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

[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.

That doesn't make it less rare. There are more straight than gay, therefore rare. I can say uncommon if you'd rather that term.

It's outside of the norms, but it's by no means rare. Uncommon is probably closer to the truth than rare, but even then I think that might be too close to the rare side of the scale.

 

[Yoshemo]

Well, since there is no evidence of biological determinism for sexual orientation (rather it is something determined by ourselves and our interactions with society), and even if there was, free will allows us the power to change ourselves to a nearly infinite degree, I would have to say that the "born to be gay" viewpoint is not valid.

Look up Jean-Paul Sartre and "Bad Faith" if you want to know the background reasoning. Better yet, read "Existentialism is a Humanism."

There is evidence of biological determinism. If a woman has a lot of sons, the younger ones are more likely to be gay. And if one twin is gay, the other will be gay 70% of the time as well. And if you think its the way they're raised, it happens even if all the kids go to different parents and homes.
Also when it comes to fetuses, scientists have detected higher hormones of the opposite sex in the womb in babies that have later ended up gay in their life, than those of straight ones. This is evidence that they effect the baby's brain to be attracted to the same sex.
There is evidence if you do research

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.

 

[milkkart]

there is basically a sliding scale between 100% straight and 100% gay. say you are 25% straight and 75% gay (obviously it would be very hard to precise quantify this but for simplicities sake lets roll with it), you could choose to ignore the 25% attraction to the opposite sex thus appearing to be 100% gay but you will still be attracted to members of the opposite sex even if you choose not to act on it.

you can be straight and choose to have sex with a person of the same sex (see: jailhouse gay) but its basically just masturbation with something that feels better than your hand. i don't see why you would choose to if you had the possibility of the type of relationship you're biologically predisposed to available, its not going to be as satisfying because it won't fire off the same delicious neurochemical soup that's natures reward for having attempted to reproduce.

 

[Semudara]

I'd say "born gay" and "chose to be gay" are both inaccurate.

I believe that like many other things-- transgenderism, for instance-- it comes down to figuring out all the aspects of who you are, and realizing yourself fully.

Essentially, it's a matter of being true to yourself. It's not birth, or choice. It's living.

 

[Dags90]

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.

 

[Sporky111]

Actually, scientists have experimented on males and found that men's brains are designed to stare at breasts. So its not that you like em sexually, as much as its a reflex. I don't even like boobs but I stare at em =P

Yeah, I'll believe that.

Thanks, that made me snicker =D

Erm. Re-reading what I said I sort of surprised myself - as odd as that sounds - that it didn't really offend or bother me to get groped by a gay guy. I guarantee a straight bloke would be going home with his fingers in a paper bag.

And yes, your gay baby boy remark also made me giggle (personally, I know that I was bottle fed). Maybe it is partly because breasts are so much on display (in the west) and in public consciousness somehow. For as long as I can remember, one of the British daily newspapers has had a topless lass on page 3. It is perfectly normal and no one really thinks twice about it, but it is pretty overt and I am not sure that anyone would have any trouble with a 11 year old boy buying a copy of The Sun.

Now I'm not sure but I don't think that there has ever been the same sort of focus on male anatomy. Not in modern times at least. OK so our ancestors were drawing dicks on everything but not in recent years. Hell, it was only in the last 5-7 years or so that the UK relaxed its porn laws to allow erections to be shown. I suppose that there isn't the same sort of body worship with the male form that there is with the female.

I have been out with very butch women (like myself) and very femme women and all sorts in between. All shapes, all sizes. I don't really have a specific archetype that I would focus on. Now that doesn't mean that I am blind to a bloke being well made - I just finished watching an episode of Spartacus: Blood and Sand, that clung lovingly to every shoulder, arm and ass muscle. I appreciate Andy Whitfield is a good looking chap with a well built body. I just don't want to shag him (and find the idea both screamingly hilarious and mildly gross).

Hmm, the comment about the boob groping makes me think the same way. If a random guy were to grab my ass I'd probably be a little put off at first. But if a girl did it I'd probably just smile and laugh. Not sure what I think of it, but it's an interesting thought. Maybe without the pretext of "OMG sexual assault" we're just less alarmed by contact like that.

And wow, you Brits must be way more open about breasts than we are in North America (not that I can blame you). Bare breasts on a newspaper would be horribly taboo here. I don't think you can even show that on TV before 10PM, here. But the fixation on the female body is still just as prominent. TV, movies, commercials, magazines, games; everything seems to be marketed with the idea of "slap a pair of tits on it and we'll rake in the cash".

I think that's just because historically and currently, society is dominated by the straight-male perspective. It would explain why scantily-clad or bare chested women seem to be no big deal, but sexual representations of a penis are restricted.

And I like your appraisal of Andy Whitfield. That's how I feel about the women I find attractive: they're good looking, and I can appreciate that. But when it comes to sex I think "eww, vagina".

 

[Okysho]

I have a friend who's gay. When I asked him about why he is, he just said "I didn't choose it"

keep in mind though, that there are a lot of people in the world, and I mean a LOT. More so then there are various animals.

 

[Something Amyss]

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?

So. You're fine screwing both sexes?

 

[Kagim]

Hmm... if i may could i please throw some ideas in the mix for conversation as so far these conversations are actually rather interesting. These are a couple things i was thinking of and i am now curious on some of your opinions.

1. While the concept of choosing you preference is highly debated another question comes to my mind. Just because an individual does not make a conscious decision to bat for one team or the other why does this seem to instantly equate to "because of birth" to many people. While the argument here implies, once more, that the overall attraction to one member or the other is not a decision the person overtly made could the factors that created the situation be heavily influenced by the surroundings and up bringing. Could biological factors play a much smaller role in sexual preference then many assume? As well why do people instantly seem to associate 'not consciously chosen" with "Born that way".

2. While many have pointed out "You can't just one day utterly and completely drop one sexual attention for another" the concept of developing other tastes as time goes by does present an interesting thought. Don't think of this as "Replacing bad thoughts with good thoughts" but rather "Growing your horizon and liking many more things". I remember my wife telling me a story about a girl who slowly became aroused by words simply due to her habit of reading a dictionary to help her sleep at night colliding with her experiments with her self once she hit puberty. While not forced a sexual link was forged without her knowledge or choice.

3. Why do people in general make suc ha distinction between sexual fetishes and sexual preference? Do you think they are essentially the same thing? If not why? Not many people make a chocie and say "yes, i like to be crapped on!" yet people still make a huge distinction between the two concepts.

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?

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?

These are just a few thoughts i think might encourage more conversation on this matter? What are your thoughts then?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

This reminds me of a poster that was put up in my secondary school (school for students from 11-16, possibly up to 18 for you non-British folk). It was produced by a class that had obviously been taught the whole anti-homophobia thing through authority rather than reasoning. Basically it had the following slogan:

"Homosexuality: It's their choice!"

EPIC. POINT. MISSING.

 

[geldonyetich]

There's a lot of reasons for gay people really push for the idea of sexuality being 100% genetic whether or not it's true. It's a great way to generate acceptance: if it's not your choice to do something, you can't very well be held accountable for it by others. Perhaps even more importantly, believing your sexual preference is 100% genetic lets you off the hook with yourself, ending a great deal of cyclical angst that could drive a person to suicide or worse. Deciding they're born gay and that's that is sure a nice benign solution, perhaps you can even pacify a few idiot hatemongers with it (granted, true hatemongers rarely let reason curb their zeal because they're not very good at being reasonable).

That said, will there be cases where being gay is 100% genetic? I wouldn't be surprised - many studies have supported that idea, not just the idea of a "gay gene" but also the idea of a "gay germ" (a theory often confused to meaning you caught gayness from a specific contagious disease but actually means [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Pathogenic_hypothesis_of_homosexuality] you had a physiological brain change brought about when your body was fighting any kind of infectious agent - you could have a really bad cold that might change the way your brain operates). Either way, yeah, you could reasonably blame your sexual preference on a physiological influence.

However, just because these physiological influences can be reasonably theorized to exist, does that mean there will be no cases where being gay was a choice or psychological influence? I'd be really surprised if this never happened. A lot of nature versus nurture studies on just about any trait show an equal influence of environment versus genetics. The human mind is ridiculously flexible, it can talk itself into doing just about anything. Considering the staggering number of sexual fetishes out there [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism], the sex drive would seem to be a demonstratively massively flexible part of the human psyche. We've got another thread here about man crushes [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.248970-I-have-a-Man-Crush-on?page=1], it's very long, if it's that easy to find another man attractive, maybe we're all a little gay.

Politically, does it have to be one or the other? Well, there do exist a sadly high number of people who can't see things in the middle. Politics is often equivocated to herding cats for a reason for unflattering, and accurate, reasons to do with base human mob mentality.

 

[Drummah]

Not really. You can't just choose to like penises (or vaginas if you're a gal). At least, you can't choose it and be happy. You'd be a fake gay, in my opinion. Also, why would you choose that life for yourself? Being rediculed and shunned for your way of life.

Exactly.
You think Any of us choose to be social outcasts in some of our small towns, offices, or schools?

Hell no. You either choose accept it, or live in the closet.

 

[Seneschal]

snip

Similarly, I think it's just fundamental differences in views. But don't forget being gay is about attraction, not sex.

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.

You know I've actually tried that? It didn't work. See, there's this whole spectrum of both psychological and biological reactions. I personally am simply incapable of finding anyone with a penis sexually attractive. I've been all in favor of gay rights since before I even knew any (out of the closet) gay people, and since I've gotten to know a bunch, several of which are quite awesome people, that's only gotten stronger. I will never, ever want to have sex with a guy though. I don't know why, my brain says there's nothing wrong with it and it would probably be really great, but my body simply says no.

I think that's moderately uncommon. Most people seem to be bisexual to at least some degree from my observations, but some of us don't get a real choice. I'd love to be bisexual. It's more options, and while women are great people I find they tend to be very frustrating to try to maintain relationships with. To the point that I've pretty much given up on having sex ever again. Having the ability to play for the other side, as it were, would be nothing but a good thing, and I personally see nothing wrong with it. I know in particular a couple guys who I would gladly go gay for. Except that penises are the biggest turn off ever.

I agree with you that the capacity of the human mind, especially its capacity to change itself, is vastly underrated. It is not, however, unlimited. Some things simply cannot be done.

I don't think it's as uncommon as you think. Most people will remain fixed in their sexuality, gay or straight, especially after adolescence. Most people aren't bi, they just have the "bi potential" to fluctuate based on their needs, some more, some less. For example, in same-sex institutions like gender-divided schools or the military, particularly susceptible people (even if normally straight) may have a shift of sexuality. This may be temporary, if their life conditions change.

Yes, most people can go back-and-forth under pressure, but the majority is like you. The "man-crush" thing is the latent "back-and-forth" element that most men feel safe in having because it's based on emotional, not sexual attraction. But this is also why sexuality shifts often manifest towards close friends or idols - the emotional gap is easier to bridge in a pinch.

No, you see, people who can go back and forth are, to some degree, bisexual. That's simply having a preference for one gender while at the same time having the capacity to be attracted to both. That's fairly common, but not everyone has that capacity. That's what I meant when I said my status is uncommon. There are some people who don't have the capacity to find the other gender attractive. People who, when in a situation where only around members of a particular gender, they still won't be attracted to that gender.

I realize that most "bi potential" people, as you put it, will generally identify themselves as and act in a manner consistent with being completely straight. I guess how you'd classify those people depends on how you define strait and bi. What I meant was that not having a choice in the matter is what is unusual, and I was using the term "bisexual to at least some degree" to include people who simply have that bi potential.

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"?

 

[Agayek]

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?

The primary reason is because it's significantly easier in modern culture to rationalize discrimination against people for the choices they make than how they are born. If they tell themselves sexual orientation is a choice, they hate gays with no guilt.

That said, if someone is physically attracted to a member of the same sex, then they are gay (or at least bi), there's no choice involved in it at all. You literally cannot choose who you respond to physically.

 

[Dags90]

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?

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?

3b.) Pedophiles may not be able to control their thoughts, but they can control their actions. That's why pedophiles and rapists etc. are criminally liable. It's no more a legal defense then the horrible "Men are naturally rapists" defense. Just because I'm unable to keep myself from wanting to have something because of biology, that doesn't give me carte blanche to do it.

4.) Homosexuals don't suffer any loss in quality of life when you remove societal prejudices. The ethics of designer babies and the ensuing self determination issues are a matter of ongoing debate.

 

[VanillaBean]

While the body provides all sorts of impulses, at the end of the day a choice still decides whether or not it will indulge in said impulses

 

[ZephrC]

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?

 

[leichter]

Who cares? Honest. I'm hetero, and i do what i can to get what i want. As long as no one is a rapist, why should I care if someone else does the same? If everyone understands no means no, then doesn't it fall down to consenting adults; everyone making their own personal decisions, and taking responsibility for them? Go personal happiness, screw sanctimonious judgment!

Leichter

 

[Carlan]

I don't enjoy being physically injured. That said, I'm more than capable of hurting myself if I really want to, but I won't be happy about it. Does that mean that I can choose to enjoy being injured? Not really.

As people have said, anyone can choose to have sex with a person of any gender but if they're not at least somewhat inclined towards homosexuality they probably won't enjoy it. Sexual orientation is not a matter of free will, just like sensitivity to pain isn't. I'm not bound to adhere to those parts of my being, but they exist whether I do or not.

 

[Vryyk]

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.