nothing more than gays claiming it is not a choice because it counters the arguments of the morality police. This is akin to arguing it IS a choice to to counter the argument that being gay is a genetic defect that can be corrected.
The bible people have to say gay is a choice or admit the bible is flawed or wrong. That is why they fight so hard. There are hundreds of contradictions in the bible . But the gay one is at the top of the pile nowadays. The idea that god makes flawed people is just too hard to defend. So, they are working around that. It is sad that they have to judge people who are just being true to themselves as deliberately choosing to rebel against what god made them to be.
I don’t know of anyone who says that. Nobody says it is a deliberate choice. Nobody wakes up in the morning and says " I think today I will go to the park, maybe stop at the grocery store, and hell, why not, then I’ll stick my dick in a man’s ass".
The idea of choice simply means that it is influenced on the nurture instead of the nature side. As I posted earlier, I don’t see where this makes any difference. There are good and bad things that are both genetic and influenced by our environment. As someone else said, pedophilia is certainly genetic, yet no one says that this fact means that pedophilia is somehow okay. Murder is not genetic and it is also bad.
Someone up thread mentioned that the gay caveman could be free to look after his brother’s kids. That assumes altruism on his part. Why would he do that instead of looking after his own self-interest? What incentive does he have to help his brother’s kids?
No, choice has to imply a conscious decision.
Cite that pedophilia is genetic? That’s a new one on me. I call bullshit.
What incentive does anyone have to be altruistic?
Humans are a social species. They are evolved to survive as communities, not as individuals. A certain amount of altruism is genetically hardwired. Empathy is hardwired. The instinct to nurture offspring is hardwired. Kinship bonds are hardwired.
Individuals who act only in their own self-interest are called sociopaths. They are indivduals whose empathic responses and bonding instincts have failed to develop or been stunted in some way (studies show that early childhood trauma can stop the empathic response from developing, and that’s how sociopaths get created). They are aberrations in a community, not the norm.
Your objection is also easy to refute just by pointing out all the visible aunts and uncles out there who get selflessly involved in the upbringing of their siblings’ children. Not to mention all the adoptive parents, foster parents, etc. Using your logic, there would be no such thing as charity, or volunteerism or altruism in anybody.
How would you proceed to nurture someone into being gay? Most families have serious trouble with gay children and do everything they can to prevent it. But it does not work. The idea that gays deliberately choose to be gay, is absurd. it is simply who they are.
It can be an ugly and terrifying life. They are ostracized by families and most people. Did you wrestle with the decision? Do you know anybody who did? It is such a flippant argument.
What I have heard is that the idea of homosexuality as an orientation (as opposed to a behavior) is a relatively modern one that would have been unknown in Bible times. (Anybody have evidence for or against this?) So that any mention of homosexual activity in the Bible is made with the assumption that people are by nature heterosexual and are going against their nature in choosing to “lie with a man as with a woman.”
From this, I’ve seen Bible-believers draw three basic sorts of conclusions. One approach is the one you describe: to insist that homosexuality is indeed a choice, and a sinful one.
A second approach is to recognize that some people are homosexual in orientation, and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but that they mustn’t act out on their desires by actually having sex with another person of the same sex. In other words, they’re doomed to a life of celibacy. Which sounds oppressive, but keep in mind that, in the view of such people, there are many heterosexuals who are also called to celibacy; that any sex outside of marriage is off limits; and that all of us have desires that we mustn’t act out on (such as if we have the hots for someone who is married or otherwise unavailable).
A third approach is to say that the Bible’s condemnations of homosexual behavior apply to straights, not gays. That if you’re heterosexual, then to go against your nature and get your jollies with a member of your own sex is sinful. But for someone of a homosexual orientation, this isn’t an issue. A gay man who partners with another man isn’t “giving up natural sex with women”—he’s having the kind of sexual relations that are natural to him.
People can have sex outside their orientation. Straight guys will have sex with guys in prison or on long sailing voyages. There are gay guys who have sex with women and even start families, as some recent scandals show. The fact that a silly straight college student will proclaim herself gay and even have a few intimate times with another woman in order to be transgressive or feminist or whatever doesn’t make her gay, if she’s really attracted to men.
FWIW, whereas genetic studies/ morphological comparative studies on gay and straight men are generally regarded as robust or at least interesting, this is not the same for lesbians. This could mean that female sexuality is much more malleable, but it could also simply mean that we just haven’t found the genetic link.
I understand what you are saying, but in the post you’re quoting, I made no attempt to provide a full, standalone reply. The scientific arguments regarding whether or not homosexuality is a choice had been discussed upthread and elsewhere already, and I saw no reason to duplicate others’ work and words in my own post.
The main purpose of my reply was to answer the OP’s question concerning why we stress that aspect so much, rather than to provide a highly extensive discussion of the entire issue.
The above is the primary target of my comments at the end of this post. But for context, I’ll quote and occasionally comment on the following fine, directly relevant posts as well:
Excellent post, Tao’s Revenge. The concept that you, Voyager, and Whack-a-Mole described is referred to as the “kin selection hypothesis” because it refers to improved evolutionary success for an individual’s kin, whether or not it also increases such success for the individual itself.
Definitive evidence already exists; see my comments below…
Just so!
Okay, here we go…
Chronos’ reference to “the hormonal environment of the womb” it at the heart of the compelling scientific evidence that homosexuality – at least male homosexuality (there’s good reasons to suspect that male and female homosexuality have different etiologies and behavioral expression) – is genetic. But rather than necessarily involving the son’s genes (which remains an open question, as Chronos correctly suggests), we now know that the genetic makeup of most (perhaps all) mothers (women in general, of course) provides the first scientifically demonstrated proof that at least male homosexuality is genetic (if perhaps not in the more commonly used sense of that word).
What science has demonstrably proved is that the probability that an individual mother’s son will be homosexual universally increases for each successive son! The mechanism for this specific aspect involves “the hormonal environment of the womb”. This is proof positive that there is and must be a necessary (if perhaps not sufficient by itself) genetic basis for male homosexuality. To elaborate more fully, women’s genes/DNA must be coded such that their womb’s hormonal environment is somehow altered by every successive gestating son. Except for such a genetic program, there is no other way to account for the invariably increasing probability of producing a homosexual son. The database is large, and the statistical significance is strong.
I will grant, as indicated above, that the term “genetic” for this situation probably represents an atypical usage in that the concept of genetic homosexuality is usually considered in terms of a small number of individual alleles (and in the child rather than the mother) and such, rather than the DNA of women in general. But I contend that in a very real sense, male homosexuality can honestly be said to have a genetic basis.
This scientific fact is too little known, but it’s fairly compelling proof for a genetic basis for at least male homosexuality. The differing etiology and behavioral aspects of female homosexuality may well account for the “lesbian until graduation” phenomenon discussed in this thread.
This is quite a stretch. No doubt this is a theory to try to explain the persistence of homosexuality but there is no evidence one way or the other. I could just as easily say that a gene for some highly advantageous trait (increased intelligence as an example ) has the potential to result in some percentage of the population being less genetically fit (homosexuality) maybe because the presence of that gene results in higher rates of mutation elsewhere in the genome. Or maybe the advantageous gene also results in differing hormonal cocktails in successive pregnancies. In either case above there is a trade-off…the highly advantageous gene gives enough of a selective advantage that the small disadvantage (some percentage of the population being gay) is worth it.
I don’t believe that this has been proven. Just showing that an increase in number of children results in an increased chance that the youngest will be gay does not PROVE that there are changes in hormonal cocktail with increased pregnancies. Correct me if I am wrong but, again, I believe that this is a theory to possibly explain the phenomena. I don’t know of any hard evidence that hormonal differences are occuring.
Even if it is proven that hormonal changes in utero result in homosexuality of the child, this does not equal “genetic cause for homosexuality”
Oh, the laymen “it’s just a theory” canard. Do read into what makes something a scientific “theory”. Hint: theory doesn’t mean conjecture, hypothesis or good guess. A theory is a robust explanation which covers a wide range of data. By robust, I of course mean overwhelming supported by the evidence. Or, do you really want to take issue with gravity because “it’s just a theory.”?
Ok. I’ll accept your argument here. But if the hormones aren’t coding into the structure, or reproduction, of our DNA in utero but the hormones found in utero in successive iterations of male birth, what would you call it?
From what I gather here, you’re saying even if it’s “proven” (which never happens in science) that the hormonal state in a womb through successive male births does tend towards inducing “gayness” in offspring, that you’re taking issue with terminology. In this case, the definition “genetic”. So, in other words, you’re saying that you’ll accept for the sake of argument that it’s true that the hormones do this somehow, it’s just a different mechanism than genetics?
If my understanding is correct, what difference would it make? So, it isn’t “genetic” so much as just programmed into the child by the nature of the hormones which govern his development into life? I think you might have a good point to be made, even if pedantry is what you’re after. I’d just like to read what you think it would be, if true that is.
I have to admit laughing out loud reading this nonsense. Let me break this down for you. I was using the term theory as a layman would use the term. The correct term for the fraternal birth order effect would, of course, be hypothesis. Do use the google every now and then and read up on this hypothesis. To equate the data in favor of this hypothesis with the data backing evolution or gravity is laughable. Is that clear enough for you?
Sigh…just because something happens and some genes may be involved does not mean there is a genetic cause (i.e. that is is a trait that is selected for) For instance, the fraternal birth order effect is thought to be due to a progressive immunization to male specific antigens with each successive male birth. Certainly there are genes that are responsible for immunological responses but I think even you can see this does not mean that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality. The same might be true if it were shown that there are hormonal changes with each successive pregnancy.
Oh, and contrary to your statement things can be proven in science. You can certainly prove that there are increased antibodies to male antigens with each successive birth. You can also prove that there are homone changes in utero with each successive birth. THAT is the way I was using the word PROVE. Even if you can PROVE either of these things it only strongly SUGGESTS that this HYPOTHESIS is correct. My last sentence was a hypothetical meant to point out that none of this should be confused with “genetic cause for homosexuality”.
Laugh all you want, but your deriving humor doesn’t somehow give credence to your point. If you’re going to use the formal terms in question to discuss a topic about a scientific area of scrutiny, why would you want to use theory as a layman’s term instead of just sticking with what it means in context of the discussion?
Yes, even I can see. People of low intellect, like myself, somehow manage to scratch through and do okay. So, if some genes are involved, wouldn’t there be something genetic going on? So, basically, I’m getting that while there might be a genetic influence on the issue, the issue isn’t genetic? Or at least not exclusively genetic? Or just not caused by the genes? OK.
Science proves nothing. The evidence either supports a theory, or not. But at what point in the process of your hypothetical does a strong suggestion that something might be true get to be taken as good evidence for a claim?
If it strongly bears out a hypothesis, it would to me that the hypothesis can move closer to being a theory than a hypothesis. Of course, you’re switching between science use of the terms and non-science use of the terms, which makes it difficult for me to know which definition you’re using in which sentence.
On the one hand, you’re talking about what science can and can’t do, and on other you’re saying that you aren’t using the vocabulary of science to argue it. Why not just cut out the semantics entirely and let theory mean what it means in science. Meh, I don’t know, perhaps it’s my low intellect, but it seems disingenuous to talk about what does happen in science and then argue that when you use an idea adopted by scientists, you really meant it to mean something completely different than what it would mean in context of the science you’re discussing. Ya dig?
No, it doesn’t…but it does put me in a better mood.
I think anyone with common sense could figure out that I was not equating fraternal birth order effect with the big bang theory…except maybe you.
Apparantly you still don’t see. Go back and read what I wrote.
Looking for antibodies against male antigens or hormone levels in utero is observational. It’s either there or it is not there. This is not the equivalent of proving a hypothesis or a theory.
Huh? Use some common sense. If I say something idiotic like “evolution is just a theory” then you have a pretty good idea that I have no idea what I’m talking about. I don’t think you have a firm grasp of the scientific meaning of a theory…if you did I don’t think there would be any way that you could have been confused by my wording. But, if you really did think that this scientific idea was considered a theory (scientifically speaking) because of my post then I sincerely apologize.
Read my paragraph above. Now, re-read that paragraph. Continue until it sinks in.