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

[Palademon]

Yes, but you make it sound as if we truly do not have any choice in what we believe. I'm sorry, my friend, but that's just a total load of bull. I guarantee you that any Christian, any one that's a true honest Christian, has questioned God, often at one of the most traumatic points in their lives. When they come through, their faith is unquestioned, and stronger too. I'll also guarantee you that any atheist worth his salt has questioned the idea of God, and chosen not to believe. Same with many other religious groups. Maybe certain people are predisposed towards certain beliefs, but we still choose what to believe. If we didn't have the power to choose what to believe, then we would be utterly stripped of our humanity. It's one of the things that seperates us from animals.

Fine, I give up. There's no way to make you see my point of view.

But I as an atheist was one day asked whether or not I believe in God. I thought about it and then said no, because it isn't something that jumps out at me to say yes. Any solutions anyone comes up wiht is based on their own personal logic and what makes most sense to them. Therefore, I believe that we don't choose our beliefs our subconscious does. We may choose whether or not to act upon them, we may choose to challenge them, but whatever answer we find is not our choice. And the difference between us and animals is that we can have more meaningful thought, and do things that aren't just instinct. Just because belief isn't an option doesn't mean I'm saying it's based on instinct.

You say that one day, you were asked whether or not you believed in God. Here's what proves that you chose not to: You said no. You chose to say no. At some time in your life you chose not to. It wasn't a subconscious decision, it was something you thought about, even if for only a second. My point is proven.

Meaningful thoughts lead to decisions. Decisions can lead to beliefs, e.g. you decide not to believe in God.

I say I choose to go along with my belief, not that I chose my belief.

 

[Scde2]

We aren't talking about emotional attraction here, that's a different issue altogether.

Yes...we are. Emotional attraction is important to relationships, no?

However, let me ask everyone taking the biology position a question (I know I'll get a ton of flak for drawing this comparison, but let's get it straight that it is not a moral one):

Would you defend someone who claimed that they were biologically hardwired to be attracted to children (or animals, or anything else you can think of)?

So...children & animals = two consenting adults?

The point I'm trying to make here is that while biology may be a factor, things like aesthetic sense and societal ideas play prominent roles in what we find attractive. You're as attracted to an idea as anything physical.

I agree that there are many factors. But I'll say it again,

Being with someone is a choice, but I just don't get how people think you can "choose" who they are attracted to.

I could have had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. But the question is, why would I want to be with someone I am not attracted to physically and emotionally? I'll stick with my boyfriend instead.

Being with someone is a choice, but I just don't get how people think you can "choose" who they are attracted to.

because it is a choice.
your mind, through the years of psychological build up, emotional connections, and personal prefrences, has created this situation in which you believe that you have no choice. but the fact of the matter is that you have a choice, it still remains, it is just that one side has such a heavy argument with it that it is hard to see any other then just it.

just like any other thing which you would do something with out question. it isn't that there is no other choice... your personal values, emotions, morals, and other psychological settings have made it so that you just simply don't think of any other choice.

So would you have intercourse with another person of the same sex?
I tried to be attracted to girls, it didn't work.

 

[mr_rubino]

I've been loosely saying something similar all along, however it doesn't feed the victim complex and is promptly dismissed.

From the outside looking in, it seems as if these that are screaming over and over and over again about how nobody has a choice ever just want to be part of an super important elite group decided at birth and at the same time be victims trapped in a cage with no door. They scream that you can't opt into being gay, then turn around and cry about not being able to be straight, often in the same sentence.

Their best defense assumes everyone that would choose to be gay would do so in under 30 seconds, and often cite claims saying things like "you can't just be a woman" or "you can't just change your race". Of course not. You *can* undergo horomone therapy for years and get several plastic surgeries, alter your mannerisms and voice, and look a hell of a lot sexier than a lot of women do. You can be born black, but have a bazillion plastic surgeries and be commonly accepted as white by less educated people as long as you don't act black and can dance good, apparently.

Their other defense is this one(apparently?) mythical study that most, if not all, of them haven't actually read(I haven't either) that has as much merit on it's own as the "eggs are good/bad" studies. This reeks of the "Global Warming method", where any information that *could* corroborate your claim is incorrectly defined as proof while anything that hints of disagreement is considered "unreputable", regardless of it's actual merit.

TLDR = They keep saying it until everyone who knows better gets bored of disagreeing and everyone who doesn't know assumes it's true, then those who actually know what is going on are in the minority

Do people like you with nothing to say on the matter ever get tired of saying "The truth is there. It's just being suppressed, maaaaaaan!"? I'd think it'd be easier to base your opinion on fact rather than unfocused anger, but if I could write paragraph after paragraph based on my own whimsy, I admit it'd be easier than making a defensible point.
Sit back in your little conspiracy cocoon ("I don't have to prove anything! I have a radically unpopular view on something and thus should be listened to!") and let the forum discuss the issue using salient points.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I could have had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. But the question is, why would I want to be with someone I am not attracted to physically and emotionally? I'll stick with my boyfriend instead.

Being with someone is a choice, but I just don't get how people think you can "choose" who they are attracted to.

because it is a choice.
your mind, through the years of psychological build up, emotional connections, and personal prefrences, has created this situation in which you believe that you have no choice. but the fact of the matter is that you have a choice, it still remains, it is just that one side has such a heavy argument with it that it is hard to see any other then just it.

just like any other thing which you would do something with out question. it isn't that there is no other choice... your personal values, emotions, morals, and other psychological settings have made it so that you just simply don't think of any other choice.

Bringing up the logical fallacy of limiting the situation to one choice is irrelevant in this, for whatever reason some people are attracted to people of their own sex. They certainly do think of the other choice, many of them wish it was a choice they could enjoy, but quite frankly it isn't, so they go with the choice that makes them happy.

well it kinda does carry some relevence.
through the capability of choice we can decide to ignore biological signals.

attraction and other psychological signals allow us to supress and overcome the 'baser needs' of the human body. after all, we are the only animal that displays homosexuality as a sentient choice.

every other example of homosexuality in animals you can think of usually display such gestures in misguided attempts for procreation (or in the example of some tree frogs, to acctually induce gestation). we are the only species to look at our genetic out print and stand defiantly to say 'No!'.

 

[Pyro Paul]

I could have had a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. But the question is, why would I want to be with someone I am not attracted to physically and emotionally? I'll stick with my boyfriend instead.

Being with someone is a choice, but I just don't get how people think you can "choose" who they are attracted to.

because it is a choice.
your mind, through the years of psychological build up, emotional connections, and personal prefrences, has created this situation in which you believe that you have no choice. but the fact of the matter is that you have a choice, it still remains, it is just that one side has such a heavy argument with it that it is hard to see any other then just it.

just like any other thing which you would do something with out question. it isn't that there is no other choice... your personal values, emotions, morals, and other psychological settings have made it so that you just simply don't think of any other choice.

In that case, go choose to be gay for a week, then come back and tell us how it went.

my choice is to not be gay.
this is based on my own psychological standings which create an affinity towards women and a distancing towards men.

through women i find comfort and softness which is something i enjoy.


i am not gay, and this choice was made simply because my own personal feelings, emotions, and understanding has brought myself to think in such a way that i consider one option and don't consider the other.


of the gay friends i know and talk to.
most of them love individuals of the same sex because of in general the same thing.

comfort.

this comfort is drawn from many diffrent reasons; sexual molesting or rape which leads to fear of the opposit sex, rejection and fear of it by the opposit sex, companionship or deep friendship which carries innate understanding with individuals of the same sex, or just simply comfort through a certain degree of narcisism (they find themselves perfect and those of the same sex are the closest they can get to being with some one as perfect as them).


you personally may be confused on the matter and are unable to come to a clear and concise answer as to 'why are you gay?' or perhapse your own reasons are subconcious and elusive even to you.

but the fact of the matter is that it is a psychological choice.
there is little to no biological combination which creates a situation that makes one homosexual.


i'm not trying to say that you're gay because you made the wrong choice...
to say that homosexuality is something your born with is basically saying you have a birth defect. and that is not something i personally agree with at all. i find it insulting when some one says it at or infront of my gay friends.

it is Not something defined through biological chemical marker.
it is Not something that can be cured.
it is Not a handicap or hinderance told through science.

to try and remove an individuals choice is tatamount to removing their humanity.
to try and make some one straight is the same as trying to steal their soul.


honostly, use this as an argument against any bible thumper and they'll be slack jawed and unable to reply.

 

[TWRule]

We aren't talking about emotional attraction here, that's a different issue altogether.

Yes...we are. Emotional attraction is important to relationships, no?

I was under the impression that we were talking about whether your biology determines who you are physically attracted to, not who you can form the most solid relationship with. Emotions too, can be overcome with willpower though - so that just reinforces the choice argument if you want to take that angle.

However, let me ask everyone taking the biology position a question (I know I'll get a ton of flak for drawing this comparison, but let's get it straight that it is not a moral one):

Would you defend someone who claimed that they were biologically hardwired to be attracted to children (or animals, or anything else you can think of)?

So...children & animals = two consenting adults?

Again, you missed my point. I'm not yet talking about a relationship. I'm talking about one person looking at someone else and experiencing a biological reaction (in addition to a non-biological reaction which many in this thread are attempting to argue should be lumped in with biology).

The point I'm trying to make here is that while biology may be a factor, things like aesthetic sense and societal ideas play prominent roles in what we find attractive. You're as attracted to an idea as anything physical.

I agree that there are many factors. But I'll say it again,
Being with someone is a choice, but I just don't get how people think you can "choose" who they are attracted to.

Maybe it's the terminology I'm using. People think I'm arguing that you sit down one day, draw up a table with the pros and cons of living as various sexual orientations, then picking one and committing yourself to it. That's not the brand of choice I'm talking about.

It's more like; someone who was raised in such a way as to have been devoutly religious since childhood. When they get older, they may or may not feel like they have any choice but to subscribe to the same value system they always have since they were a kid. They go on living their lives without particularly questioning those values and simply accept it as an absolute part of their existence. In reality though, no value system is built on an unshakable foundation; the potential exists for it to be challenged and ultimately reformed, even if it's not a single spontaneous conscious choice, but something manifested from a series of choices over a long period of time. The person may not even be conscious of such a trend forming until they wake up one day and realize they are a different person than they were years before, etc.

 

[Czargent Sane]

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?

First of all in the entire scope of humanity the majority of people are heterosexual so your argument about other animals is a bit invalid. Also there is such a thing as animal homosexuality.

And no, you cannot chose to be gay. You cannot chose to find a man or a women sexually attractive you are born with the inclination.

But, man does have the free will to perform whatever acts he wishes

Free will means you can choose to do gay acts, but you can't chose to be gay.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said being gay in animals is rare.

No it really isn't, as I said in my post, homosexuality in animals is very well documented.

rare does not mean poorly documented.

Well documented means that it has been cited by numerous sources in numerous species numerous times. So I'm pretty sure that Jiraiya is wrong and Did Not Do the Research [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch].

rare vaguely describes a ratio of different units compared with the population size, wile numerous does not relate to the population size. something can be both rare and well documented, or rare and numerous. but now we're arguing off topic.

and I appreciate the TV tropes reference.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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?

First of all in the entire scope of humanity the majority of people are heterosexual so your argument about other animals is a bit invalid. Also there is such a thing as animal homosexuality.

And no, you cannot chose to be gay. You cannot chose to find a man or a women sexually attractive you are born with the inclination.

But, man does have the free will to perform whatever acts he wishes

Free will means you can choose to do gay acts, but you can't chose to be gay.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said being gay in animals is rare.

No it really isn't, as I said in my post, homosexuality in animals is very well documented.

rare does not mean poorly documented.

Well documented means that it has been cited by numerous sources in numerous species numerous times. So I'm pretty sure that Jiraiya is wrong and Did Not Do the Research [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch].

rare vaguely describes a ratio of different units compared with the population size, wile numerous does not relate to the population size. something can be both rare and well documented, or rare and numerous. but now we're arguing off topic.

and I appreciate the TV tropes reference.

Always happy to break the tension.

 

[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.

*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.

You are most likely both religious and scientific then. You approach homosexuality in a more scientific than religious way, as do many modern Christians.

Acceptance of homosexuals is not the purely religious stance though.

 

[cobra_ky]

*snip*

i think i mostly agree with you, except for your use of the word "choice". "Choice" implies a conscious decision, that sexuality is a matter of free will. I don't think it is. I don't think either of us could find comfort in a homosexual relationship if we wanted to.

that said i don't believe sexuality is entirely psychological. That's basically calling it a mental illness, which i find offensive. And there do tend to be physiological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

I think this sums it up:

BlindMessiah94, thank you. Initially I started reading this thread a little angry, then I found it intriguing. But then after watching that video I felt quite shaken up. I forgot that some people honestly think that I woke up one morning as a teenager decided to choose a way of life completely at odds with everyone else I knew.

I'm pretty comfortable with myself now, I forget that I am gay. It's just part of me. I'm simply attracted to men and not women. I only remember that I'm 'different' when a tricky social situation presents itself and that is becoming rare these days.

Everyone, bottom line - you can choose whatever actions you like but you don't choose your sexual preference.

Here's food for thought tho - I think sexuality is on a scale. Most people can be clearly categorized, some people however are a little more confusing. Still whatever they do is just based on the way they are.

Glad you found the video relevant. I know it was an eye opener for me. I was always unsure wether or not it was a choice for some people to be gay, bisexual, etc. This video cleared that right up though.

You are absolutely right. You don't choose your sexual preferences.

 

[mr_rubino]

Because marriage is more than just a ceremony. There or legal/financial benefits to doing so and by not having them gay couples are screwed over.

You might as well say "Why should we allow interracial marriage?", that was previously denied by similar calls of "not intended".

Except civil union really should offer all said legal/financial benefits. I was under the impression that it does. If it does, there is no reason for gay marriage to happen. We should be trying to make civil union a secular version of marriage, for all couples, and make marriage more for religious people. That makes more sense to me.

A. It doesn't.
B. Yeah that would be nice, wouldn't it? Actually, no it wouldn't. It would be a hell of a lot more complicated than simply relenting on the fact marriage is not an inherently religious institution (whatever that has to do with the price of rice) and allowing gays to marry because, y'know, "marriage" has been around for a few thousand years, at least according to Biblical history. People worry so much about "destroying the sacred institution of marriage"; I think fracturing it like that would certainly do some damage.

But I notice it's always easiest for people to come up with these overly-complex cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face hypotheticals when they already enjoy the right in question. Instead of creating a lesser version of it out of the ether you can foist on undesirables, perhaps it'd be simpler for you to just admit you have no actual basis to claim you're the only ones deserving of it and are just buying time until the inevitable.

 

[Shale_Dirk]

You might be interested in this man's works:

Spoiler

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

Annnnnnnnnnd Godwin.

It was inevitable, given the selective gene-elimination discussion.

-snip-

-snip-

Please fully read the things i say before judging me for them. I in no way condone, or even truly bielive in a gay gene, nor do i think it is in anyway wrong if you read anything else i have said thus far in this topic you would understand that. Simply reading where i said, and i feel it bears repeating.

I do not feel i can make it any clearer. Then again, you quoted me, with that sentence intact, and still seem to think i am a neo nazi.... I guess asking the hard questions is a bad idea when you know people won't actually read everything you say.

...And more importantly, I didn't compare you to Hitler, I was just passing along that genetic selection on a widespread elimination level is generally agreed upon as being 'bad'. Hitler spent many years researching ways to eliminate unwanted genes.

You can read into that what you will.

 

[Kagim]

...And more importantly, I didn't compare you to Hitler, I was just passing along that genetic selection on a widespread elimination level is generally agreed upon as being 'bad'. Hitler spent many years researching ways to eliminate unwanted genes.

You can read into that what you will.

And most importantly i was making a question based on people constantly stating "No one chooses to be gay they are born with it! Why would anyone want to be gay!"

And pushing it a slide further, basically asking the question "If some gay gene could be isolated and destroyed would and should people do it.

Since these people are saying "Being gay is 100% birth and nobody wants it!" then that idea would be the bees knees.

However like you said, it's generally considered to be bad.

The hope was that people would at least stumble over that little nugget of information on there own accord.

Apparently I was wrong. Apparently bringing up a question like that instantly means your all for the idea. Despite the fact in the same post i also throw out the idea that homosexuality may be caused by non biological elements over biological elements. Which would mean there is no such thing as a gay gene.

However you and two others seemed to somehow go blind for that question and completely ignore where i say straight out i do not hold those personal beliefs.

Subtlety seems to escape many, many people.

 

[ZephrC]

Umm... it's about sexual attraction. If the only way to be gay was to like guys and not girls, only misogynists would be gay.

Having sex =/= sexual attraction. That was my point. You can have sex with a man, but that doesn't mean you're gay, because you might be, say, smashed, and would fuck anything. You may not actually be attracted to the male sex, hence you're not gay.

Uh... yeah? That was kinda my point.

 

[ZephrC]

Uh... yeah? That was kinda my point.

Then why the hell did you respond to me with that? Go back and read what I said again, geez.

I was saying I can't make myself find males attractive? That was sort of a direct response to what you said.

 

[mr_rubino]

...And more importantly, I didn't compare you to Hitler, I was just passing along that genetic selection on a widespread elimination level is generally agreed upon as being 'bad'. Hitler spent many years researching ways to eliminate unwanted genes.

You can read into that what you will.

And most importantly i was making a question based on people constantly stating "No one chooses to be gay they are born with it! Why would anyone want to be gay!"

And pushing it a slide further, basically asking the question "If some gay gene could be isolated and destroyed would and should people do it.

Since these people are saying "Being gay is 100% birth and nobody wants it!" then that idea would be the bees knees.

However like you said, it's generally considered to be bad.

The hope was that people would at least stumble over that little nugget of information on there own accord.

Apparently I was wrong. Apparently bringing up a question like that instantly means your all for the idea. Despite the fact in the same post i also throw out the idea that homosexuality may be caused by non biological elements over biological elements. Which would mean there is no such thing as a gay gene.

However you and two others seemed to somehow go blind for that question and completely ignore where i say straight out i do not hold those personal beliefs.

Subtlety seems to escape many, many people.

Again, meandering hypotheticals in place of actually saying something. Why ask a relevant question when you can ask a rhetorical one, yadda yadda yadda.
Don't puff up your chest over how much of a genius you are. Your gene-elimination argument has attempted, and failed, to bring the thread off on a wild tangent. If your line of reasoning is building to anything, you might want to skip straight to the payoff.