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

[Altorin]

I'm of the mind that it's both nature and/or nurture.. choice is rarely actually involved, as sexual attitudes are compulsions, and hence aren't affected by choice. the choice involved is usually choice to abstain from it.

Some people are born gay, other people develop homosexuality as a fetish, and others still are born gay AND develop homosexuality as a fetish. I think people who are born gay probably have something miswired in their brain (and I don't mean anything like "gays are retarded" - almost everyones got that sort of miswiring somewhere - born gay people just have it in that part of their brain), but anyone can develop fetishes, and fetishes for sexual organs of your own gender, even if you don't have that built in miswiring, is certainly not the most crazy fetish out there.

I'm of the mind that sexual attractions is noones business but the person feeling them and maybe the object of those attractions.

I think there are some exceptions to the rule, because every male dog I've owned and every male dog my friends have ever owned, has tried to hump anything with legs, be it another male dog or another species or inanimate objects. I don't know if this is just a domesticated dog thing, but there it is. Also, yes, documented homosexuals in humanity are rare, and if statistics say app. 10%, remember that this is in a +-3% margin of error. Could be 13%, could be 7%. And could also be skewed by the poll being taken in a population where homosexuality is known to be common or rare, depending on how you want to interpret. Take a poll of San Francisco and claim it to be the national average, and one would think more people are homosexual than (choose ethnic minority).

I don't want to get in on any argument here, but the idea that dogs hump legs for sexual aggression is putting human ideas into animal actions. Dogs hump to show dominance. It's about putting themselves at the top of the food chain. They don't do it because they're horny - male dogs don't even have sex with female dogs for sexual pleasure. It's all primal, and is usually part of their social structure. Most dog humping isn't aimed to sex, just "I'm the bigger dog, you have to do what I say, or else"

thats what most "homosexual behavior" in animals is. Animals don't really have the mental capacity to even have a sexual preference.

 

[Eri]

snip

Sorry, I guess we both misread. I wasn't trying to imply it's more common in humans.

 

[Valksy]

The issue of choice is used as an engine for discrimination. If people believe in it being pure choice they feel entitled to excuse their own repugnant bigoted behaviour.

That said, it shouldn't matter whether it is biology or choice. What consenting adults do with one another, men, women, groups etc is no one's business but those involved.

I would therefore argue that deconstructing the issue of choice or not is of critical importance in bringing about a prompt legal change to equalise rights. If all rights were, by default, human rights, then it might well be a totally irrelevant question.

I know that I was born gay. I am fortunate enough to live in a time and place where I do not need to hide it or fight against it or resist it or wish that I was something else. I have never once, for one single moment, had so much as a twitch of interest for men and the idea of it seems...rather silly to me.

I would also point out that there are people who, both through history and in the modern day, are persecuted, abused, denigrated, raped, imprisoned and murdered/executed for being homosexual. Who in their right mind would choose that?

And yes, know that they sound like bullet points but this one does the rounds in the R & P forums from time to time. So expect to see this thread either moved, or an outbreak of semantics and pedantry in the face of people who walk the walk and talk the talk.

Enjoy.

 

[Ampersand]

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.

It's not that rare. Keep in mind this isn't exactly something zoologists are looking for and yet there are still observed relatively frequently. There was even a case of two homosexual penguins in dublin zoo quite recently. If it was that rare then this would be really unlikely but there you go.

 

[Eri]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

Universal doesn't change the rarity.

 

[Macgyvercas]

I personally think it's a mixture of choice and genetics. I haven't thought about it much beyond that.

 

[loc978]

Think of genetic gayness as a 2-dimensional slider bar. Only the end 10% of each side are "completely gay" or "completely straight". For that 20% of the population, there is no choice. For the rest, there is.

Unpopular, uncomfortable view... but it's closest to what we currently know about the subject.

By that you mean you've taken the rather old idea of the Kinsey Scale and completely misunderstood it?

Possibly. I'll admit I'm a little out of date on genetic studies.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

Overall, I still don't see why we even care what causes homosexuality.

I know I've used this comparison before, but trying to find out the cause is like trying to find out why some people like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate. It's just a preference.
(I know this is an oversimplification, but it gets the point across.)

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

You can choose to have sex with other people of the same sex. But I don't think you can choose to be attracted to them. This isn't meant to sound condescending, but why would you want to be gay? In my opinion it's fine, but a lot of people out there are going to ridicule you for it. If you could choose to be homo or hetero sexual, I would choose hetero. Because it would be an easier lifestyle.

EDIT: Also, does anyone happen to know if a children raised by same sex parents grow up to show gay or otherwise "unusual" tendencies? Just curious.

 

[thublihnk]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

Universal doesn't change the rarity.

I don't know where and why you're getting this 'rarity' thing, but it, uh, doesn't exist. Link me to a single study that you can find of any kind of abnormal rarity of homosexuality in animals aaaaand go.

 

[Booze Zombie]

"Not, one or the other! I MUST BE RIGHT!"
That's how it seems people go about this sort of thing, anyway.

 

[Biosophilogical]

But we humans also have free will, meaning you can, indeed, choose to be gay.

That's highly debatable.

OT: If you take a rational/scientific approach to human consciousness, most of the time you'll end up with the conclusion that, as creatures bound by physical laws, what we 'choose' to do isn't actually a choice, it's an action/thought produced by a combination of genetic, social and chemical factors (and possibly quantum physics too if you want to get nit-picky). So really, you can't choose to be gay as any sexual attraction you do feel towards members of the same sex would, like everything you do and think, be a result of uncontrollable factors.

So yeah, unless there is such a thing as a soul[footnote]In this case I'm definign a soul as the controlling aspect of human consciousness that exists outside of deterministic laws (so you'd basically have actual free will)[/footnote] homosexuality would never be a choice.

Of course you can take this further and go down the 'then you can't blame murderers for their murder because it wasn't their choice blah blah blah'. Technically that's wrong, it wasn't a choice but they still committed murder (meaning they did it because they are a murderer, not because some free-will concept resulted in them making a bad call). Then you can take it further by separating conscious thought and sexual attraction; even if some people can afefct their sexual orientation through conscious thought, whether or not they know how to do it, whether or not they know if they can do it, whether or not everyone can do it, etc all weigh in as factors to consider until the conclusion is reached that very few (if any) homosexuals can be held responsible for their orientation.

TL;DR: Physics says no. Soul says yes (but we have no proof of a soul so I'll stick with physics).

 

[GLo Jones]

Well, as an unfaltering determinist, I cannot agree with people 'choosing to be gay', but it's never really made sense to me that people could be 'born' gay either.

I think people are 'raised' gay/straight, not by their parents alone, but through a complex mix of environment, experience, and conditioning (all of which can kinda come under 'experience' I suppose).

You're life experience up to this point has made you the person you are, should this not also include sexual preference?

Edit:

But we humans also have free will, meaning you can, indeed, choose to be gay.

That's highly debatable.

OT: If you take a rational/scientific approach to human consciousness, most of the time you'll end up with the conclusion that, as creatures bound by physical laws, what we 'choose' to do isn't actually a choice, it's an action/thought produced by a combination of genetic, social and chemical factors (and possibly quantum physics too if you want to get nit-picky). So really, you can't choose to be gay as any sexual attraction you do feel towards members of the same sex would, like everything you do and think, be a result of uncontrollable factors.

I simply mention determinism, and bam! An in depth explanation appears just in front of me.

 

[Eri]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

Universal doesn't change the rarity.

I don't know where and why you're getting this 'rarity' thing, but it, uh, doesn't exist. Link me to a single study that you can find of any kind of abnormal rarity of homosexuality in animals aaaaand go.

Most people are not gay, therefore rare compared to non gay. Simple enough?

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

IMO, there isn't such As thing sexuality - just strong strong preference.

 

[Kortney]

I'm sure both types of gays exist, they're equally valid. So why does it need to be one or the other?

Hmm I really don't agree. I couldn't get up tomorrow and be sexually attracted to girls. I just couldn't do it without feeling extremely odd. Why would a straight person decide to start having sex with men? Why? Why would a straight person decide to be gay so they can be discriminated against?

I'm sure there are people out there who are pretending to be another sexuality. Maybe a straight guy is pretending to be gay for the attention. That doesn't make him gay because he is not genuinely sexually attracted to men and therefore is not gay.

 

[thedoclc]

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?

Because your statement isn't supported by evidence.

In order to not split hairs, let's just divide things into matters of fact, which are descriptions of how the world actually is, and opinions. Rivers of ink have been written by philosophers on this one, about where they intersect, but this will do for now.

If I say that there is life on Mars, and someone else says there is not, then our views are -not- equally valid. One of us is, in fact, wrong. The right way to settle that argument is through seeking evidence of how the world actually is, not how we might try to imagine it is. This is a matter of fact. This is about how the world actually -is-.

Some things are pure opinion, which is indisputable. If I say, "Mass Effect is a great game and I think it's a work of art," and someone else says, "Mass Effect is a pretentious, generic 3PS with an obtuse plot and annoying minigames," our ascetic choices are equally valid. These value judgments do not reflect the world as it is, but how we view it.

To avoid engaging in long debate and turning this into a wall of text, the question "Is homosexuality a choice?" is a question about how the world is. It's about how humans develop and grow, about our biology and nature. And so far, our best attempts to examine our world say it is not a choice. Those who argue against this choose to do so not based on evidence but because they accept as a premise from the outset that homosexuality is a choice. If asked to provide why they believe it is, they do not go to evidence but to doctrine, often religious.

 

[dududf]

Also, why would you choose that life for yourself? Being rediculed and shunned for your way of life.

They could be a serious masochist.

 

[thublihnk]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals

A new review made in 2009 of existing research showed that same-sex behavior is a nearly universal phenomenon in the animal kingdom, common across species.

Universal doesn't change the rarity.

I don't know where and why you're getting this 'rarity' thing, but it, uh, doesn't exist. Link me to a single study that you can find of any kind of abnormal rarity of homosexuality in animals aaaaand go.

Most people are not gay, therefore rare compared to non gay. Simple enough?

I said 'abnormally rare' as the central conceit of your argument was that it is more rare in animals to be gay than it is in humans, therefore some humans are choosing to be gay. In fact I believe that was the entire point of your post.