Why do people think homosexuality is a choice?

Post Reply New Topic

You are claiming, in effect, that you are a monogamous bisexual.
However you also need to remember that just about every culture which pushes heterosexuality also pushes monogamy.
(Interesting too that you didn't suffix "lifestyle" to "heterosexual", but you did to "homosexual".)

Some transgender people report that their sexual orientation changes after they change genders. The 'right' hormones can provide for better pleasure/recognition of the opposite gender (e.g., newly feminite brains may appreciate masculinity so much more, and vice-versa). So, at least with trans people, yes, sexual orientation can change.

I'm convinced that is just their way of trying to delude themselves that gay people can go back to being straight, thus "saving themselves". But no. Gay people are gay, and there is no changing back. As a former friend of mine said "if being gay was a choice, considering all the bull they go through on a daily basis about their character, don't you think they would choose to be straight?"

It doesn't quite help matters that girls who clam to be straight sometimes think of swinging the other way. Some either play around with it or take the dive after their last boyfriend messed around.

MPE you are making the logical error of assuming your conclusion within your argument. Or at least it appears so. As best I can discern you favor the idea that people are born with their sexual identity/orientation. Then based on that you decide that if I say I could have been homosexual if I had been raised in a culture that said that it was just as good. So believeing in the concept of "born that way" you interpret my declaration as meaning I was born bisexual.
WRONG
I say that I am able to analyze and choose as well as be influenced by the culture in which I was raised and the choices I make.

Frankly I am no more bisexual than I am trisexual. I did point out that it is plausible that I could have turned out to be a zoosexual if I had been raised in a culture that approved that. There are if you read Miletski's book people who are zoo-exclusive. Or maybe you would prefer the term pansexual. Perhaps you did not really read my original post or watch the linked video and appreciate its relevance to the point I was making about culture influencing choice.

Homo-, tri-, zoo-,pan- ; I am none of those sexualities. I am Heterosexual and I claim it was a choice I made. If I believe that it was a choice for my self as to how I wished to manifest my sexuality then that is why I believe that Homosexuallity can be a choice. I say that I am none of those other sexualities because I chose.

Please remember that the title of this thread is "Why Do People Think Homosexuality Is a Choice" And plainly (and literally) speaking as us Aspies are prone to do, my answer is that I had that choice (and all the others) and I made the choice for Heterosexuality.

Hetero-, Homo-, Bi-, Zoo-, Pan-, I am none of those sexualities by birth, I am what I am by choice. Were there influences that biased my choice? Certainly!. I have an Analytic, Academic, Aspie mindset. That mindset did not influence my choice but it did influence the process I used to make it. I chose Heterosexuality, and I chose Monogamy, (and not all in my family have made the same choice). Oh, and just for the record I am the last born of 4,(MFMM), and from what I read there are indications that might bias me towards Homosexuality according to some theories.

Now to make my point about cultural influences biasing sexuality choices, you can go watch that video I linked and ask yourself if indeed the tolerance of the society does not influence the sexuality choices young boys are making (but try to do it with an unemotional detached perspective so that you can analyze it without any proconcieved notions, or revlusions depending on your viewpoint).

Oh, and by the way don't try to attach too much relevance to whether or not the I use the term "lifestyle" consistently in a parallel fashion. It is just the way the words happened to come out. I generally try to not use that word, as on certain non-sexuality boards it is a loaded word in a different way, but sometimes it slips in if I hear/read a lot of other people using it.. And frankly in this context I have no idea what relevance you attach to it. After all, I am an Aspie, and I often miss that sort of nuance.

Charcoalsketches, let me submit for your consideration that they need not be born that way to find it difficult or impossible to go "back". When we make choices and commit ourselves to them we can be just as obstinate about change. If I have freely and unreservedly chosen to be a Muslim or Orthadox Jew or some other religion and have really committed myself to that choice and am supported in my choice, I am more likely to become a Mujahdeen or Rabbi respectively than to switch to anything else. Our committed choices can be just as solid or even more so than inborn proclivities.

comparing belief in a fictional text to biological functions(being gay/straight/whatever is no more a choice than your hair colour, it's a combination of genetics and upbringing) is just straight up disingenuous and toxic.

Putting aside your other comments, If I just look at your parenthetical, I must arrive at the conclusion that to some degree you and I are saying at least one thing the same. Your parenthetical attributes functioning in a manner identified as being homosexual rests on at least two things. You say it is a combination of two things:
a. -- genetics
and
b.-- Your upbringing

And I have repeatedly said that if I had been raised in a culture that said Homosexual was as good a choice as heterosexual that I could have chosen homosexual. (Or for that matter that being zoosexual was as good as either of the other two; but lets not go there right now. ) But that was not my upbringing based on the culture of my family community and culture. So I did not choose homosexual! And If I did not choose homosexual and if as you imply it is always a combination of "genetics and upbringing" then it is a always a choice!, (or if sometimes then sometimes). A person may have a weak or disrupted upbringing, or may simply rebel against their upbringing, or go along with it.

It might be argued that genetics is an absolute determinant of homosexuality and some do that, but you did not.

So I say again, the question of this thread is "Why Do People Think Homosexuality Is A choice", and my answer is that for some people it is exactly that. Therefore it is reasonable that there are people who legitimately believe it is a choice. They might have to consider an alternate argument that it is a choice for only some people. If the thread had been titled "why do people think that homosexuality is always a choice" this discussion might have gone differently.

Another factor in this discussion is, I think, a definition of terms. I see that there is a good bit of talking past each other based on at least two different definitions being used. To that point the definitions I am thinking of are:
A.-- Homosexuality is a pattern of behavior.
B.-- Homosexuality is a mental outlook.

In previous posts, It has been asserted that I am a bisexual but operating in a monogamous heterosexual behavior pattern.
Whereas I assert, that making claims about what sexuality I am is a moot point. I am and have always acted in a typical Heterosexual way and have never chosen any other mode for myself.

I may have academically analyzed other options and chosen to reject all the other options. So it is not useful to say that I am bisexual or pansexual, but it would be incorrect to say I was non-sexual as I have had an extensive sexual experience for decades within a monogamous heterosexual framework. Having considered numerous aspects of other sexual expression modes, I have simply chosen not to go that way. Nor would I want to go those other ways because sexual activity has an immensely powerful "imprinting" power on the human psyche and I would not want to allow that in my mental makeup as it would only lead me to distraction.

Now since I admit to being an Aspie with an Analytical Academic mind set, the course which I followed in choosing a sexuality for myself, as a conscious reasoned choice, could plausibly be a process utterly unique to being an Aspie. Maybe most people cannot do that, but I do not think that is the case for a variety of reasons.

OK, I'll answer your question "Why do people think Homosexuality is a choice?". BECAUSE THEY ARE IGNORANT AND STUPID...

where is your proof that it is a choice?comparing people having sex with animals to homosexual sex is at best lazy thinking. are you really doing this seriously?
no, it's no more a choice than your hair color, as your personality is formed within the first year, before your concious mind wakes up, thusly claiming it is a choice is plainly falsecan you prove it's a choice? if not, this is an inherently toxic viewpoint you're clinging to.
It's not a choice as the part of the brain that governs sexual attraction has no interaction with the part that governs decision making. your claim is spurious because of this.

That is a good question. I wish I had a good answer. But there one or more answers! One is that their believe is black and white. If it doesn't fit the pattern then. Then the other pattern is wrong. Its like square and round pegs. Its not the best one. But it could help.

In the spirit of free open and honest discussion I think I should inject a preamble here and particularly because of :

Casting insults, impugning honesty an pejoratives is a weak debating tactic and degrades the value of discussion however much one may (honestly or dishonestly) have strong feelings. So in the spirit of rational discussion please can we keep invective out of presenting arguments however threatened we might feel. This is not meant to disparage "pcuser" for an unfortunate outburst as he/she may have been having a bad day.

At this point I would like to pose a question for serious consideration that might bring up a useful point to ponder:

The various "atypical or non-average gender orientation advocates" for lack of a better term (please no pejoratives they take a good bit of heat already) are prone to argue that their particular gender attraction is "inborn" and at least partly if not wholly genetic or sometimes an endocrine exposure in the womb phenomenon. If we are however going to grant plausiblity to that, then is not a gender based sexual revulsion also possibly just as thoroughly an "inborn" trait.

(Please no Invective juist yet.)

If an orientation towards a particular gender in seeking a mate is inborn; why then cannot a revulsion toward a particular gender in seeking a mate be inborn . I have read the testamony/reports of some homosexual men claiming that they find the thought of sex with a woman repulsive (i.e. the though of hetero-sex is repulsive to them, not the woman per se). Could it be that the revulsion for same gender sex is just as genetically inborn and unchangeable as is claimed for homosexual attraction. Would it not be logical that "inborn homosexual attraction" and "inborn homosexual revulsion" could be simply "the flip sides of the same coin" ? Well at least for some people. The import of this could be an explanation of why this problem seems to stick with society across millenia. Furthermore, it would offer an explanation of the majority being heterosexual because an impetus to be strictly heterosexual offers a reproductive advantage in terms of genetic drift.

I realize that this hypothesis creates a problem for those of a homosexual persuasion because it would imply that suppressing and stamping out of opposition to homosexuality would be about as fruitless an objective as they tend to claim the elimination of homosexuality is.

Obviously this hypohesis or conjecture does not bode well for an easy resolution as both sides can claim an imutable inclination that they did not choose for themselves.
---------------------------
The floor is now open for polite and respectful commentary of low emotional content. (Dare I ask for considered as well as considerate too? )

I wasn't feeling threatened and I meant what I said. I'm also straight and share in the revulsion of homosexual acts. For too long in our society, ignorant people have ignored basic science in lieu of fundamental believe in the Bible. They 'believe' that God hates gay people and doesn't allow gay people to marry. They 'believe' that evolution is a myth. The 'believe' that the Earth is young to the tune of about 6,000 years. They 'believe' that being gay is a choice. There are many others I could include. All these foolish ideas only hurt our society by ignoring and minimizing the really important things we need to address. The most pressing matter we have is global climate change. Much of the rest of the world takes these climate changes seriously, but not here. The conservatives block any and all attempts to even discuss it. There are legislatures in this country that literally make it illegal to discuss in some offices of governmental agencies. These and other attempts to block progress are and should be infuriating to those of us who read and follow science. There again are many other examples of push back by these self titled 'experts'.Lastly, simply because we find repulsive what to a homosexual is normal, we shouldn't make it illegal as has been done in this country in the recent past. Being icky is no reason to deny basic human rights to people.
I guess you could say that I'm simply sick and tired of ignorant obstructionists...

I think a careful reading of what I wrote will show that I did not say that was the case, and I only mentioned as an example of why some people resort to invective. The word was intended to be a generalized for all manner of irrational reasons that one might resort to invective, (e.g. insecure, inadequate, outclassed in rhetoric, and a long list of other possibilities. Please note that I used the pronoun "we" which means it was directed to all persons acting under pressure, self included. I did not intend it as anything personal but merely to say that the whole population is sometime prone to fall into it.


That is a stereotype that a few fit but not all, and in particular, not me! So in many cases that is simply a "straw man fallacy. There is a strong theme of "guilt by association" as well. A person could hold to beliefs B, C, D, & E, and still have an entirely rationally defensible reason for believing that homosexuality is a choice. Screaming invective at them, will not make your argument any more convincing nor will it undermine their reason for which they hold their opinion. Knowing that rational intelligent people can be of different opinions, it will only make you to appear to them as the fanatic.

All of which is really irrelevant to the broad variety of reasons of why some people believe homosexuality is a choice.

And if you believe that is such a horrible thing, I certainly hope that you will equally defend the right of free speech when some one discusses their belief that such deviations in sexual practice are sin and ought not to be done. Will you then raise your voice to oppose prosecuting them for "hate speech" as is often the attempt to silence those who say something unpopular.

why are you only responding to invective if this is the case?

I really don't care what some people think about these issues. The only thing that isn't conclusive beyond any doubt is homosexuality. And that window is rapidly closing as we are learning more about genetics and the brain. As for climate change, you cannot argue the data isn't solid that the climate is changing and not for the better. The only thing in question even a little bit is man's complicity in change. Either way, if we do nothing, we doom ourselves. We are after all in a major extinction event. Has that nothing to do with us as well? I'm not trying to change unchangeable minds. I'm simply stating what I think is the best evidence we have and am pointing out the peril we put ourselves in by ignoring it. As far as I'm concerned, there is overwhelming scientific evidence supporting what I'm talking about. I've been reading and studying different sciences since the early fifties. Even as a young child, it all made sense, as it should to all open and inquiring minds...

This question is short enough that it has a bit of ambiguity as to what it is really asking so let me restate what I think you are asking so my answer will be a bit more focused. I was responding to invective because it tends to suppress honest and open dialog and I felt the question posed in the title of the thread deserves a more thoughtful response. My objective was to keep the thread on track.

I believe that there is a "back question" that you are implying, but before I say what I think that question is let me say that since your question is "explicitly" about why my only response is to a post using invective I think I just answered that and I am only guessing and speculating about a "back question" so please forgive me If that guess and speculation falls wide of the mark.

I think the back question is "When am I going to present proof that "Homosexuality is a choice". thereby answering your repeated challenges to my statements.

You may not like the answer, but here it goes anyway. I never set out to prove it was a choice! I am an aspie! We aspie's tend to take things literally, .... "Its what we do !" Accordingly I was responding primarily to the question "Why Do People Think Homosexuality is a Choice". And given that there are myriads of people there may be myriads of answers. A literal answer to that question taken literally does not require proof it is a choice, it merely requires one or more rational hypotheses (of which there could be many) for why people hold the beliefs that they do. To this end I ventured out on a limb and presented my own case for my opinion (the title question really only asks for what rational opinions people might hold).

So my objective was to present one or more hypotheses that have a rational form and threw in my own very subjective understanding of my experience. I doubt very much that anyone here can offer you the kind of proof that you seem to want. But I at least I know why I think it is a choice. At the moment I feel no particular need to prove. my "personal" hypothesis or reason, but rather I presented it to advance the question stated in the title of the thread. Perhaps what is needed is another thread titled something like "What Scientific Proof or Evidence is there that Homosexuality is a Choice" My impression is that a literal answer to that question would be more satisfying to you, but from the tenor of your responses I suspect you would reject most of what is offered as proof.

But there is one semantic issue that I think needs to be addressed, and that is just exactly what does any poster here think is meant by the word "Homosexuality". Some posters here seem to be using a definition
that treats it as if homosexuality is a state of being while others regard it as a noun denoting a specific class of actions.
At:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexuality?s=t
For "Homosexuality" the single definition is given as:
1.sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex.

Direction of a desire or behavior is an action!
Provided that we are not some sort of automatons, our actions are a result of our choices, Therefore the word "homosexual" with the suffix "ity" is, in literal understanding, a choice., hence my Aspie interpretation of the "title question" as asked.

The word "homosexual" is a bit different as some dictionaries say that when it is used as a noun refers to a person who engages in homosexual acts, or has same sex attraction to others,
BUT
When used as an adjective, it may refer to engaging in same sex acts or having the traits of a same sex attracted person.

So then when someone states "A person cannot choose to be homosexual !" there is an ambiguity as to whether they are commenting about a person who is same sex in their gender affinity, or instead talking about choosing to engage in a pattern of same gender sexual activities" This confusion about the usage of these words in any particular context tends to result in people "talking past each other".

----------------------------------------

Now I would like to ask for a considered rational unemotional answer to a question, and I would appreciate it if no one would resort to invective disparagement and accusations of a hidden agenda.
I had posted earlier:
to which the response was:And I have to say that is one of the milder reactions I have gotten when raising this question. But:
-- both are non average sexual behaviors,
-- both are vehemently condemned by religious fundamentalists
-- both are condemned in the Bible in proximity one to the other in parallel wordings and in the writings of other religions
-- both have been punished under law and both have been and are capital crimes in some jurisdictions
-- both are practiced by people who hold this orientation exclusively
-- If one only looks at the narrative by both groups one hears many of the same arguments, and
-- if one merely happens to view tv or online video's of what zoosexual group's members say about themselves, one would have to be blind and deaf, not to realize that the zoosexual community is trying to argue for parallels the to the homosexual community in hope of making the same sort of gains for acceptability.
So why then is it not legitimate to discuss if any, many or all of these issues are real parallels between the two movements. (yes the abuse and consent issues will be raised but when examined rationally the answers there are not a foregone conclusion!)

It is my own suspicion that the general public's YUK! reaction is so strong towards zoosexuality that the homosexual community is terrified that to open that discussion could be massively damaging to their cause. Accordingly they vehemently attack any mention of it even if it is an honest question. If anyone cares to go back and re-read what I wrote I was merely making the point that I believe that had I been raised in a culture where zoosexual contact by humans was normative, that I believe I could have ended up as a zoosexual. The point being If I believe that I could have been induced into that, then I could have been induced to choose homosexuality A.-- What is lazy about it, there are parallels!
B.-- Sure, why not examine how far the parallels are valid and what their ramifications are.
Pardon me for being straight forward about this but what is the problem about asking for an honest comparison.
But if it is too icky for you it was not a major point to what I was saying, it just represented the sort of extremity that the question of inate inclinations vs choices can go to. Perhaps there really are people born who have a genetic make up such that it does not Yuk them out. (And restating for the record ! "I am a heterosexual monogamist who is oriented to the human species by choice!")