• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is gay a choice or innate....or both?

Science doesn't know. How can they? They're not gods; and goodness, they can't even agree most times who's right and who isn't within their own bailiwicks of supposed expertise. And even if they happen to be right on something - they can't even count their "rightness" until they get the approval of their cohorts to affirm and say they were right.

So you have a bunch of people who don't really know anything until they manage to get around to telling each other "we have a consensus" - and then, and only then are they somehow "right."
This is all very true. But it has proven to be a model and paradigm which has worked surprisingly well, and proven to be very fruitful- much more than the certainties asserted with great conviction in the past.

It turns out this more humble posture is not only NOT a weakness of science, but it’s very strength. if you just stop worrying about what is ultimately true and focus instead on making sure your claims are supported by the latest observations, and never being so certain that you shut your eyes and minds to even newer observatiions and clever new models, you leave room to grow and always learn more.Then the question of what may be ultimately true becomes a sort of useless question. The shift moves away from the ultimate result and focuses instead on the rigor of the METHOD and the process- and a focus on process means there is never a final destination, but a never-ending process of growth and learning more.

Here is the Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman to explain (next post)
 
Richard Feynman, Nobel laureate in physics:

  • “The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and notknow. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
  • If we take everything into account — not only what the ancients knew, but all of what we know today that they didn't know — then I think that we must frankly admit that we do not know.
But, in admitting this, we have probably found the open channel.This is not a new idea; this is the idea of the age of reason. This is the philosophy that guided the men who made the democracy that we live under. The idea that no one really knew how to run a government led to the idea that we should arrange a system by which new ideas could be developed, tried out, and tossed out if necessary, with more new ideas brought in — a trial and error system. This method was a result of the fact that science was already showing itself to be a successful venture at the end of the eighteenth century. Even then it was clear to socially minded people that the openness of possibilities was an opportunity, and that doubt and discussion were essential to progress into the unknown. If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar.
  • We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learnwhat we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on.
    ...It is our responsibility to leave the people of the future a free hand. In the impetuous youth of humanity, we can make grave errors that can stunt our growth for a long time. This we will do if we say we have the answers now, so young and ignorant as we are. If we suppress all discussion, all criticism, proclaiming "This is the answer, my friends; man is saved!" we will doom humanity for a long time to the chains of authority, confined to the limits of our present imagination. It has been done so many times before.
    ...It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.
 
I think you did make a conscious decision.


Mine was around 11.

I also decided I liked football then
So for you it was a just a conscious decision and you could have gone either way?
 
I think you did make a conscious decision.


Mine was around 11.

I also decided I liked football then
I don’t know- sometime around 7th to 8th grade the beauty of the girls in my class just hit me like a ton of bricks- I don’t recall making any conscious decision about it. I just couldn’t keep my eyes or mind off them- even if I tried.
 
Yes, the logic seems to be in your corner. Don’t count VG out yet though. He is a determined fella. Sometimes, I’ve noticed, he just wears everyone down with circular logic and then declares victory.

LOL and reality be damned.
 
I always hear about some men who are straight, then sentenced to prison for many years where there is no access to women, and then they become homosexuals. And then later they get out of prison, and then are back to heterosexuality.

So, if that isn't a choice, then I don't know what is.
 
We can control them, and even 'train' them. I'm thinking of the example I used earlier about gays staying in the closet for their lifetimes (in the past, hopefully no longer)...and having to live as straight people, marrying, having sex obviously, producing kids...that's not responding naturally, that's probably retraining mind and body...and super sad IMO.
Been there, done that too, for seven years. Two very well intentioned people -honorable caring people both, ended up pretty depressed and unhappy. Neither of us would ever say we regretted the marriage or three wonderful kids, because we learned a lot and divorced amicably. But I would never ever do it again, or recommend it. Even a well lit closet, is poorly suited as as one's home.
 
I always hear about some men who are straight, then sentenced to prison for many years where there is no access to women, and then they become homosexuals. And then later they get out of prison, and then are back to heterosexuality.

So, if that isn't a choice, then I don't know what is.
They did not 'become homosexuals' simply by engaging in homosexual acts. They were heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts.
 
Yes he is attracted to both sexes and made a choice.
Given the size of the gay population, the percentage of bisexuals must be tiny. I find it hard to believe that if an 11 year old boy has enough hormones to make him sexually attracted to both sexes, why would he choose one over the other? That's a ridiculously early age to be making that kind of decision. But if he denied himself his true sexual attractions, what a tragic life decision...
 
They did not 'become homosexuals' simply by engaging in homosexual acts. They were heterosexuals engaging in homosexual acts.
So then yes, they made a choice to have homosexual sex while in prison, which made them homosexuals.
 
So then yes, they made a choice to have homosexual sex while in prison, which made them homosexuals.
You are never going to get the distinction I am making. I can tell. As a gay man who played it 'straight' for years, I know the difference. Pretense is not reality The very definition of pretense precludes it.
 
If it was a choice, EW, could you not simply decide that from now on I am going to be attracted to males rather than females? I certainly cant make such a choice. I am attracted to women and there is really nothing I can do about it if i tried. I dont even have a choice in which women I find attractive and which women I dont.
The "choice" I'm talking about is something I believe we're all tempted with - particularly during our growth into and through adolescence - and certainly to varying degrees, depending on the individual. Call it curiosity, or whatever; it's a temptation akin to being drawn to do that which we're told (by others, by our consciences..) NOT to do, or told isn't acceptable, or that it's somehow wrong - the very notion that it is wrong is itself a temptation to try it out - the child who's told not to touch the burner, lest they get burned - so they touch the burner; not because they wanted to touch it, but because they wanted the choice (and hence the control) to be theirs, not someone else's.

Which means it's not a choice of value, of respect, or admiration, or some other higher virtue; no, the temptation is actually just the opposite and quite base.

At its core, it is pure selfishness. It targets our sense of wanting to feel personal pleasure, physical or otherwise, and that irrespective of the object expected to satisfy it (hence the selfish aspect of it).

The issue is not whether one is emotionally drawn or attracted to the opposite sex (because again, however slight the degree, that temptation has met each of us); the issue is how one addresses (or chooses to address) the base [physical] temptation in that regard which they know is not "right," whether or not to yield to it and thus seek or deny whatever momentary pleasure it may promise.

For some, the temptation may only be as I said - a flicker, a flash-in-the-pan temptation that is easily and readily [and permanently] dismissed - which I daresay is the way it was for most of us. For some though it can be stronger, not so easily dismissed, a function of a variety of different influences in one's life that have absolutely nothing to do with what attracts us to others; weak father figure, over bearing mother, poor training in self-control, some other "influence" emotional or psychological - any number of things - not the least of which being the culture in which one lives during their adolescence.

Take today's culture for instance, the influence to "give in" to such temptations is practically worshiped - kids are taught it's perfectly normal, taught to indulge, taught they were "born that way," that they "deserve" such pleasures; they're chastised if they go against the prevailing dogma concerning it, as are their parents and society in general. They're even encouraged towards sex. Nothing is "taboo" anymore. Heck, they're even being pushed towards 'becoming' their temptations, to the point of identifying with them.

That's the realm of "choice" I'm talking about. I do not believe it's normal for men to have sex with men, or women with women. All "exceptions" aside, such behavior I believe is abnormal - and I believe we're all tempted with it to however slight the degree during our adolescence, and that giving in to such temptations - regardless the reason(s) - is fundamentally, and necessarily a choice - and for some, those choices can add up, leading to a lifestyle.
 
I think we honestly don't know based on the latest science
I think it's kinda like breathing. We don't really choose to breath. It's an involuntary behavior that our survival instinct controls at a optimal level of our brain. We can however control our breathing if we choose to.

I don't think that is a perfect comparison but I think being gay is similar to that. I don't think it's something we control because that decision takes place deep in the primal recess's of the brain. Most of our brains are wired to be attracted to the opposite sex for survival reasons but some are not. I think some are mentally disciplined enough to teach ourselves which gender is attractive.

Maybe a better comparison is the difference between being right handed and left handed.

Ultimately it's an answer that I don't really care about. Some people are gay and im fine with that. It's none of my concern.
 
The "choice" I'm talking about is something I believe we're all tempted with - particularly during our growth into and through adolescence - and certainly to varying degrees, depending on the individual. Call it curiosity, or whatever; it's a temptation akin to being drawn to do that which we're told (by others, by our consciences..) NOT to do, or told isn't acceptable, or that it's somehow wrong - the very notion that it is wrong is itself a temptation to try it out - the child who's told not to touch the burner, lest they get burned - so they touch the burner; not because they wanted to touch it, but because they wanted the choice (and hence the control) to be theirs, not someone else's.

Which means it's not a choice of value, of respect, or admiration, or some other higher virtue; no, the temptation is actually just the opposite and quite base.

At its core, it is pure selfishness. It targets our sense of wanting to feel personal pleasure, physical or otherwise, and that irrespective of the object expected to satisfy it (hence the selfish aspect of it).

The issue is not whether one is emotionally drawn or attracted to the opposite sex (because again, however slight the degree, that temptation has met each of us); the issue is how one addresses (or chooses to address) the base [physical] temptation in that regard which they know is not "right," whether or not to yield to it and thus seek or deny whatever momentary pleasure it may promise.

For some, the temptation may only be as I said - a flicker, a flash-in-the-pan temptation that is easily and readily [and permanently] dismissed - which I daresay is the way it was for most of us. For some though it can be stronger, not so easily dismissed, a function of a variety of different influences in one's life that have absolutely nothing to do with what attracts us to others; weak father figure, over bearing mother, poor training in self-control, some other "influence" emotional or psychological - any number of things - not the least of which being the culture in which one lives during their adolescence.

Take today's culture for instance, the influence to "give in" to such temptations is practically worshiped - kids are taught it's perfectly normal, taught to indulge, taught they were "born that way," that they "deserve" such pleasures; they're chastised if they go against the prevailing dogma concerning it, as are their parents and society in general. They're even encouraged towards sex. Nothing is "taboo" anymore. Heck, they're even being pushed towards 'becoming' their temptations, to the point of identifying with them.

That's the realm of "choice" I'm talking about. I do not believe it's normal for men to have sex with men, or women with women. All "exceptions" aside, such behavior I believe is abnormal - and I believe we're all tempted with it to however slight the degree during our adolescence, and that giving in to such temptations - regardless the reason(s) - is fundamentally, and necessarily a choice - and for some, those choices can add up, leading to a lifestyle.
Oh no no NO!, The secret thrill of the forbidden! This one is laughable. Homosexuality does not work like the decision to start smoking cigarettes, or to get drunk on a saturday night, or steal from your mother's purse, or sneak out to see the forbidden high school crush.
 
This is all very true. But it has proven to be a model and paradigm which has worked surprisingly well, and proven to be very fruitful- much more than the certainties asserted with great conviction in the past.
I don't deny its benefits and what it's done for humanity in general. Not at all.

But as you note - it is just a "model and paradigm," which also melds with my point - scientists are not infallible, and neither are their methods. Indeed, many of the benefits science has given us have come through much trial and error and lots and lots of failures. Watching several modern prescription drug commercials and the associated warnings they have to give regarding possible side effects (including death) are proof sufficient for that.
It turns out this more humble posture is not only NOT a weakness of science, but it’s very strength. if you just stop worrying about what is ultimately true and focus instead on making sure your claims are supported by the latest observations, and never being so certain that you shut your eyes and minds to even newer observatiions and clever new models, you leave room to grow and always learn more.Then the question of what may be ultimately true becomes a sort of useless question. The shift moves away from the ultimate result and focuses instead on the rigor of the METHOD and the process- and a focus on process means there is never a final destination, but a never-ending process of growth and learning more.
In truth, you're actually making my point here - "science" is only "science" if you ignore ultimate truth. And the irony in asserting that, is that is anything BUT a "humble posture."

I have no issues with the scientific method. None. It's a good method for learning, trial and error, trial and error, learning from previous mistakes, trying new approaches, always observing - including soliciting review of one's peers for validation.

But I think it's not a very novel aspiration to want to ignore truth in favor of elevating the scientific method higher than it warrants, merely because it exhibits "rigor" - and then only as a process of continual growth and learning. I mean, that's all well and good, but it's also an explicit admission that science, and scientists, aren't infallible, that they don't actually "know it all." In fact, continual growth and learning are not exactly qualities that are unique to science either; nor are they necessarily the strongest in science.

I will agree with you on this point though - ultimate truth is a pointless endeavor if one embraces instead a process that isn't at all concerned with truth.

But I don't find that particularly laudable. Indeed, the true meaning of "rigor" there might properly be appended with "mortis."
 
I think you did make a conscious decision.


Mine was around 11.

I also decided I liked football then
How did you see decide? Did you experiment, analyze the pros and cons on paper, or just flip a coin?
 
I say both.
Maybe you can help me understand the choice part you see. . Did I make this choice to be gay, feel attracted to boys when I was five or ten or 12 and it just stuck to me like glue, or is this a choice I make daily when I wake up each morning? How do I go about changing my mind about this choice I made?
 
The "choice" I'm talking about is something I believe we're all tempted with - particularly during our growth into and through adolescence - and certainly to varying degrees, depending on the individual. Call it curiosity, or whatever; it's a temptation akin to being drawn to do that which we're told (by others, by our consciences..) NOT to do, or told isn't acceptable, or that it's somehow wrong - the very notion that it is wrong is itself a temptation to try it out - the child who's told not to touch the burner, lest they get burned - so they touch the burner; not because they wanted to touch it, but because they wanted the choice (and hence the control) to be theirs, not someone else's.

Which means it's not a choice of value, of respect, or admiration, or some other higher virtue; no, the temptation is actually just the opposite and quite base.

At its core, it is pure selfishness. It targets our sense of wanting to feel personal pleasure, physical or otherwise, and that irrespective of the object expected to satisfy it (hence the selfish aspect of it).

The issue is not whether one is emotionally drawn or attracted to the opposite sex (because again, however slight the degree, that temptation has met each of us); the issue is how one addresses (or chooses to address) the base [physical] temptation in that regard which they know is not "right," whether or not to yield to it and thus seek or deny whatever momentary pleasure it may promise.

For some, the temptation may only be as I said - a flicker, a flash-in-the-pan temptation that is easily and readily [and permanently] dismissed - which I daresay is the way it was for most of us. For some though it can be stronger, not so easily dismissed, a function of a variety of different influences in one's life that have absolutely nothing to do with what attracts us to others; weak father figure, over bearing mother, poor training in self-control, some other "influence" emotional or psychological - any number of things - not the least of which being the culture in which one lives during their adolescence.

Take today's culture for instance, the influence to "give in" to such temptations is practically worshiped - kids are taught it's perfectly normal, taught to indulge, taught they were "born that way," that they "deserve" such pleasures; they're chastised if they go against the prevailing dogma concerning it, as are their parents and society in general. They're even encouraged towards sex. Nothing is "taboo" anymore. Heck, they're even being pushed towards 'becoming' their temptations, to the point of identifying with them.

That's the realm of "choice" I'm talking about. I do not believe it's normal for men to have sex with men, or women with women. All "exceptions" aside, such behavior I believe is abnormal - and I believe we're all tempted with it to however slight the degree during our adolescence, and that giving in to such temptations - regardless the reason(s) - is fundamentally, and necessarily a choice - and for some, those choices can add up, leading to a lifestyle.
And none of our damned business
 
Maybe you can help me understand the choice part you see. . Did I make this choice to be gay, feel attracted to boys when I was five or ten or 12 and it just stuck to me like glue, or is this a choice I make daily when I wake up each morning? How do I go about changing my mind about this choice I made?
If you are attracted to both sexes, you can then choose. There are plenty of bi-sexual people who eventually choose.
 
Worth noting by the way that all of this horse crap on the African continent (Uganda for example) regarding criminalization including the death penalty for gays and lesbians has at its roots.......US horse shit religious bullshit masquerading as science and shoved down people's throats in the form of US sponsored and US manned campaigns as some sort of message of truth from the high and mighty United States of America just as Eugenics and racism from the US formed the basis for Hitler and his racist madness.

Congratulations Christian America....you have done it again.

Ironic since in some corners of this country, particularly dark corners we are about as fugged up as it gets on any of the alphabet soup (LGBTQ) topics.
 
Back
Top Bottom