Homosexuality is a Choice: You are not "Born" Gay

[teamosil]

Then you have no free will. What other aspects of yourself is like that other than sexuality?

Do you think people have a genetic predisposition towards crime, suicide or having children that others don't?

Why is sex with a man so disgusting to you? Maybe you have some psychological hangups?

What about this slogan: "A person falls in love with another person, not a gender." That, of course, is 100% the opposite of a person falls in love as they were genetically preborn.

So are you saying that you believe you could choose to change your sexual orientation? Maybe it's easier for some folks than others or something, but I really can't see that working personally. There is certainly no reason to believe that everybody has an equal amount of say in the matter. Like any other sexual drive people vary. But for me I really don't feel like I have much of a choice about it.

 

[Anagram]

Not sure about genetic factors, but even if it's conditioning, it's no "choice". You bring up a very good point:

1.) Suppressing an urge that is there means stress and pain.
2.) Ostracism by society means stress and pain.

Ergo 3.) Those people who feel suppressing their homosexual tendencies brings them more stress and pain than social ostracism "chose" a gay lifestyle.

Now that may 4.) either be because their urge is very strong, or because ostracism by society is low. It's the relation between the two that matters.

That's not really the "choice" that is being talked about in the rest of the thread though. If you could choose between one set of stress and anguish that is less than another, any rational being would choose the lesser. I believe the "choice" that is being discussed in the thread would be choosing to make the tendencies go away, and thus be free from all stress.

 

[joko104]

Not sure about genetic factors, but even if it's conditioning, it's no "choice". You bring up a very good point:

1.) Suppressing an urge that is there means stress and pain.
2.) Ostracism by society means stress and pain.

Ergo 3.) Those people who feel suppressing their homosexual tendencies brings them more stress and pain than social ostracism "chose" a gay lifestyle.

Now that may 4.) either be because their urge is very strong, or because ostracism by society is low. It's the relation between the two that matters.

I think you just justified extra marital affairs?

 

[Anagram]

I believe for some there is a predisposition. But, in fact, for many it is a culture that is desirable, for some a matter of opportunity and for some it is due to various positive or negative conditioning.

If it is only genetic, why suddenly is there such a rapid increase in the number of gays and even more in bisexuals - the latter particularly among women? If it is genetic, the number of gays and bis should essentially always remain a constant percentage ratio.

I remember a guy telling me that he's only "been gay" twice, and both times he was extra drunk. LOL (Not sure if that is relevant to this topic, but it might be. Drunkeness and drugs strips away self restraints and self definitions for many people.)

I didn't say it was only genetic. I said the genetic influence was stronger. I believe as the tolerance of gays and lesbians has gone up the number of people choosing to act on homosexual tendencies has gone up accordingly. In the middle ages for example, it is no surprise the amount of gays and lesbians who acted on their tendencies was fewer since the penalty was death. As the penalty for acting on them decreases, the number of people acting on them will increase.

 

[German guy]

That's not really the "choice" that is being talked about in the rest of the thread though. If you could choose between one set of stress and anguish that is less than another, any rational being would choose the lesser. I believe the "choice" that is being discussed in the thread would be choosing to make the tendencies go away, and thus be free from all stress.

Yes. But that doesn't make sense for me. I don't believe it's a "choice" you can make (to make your urges simply go away). No matter if it's genetic or conditioned, which I don't know for sure (but don't think is important).

 

[German guy]

I think you just justified extra marital affairs?

I can't follow you.

How so?

 

[joko104]

That's not really the "choice" that is being talked about in the rest of the thread though. If you could choose between one set of stress and anguish that is less than another, any rational being would choose the lesser. I believe the "choice" that is being discussed in the thread would be choosing to make the tendencies go away, and thus be free from all stress.

No, that is only this topic from the religious rightwing - that gayness can be cured. That is a VERY different question.

I do think Nixon made a good point. She has been straight, she's been gay, and found she preferred gay as a choice. That doesn't mean she was in self denial or demented in her enjoying men.

I know a lesbian and a female bi very well. Both have their gender preference, but both can enjoy men sexually and otherwise. The lesbian (I suppose some would argue she isn't because men aren't repulsive to her) prefers a woman. The female bi prefers a man. But they both can enjoy men (and each other).

I suppose that is my other objection to the claim of genetic predisposition. In a sense it is claiming a predisposition to everyone having a gender bigotry.

 

[joko104]

It does not destroy the claim. How do you know they are not simply trying as hard as physically possible to repress their natural homosexual tendencies. Even if success is met, it does not destroy the fact that those tendencies could be naturally there.

Second, even though one stands to gain significantly more by choosing to be straight, why do you suppose there are many hundred times the number of gays than ex-gays.

You logic doesn't work as there are also all the ex-heterosexuals. Where'd they come from?

I'm curious. Do you think bisexuality is a genetic predisposition? Do you think a person is genetically predisposed to being monogamous or being polygamous/promiscuous?

 

[Anagram]

Yes. But that doesn't make sense for me. I don't believe it's a "choice" you can make (to make your urges simply go away). No matter if it's genetic or conditioned, which I don't know for sure (but don't think is important).

Exactly. I don't believe it's a choice or more people would do it. And although I do believe that genetics is the bigger factor in sexual orientation, even if environment was the bigger factor, I still don't believe it would be possible to get rid of the tendencies if it's the way you were conditioned your whole life.

 

[Anagram]

You logic doesn't work as there are also all the ex-heterosexuals. Where'd they come from?

People with homosexual tendencies who had before decided not to act upon them.

 

[teamosil]

You logic doesn't work as there are also all the ex-heterosexuals. Where'd they come from?

I think you're using a different definition of "homosexual" and "heterosexual" than the rest of us. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean a homosexual is somebody who has sex with people of the same sex and a heterosexual is somebody who has sex with people of the opposite sex, right? The definition we're using is that a homosexual is somebody who is more attracted to people of the same sex, and a heterosexual is somebody who is more attracted to people of the opposite sex. So, yeah, you can choose to have sex with one gender or the other, but that isn't the same as choosing to change who you are attracted to.

 

[Anagram]

No, that is only this topic from the religious rightwing - that gayness can be cured. That is a VERY different question.

I do think Nixon made a good point. She has been straight, she's been gay, and found she preferred gay as a choice. That doesn't mean she was in self denial or demented in her enjoying men.

I know a lesbian and a female bi very well. Both have their gender preference, but both can enjoy men sexually and otherwise. The lesbian (I suppose some would argue she isn't because men aren't repulsive to her) prefers a woman. The female bi prefers a man. But they both can enjoy men (and each other).

I suppose that is my other objection to the claim of genetic predisposition. In a sense it is claiming a predisposition to everyone having a gender bigotry.

People like Nixon aren't really people who I'm talking about. I haven't mentioned bisexual people. She obviously found men sexually attracted, and women more so. I believe it is certainly possible for people like her to choose which she likes better.

 

[teamosil]

People like Nixon aren't really people who I'm talking about. I haven't mentioned bisexual people. She obviously found men sexually attracted, and women more so. I believe it is certainly possible for people like her to choose which she likes better.

I don't know if "choose" is even the right word for somebody who it is a close call for like that. Sounds more like figuring out which gender she is more attracted to to me.

 

[Anagram]

I don't know if "choose" is even the right word for somebody who it is a close call for like that. Sounds more like figuring out which gender she is more attracted to to me.

I agree, I didn't really like the word choice either. However, I was using in the sense that Nixon used it, in that she decided which gender she was more attracted to.

 

[joko104]

I didn't say it was only genetic. I said the genetic influence was stronger. I believe as the tolerance of gays and lesbians has gone up the number of people choosing to act on homosexual tendencies has gone up accordingly. In the middle ages for example, it is no surprise the amount of gays and lesbians who acted on their tendencies was fewer since the penalty was death. As the penalty for acting on them decreases, the number of people acting on them will increase.

So really our difference of opinion is which is more prevalent a factor. No real way to know, is there? As you note, there as SO MANY societral influences. But not all of those are negative now. In many communities and social circles being gay is cooler than being straight. Of others it may be as simple as opportunity. A guy not particularly attractive to women may for those same reasons be particularly attractive to certain gay men. What is the person's social circle? And love may transcend gender in what makes for romantic physical attraction.

I'm curious, do you think the latter is possible? That if you/someone met "the perfect life soul mate," but was the wrong gender, that the other attractions may tip the scale on romantic and sexual attraction? As the saying goes, you never REALLY know who is desirable until a kiss. That kiss can make or break a realtionship and define who is and isn't desirable.

 

[Wessexman]

The frequency and numbers of "Ex-gay" scandals where leaders and therapists from the movement are discovered to be visiting rent boys, or have returned to their previous orientation, or have even openly accepted that the "therapy" is a failure, point to the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the claims made for this bunkum.

Would this be the case for a lot of therapy? Surely it is often the case that those engaged in therapy do not simply get better, without relapses towards whatever their problem is?

I take all psycho-analysis and that sort of thing with a large grain of salt, but I do not think you are describing anything that is not usual for therapy and counseling, though of course you are being vague about the level of failure and that sort of thing. You are also of course making an assertion about the proportion of leaders and others who fail, which you have not attempted to prove. Though you only state a certain number of failures you imply the movement is a joke, without of course showing the sort of evidence which would back this up.

 

[Anagram]

So really our difference of opinion is which is more prevalent a factor. No real way to know, is there? As you note, there as SO MANY societral influences. But not all of those are negative now. In many communities and social circles being gay is cooler than being straight. Of others it may be as simple as opportunity. A guy not particularly attractive to women may for those same reasons be particularly attractive to certain gay men. What is the person's social circle? And love may transcend gender in what makes for romantic physical attraction.

I'm curious, do you think the latter is possible? That if you/someone met "the perfect life soul mate," but was the wrong gender, that the other attractions may tip the scale on romantic and sexual attraction? As the saying goes, you never REALLY know who is desirable until a kiss. That kiss can make or break a realtionship and define who is and isn't desirable.

For the second part. Yes, I do believe it is possible for that to happen, I just don't believe it is very likely. As you said the other factors could tip the scale.

As for the first part, yes I think we only disagree on which influence is stronger. My reason for genetic being stronger is that there is a significant number of people who grow up in places where homosexuality is illegal and possibly a capital offense. You make some good points though, and there is certainly more than genetics when it comes to sexual orientation.

 

[joko104]

People like Nixon aren't really people who I'm talking about. I haven't mentioned bisexual people. She obviously found men sexually attracted, and women more so. I believe it is certainly possible for people like her to choose which she likes better.

Bisexuality is the monkey wrench, isn't it? Really gums up the slogans.

I heard one bisexual I know (female) explain that what strikes her as so odd is why do gays and straights see each other as different from each other? They both are TOTALLY gender prejudiced when it comes to romance and sex and both 100% exclude being able to have a relationship with half of the entire human race solely upon DNA - like whites and blacks both claiming full segregation is right, but the whites (straights) claim they are superior to the blacks (gays.)

In short, she sees straights and gays as the same, only exactly opposite gender prejudices, which she tends to see as weakness in a flawed sense maybe.

She also said that it is odd that few men are intimidated by lesbians but most women are repulsed by gay men - in the sense the many men find lesbian/bisexual women "hot," but straight women don't see gay/bi men that way. She also said that bisexuals intimidate the most people because they are seen as potential competition for both someone else's man or someone else's woman.

How do you factor in bisexuality? Still another genetic anomaly?

 

[German guy]

Would this be the case for a lot of therapy? Surely it is often the case that those engaged in therapy do not simply get better, without relapses towards whatever their problem is? I take all psycho-analysis and that sort of thing with a large grain of salt, but I do not think you are describing anything that is not usual for therapy and counseling, though of course you are being vague about the level of failure and that sort of thing. You are also of course making an assertion about the proportion of leaders and others who fail, which you have not attempted to prove.

Good therapies also take into consideration if a cure is worth it. When you have a "problem", but it doesn't cause pain for you or others, it's not an illness that needs "cure", but you are just "different".

 

[Omgitsme]

I was born straight. The woman is a creature of exquisite beauty, and I certainly plan to marry a woman and have a family with her. I find it odd that whenever I challenge the notion that people are born gay, that their focus shifts to me instead of my arguments; I guess I should expect that. Even if one person said homosexuality was a choice, my view would change, because I would see the world had a bit more common sense. Consider Nota bene's post with the story I just now read. I don't challenge the notion to stop gay marriage, but because I think it is a lie.

Ok then why is it that you can be born straight but someone cant be born gay?

 

[joko104]

For the second part. Yes, I do believe it is possible for that to happen, I just don't believe it is very likely. As you said the other factors could tip the scale.

As for the first part, yes I think we only disagree on which influence is stronger. My reason for genetic being stronger is that there is a significant number of people who grow up in places where homosexuality is illegal and possibly a capital offense. You make some good points though, and there is certainly more than genetics when it comes to sexual orientation.

People being gay where the penalties are SO harsh does prove there are genetic factors for some people. No doubt you're right about that.

 

[Anagram]

Bisexuality is the monkey wrench, isn't it? Really gums up the slogans.

I heard one bisexual I know (female) explain that what strikes her as so odd is why do gays and straights see each other as different from each other? They both are TOTALLY gender prejudiced when it comes to romance and sex and both 100% exclude being able to have a relationship with half of the entire human race solely upon DNA - like whites and blacks both claiming full segregation is right, but the whites (straights) claim they are superior to the blacks (gays.)

In short, she sees straights and gays as the same, only exactly opposite gender prejudices, which she tends to see as weakness in a flawed sense maybe.

She also said that it is odd that few men are intimidated by lesbians but most women are repulsed by gay men - in the sense the many men find lesbian/bisexual women "hot," but straight women don't see gay/bi men that way. She also said that bisexuals intimidate the most people because they are seen as potential competition for both someone else's man or someone else's woman.

How do you factor in bisexuality? Still another genetic anomaly?

I'd say if people find both genders sexually attractive that would probably indicate a genetic predisposition toward it, although environmental factors could heavily influence it. Especially for women, I think, as like you said it is deemed more acceptable by society. As for how straight people see homosexuality, I think that is almost totally environmental. I'd think the way a straight person was raised and where they were raised probably has a lot more to do with it than genetics.

 

[Wessexman]

Good therapies also take into consideration if a cure is worth it. When you have a "problem", but it doesn't cause pain for you or others, it's not an illness that needs "cure", but you are just "different".

Well yes, but in the end 'worth it' is a very loaded term isn't it. It depends upon one's entire worldview. The secular, liberal therapist may certainly not think it is worth it, those engaged in it do. It is a deep philosophical division, not one primarily to do with the practice of therapy.

 

[German guy]

Well yes, but in the end 'worth it' is a very loaded term isn't it. It depends upon one's entire worldview. The secular, liberal therapist may certainly not think it is worth it, those engaged in it do. It is a deep philosophical division, not one primarily to do with the practice of therapy.

Yes.

That's why I say an individual's freedom should only be limited by the freedom of other individuals. That includes the freedom of an individual to decide to suppress his homosexual urges because of religious or other reasons. But it's really the individual's choice, as long as he/she doesn't harm other people. It's really none of your or my business what other people do in their bedrooms with consenting adults.

I hope we all agree that the times have fortunately gone when "therapy" meant forcing people against their will to embrace a social dogma, even when their "illness" is no threat for anybody. Lobotomy is fortunately off the table as well.

 

[Keridan]

Bisexuality is the monkey wrench, isn't it? Really gums up the slogans.

I heard one bisexual I know (female) explain that what strikes her as so odd is why do gays and straights see each other as different from each other? They both are TOTALLY gender prejudiced when it comes to romance and sex and both 100% exclude being able to have a relationship with half of the entire human race solely upon DNA - like whites and blacks both claiming full segregation is right, but the whites (straights) claim they are superior to the blacks (gays.)

In short, she sees straights and gays as the same, only exactly opposite gender prejudices, which she tends to see as weakness in a flawed sense maybe.

She also said that it is odd that few men are intimidated by lesbians but most women are repulsed by gay men - in the sense the many men find lesbian/bisexual women "hot," but straight women don't see gay/bi men that way. She also said that bisexuals intimidate the most people because they are seen as potential competition for both someone else's man or someone else's woman.

How do you factor in bisexuality? Still another genetic anomaly?

Bisexuality is no monkey wrench, it is simply a genetic middle-ground. There is black hair and blonde hair, so is brown hair a monkey wrench? Is being average height middle-ground? How about having a slight tendency towards depression but not being crippled by it?

Just because your friend finds it easy to be attracted to either gender doesn't mean everyone is choosing to rule out an entire gender of people on preference or closed minds. They simply aren't programmed to find the other gender attractive or want to mate with them and in some cases find it repulsive.

In reality, there are probably more people who would fit into bisexual as a category than we realize. There is no absolute lines drawn. Those people were lucky enough to have the largest dating pool in who they instinctively find attractive.