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

[DarthFennec]

It is possible to choose a sexuality - the cases I've seen have been people with no particular interest who have decided to go for guys.

That's how I am. It's because I'm bi.

 

[binvjoh]

Well I wouldn't say chose, it's more like growing into your true self I'd say.

 

[Seneschal]

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?

If I understand it correctly, the Kinsey scale takes into consideration situational sexuality.

Basically, sexuality is a slippery sliding scale. If a person/animal has genetic tendencies, is put in the right environment, and has unfulfilled emotional/sexual desires, sexuality may change.

That said, most people remain where they are on the scale, determined by genetic factors, but their sexuality may change at any time (not drastically) under the right circumstances.

However, none of this is a conscious choice.

 

[Caliostro]

im seeing a lot of "you can't wake up one day and suddenly decide you like". And to that i say
MUSHROOMS
real story until the age of 19 or so i couldnt eat them even if i didnt see them the taste would put me off a meal entirely. Then around 19 or so i just kinda changed my mind. Same goes for tea and a whole host of other thing.

Tastes can change really easily even when it comes to sexuality. I used to be into blondes. Then after sometimes i realised i enjoyed the company of brunnetes more. I know its not exactly the same thing but are you telling me that because it happens to be gender your not allowed to make a choice on it.

This is common sense signing out ^^

Notice the common factor in your examples: It's missing the CHOICE part. You never decided to like mushrooms, or to prefer brunettes... You just noticed you did.

Sexuality does change. It's a part of one's identity, which in itself is always changing. It's still not a choice.

 

[Valksy]

So a theory in progress, likely to be torn apart by some good science. Still, if the perfect person came along who made your heart sing, and there were no doubt in you mind whatsoever of how you felt... would you say no, just because it was a he?

An argument you've no doubt heard before, and will probably hear again. But I'll dig out another Star Wars quote; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

I think, as I have right now, they would just be a very good friend. Guys are not "the enemy" and I actually get on pretty well with them and always have - something about liking video games, liking football, fancying the same celebs... But to have a perfect relationship I would want sex, and I just find that notion mostly hilarious and a little gross. And while I have had guy mates for years (mates as in Brit slang for friends) they don't ever reach me on the same emotional level as women do, I don't believe that it is possible.

And .. I am sure that you know that there is something very wrong indeed with that quote. Don't get me started...

 

[PhiMed]

The reason this argument takes on the color is does is because religious fundamentalists started it, using "it's a sinful choice" to persecute people. In reaction to that, gay rights activists have decided they're going to out-stupid the religious fundamentalists by saying "it's 100% inborn".

Anyone who espouses either viewpoint is pushing an agenda, fucking retarded, or both.

Citation please. Thrill and astonish me with your insight. Come along now, you clearly know the answer and have links to peer-reviewed studies that illustrate your point of view.

No?

Didn't think so.

Note - pointing out the difference between declarative statements and opinions.

Thanks for editing my post to minimize my point. Reported.

Edit - Also, a opinions are, by nature declarative. In fact, all statements are declarative. That's what makes them statements. Otherwise, they would be questions or commands.

If you're saying that my view that it's a complex association of factors is an opinion, I can back that up plenty. I can produce peer-reviewed articles that attest to environmental factors' influence on orientation, and I can cite peer-reviewed articles that focus on monozygotic and heterozygotic twins' orientations to put forth genetic and intrauterine factors as potentially causative.

But you didn't even include that portion of my argument. You just quoted the part where I made known my ditaste for both extremes.

 

[AngloDoom]

Trust me, I know people who at times wished they could have been straight to make their lives easier.

I myself have 'tried' to make myself bisexual simply because I thought I had a crush on a guy and wanted to pursue it. Turns out I just liked him as a friend, I was a confused young lad, and I was altogether uncomfortable when it got to the parts where I 'tried' to be bisexual in a more physical way.

 

[Trebort]

Who gives a shit?

People should leave each other alone as long as they are not hurting anyone, regardless.

 

[wulfy42]

It can be and is indeed both.


Being born "gay" just means your born with a natural attraction to your own sex (men or women). That is pretty much all there is to it although there are obviously different preferences within that spectrum.

Being born "bi" just means your born being able to be attracted to either sex.

Sadly pedophiles are the easiest way to prove that someone can "choose" to be gay (or be made gay). Many young men who have been sexually abused as children grow to desire men and the type of sex they experienced. It seems that if a person gains pleasure in a sexual way long enough they will find themselves "attracted" to that sex.

So it stands to reason that if you wanted to become gay you could just experiment enough with people of your same gender in ways that give you sexual pleasure and eventually you would be turned on by people of that sex. Your mind would associate that sex with the possibility of sexual pleasure and you would basically become "gay".

My wife for instance was in a long term lesbian relationship for many years up until a few years before we met. They bought a home together and I'm guessing planned on spending their entire lives together. It seems that girls are able to enjoy sex with other girls much easier then guys at least from what I have observed.

I do think that in most cases a man (or probably a woman) who originally desired the opposite sex will only become bi and not change their desires completely. Harsh negative sexual experience with the opposite gender (such as rape or long term sexual abuse) might be an exception.

On a personal note I have always only found women attractive and am not interested in exploring anything with other men (other then normal friendships). I don't have anything against such relationships but at the same time it's a turn off for me. For a few years back when we were younger me and my wife would add another woman in to our bedroom excursions usually finding them through sites like AFF, she asked if I was ok with adding other men and was very understanding when I said I was not. I'm pretty open about sex and sexuality but am a prude in some ways and sharing my wife with another man was not something I was ok with. Sharing her with other women though, especially since we both were sharing her, was another story.

I probably could overcome that aversion if I really had wanted to but it was not necessary. I do believe though that sexual orientation is a choice. As to child molesters etc they are animals who can not control their own basic sex drive and are extremely selfish. Men are, and have been, attracted to women from a very young age and often think more about sex then anything else but are also able to resist drugging them and raping them constantly (well, recently at least). Anyone who takes advantage of a pre-pubescent child should in my opinion be locked up for life, at least in a secure enough location where they have no access to children. I am sure they could find a way to enjoy sex with adults if they were not so selfish that they can only think of their own pleasure.

Sexuality or who you are attracted to can lead to sex, but sex I believe can also have an affect on your sexuality. Have good sex long enough with a guy and you probably will find both him, and other men, attractive. That at least is my take on it.

 

[beniki]

So a theory in progress, likely to be torn apart by some good science. Still, if the perfect person came along who made your heart sing, and there were no doubt in you mind whatsoever of how you felt... would you say no, just because it was a he?

An argument you've no doubt heard before, and will probably hear again. But I'll dig out another Star Wars quote; "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

I think, as I have right now, they would just be a very good friend. Guys are not "the enemy" and I actually get on pretty well with them and always have - something about liking video games, liking football, fancying the same celebs... But to have a perfect relationship I would want sex, and I just find that notion mostly hilarious and a little gross. And while I have had guy mates for years (mates as in Brit slang for friends) they don't ever reach me on the same emotional level as women do, I don't believe that it is possible.

And .. I am sure that you know that there is something very wrong indeed with that quote. Don't get me started...

I know... that's why it's my favourite Star Wars quote

 

[Czargent Sane]

I never chose to be a heterosexual and unless in this fact I am an aberration I assume it is similar for others. I dont think anyone choses who they are attracted to.

 

[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.

 

[Aphroditty]

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?

It doesn't at all. The reasons the pro-gay side wants it to be entirely biological in nature is because something that's Natural can't exactly be wrong.

The reasons the anti-gay side wants it to be all about choice is because, in Western conception, who you are is a changeless thing, and they don't want homosexuality to be something that sticks around.

Both of those perspectives (which I have obviously highly generalized) are wrong on their face, because there is no persuasive reason to think that there is anything wrong homosexual activity; only social context (attitudes and so on) can make it right or wrong. In Ancient Greece, homosexual activity was understood to exist alongside heterosexual activity. Many men participated in both, certainly more men than were biologically homosexual. What I'm getting at is that the complexion of homosexual activity is far more than just "I was born this way" or "I chose to be this way." Even if one were true, that would not affect the morality of the conduct at all. Either the nature of the conduct or the consequences of the conduct determines its morality (depending on where you stand ethically), not the source of the conduct.

Anyway, sexual attraction is typically an interplay between biological and environmental factors. It's not exactly a "choice." Whether or not to engage in homosexual activities is a choice, yes--whether or not to have homosexual thoughts is mostly not. In the sense that our learned behaviors affect who we are then I can easily imagine an individual with no sexual disposition towards members of the same sex learning (or "making a choice to learn") to take pleasure in same-sex sexual relations. Although I have doubts as to its likelihood or rate of incidence. None of these facts (and one piece of speculation) appear to be prima facie evidence to affect the moral status of homosexuality and homosexual activity, whatever an individual's basic stance is.

 

[PhiMed]

Thats like saying I can one day wake up and be a woman or I can wake up one day and be black or I can wake up one day being tall or I can wake up one day and be someone else, and that would also be like saying someone who is gay can wake up and be straight. It just doesn't work that way, because I know a lot of gay guys who would just love to be straight.

No, it's not like any of those things. All of those things you named are defined by physical characteristics. Considering the fact that there is no anatomical difference between gay and straight people (unless you count ONE study that used an absolutely miniscule sample size to claim a tiny difference in pineal gland size, which you'd have to crack open someone's brain in order to see), your comparisons are a little silly.

I don't think anyone choses to be gay, and I don't think anyone is born gay. I think that orientation is a complex interaction of inborn characteristics, environmental factors, and behavior.

The reason this argument takes on the color is does is because religious fundamentalists started it, using "it's a sinful choice" to persecute people. In reaction to that, gay rights activists have decided they're going to out-stupid the religious fundamentalists by saying "it's 100% inborn".

Anyone who espouses either viewpoint is pushing an agenda, fucking retarded, or both.

Or genuinely believes that. Of course the two scientific beliefs are born gay or nurtured gay. Neither of which is a choice, I should have said something like you don't have the choice of being retarded or overly emotional "though you can control that to an extent" and characteristic of how you think.

Also since when is pushing agenda a bad thing, would it be better if everything stayed the same. We would fight for anything. It seems supporting anything to some people has become demonized. Instead of what the believe in people are attacked for believing anything.

Any agenda that suppresses information, discourages research in its area of activism because it doesn't want to know the answers to certain questions, or spreads disinformation is bad. Not because of its goals, but because of its tactics.

Also, grammar and punctuation. I normally don't call people out on that, but some of your sentences were a little difficult to understand. As long as spelling, grammar, and punctuation still allow a statement to be easily read, I let it slide.

 

[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.

 

[Cmwissy]

Also, am I the only one who has notices a very simple way of proving that you're 'born that way'? Erections.

Do you choose to get erections? No. They're natural, you get them when you're attracted to someone.

When a woman is raped there body will generally go through the same reflexes, even orgasm. Does that mean the women liked being raped?

When a man has something forcefully shoved up there ass they will have an erection. It doesn't matter if it is the most beautiful person in the world or an 85 year old doctor they will have an erection, even orgasm as well.

What you just said? is the reason why male rape cases still don't get the attention and respect they deserve. "Oh! The man got an erection! That means he liked it! Not rape!"

It's bullshit.

I was referring more to the erection one might get when they see somebody they find attractive.

Thanks for taking it out of context, though.

 

[CaptainKoala]

Its a preference. Thats like saying that my favorite color is green because I was born that way.
Its not in your genes, so its a preference.

 

[Cmwissy]

Its a preference. Thats like saying that my favorite color is green because I was born that way.
Its not in your genes, so its a preference.

If you're claiming "proof", it's not taken out of context. Hell, what about RBS?

I believe I was quite obviously talking about attraction, rather than rape. This being a thread about attraction, after all.