So is being gay a choice or not?

Just curious what the current thought is. It seems in the last year or two even the anti-gay people have conceded it is not a choice. The poll is about self-identified gay people.

[video=youtube;QJtjqLUHYoY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QJtjqLUHYoY[/video]

So what do you think in 2013? Regardless of how you feel about gays or gay rights, do you think it is a choice they consciously make?

 

No, it is not a choice. I've lived through it.

 

I think most are born that way, but I think a lot of people experiment, and I think some people are confused and need help to get their act together.

 

I actually agree with this.

But I think even the people experimenting have some basis for the attraction.

 

When considered within the overall scheme of human sexuality, combined with gender identity, most people need a sense of solid understanding of who they are and those people who don't, need therapy.

Despite my thoughts on what is normal/abnormal I am fully aware of the variety of people and their attraction proclivities.

 

The Religious Right used to vehemently claim it was a "choice" and/or "the product of bad parenting, lack of Christian values, etc.....

then with their support of Dick Cheney and admiration for Lynne Cheney.....and the fact their daughter Mary was a lesbian .....it suddenly became "born that way".

Naturally, there was nothing partisan or political in that change of opinion....naturally.

 

I kind of hate the question.

Why should someone have to justify his or her sexual preference by telling people "its not my fault"?

A left handed person doesn't have to justify being left handed.

 

Because if it is something you are capable of controlling, it is more reasonable for society to demand that you conform to it rather than the other way around.

 

Humans are inclined to label themselves and associate with groups for mutual support, although I don't think it's necessary that one label themselves and establish an identity based on any given attribute. That "sense of identity" you speak of which people seek is largely created around distinctions first created by society... It all starts with society first establishing the importance in the distinction, such as between male and female, or gay and straight, or Christian and Jew. After which humans try to conform themselves to those labels based on their need for association... those who can't either reject the notion of labels in the first place or likely need therapy, as you say.

Sexual orientation identities are largely created from social stigma against non-conforming sexual behavior... had that stigma never existed, a strong identity would likely never have developed around it. People would simply fall in love with whomever they are inclined without much thought on the matter or confusion about its implications on their identity. However, given how uncommon homosexuality is and how much humans have a tendency to focus on and be threatened by differences that they are unfamiliar with, it's unlikely that a world free of identities based on sexual orientation will come about any time soon. But it is slowly diminishing as more and more people "come out". One day it will be of virtually no import.

 

That assumes that "society" is an arbitrary set of terms and beliefs, set by some random phantom identity making declarations. Society is a process of evolution, and there are norms that we all understand. We understand that it requires a sperm and egg to make a new member of society and the normal course of creation requires one man and one woman. It does not take a deity or a law for people to understand that and for them to understand that is normal, so of course anyone outside of that sphere will feel a sense of discomfort.

 

I'm not finding a poll option that matches my view, so I'll just state it here:

I consider "being gay" to mean same-sex attraction, not behavior. I also don't view the attraction as 100% gay, 50/50 bisexual, 100% straight, but lying somewhere along a continuum.

I don't think we know a cause for certain or whether it's definitely inborn. I'm inclined to think it must become established very early, if not inborn (which I don't rule out). I am persuaded that being primarily attracted to one sex or the other is not something one consciously chooses, and not something one can eliminate.

When it comes to behavior, it's obvious to me that this is a choice, but we can reasonably expect that sexual behavior will often (not always) be driven by one's primary orientation. I have known people who pursued heterosexual behavior despite knowing they were more attracted to their own sex. I have known people who present as 'straight' but are in reality 'flexible', meaning primarily attracted to the opposite-sex, but not averse to experimentation with the right person of the same-sex. And of course there's always the "Man, was I drunk/stoned last night" bunch who will rationalize their same-sex behavior by blaming it on the effects of drugs or alcohol. It's so cliche as to have been satirized with "The Kilians Scale"; the number of beers it takes for a horny 'straight' man to become temporarily more curious than 100% straight (and I don't mean as a target of predation, but as an initiator).

 

Society would also collaps if it was only composed of doctors and lawyers, with no farmers or mechanics or people with other trade skills... the fact that everyone is not the same and contributes exactly the same thing to society is not necessarily a source of "discomfort". In that case, it's a very comfortable fact that we rely on. In other cases, society and individuals within it may be indifferent to inconsequential differences between us... for example people need not necessarily be concerned whether my romantic partner and I can reproduce, what does that have to do with them? Rather, they should be "discomforted" the people and society are forcing people to be unhappy and stigmatized needlessly, simply for the sake of their norms.

Although procreation currently requires sperm and an egg, that fact doesn't, by extension, mean that it is only possible and acceptable and "comfortable" for a man and woman to be romantically involved. It also doesn't mean it's only possible for the man and woman in the context of a romantic relationship to reproduce. A woman romantically involved with another woman can reproduce and raise a child with the assistance of a sperm donation. That link between the two, that the ability to procreate strictly between a romantically involved man and woman must exist or risk people being "uncomfortable" seems debatable to me. There are other ways to reproduce, and the ability to reproduce need not be a concern for others not involved in the first place

I understand that this notion is pretty deeply entrenched in the mindset of people, but it will likely diminish over time. It already is diminishing. There is a continuing (and justified) belief in our society that a stable home ideally headed by two parents is best for children, but the ongoing debate is whether it must be composed strictly of a man and woman and whether it's only acceptable or "comfortable" if they can reproduce themselves. This norm is being challenged, and there being any objective or pragmatic justification for reenforcing the norm is debatable.

 

So you would choose the 2nd or 3rd opinions. Your opinion does exist in the poll.

 

Homosexuals are victims of feminism. When the son sees the father dominated by the mother, he wants to become a woman. So his natural male drive, to dominate, is twisted into this perversion because of his dysfunctional family. It is more humane and practical to end homosexuality by ending gender equality. Like any other unnatural equality, it is unstable and quickly becomes female supremacy.

Also a result of this dysfunction is male weakness towards women, especially in being obsessed with sex. So the son winds up repeating his father's unmanliness one way or another. Homosexuality is a far worse choice. Maybe the sex slave can luck out and find a woman who encourages his natural male identity, but a homosexual can only be victimized by his fellow victim of feminism.

Women also suffer because of their delusions about equality. They can never be happy being like that. Of course, there are too many men who are unmanly even in area unrelated to subservience to females, so feminists are actually expressing a wish for men to act like men in a general sense too. If men would man up, there wouldn't be any feminism or its side-effect, homosexuality.

 

So at what point did you make the decision to become straight?

 

This might be the sickest and most offensive post I've read on this forum yet.

You do realize that homosexuality has been around forever and that everything in your idiotic diatribe has been proven false, right?

 

I voted for "Most Gay people are gay because of biology or genetics, not choice" because there seems to be a few exceptions where people have changed their sexuality (Ann Heche and Lindsey Lohan). That is assuming that they were ever gay or bi in the first place. I don't personally know of anyone who has changed their sexual orientation, or are capable of doing so.

 

This is pretty close to what I see being reality.

 

No, because that would be implying that I believe we definitely know the cause when we don't. But I don't wish to belabor the point.

 

I believe sexuality is fluid, so I picked the second option.

 

Like others here, I think sexuality is a continuum, not a binary choice with bisexuals right in the middle.

Because of that, homosexuality is a variable combination of nature/nurture, so I can't answer an either/or question on that subject.

Someone who has occasional, mild attractions to the same sex can get along fine in a heterosexual world -- suppressing those attractions costs them next to nothing, since they're mostly hetero. They can "choose" not to be gay, if you will.

But someone who is strongly homosexual is another matter. Asking them to suppress that attraction is asking them to be celibate for life.

The attraction is not a choice in either case. It's just easier to suppress an attraction when the attraction is mild and the alternative gender is acceptable.

 

Virtually all the credible things I have read/heard on human sexuality generally agree with what you have said above. Bravo!!

 

Yep!! It is what you are... not something you choose.

A naked woman could sit on my lap, and just because she's female... I would stay as limp as a noodle. On the other hand, certain male voices and accents can be enticing to me. To a heterosexual that is just plain difficult to understand; but if you're homosexual, it comes to you like 'breathing'.

 

I generally agree with your statement, but this part I don't quite agree with. With the exception of a homosexual who is absolutely repulsed by women and can't even "get it up" with the help of Viagra, even a homosexual man or woman can have sex with the opposite sex, we see it all the time.

It's for this reason that I think it's a bit of a misnomer that we include the word "sexuality" in the words homo/hetero/bi-sexual. Broadly speaking, yes, it's about "sexual attraction", but broadly speaking, sexual attraction and sexuality are not just about who you have sex with. It's about the physical and personality traits that attract you romantically and emotionally to someone, those butterflies in your stomach, fluttering hearts, sweaty palms you think about or see that special person, the resulting companionship and the biochemistry that underlies it all. So when you're asking a homosexual to suppress their attraction, you're not just asking them to be celibate for life. They can still have sex. And even if they can't have sex, that is insubstantial compared to the true loss in romantic and emotional fulfillment through companionship, their happiness and completeness, and their self-esteem for accepting and loving who they are. I would not want to downplay this topic by reducing it down to just who can have sex with who, as if that was the only significance. Sex is just an incidental, the true breadth of the role sexuality plays in our lives is much more substantial.

I know that's not what you meant, but i wanted to be clear because many like to take advantage of this little ambiguity to demean homosexuals and their fight as just being "all about sex".

 

I generally agree that it is fluid to various degrees, although I doubt many (if any) have control over that fluidity... it's still not a choice by the typical sense of the word, even for those who experience fluidity in it. Our bodies change over time, and we can respond differently and in unexpected ways to a man or woman that we didn't anticipate. I hate to pick the first answer "All gay people" because broad generalizations are frequently false, but I don't think the experience of fluidity is the same as saying they had a conscious choice or any form of control over it.