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

Recommended Videos

ZephrC

Free Cascadia!
Mar 9, 2010
750
0
0
TWRule said:
ZephrC said:
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).
Okay, claiming to prefer something doesn't necessarily mean you actually do. So maybe the theoretical person you talked about really prefers hamburgers. Or maybe he just gets them because they're cheaper.

I certainly admit that preference is not really objectively quantifiable without understanding the human brain quite a bit better than we do at this point, and so any "science" on the subject is pretty silly, but preference really is what sexual preference is all about, unscientific or not.
 

Kagim

New member
Aug 26, 2009
1,200
0
0
to...




SadisticPretzel said:
I want to requote something for you friend.

While i realize someone might be offended by that statement please note it's not a statement i personally believe in.
That was the second statement i made. In case in confused you I'll very clearly explain what that sentence means.

I do not believe that homosexuality is a fault, or at that, something that is entirely decided upon your genes. What you are refering to as "my reasoning" is actually not my reasoning but rather me taking a common idea "Homosexuality is decided at birth" a step further. It is a scary concept that, rather then shying away from, i wanted to bring up in discussion. The idea that if a gene that determined homosexuality DID in fact exist the idea or morality of wiping it out based on a person's ideas.

That statement goes for...



Shale_Dirk said:
Vryyk said:
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.

While i realize someone might be offended by that statement please note it's not a statement i personally believe in.
or most importantly

It's not a statement i personally believe in.
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.
 

Justank

New member
Nov 17, 2010
146
0
0
Shale_Dirk said:
Kagim said:
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:


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

Annnnnnnnnnd Godwin.
 

taciturnCandid

New member
Dec 1, 2010
363
0
0
Certainly both are true. I myself chose to be gay. That is of course because I am asexual and have no pesky attraction to choose what I want to be with. I simply enjoy the company of men more.

But for people with attraction? Attraction is hardwired and isn't a choice. One can partake in homosexual or heterosexual acts, but the acts alone don't define their sexuality. A homosexual might engage in heterosexual acts only because they are pressured to. They are still gay. It wasn't their choice. They are a homosexual who engages in heterosexual acts. But that doesn't make them a heterosexual.

Logic
A can do B
C can do D
B does not equal A
D does not equal C


A=Homosexual B=Homosexual acts
C=Heterosexual D=Heterosexual acts
 
Apr 29, 2010
4,148
0
0
Well, if someone chooses to be gay, it's only because they were born gay, but it just took them that long to accept said fact. In other words, they finally realized what their subconscious knew all along in regards to their sexuality.
 

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
Lucien Pyrus said:
I myself chose to be gay.
superbatranger said:
Well, if someone chooses to be gay, it's only because they were born gay, but it just took them that long to accept said fact. In other words, they finally realized what their subconscious knew all along in regards to their sexuality.
Lol
 

Jewrean

New member
Jun 27, 2010
1,101
0
0
This is kind of like the Science vs Religion topic when both can co-exist. We weak-minded humans assume things are either 'black' or 'white'. I agree with OP. Both are possible. In-fact, some 'gay' people have decided on that lifestyle based on past life experiences (traumatic or otherwise).
 

Ziadaine_v1legacy

Flamboyant Homosexual
Apr 11, 2009
1,604
0
0
FargoDog said:
CoverYourHead said:
Well I'm bisexual, so I guess I can choose... But still, you don't choose who you're attracted to. I know a lot of people who would rather be one or the other or bi, but they can't, because they're simply not attracted to one sex or the other.
Pretty much this, although even with bisexuality I find myself leaning ever so slightly somewhat to one side or the other dependant on my mood.

I guess you could technically live your life gay, even if you were attracted to the other sex. It just wouldn't be who you are. Same thing with a gay person who tries to go straight. So, technically you can choose, but it's not your true preference.
Pretty much sums it up for me.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Semudara said:
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.
but since you're describing inborn characteristics, how is it inaccurate to say "born gay" or "Born trans?"

And evolutionary process of self discovery doesn't mean you weren't born a certain way.
 

taciturnCandid

New member
Dec 1, 2010
363
0
0
Jiraiya72 said:
Lucien Pyrus said:
I myself chose to be gay.
superbatranger said:
Well, if someone chooses to be gay, it's only because they were born gay, but it just took them that long to accept said fact. In other words, they finally realized what their subconscious knew all along in regards to their sexuality.
Lol
Did you read the rest of what i posted? I didn't choose my attraction. I simply have no attraction so i'm free to partner with whomever i want. If i followed my sexuality, i'd be alone forever. I just hate solitude.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Jiraiya72 said:
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's a political thing more than anything tied to gay rights. The whole issue is that is that if being gay is something that is chosen then a person can choose not to practice that lifestyle and since it's not inherant it can be morally regulated. If it's an inborn condition then there is the issue of it being a deviance and something to be cured. The gay rights movement argues the definition based on what they are trying to counter at any given time.

The reality of the situation is that it's a medical condition. While all the details of pheremones and chemicals and how they relate to the brain are not understood, the bottom line is that there can be no sexual arousal without responding to the chemical signals sent out by other people. Incidently this is why castration works, if you destroy the sex organs (testicles on guys) then they become incapable of having sex, and also lose their sex drive. This can also be witnessed in animals where if you spay or neuter a dog or cat it's behavior changes greatly since it no longer reacts to the other gender and tries to have sex/reproduce.

The thing is that your personality and desires are formed around the needs of your body. You think in a certain way about sex because of the signals that you receive. You stop receiving those signals and it's going to alter a lot of things about you.

Now, one thing that can be pointed out is that the mind can influance what the body does. A lot of mental conditions can have profound affects on the body, and sexuality. A lot of sexual deviations like Nymphomania (which in reality is not "fun" it's a self destructive behavior) can be treated mentally and trickle down to the body. This is why homosexuality has been classified as an insanity in the past, bing considered akin to other psychosexual disorders that can be treated that way. Old school psychology which was based on inflicting trauma on someone who was damaged worked by tripping the human survival insticts where the brain can make someone change in order for the person to survive. This can result in turning someone sane occasionally, but in more cases it's caused more extreme problems like when people have developed split personalities under trauma. With a better understanding of human pscyhology and how the brain works though we can now program and deprogram people (brain washing), which frequently uses trauma as a component but it is not the sole factor in the treatment. With brainwashing a person can be altered almost entirely given enough time. You see this with hypnosis shows where a hypnotist using certain techniques can get people to bark like a dog and have no memory of having done it. Brainwashing and deprogramming can be very similar, except with permanant results. You could for example make someone act like a dog permanantly and not revert at all.

That said, the issue about gay rights largely comes down to a moral one, the big question not being whether we can identify and cure homosexuality, but whether we should. Is the behavior destructive enough in most cases to warrent elimination from society?

Opinions vary, I'm pretty much anti-gay men as people who have frequented these forums are aware of. I'm not going to get into an arguement on my beliefs right now because it will ultimatly go nowhere.

Above and beyond personal beliefs, even if I was not anti-gay, I would have little respect for the gay rights movement because it's by and large playing games. The entire issue is artificial because as I've explained above we already know the answer. We know about castration, we know why it works, it's common knowlege. We know about hypnosis, brainwashing, and psychological deprogramming and how it can (through the brain) greatly influance behavior and sexuality. People even play with their minds in hypnosis shows. Like many hot button issues people tend to ignore or overlook common knowlege in favor of trying to make an issue they feel strongly about seem a lot more complicated than it actually is.

As far as homosexuality being observed in animals, understand that living things operate on the same basic rules. Animals and humans can contract a lot of the same diseases and conditions. Just as human sex organs can malfunction and respond to the wrong signals (either exclusively to those of their own gender, or to both genders) animals that operate on the same principles can also have the same, or very similar issues.
 

SadisticPretzel

New member
Nov 29, 2010
169
0
0
Kagim said:
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.
I read what you said. How else could I have answered it?

You posted a flakey sounding disclaimer and then went on to write out a bunch of inflammatory, over-used and disproved talking points. You then proceeded to ignore the rebuttal you were offered. Either you truly believe what you said or you're trolling. Either way, you got the responses you deserved.
 

Griphphin

New member
Jul 4, 2009
941
0
0
I feel that someone can be naturally gay/straight, but that can change depending on the environment one lives in. I'm thinking that change can happen one way or the other, but it's more of a subconscious thing than an active choice.
 

Sinclair Solutions

New member
Jul 22, 2010
1,611
0
0
To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how homosexuality "works." I always thought it was genetic, but it definitely could be a response to one's environment. Still, I don't think one "chooses" to be gay. Whether you are born with it or you develop it, it's a subconscious thing that you can't just decide.
 

Thaius

New member
Mar 5, 2008
3,862
0
0
Because the whole "born gay" argument is more of a rationalization than an actual scientifically-backed fact. It has not been conclusively proven at all. It's just an attempt to tell those who have a problem with homosexuality that it's out of people's control, and gay people have no choice. Thus, one can obviously choose to be gay, then we have people trying to convince those against homosexuality that there's an uncontrollable biological reason for it. Thus, the conflict.
 
Apr 29, 2010
4,148
0
0
Jiraiya72 said:
Lucien Pyrus said:
I myself chose to be gay.
superbatranger said:
Well, if someone chooses to be gay, it's only because they were born gay, but it just took them that long to accept said fact. In other words, they finally realized what their subconscious knew all along in regards to their sexuality.
Lol
I honestly find your reply to be insulting and condescending. I could be wrong, though. Granted, it feels like you didn't completely understand my reply.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
I'd say you can't choose whether or not to be gay, but you can choose whether or not to be a homosexual. You can choose which gender to have sex with, but not qhich gender you are attracted by.
 

birdplaneman

New member
Nov 23, 2010
11
0
0
The fact is, the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" really aren't meant to describe people, they are meant to describe actions.

By this I mean, I am not heterosexual, rather, I exhibit heterosexual behavior.

(That said, people can describe themselves however they want.)
 

Blind Sight

New member
May 16, 2010
1,658
0
0
I'm more in favour of the "let's stop giving a shit about this stuff and just let people fuck what they want, as long as it's willing, inanimate, or not a child" theory. Attempting to rationalize sexuality is just an up-hill battle no one can win. If you think you can rationalize it, explain macroherpophiles to me. I expect full citations from academic journals or books, not wikipedia. I'll wait.