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

[Silvanus]

You're nonsensical. Of course it's a choice.

I don't throw down and mount every woman that I'm attracted to. I may feel attraction to them but that does not take away my social learning, moral compass and choice in the matter. I may be attracted to a woman physically but think she's a ***** and not worth getting involved with.

You're confusing sexuality with performing the acts. Performing the acts is a choice; the sexuality is the attraction itself, and is not a choice.

Homosexuality is a choice, that's why it's more prevalent now than it was in the past. The social stigma and opinion of homosexual behaviour being amoral have slowly receded, allowing more homosexual people to make the choice to openly admit their sexual orientation and pursue relationships with other like-minded people.

"To make the choice to openly admit their orientations and pursue relationships". Again, that's not sexuality that is the choice here; it's whether to be open or not about it.

I dislike this strange culture we have where we must be incredibly respectful of anything which is not "the norm", as though being a minority somehow affords you special treatment. Fuck that.

I have never truly seen this "incredible respect" I'm supposedly being afforded. Never. I've been slurred and threatened openly, but never afforded particular respect.

Being homosexual is a choice, it's not even a completely natural occurrence. I've just explained two of the ways in which homosexuality has become more prevalent and both of them were societal influences, not natural ones. If you (as a homosexual, whoever is reading this) don't like that then it's tough shit. You are what you are and I won't mince my words to make the lie seem happier and more appealing than the truth.

You're not speaking "the truth"; you're merely repeating mistakes others have already made (and been corrected on); conflating sexuality with the actions themselves; and contradicting scientific and psychological consensus.

It occurs in hundreds of animal species. Of course it's natural. If you can't see the blatant reason for the greater prevalence of open homosexuality in modern society (spoiler: It's not that more people are gay), then you need to take a closer look at your own arguments.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Well, I can't say I've read all 7 pages.

I just wanna weigh in and say considering it a "choice" means people can chose otherwise, doesn't it? That implies that homosexuals can chose to be straight. I don't think that's bad per say.
Where it becomes bad? People can easily take up the idea of it being a "choice" as an opportunity to make people choose to be heterosexual, and be converted to heterosexuality. Considering the hatred for homosexuals, you can imagine that this isn't pretty. I can practically guarentee you attempts at converting homosexuals to heterosexual is not wanted by said homosexual.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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?

Then what would that make my girlfriend. She recently came to the conclusion that she is actually Bi-sexual (she said she has had fantasies of getting it on with other women and has caught herself check out other women in real life and thinking something along the lines of "shes hot!"), but she has told me that "NEVER, NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!! I wont act on these feelings because I dont want to cheat on you."

 

[Seydaman]

Because it's like choosing your eye color. You don't wake up some day and say "Yes, my eyes shall be green".

 

[Hieronymusgoa]

I know that personal experience is not really enough for a general statement but I always knew I was gay. Of course I didn't name it early, couldn't, and even when I was somehow sure of it I still had a problem thinking it through for me being something that is, was and will be a part of me.
Luckily when I came out neither my catholic (and very liberal) parents nor my catholic school teachers etc gave me any hardship with this (except for like three a**holes in my grade but then again you can find them anywhere).
Since I know a lot of gay twins it even seems more likely for me that it's even genetical (but then again some say they are identical twins and not gay).

So it is offensive if you say it's a choice because it's more than just rude to make something which can be a very life-complicating thing (because of "society" and "people") into something which you can just let go you're just stubborn to delve into heterosexuality.

 

[Lilani]

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.

By the way, there was something I didn't mention in my other post that I feel like pointing out. What you're saying here isn't that homosexuality itself is a choice. Homosexuality is simply the preference of same-sex partners, just as heterosexuality is the preference of different-sex partners. There is no act there, it's merely a notion--a personal preference.

Now, homosexual and heterosexual acts are both choices. The preference you have is not a choice, but acting upon it in any way is a choice, whether you're heterosexual or homosexual. So I see the distinction you're making, but the reason you're finding so much opposition in this thread is because the question you pose in the title fails to make that distinction.

Also, rereading your OP, I'm wondering what you mean by "regarding it as an affliction." It's only an affliction as much as heterosexuality is an affliction. While you're trying very hard to make yourself seem tolerant of gays, you're still making a lot of distinctions that aren't really necessary, which still makes it appear as though you're saying "Well, I'm okay with gays...but I still would rather them be straight." I'm afraid there isn't much of a fence to be riding here, rutger, so you're going to have to pick a side one day. Either you're okay with them, or you aren't. You can't claim you've got no problems with homosexuality when you still regard heterosexuality as somehow "superior" or "preferred."

 

[Dense_Electric]

I don't throw down and mount every woman that I'm attracted to. I may feel attraction to them but that does not take away my social learning, moral compass and choice in the matter. I may be attracted to a woman physically but think she's a ***** and not worth getting involved with.

Homosexuality is a choice, that's why it's more prevalent now than it was in the past. The social stigma and opinion of homosexual behaviour being amoral have slowly receded, allowing more homosexual people to make the choice to openly admit their sexual orientation and pursue relationships with other like-minded people.

I dislike this strange culture we have where we must be incredibly respectful of anything which is not "the norm", as though being a minority somehow affords you special treatment. Fuck that.

Being homosexual is a choice, it's not even a completely natural occurrence. I've just explained two of the ways in which homosexuality has become more prevalent and both of them were societal influences, not natural ones. If you (as a homosexual, whoever is reading this) don't like that then it's tough shit. You are what you are and I won't mince my words to make the lie seem happier and more appealing than the truth.

Once again, you guys are confusing the choice to act upon your sexuality with your sexuality itself. You can most certainly choose whether or not to have sex with a person you find attractive. You cannot choose to find that person attractive in the first place. Your sexuality is determined by who you find attractive, not who you choose to have sex with. That's the problem with your argument, you're not defining sexuality correctly.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

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?

Then what would that make my girlfriend. She recently came to the conclusion that she is actually Bi-sexual (she said she has had fantasies of getting it on with other women and has caught herself check out other women in real life and thinking something along the lines of "shes hot!"), but she has told me that "NEVER, NO MATTER WHAT!!!!!! I wont act on these feelings because I dont want to cheat on you."

Then she is... still bisexual because actual actions don't matter in regards to what someone's sexual orientation is? At best they might give a hint to what their orientation is. Sexual orientation has to do with attraction only. Virgins are not all asexual, for instance.

Which is my point. It just seemed to me that the person I quoted was trying to imply that because she wouldnt act on her bisexual-ness, that somehow means she is not actually bi. (and if this is not what the person I quoted was saying, sorry for the mix up.)

 

[aba1]

I feel like nobody actually read the OP. What he is saying is just obviously true. You don't choose what you enjoy sexually but acting on it is a choice.

And that's the first reason calling homosexuality a choice is so offensive. People don't choose what they are attracted to. Therefore homosexuality, the way it's commonly understood, is not a choice. It's offensive to call it a choice because that is a lie.

You're talking about sexual behavior. That is a choice. But that's not homosexuality. That's just sexual behavior.

Which gets to the second reason the claim is offensive. Because the claim is that someone may not be able to choose whether or not they're attracted to men, but they can choose not to act on it. With the implication that they should choose not to act on it. Of course, no one outside of ultra-conservative religious circles ever asks heterosexuals not to act on their sexual orientations.

Why can't you humans be more like us monkeys? We don't judge each other based on who we have sex with. We just enjoy having sex.

Ok so you take only a small part of what I said then proceed to misquote it than tell me I am being offensive because of said misquote? I never once said homosexuality is a choice in fact I didn't even mention homosexuality at all. I did mention being straight and that having straight sex is a choice but you didn't seem to get any negative implications from that? I feel like you are projecting some sort of negative stereotype on me so you can pass judgment on me on multiple levels despite not knowing anything about me minus what I had previously said and what you had previously misread.

The most interesting part is that as you go on you contradict the contradiction of my quote at first saying I am saying one thing and going back on that and saying I am a saying something else.

You're talking about sexual behavior. That is a choice. But that's not homosexuality. That's just sexual behavior.

This is exactly what I said in my initial post so is it offensive or not? You clearly agree with me but apparently it is offensive if I say it?

Next you go on to tell me I am implying negativity on the idea of choice but I was not in fact I directly state the exact opposite in the very last line "Just cause something is a choice doesn't make it bad."

I dunno if you were just trying to troll me or something but your post is really random. If you are going to quote people and tell them they are being offensive please read what they say first and don't just make gut reactions or try and pull out random implications because that IS offensive.

Also as a side note I get the impression you are assuming I am just some straight vanilla guy who couldn't possibly understand anything outside the norm. Keep in mind though you don't know anything about my sexuality and you don't know anything about anybodies sexuality unless they explicitly tell you. You should be careful not to assume things if you did assume at all this was only a impression you left me with.

 

[soulblade06]

Rutger, if we were to go by your definition of something being a choice, all of the following would also be choices:

Heterosexuality
Gender
Ethnicity
Etc.

You shouldn't be scrutinized for being who you are. Yes, homosexual individuals can choose to not "act upon" their feelings and desires, but that means denying a part of themselves.

I assume you're straight, Rutger, so imagine it like this: there's a girl you've been thinking about asking out for a few days, and someone comes up and says, "You need to stop flirting with her. That's just icky, and we'd prefer that you keep your feelings to yourself." That's what it's like to ask someone who's homosexual or bisexual to not "act upon it".

The other interpretation of calling homosexuality a choice (the idea that they choose to be attracted to people of the same gender) usually comes from heterosexuals who somehow assume that they're more qualified to make judgements about sexual attraction than the people who are actually experiencing it. That idea is so ignorant that it actually baffles me a bit, so thanks for not making the thread about that. Still, be a little more careful when you make judgements.

 

[Dinasis]

This is probably going to get me lambasted, but you know...I gotta say, the more I think about it...the more the choice and genetics/biology routes BOTH kind of irk me....

I recently asked a bi friend a question similar to OP's (without the supporting logic/explanation) and he got pretty irate and basically said that no one in the LGBT community woke up one day and decided who or what they were going to be attracted to. I ended up launching into a pretty long argument, adapted below, because while I don't disagree with what he said, pulling the chemistry, biology, or genetics card instead, to me, has always felt like nothing more than an excuse.

I don't mean to say either the choice route or the genetics route is or isn't true, but at the same time, it doesn't do anything positive, it doesn't really open up any sort of dialogue about the stigma of being different, it's just "this is how things are, ha ha ha, moving on..." or in the case of Arnold as the Terminator in T3 after picking the line up from that male stripper at the club on ladies night: "talk to the hand".

Personally, I don't think I could say WHERE sexual orientation comes from, nor do I really care, but I do agree with the OP that there is a lot of choice involved... "Do I choose to persue that person?" "Do I choose to accept this person's invitation?" "Do I choose to tell my family I'm in a committed relationship?" Choice, just not necessarily choices about attraction itself.

The reason that choice versus biology matters--and in my opinion: the main problem--is in the stigma of being different, of deviating from what is perceived as the so-called "normal".

I think that a lot of the arguments surrounding the choice route come from the religion side (on at least one level or another)...for which I'll point to my personal belief on the problem religion has with homosexuality, or really anything sexually deviant. It's all sex for pleasure, not sex for making more followers (i.e. babies)... Making new followers for a given religion--so strictly speaking, the actual act of sexual reproduction--is something that's a whole lot harder to accomplish if it's two guys together, two girls together, or a lady in red stringing a guy up from the ceiling and working him over with a feather duster and/or cat-o-nine-tails.

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

Not normally, no, because heterosexuality is considered "normal". For another fun facet of normalcy, look up "left-handedness" and whatever variation for "satan" you prefer in the same search.

This is all personal opinion, I realize, but the following more so than what's preceded. So please don't light your torches until the end.

Going back to my view of 'genetics as an excuse', I feel that it separates you from the problem. It almost sounds like "hey, this is a part of who I am...I know {it's wrong/you think it's wrong}, but I can't help that it's a part of me".

Having all that outside pressure, with many thanks to religious views, social/cultural standards for normalcy, or a combination of the two, I feel builds a subconscious platform of acceptance that there is something wrong (either that something might be or is sinful, or simply the idea of "different" as a negative). You may or may not be consciously aware of it or want to be a part of it (think of the fashion industry and the whole issue surrounding portrayals of women in TV, advertising, etc.), but it's still in your head, so there's a need to defend yourself, to point to something unchangeable as a way of shifting blame. Thing is, if there's any blame to be had, that doesn't put the blame in the right place.

The problem with sexual orientation is not in who you ARE and where that orientation comes from, it's in how and why you're PERCEIVED by others and, by extension, how you perceive yourself. Putting fault or crediting something such as choice or genetics for our own sexual orientation doesn't do anything to help anyone.

A long time ago, a friend of mine and I were at a local pond swimming. I noticed a leech on the top of his foot and when I pointed it out to him, he flipped for a few minutes--complete with wordless screaming and wild flailing--before finally sticking his foot in the sand. He immediately relaxed and told me, "It doesn't hurt if you put your foot in the sand." If you know anything about leeches, you know why that assumption is wrong. He thought it hurt because he thought it SHOULD hurt. In a similar manner, it's offensive to point to choice for homosexuality or bisexuality or what have you because people think it SHOULD be.

 

[j1015]

Similarly, I could sleep with a hundred men, but that would not change what I feel inside me.

If you slept with a hundred men, it would definitely change the way you feel inside.

 

[Rylingo]

I feel like nobody actually read the OP. What he is saying is just obviously true. You don't choose what you enjoy sexually but acting on it is a choice.

And you are homosexual if you are solely attracted to the same sex (whether you go follow said attraction makes no difference to your attraction classification). Therefore homosexuality is not a choice and OP is incorrect.