Questions For Those Who Believe Homosexuality Is A Chosen Behavior

There are apparently a significant number of people who entertain the notion that homosexuality/bisexuality, is a choice and/or aberrant behavior. As a result, many of these same individuals believe that gay and bisexual people are not deserving of equal legal status and rights.

Though there has been steady progress in recognizing the rights of gay/bi citizens there still exists significant pockets of hostility toward those who identify as gay or bi. Throughout history severe consequences, including torture and execution, have attached to homosexuality. It was the 20th century before the last state eliminated capital punishment for acts of homosexuality. Even today in some places in this country you can be denied your livelihood, a place to live, membership in organizations normally open to the public, the ability to adopt and any number of other things that are taken for granted as routine and ordinary parts of life, simply because you identify or are identified as a homosexual.

There is hate, hostility and violence directed at gays, lesbians and bisexuals, most especially the young. Not just name-calling or being spat upon or shoved, but beatings and death for merely be attracted to or loving one of your own gender. Even today some gay people are ostracized by family and friends. These are facts.

Here's the first question: Why would anyone make a choice that opens up such consequences, misery and suffering?

I can think of only one logical answer to the first question and that leads me to my second question: Do you believe that the pleasure derived from gay sex is so much greater than that experienced during straight sex that people are willing to endure all the anguish and pain, including death, that come along with being gay?

 

And what about transgender people?

The murders of trans women account for over 40% of all LGBT murders. Considering the how few of us there are compared to Gays, Lesbians and bisexuals, that is a pretty big number.

 

I doubt that much thought goes into the argument. It is just a meme that is repeated again, and again, and again, until it is accepted to be the truth.

What is it based on? Nothing. The only argument I have heard (in person as well) is that men could not possibly turn down a beautiful woman for another man, so it must be a choice. It is an argument to marginalize homosexuality and socially oppress the homosexual population by denying them basic civil rights.


If homosexuality is a choice, then almost certainly heterosexuality is as well.

 

More and more people are realizing (and accepting) that what you said above is reality.

 

I'd like someone to list not only the perceived benefits of choosing to be attracted to the same sex, but to explain in detail the decision making process that leads to that choice.

I think they're unlikely to do so, since many people who present the 'choice' argument also subscribe to the idea that it's merely behavior. They don't care what drives that behavior, since people can choose their actions. This goes hand in hand with a worldview that only sees black and white, with no gray areas or other coloring.

If this behavior is driven by attraction, the obvious answer is that for a person attracted to the same sex, they will derive more pleasure from same-sex relations than opposite-sex relations.

Which leads us right back my earlier point - they don't acknowledge attraction as a driver of behavior or identity. They refuse to believe in something they can't see/witness. Doesn't matter that the behavior is a manifestation/expression of what can't be seen. It's why you'll often find these people having anti-science viewpoints as well. Sometimes you can't see or touch the thing responsible for some effect; such as when an object in space that we can't see causes one that is visible to wobble in its orbit.

Instead, they rely on something even less credible to explain what they're able to observe, such as religion. It fair boggles the mind.

 

You are quite correct, transgendered individuals are subjected to more hostility, violence and discrimination than others in the GLBTQ community. They are today where lesbians, gays and bisexuals were several generations ago, victims of highly destructive, vile, hateful and vicious bigotry.

You were not omitted from this post as an oversight. This thread is centered on sexual orientation not sexual identity. I know that many people don't understand that there is a difference between the two, but the difference is huge. For the sake of the many who confuse the two I'll try to give you a real life illustration of how the two are distinct.

When I lived in the West Village of Manhattan I had a very good friend who was the stereotypical starving artist. I was his friend throughout full sexual reassignment from hormones to operations. My friend Kevin became my friend Karen.

Long before Kevin had identified as transgendered his sexual orientation was without a doubt heterosexual, he was a guy who was sexually attracted to females. Still he knew something was wrong and for years he underwent counseling, psychotherapy and anything he could find to resolve what was going on. Of course is sexual orientation was unusual with a male to female transgendered person and it took the professionals 5 years to nail it down; once they had everything fell into place for Kevin and for the first time everything made sense. That's when Kevin became Karen. Of course the change in his gender identification in no way altered Karen's sexual orientation. Kevin the heterosexual became Karen the lesbian.

I can think of nothing that more clearly illustrates the difference between gender identity and sexual orientation than Karen's journey. Thank you 317 tree for providing a learning moment.

 

Obviously because it's not perceived as a choice to the individual.

Why would anyone choose to become addicted to heroine? Obviously, no one would. Therefore, becoming a heroine addict cannot be a choice. It is genetic and hormonal, of course.

Do you see the problem with this line of reasoning? It doesn't deal with things properly. At the beginning, it is a choice-- whether to pursue this or that, whether to examine attraction in one way or another. You psyche yourself into something and confirmation bias carries you on from there. "I thought that guy looked hot when he took his shirt off! Why would I be attracted to a guy? I'm not gay, am I?" Ask that question, and keep asking it, and you'll be gay. You can't really change it after you've embedded it into the structure of your brain.

Compare to: "That guy looked attractive when he took off his shirt. I should work out so others can think that about me." or "That guy looked attractive when he took off his shirt. But I know I like girls, so whatever."

Sexuality is really very plastic at first. It all depends on what you decide, before you know you're making a choice.

Now, that being said, does it matter? A preference for Coca Cola may be a "choice" brought about by confirmation bias and reinforcement-- so what? Somebody may prefer trains to planes. Oh (*)(*)(*)(*)! It's a choice! And...?

The real issue is not whether it's a choice. You can't win this debate. Even if I am proven definitively wrong on this matter, it is STILL a choice to act on your preferences, however inherent-- and some inherent preferences are not to be acted on. If you frame the debate this way, you're helping the bigots and busybodies hold society back. The nature of an act-- by choice, by nature, by societal pressure, by hormones-- is irrelevant.

Does the act directly interfere with others in their private living? Does it cause harm, other than offense (which is never a serious type of harm, and says more about the offended than it does the offender)? Is it consensual? Do men and women own their own bodies and their own minds, or does society choose what is done with them?

The answer, when it comes to this question, is obvious. There is and should be no right for others to interfere in the free association of thinking men.

I think an honest amount of consideration will, again, show your line of argument to be fallacious. On the whole, in this day and age, the most a gay man or woman will have to deal with is stigmatization-- by the same people he or she would have stigmatized anyway, given those peoples' bigotry and close-mindedness. Relative to the population of gays as a whole, the number of murdered ones is minuscule. A gay man or woman should be more worried about being in an abusive relationship than about being abused by a stranger.

Social groups are much more close and social ties much more powerful when cemented not by general agreement on settled matters ("You need water to live? So do I! Let's be friends!") but by minority status and the perception of oppression. Case-in-point: at the university I am attending, upwards of three fourths of the student body is passionately progressive and liberal. And yet the Republican group dwarfs the Democratic one, and is much more closely-knit and fun for its members. The good feeling associated with joining others in being against the tide is extremely powerful. It should be no surprise that, regardless of the validity or pleasure derived in an act itself, the minority group will derive some utility from being a minority group.

Your premise is flawed in many ways: you miscalculate the probability of being physically attacked for being gay, you incorrectly analyze the utility derived from minority status, and you attribute most of the utility derived from homosexuality to be from sexual intercourse (rather than, say: love, stability, romance, etc.). This is not a good way to approach the issue, even if you wish to make fun of your opponents. Teasing in this manner will backfire. Not all bigots are closeted homosexuals; this attempt at a teasing question will lead many to accept your accidental implicit assumption about the reason gay people are gay-- that they are sex-fiends-- even while they reject the other premises for being (obviously) incorrect or exaggerated.


You need to work on your rhetoric if you are going to convince anyone of anything. We need to get the government out of the business of interfering with love and with the formation of contracts between free men. You have the wrong focus, and it won't work. People don't like to look extreme, or to look like they're against freedom. Exploit that, don't make archaic and flawed arguments about the nature of choice and what it means to be responsible for one's actions. The actions are the important part: are they defensible? Yes. Make that case instead.

 

Even so, being gay is not a conscious decision, as most people understand choice. Many DO present homosexuality (actual sexual-orientation) as being such a choice; it isn't.

Not a good comparison; one's sexual-orientation isn't comparable to addiction to a chemical substance.

No, I think outside of the evil often directed AT them, the majority of homosexual people are fine with their sexual-orientation.

Again, that is a terrible comparison. Drug addiction is not comparable to human sexuality and its main characteristics.

Even so, that isn't how 99.9999282484% approach their own sexuality. I haven't ever seen anyone "choose" what gender or turn-on's they are attracted to.

Most guys do admire physical beauty as you say; but certainly as you suggest, they are not all sexually aroused by what they see. As a gay person, I can see physical beauty in woman, but that doesn't turn me on. Nor does every good-looking guy turn me on.

If you don't KNOW you are making a choice, did you actually make a decision? Even so, I see your point.

I agree.

Indeed, you are correct.

Great points made!! Bravo!

Exactly!!

I don't know if that is true on the 'whole'. While it isn't the 1940's or 1960's... one must still be vigilant in their defensive posture, if they are openly homosexual. There are still enough ignorant "haters" out here, to affect a significant number of lives.

I haven't studied the crime stats on gay-on-gay crime... but you may have something there, as gay people tend to be around gay people. But one can be fairly certain, that gay people (especially in certain areas) are 'targeted' by homophobes in significant but not always 'physical' ways.

There is more power in 'numbers', even if relatively few.

I would agree that it is good to be careful in who/what one identifies with. Even so, the "gay" movement is evolving as we speak. And the younger the person, the more what is reasonable tends to be put forth (overall). Just as with 'race', it appears that older folks generally have more trouble accepting or adjusting to the changes before their very eyes.

That's true in virtually any case.

Still, we NEED "government" to be the 'muscle' behind people's individual rights, especially in the legal sense. Even so, our (U.S.) Constitution does tend to point out that we should ALL be EQUAL when it comes to human rights. Still, there are many things that gay people must yet FIGHT for; that means taking sides at times.

I can generally agree with that.

 

I am a geneticist, and I firmly believe that sexual orientation is INBORN. Considerable heritability of homosexuality has been demonstrated in multiple studies, and specific genetic variants have been identified as associated. Has 100% of the heritability been genetically explained?? No, but neither has the heritability of other complex traits, such as hair or eye color. This fact that the underlying genetics are not totally understood is not evidence for the nurture side of the Nature v. Nurture debate!

On the topic, you MUST check out this shirt that I saw at Dallas Pride...there's a write up on the design at http://www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_wordpress&... . I bought one from their website (www.touchmytees.me )!

 

By the same token, is a preference for brunettes inborn? Libertarianism? Drug addiction? Industriousness?

How comforting it must be to have faith that everyones' preferences are determined from inception! I'm sorry, but I don't share your belief.

 

False premise.

Homosexuals already have equal legal status and rights as heterosexuals. You're being suckered in by the same twisted logic that teaches people that women get paid 75 cents for every dollar a man makes. Such statements are only true in the minds of lawyers and the like who actively distort facts in order to achieve a desired outcome.

In short, you've been duped.

 

No, it isn't.

I think that YOU imagine (as many) that they do; in reality, they are prohibited from pursuing the reasonable course of happiness they seek... especially where it pertains to them legally bonding with those they are compatible with and love deeply. That is NOT denied 'heterosexuals'.

You've not proven what you say (in either case), and the above is not any real comparison to what you've apparently claimed.

What the hell are you talking about? There is much about EQUAL rights for homosexual people, which no "lawyer" need somehow mentally digest, before it is understood to be "true" by millions who aren't (lawyers).

Even so, lawyers ARE required in order to perform the legal fights required to CHANGE the unfair and unjust laws which deny homosexual people EQUAL treatment under the law.

You are mistaken, if you believe that your mere 'perception' of the truth... defines the same as such. (See you in COURT.)

In short, it appears you've merely stated what you believe; not what is absolutely 'true'.

 

Yes, you are correct.

 

Friend of mine. Middleaged, overweight, balding, was married with kids and then got divorced. Dated for a year and a half, but never had the opportunity to engage in a sexual relations with any woman. Night of drunkeness and he allowed a man to give him a BJ. He chose to be homosexual ever since. Says he gets laid all the time now. As a heterosexual he never got laid.

 

I dont doubt that there is likely some hormonal imbalance that nudges people one way or another, but I tend to believe the theory that sexuality is learned.

...the emergence of "plastic sexuality," "confluent love," and the "pure relationship" as democratic and desirable alternatives to a sexuality harnessed to reproduction, love based on addictive or co-dependent relationships, and the rights and obligations of traditional marriage. The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

We also know that many genes, maybe hundreds, are involved
in human behaviours, and that behaviours affected by many genes
will change very slowly over very many generations (Chapter One).
That is, they will be very stable for centuries, with only minimal
changes from generation to generation. This is true not only in
families, but also in cultures.But if we look at homosexuality,
we find none of the characteristics of genetic properties.

• There is a huge variety of homosexual practices between
cultures and even within them.
• The prevalence of homosexuality has varied considerably
in different cultures. In some cultures, it has been unknown; in
others, it has been obligatory for all males.
• There have been, and are, rapid changes in homosexual
behaviour, even over a lifetime. Not only that, but entire types
of homosexuality have disappeared over the course of just a
few centuries. In fact, anthropologists have found such huge variations
in heterosexual and homosexual practice from culture to culture, and
such sudden changes in sexual practice and orientation, even over
a single generation, that they mostly want to say that all sexual
behaviour is learned. In the words of one writer J. Rostand, “In the
secret coming together of two human bodies, all society is the third
presence.”
http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch6.pdf

 

Be what you say as it may (which I strongly doubt, coming from you)... I think it is the fear, irrational animus and abject discrimination which homosexual people face, that is the PRIMARY problem for them within this society.

BEING gay itself is hardly THE problem.

 

ooooh cry me a river.

 

Stupid request. You'll typically get my 'intolerance'. (Sorry about that.)

 

dixion

I have a question for you.

When did you decide to be heterosexual?

 

Not this again...

 

Homosexuality is only a "chosen behavior" if you decide to act on it and have sexual relations with a person of the same sex.

Anybody that has sex with someone of the same sex is engaging in homosexual behavior just as someone who has sex with someone of the opposite sex is engaging in heterosexual behavior.

Homosexuality is not a "chosen behavior" if you really want to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex but don't. If you are this kind of person and even if you never have sex with (or can even bear the thought of having sex with) a person of the opposite sex then you are still a homosexual. In this case your behavior is irrelevant but your orientation isn't.

 

Too bad you have to explain that to people who are literally smart enough navigate this website.

 

I think homosexuality is a choice just like heterosexality is a choice. Otherwise we'd be doing something else. Bestiality is still legal in Texas, btw. Pity the heifers.

 

Preference! I think that word better describes it rather than a choice.
　
　
I enjoy eating but I prefer to eat things that compliment one another, are tasty to my pallet, and gives me and my senses the most delight.
　
　
Just like i prefer women, grown women, and a certain type of woman rings my bell, not just the fact that she has breasts and a vagina. I have a preference as to what appeases my senses. I don‘t expect everyone to have the same taste.


Some people are simply supremacists busy bodied ********s, and think they know what is best for everybody else. They need to mind their own business, and allow consenting adults to decide for themselves what is best for them.

 

Definitions up front:

preference

attraction

sexual-orientation

I tend to agree with what you're pointing out. And I added the definitions to help others get a better picture of reality overall.