Born gay, Chose to be gay, Can't it be both?

[2012 Wont Happen]

Because no evidence points to homosexuality being a choice, all evidence pointing to the theory that it is a born attribute. Therefore, the scientific ones among us will not think it is ever a choice.

In addition, most religions make it to be a clear and sinful choice. Therefore, the religious ones among us will not think it is ever a born attribute.

 

[Seneschal]

Well, this categorization problem comes up when you try to cram fluid sexuality (which has always existed) within the confines of the gay-bi-straight triad (which is a recent, exclusively Western invention). While the percentage of people that identify themselves as GLBT would be around 3-10%, the percentage of people that had a homosexual experience (not just sex) is almost always twice or even triple the size, and the amount of people that admit feeling same-sex attraction can go from 30% to even 50% of the population (all numbers encompass both genders and are my approximations based on actual polls). Where do you put all these people?

Does that make them bi? I don't think so, bisexuals are the rarest category; around 0.5%-2% of people identify themselves as bisexual.

Also, how important is cultural context? In Ancient Greece, these 30-50% that felt the occasional same-sex attraction acted on it, and gay sex was much more prevalent among men, with women reserved for reproduction. In our culture, the same percentage of people still feel the same urges, but to our post-Christian culture they are "emasculating". So, were the greeks "gay" while we're "straight"?

See the confusion here is that you're right. Defining gay or bi by attraction and not action is a pretty unrealistic way of doing things. It gets into all sorts of weirdness about feelings and such that are just way to vague to be quantifiable in any realistic manner. At least for individuals.

However, if you look the words up in the dictionary, you'll find that's what they mean anyway, and that's what most people mean when they use them, so that's how I use them.

Honestly the whole thing is a stupid mess and we'd all be better off if we stopped concerning ourselves with who was having sex with whom so much, but that isn't gonna happen, is it?

Technically, the whole confusion comes from another cultural change the West had - we don't have divided men/women-spaces. In the West, the libido is more controlled (one could say oppressed) because of both genders sharing the same space (which is both the cause and consequence of the Christian-marriage-mindset). This COULD work to equalize genders, but it only equalizes gender roles (and only recently), while segregation and biases remain.

Furthermore, a gender will be afraid to show its fluctuating sexuality because the opposite gender is always there to see it, which might make one an undesirable partner.

So, yeah, maybe the easiest answer is just "fuck it (literally)."

 

[TWRule]

Biological factors can influence choices, but they cannot determine what you finally choose. To Submit to biological determinism is to deny free will.

And? Free will is a major contentious issue even in contemporary philosophy.

Without people claiming both that free will exists and gays don't have a choice, you're just using an appeal to consequences.

As a philosophy major, I'm aware of this - but it being contentious doesn't mean I can't take a stand on either side (and I think my ability to do so is solid enough evidence of free will). We are forced to practically live as though we do have free will, so it makes no sense to deny it for the sake of a particular argument.

It's not an emotional appeal fallacy. If we must live as though free will exists, then people are responsible for determining their choices. Sexual orientation is not an aspect of the facticity of our situation, because sexual preference is only manifest in actions taken that align with such a preference (actions resulting from choices). Therefore, people must take responsibility for their own choice of sexual orientation.

So you can contest me on free will if you want, but that's a dead end debate for practical matters. Or, I suppose you can accept free will but attempt to argue that someone could be homosexual without ever acting at all in line with any characteristics ascribed to the word, but I don't think you're going to get far that way either.

 

[ZephrC]

3b. As an aside, what about situation involving necrophiliacs and pedophiles. While please understand i am not comparing one of homosexual preference to the same level as a child molester its an idea i feel worth exploring at the moment. If people feel homosexuality, and indeed all sexual orientation, is something we are born with then is it not wrong to prosecute a person such as a pedophile for something they literally cannot control?

Just wanted to talk about this point here. First, pedophilia is vastly misunderstood by the huge majority of people. Having sex with children is of course wrong, because they don't generally understand what's going on and are practically hard-wired to trust adults. Taking advantage of that is unacceptable. However, like all -philias it is about the liking it, not acting on it. Most child rapists aren't even pedophiles. They aren't generally particularly attracted to children. Like all rape, it's about power and control, not so much about sex. Child rapists are people looking for easy victims. Pedophiles are mostly normal functional members of society that don't have sex with children because they recognize that it is wrong. So there is nothing wrong with being a pedophile, it's just really, really wrong to have sex with children.

Second, as for necrophilia, I believe that a dead body is nothing more than an inanimate object, and so theoretically there's nothing especially wrong with necrophilia. However, I recognize that most people disagree with me, and so we as a people tend to put a lot of sentiment into corpses. Plus it's usually illegal. So in reality it's basically on par with breaking into someone's house to fuck their family heirlooms. Not quite as horrible as most people seem to think it is, but still definitely very wrong. Unless I suppose somebody donated their body to the cause or something, but good luck with that.

 

[ZephrC]

Technically, the whole confusion comes from another cultural change the West had - we don't have divided men/women-spaces. In the West, the libido is more controlled (one could say oppressed) because of both genders sharing the same space (which is both the cause and consequence of the Christian-marriage-mindset). This COULD work to equalize genders, but it only equalizes gender roles (and only recently), while segregation and biases remain.

Furthermore, a gender will be afraid to show its fluctuating sexuality because the opposite gender is always there to see it, which might make one an undesirable partner.

So, yeah, maybe the easiest answer is just "fuck it (literally)."

Heh, good points. Especially that last one.

As a philosophy major, I'm aware of this - but it being contentious doesn't mean I can't take a stand on either side (and I think my ability to do so is solid enough evidence of free will). We are forced to practically live as though we do have free will, so it makes no sense to deny it for the sake of a particular argument.

It's not an emotional appeal fallacy. If we must live as though free will exists, then people are responsible for determining their choices. Sexual orientation is not an aspect of the facticity of our situation, because sexual preference is only manifest in actions taken that align with such a preference (actions resulting from choices). Therefore, people must take responsibility for their own choice of sexual orientation.

So you can contest me on free will if you want, but that's a dead end debate for practical matters. Or, I suppose you can accept free will but attempt to argue that someone could be homosexual without ever acting at all in line with any characteristics ascribed to the word, but I don't think you're going to get far that way either.

Actually, homo, hetero or bisexuality refers to preference, not actions. I think that makes it pretty reasonable to think that perhaps people don't have a choice even if you do believe in free will. Which I technically kinda don't anyway.

 

[TWRule]

You can find an "expert" that will say just about anything. However, I've yet to see any convincing argument illustrating a direct parallel between hormones and consciously made choices.

And again, even if there were such a thing - even if they isolated a "gay" gene tomorrow. Sexuality, like gender roles, are created through interactions between the individual and society. Therefore, they are malleable and ultimately chosen. A woman doesn't have to exist as what society deems a women if she chooses not to, regardless of what her hormones say (she might have the body, but the body does not make the person) - and the same is true for any other societal construct of sexuality.

Biological factors can influence choices, but they cannot determine what you finally choose. To Submit to biological determinism is to deny free will.

There are official papers and studies done on this stuff. Sexual actions are chosen, yes. But sexual attraction is not. I can't choose to be attracted to someone or not. (trust me, I've tried. Doesn't work) And why would we have to act against what we feel?
And as for gender roles, that doesn't have much to do with whether sexuality is natural or chosen. I'm gay but I'm less feminine than most of my straight friends.

Again, "official" papers and studies are meaningless. Scholars and scientists work on all angles of every sort of research, but you need a majority agreement in the academic community before any of that is considered accepted truth.

But that is beside the point, I'll accept your premise that physical attraction can be at least partially physiologically rooted. However, I think such attractions are reinforced or subverted by our interactions with society.

It does have to do with gender roles, because society defines what a "man" and a "woman" are and how they are expected to act. You can have a female body and take on the "gender" (as in social image) of a male if you choose. Likewise, as a male, society expects one to act a certain way (masculine), but that person don't have to obviously.

I'm not in any way arguing that anyone should be expected to change their sexual orientation - I was just pointing out that biological determinism is not a logically valid argument.

 

[Vryyk]

Because no evidence points to homosexuality being a choice, all evidence pointing to the theory that it is a born attribute. Therefore, the scientific ones among us will not think it is ever a choice.

In addition, most religions make it to be a clear and sinful choice. Therefore, the religious ones among us will not think it is ever a born attribute.

*cough* That's a hell of a generalization you are making there. I'm a Christian and I don't see homosexuality as wrong. Hell, my father is a pastor and HE preaches free choice in sexual orientation as a fundamental right. As in preaches it on Sunday. I know there are a lot of single-minded Christians out there (a lot of single-minded people in general), but most of us aren't of the Westboro Baptist Church stock if you catch my drift.

 

[Yoshemo]

You can find an "expert" that will say just about anything. However, I've yet to see any convincing argument illustrating a direct parallel between hormones and consciously made choices.

And again, even if there were such a thing - even if they isolated a "gay" gene tomorrow. Sexuality, like gender roles, are created through interactions between the individual and society. Therefore, they are malleable and ultimately chosen. A woman doesn't have to exist as what society deems a women if she chooses not to, regardless of what her hormones say (she might have the body, but the body does not make the person) - and the same is true for any other societal construct of sexuality.

Biological factors can influence choices, but they cannot determine what you finally choose. To Submit to biological determinism is to deny free will.

There are official papers and studies done on this stuff. Sexual actions are chosen, yes. But sexual attraction is not. I can't choose to be attracted to someone or not. (trust me, I've tried. Doesn't work) And why would we have to act against what we feel?
And as for gender roles, that doesn't have much to do with whether sexuality is natural or chosen. I'm gay but I'm less feminine than most of my straight friends.

Again, "official" papers and studies are meaningless. Scholars and scientists work on all angles of every sort of research, but you need a majority agreement in the academic community before any of that is considered accepted truth.

But that is beside the point, I'll accept your premise that physical attraction can be at least partially physiologically rooted. However, I think such attractions are reinforced or subverted by our interactions with society.

It does have to do with gender roles, because society defines what a "man" and a "woman" are and how they are expected to act. You can have a female body and take on the "gender" (as in social image) of a male if you choose. Likewise, as a male, society expects one to act a certain way (masculine), but that person don't have to obviously.

I'm not in any way arguing that anyone should be expected to change their sexual orientation - I was just pointing out that biological determinism is not a logically valid argument.

We've shown that its not a choice so what else could it be?

 

[Mookie_Magnus]

Straight people can never understand what it means or feels like to not be straight. So don't bother trying to empathize or rationalize... you just don't get it.

Bit melodramatic... When I was in high school people tripped over each other to show how much more they respected/loved teh gays than the last guy. I'm not sure where this surfeit of victim mentality comes from, most people treat gay/lesbian people with the same decency and respect as anyone else in my experience.

You've obviously never been to a Texas church. That's all I'll say.

 

[BatOtaku13]

born, and let me answer why with another question...
when did you decide to be straight? that's what i thought.

 

[SadisticPretzel]

4. If homosexuality is, honestly, a gene based thing would that entail it is, in essence, a defect and not natural? While i realize someone might be offended by that statement please note it's not a statement i personally believe in. However if people are correct and there is some gene or other biological effect wouldn't that mean it is in effect a biological flaw that should be cut or removed? People constantly state they would have no problem aborting a child with a mental disease, so how but homosexuality? What if it can be cut out or removed? Should it?

So homosexuality is a mental disease? Let me know when they find actual proof of that, outside what your religion's book tells you.

Genes control a lot of things about your body. They control how tall you are, what your hair color is, your eye color, your metabolism, they can dictate character traits, some genes open you up to diseases and disorders, the list goes on. So, according to your reasoning, the very thing that makes each person quasi-unique from every other two-legger out there is a flaw.

Taking the next step down that logic chain, how do you decide which genes are acceptable flaws and which aren't? For example, how do you choose which hair color is okay? How tall is too tall? Which "flaws" do you cut out to create the perfect person?

 

[TWRule]

Actually, homo, hetero or bisexuality refers to preference, not actions. I think that makes it pretty reasonable to think that perhaps people don't have a choice even if you do believe in free will. Which I technically kinda don't anyway.

Well, we tend to think of things that way, but it's not easy to justify such an argument.

Think of it this way: You tell yourself that you prefer pizza instead of hamburgers, and you tell everyone else that too...you're convinced of it. Yet, in actuality, you consistently choose to eat hamburgers when confronted with a choice between the two. Can you really be said to prefer pizza then?

My point here is that "preference" is just an idea that can't be supported without manifesting that value through action. We often convince ourselves that we prefer things that we really don't, and vice versa (not that I'm saying that's necessarily the case with sexual preference).

 

[Vryyk]

You've obviously never been to a Texas church. That's all I'll say.

I spent four years in Texas while my pops was getting his preacher's license. I never heard a whit of anti-gay sentiment in four years of attending Jerry Savelle's church. (He's some fancy big-name preacher) Are there idiots out there who preach this kind of bullshit? Undoubtedly. All I'm saying is in my personal experience I've never seen the kind of disgusting hate that people believe to be the norm in society.

 

[Nouw]

If a man was born gay, he can't choose to be straight. If you choose to be gay (how do you choose to be gay? I'll choose to like someone then!) then I doubt you are because you can't choose to feel a certain way.

"Hey guys, I'm going to be gay now!"

 

[TWRule]

We've shown that its not a choice so what else could it be?

Who has been shown that? Certainly not me. No reputable scientist is going to tell you that homosexuals have no choice but to choose to engage in homosexual acts, even if hormones encourage them to.

 

[cobra_ky]

I see a lot of people on both sides arguing if people were born gay or chose to be gay themselves. What I don't see is anyone saying both camps are just as valid as the other. Rarely, other animals beside human have exhibited gay behavior before, clearly showing it can be a rare natural occurrence. But we humans also have free will, meaning you can, indeed, choose to be gay. I'm sure both types of gays exist, they're equally valid. So why does it need to be one or the other?

your avatar is incredibly appropriate for this topic, as it makes me want to slam my head into a wall.

First off, there's a difference between choosing whether to engage in sexual activity and choosing what you find attractive. The former is obviously possible while the latter is not.

Second, "it's something you're born with" and "it's a choice" are a false dichotomy. It could be shaped by upbringing or other societal factors in ways we don't understand, for example. (but thank you for not trying to reduce to "genetics vs. choice".)

Finally, and least pertinently, not everyone would agree that we have free will. but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

4. If homosexuality is, honestly, a gene based thing would that entail it is, in essence, a defect and not natural? While i realize someone might be offended by that statement please note it's not a statement i personally believe in. However if people are correct and there is some gene or other biological effect wouldn't that mean it is in effect a biological flaw that should be cut or removed? People constantly state they would have no problem aborting a child with a mental disease, so how but homosexuality? What if it can be cut out or removed? Should it?

You might be interested in this man's works:

Spoiler

Seriously though, 'eliminating the gay gene' is as justifiable as 'eliminating the brunette gene'.

 

[Vryyk]

4. If homosexuality is, honestly, a gene based thing would that entail it is, in essence, a defect and not natural? While i realize someone might be offended by that statement please note it's not a statement i personally believe in. However if people are correct and there is some gene or other biological effect wouldn't that mean it is in effect a biological flaw that should be cut or removed? People constantly state they would have no problem aborting a child with a mental disease, so how but homosexuality? What if it can be cut out or removed? Should it?

I'm not gonna lie, that was a bit chilling. There was a gent back in '43 who woulda loved that statement.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

My main thing is, I didn't consciously choose to be straight, and I don't know of anyone else that made that decision, even though, in my case, I was introduced to homosexuality at a very young age and my parents were completely open to the possibility of me being homosexual. I didn't consciously decide to seek pussy first and only, and I definitely didn't choose to not be able to get it up simply by hearing a guy in the room or an adjacent room.

I don't know definitively that homosexuality is purely genetics or if there's a social factor of some sort, but I know that it's not a choice because I happen to be a human being and I was never given that choice despite wanting at least some input in my degree of heterosexuality.

 

[Negatempest]

Just gonna say that a majority of people live a lie all the freakin time. Whether you are born or choose to have same sex sexual preference is besides the point. The point is that people try to deny the fact that same sex relations between humans has existed practically since humans existed. Nor can you truly compare "nature" to human will. We no longer have a designated "Breeding Season" anymore and I consider THAT more unnatural than seeing a same sex couple. Create a breeding season for humans and I'll start believing than same sex relationships are unnatural, I highly doubt that will happen any time soon.