So why is it offensive to consider homosexuality as a choice?

[rutger5000]

Honestly why is it? Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality, in fact I can see myself experimenting some day. But for the live of me I can't see why it's most often considered offensive to think of it as a choice.
I can see that being more sexually attracted to the same sex isn't something you do so purposfully/consiously. So if you purely regard homosexuality as being dominantly sexually attracted to the same sex. Then yes it isn't really a choice, more something that just happens to you. But surely everything beyond that is a choice right?
Again I want to stress that I think it's the right choice. Sexuality is a good thing, so I'd encourage people to do whatever they want on that area as long as all involved parties are consentfull.
But still acting upon your homosexuality is surely a choice right? So why is it considered offensive to regard it as such? Especially as the alternative is to regard it as something like an affliction, which I personally would find much more offensive.

 

[IceForce]

Because you don't "choose" who you're attracted to.

So the whole concept of it being a "choice" is pretty nonsensical really.

acting upon your homosexuality

And this is nonsensical too.

Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?

 

[Vegosiux]

So, do you choose that spinach taste good to you, and do you choose not to be allergic to eggs?

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Well, would you chose to be persecuted and discriminated against if you had the choice?
Another point of view, would you be able to choose to find anyone attractive if you wanted to, like for example someone you find really ugly? I know I wouldn't be able to.

 

[LetalisK]

Because you don't "choose" who you're attracted to.

So the whole concept of it being a "choice" is pretty nonsensical really.

acting upon your homosexuality

And this is nonsensical too.

Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?

Being wrong doesn't necessarily mean being offensive.

OT: I suspect it's because those claiming it's a choice usually follow it with a litany of actually offensive and hurtful comments, therefore the association is made between claiming it's a choice and the comments that follow.

 

[Colour Scientist]

It's not a choice and it's definitely not an affliction.
It's a sexual orientation.

No one ever considers heterosexuality to be a choice.

It's insulting to think that it's a choice because many people lose their family and friends over their sexual orientation and, in most countries, same sex couples can't marry and experience both mental and physical abuse. To say that it's a choice implies that someone is intentionally "deviating" from their heterosexuality and could just as easily chose to enter in a heterosexual relationship. It's less likely that gay people will be given the same human rights as straight people if society is led to believe that it's something they chose to do as opposed to it being a fundamental part of who they are.

 

[Reeve]

Some people seem to think that if homosexuality was a choice then it would logically follow that it could be called morally wrong. But that is nonsensical. Even if homosexuality was a choice that STILL would not make it immoral.

The only reason why homophobia exists is because homosexuality squicks some people out. And those people want to be able to say "hey stop doing that!"

 

[bojackx]

Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality

So that means you do have problems WITH homosexuality? YOU HOMOPHOBE!

With the obvious typo aside, it's clearly not a choice, how would that even work? And I don't mean to offend anyone but who would choose to be gay? There's still a lot of people who discriminate against homosexuality, so anyone who would choose to be gay is making their lives a little bit harder for no reason.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think the issue is that while sexuality can be viewed as a spectrum, there are definitely many people who fall at the far ends of said spectrum, meaning that they just find men sexually attractive or women sexually attractive but not both. Assuming that you can just not act on the side that "society" considers "wrong" is silly. That would be asking a gay man with no attraction to women to, you know, just bite the bullet and be straight because society says it's the normal thing to be. If you don't see the problem with that, then I think it's pretty clear where the misunderstanding is. If you accept that sexuality is not a choice as the base level then, as long as you're talking about 2 consenting adults, choices after that shoudn't be viewed as a choice either.

 

[Ryan Minns]

My housemate genuinely thinks homosexuality is a choice. He's an idiot.

Having sex is a choice. Wanting to have sex is not... sometimes.

 

[rutger5000]

So, do you choose that spinach taste good to you, and do you choose not to be allergic to eggs?

Hey that isn't fair. I said that I understand that you can't choice where your sexual preference lies. So no you can't choose not to be allergic to eggs, but you choose to eat them or not.

 

[rutger5000]

Because you don't "choose" who you're attracted to.

So the whole concept of it being a "choice" is pretty nonsensical really.

acting upon your homosexuality

And this is nonsensical too.

Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?

Is that poor English? If so I apologize. What I meant is that you while you can't choose your sexual preference, you can obviously choose your sexual partners.

 

[Dangit2019]

Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?

I've acted upon my hetrosexuality before...

Spoiler

ON THOU MOTHER!

OT: It's not offensive in itself, but sexuality isn't really a choice. It's something hardwired in at birth.

 

[rutger5000]

Well, would you chose to be persecuted and discriminated against if you had the choice?
Another point of view, would you be able to choose to find anyone attractive if you wanted to, like for example someone you find really ugly? I know I wouldn't be able to.

With exceptions aside, yeah I can choose whom I'm attracted to. As for persecuted and discriminated. Well maybe I'm speaking from the luxury of never been discriminated or persecuted, but yeah. People who treat others badly for something such as sexuality are bad people, and I usually don't feel bad if bad people treat me badly. Then you get to call them out and be the bigger person.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

With exceptions aside, yeah I can choose whom I'm attracted to.

Well in that case you are one of the few, so you could choose to be attracted to men if you wanted to?

As for persecuted and discriminated. Well maybe I'm speaking from the luxury of never been discriminated or persecuted, but yeah. People who treat others badly for something such as sexuality are bad people, and I usually don't feel bad if bad people treat me badly. Then you get to call them out and be the bigger person.

Well it's a shame they will still live under discrimination and persecution while being the bigger people, why would they choose that?

 

[rutger5000]

I think the issue is that while sexuality can be viewed as a spectrum, there are definitely many people who fall at the far ends of said spectrum, meaning that they just find men sexually attractive or women sexually attractive but not both. Assuming that you can just not act on the side that "society" considers "wrong" is silly. That would be asking a gay man with no attraction to women to, you know, just bite the bullet and be straight because society says it's the normal thing to be. If you don't see the problem with that, then I think it's pretty clear where the misunderstanding is. If you accept that sexuality is not a choice as the base level then, as long as you're talking about 2 consenting adults, choices after that shoudn't be viewed as a choice either.

I didn't quite catch that last bit. But I've think I've got the gist of it.
My view on the matter is that it's obviously a possibility for a gay man to just bite the bullet. It wouldn't be healthy, and in most cases extremely rude to the female. But it's an option. In other words it's a choice not to do so, and just go with what you feel like.
If I would be at the far gay side of the sexual spectrum, I think I'd be like: So I happen to be gay, so I'm going with the obvious healthy CHOICE to have sex with men instead of women.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think the issue is that while sexuality can be viewed as a spectrum, there are definitely many people who fall at the far ends of said spectrum, meaning that they just find men sexually attractive or women sexually attractive but not both. Assuming that you can just not act on the side that "society" considers "wrong" is silly. That would be asking a gay man with no attraction to women to, you know, just bite the bullet and be straight because society says it's the normal thing to be. If you don't see the problem with that, then I think it's pretty clear where the misunderstanding is. If you accept that sexuality is not a choice as the base level then, as long as you're talking about 2 consenting adults, choices after that shoudn't be viewed as a choice either.

I didn't quite catch that last bit. But I've think I've got the gist of it.
My view on the matter is that it's obviously a possibility for a gay man to just bite the bullet. It wouldn't be healthy, and in most cases extremely rude to the female. But it's an option. In other words it's a choice not to do so, and just go with what you feel like.
If I would be at the far gay side of the sexual spectrum, I think I'd be like: So I happen to be gay, so I'm going with the obvious healthy CHOICE to have sex with men instead of women.

Well, I suppose if you break it down that way then sure it's a choice.. but so is pretty much everything. Not drinking water or eating food. Putting a shotgun in my mouth. Choices, certainly, even being that they go against the natural grain of what my every instinct and self of sense tell me to do. Choices when held at that deeply a level are quite a bit different than just a choice between swiss or cheddar on a sandwich.

 

[senordesol]

What people get offended by is that you're assuming that they desire (what can be) an undesirable set of circumstances. Homosexuality is just barely becoming recognized as something that's just as valid of heterosexuality and to suggest that, if they could, one wouldn't forgo all the persecution, hazing, and discrimination if they had a say in the matter, then -at best- you're calling them an idiot; because they would be bringing all this on themselves for...let's see...no reason?

Seriously: think about it. Man wants to marry woman: no problems. Man wants to marry man: political warfare for decades.

Which would you "choose"?

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

If you take the stance that it's a choice, but an alright choice to make, it isn't offensive, only ignorant.

However, most of the time those two stances do not coincide, so a fair gut reaction to the labeling of homosexuality as a "choice" is to think the person saying that is an asshole.

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

While it's not offensive in and of itself, simply incorrect, that "reason" is often used to argue how wrong homosexuality is and how such people need to be "cured" and their "choice" is not "natural" (some shit about going against the "will of God" optional but often included). So yeah, I think it's pretty understandable that a stigma has been formed around it. I find ignorance in general to be dangerous though, especially when dealing with these kinds of topics.

As for what you're saying specifically, OP, you're talking about two different things. Yes, having sexual partners is a choice, but you don't choose who you're attracted to (which you seem to understand) and the latter is the very definition of sexual orientation. If you wanted to argue this "logic," the exact same thing could be said about heterosexuality anyway, so why make a special case for homosexuals? More often than not, saying that being gay is a choice is just used as an attempt to justify blind hate.