Interesting Observation Concerning Sexuality and Choice

Post Reply New Topic

Flattery will get you everywhere.

So many people on this site get bent every time they think of someone considering gay as being a choice. If it has more to do with ones ideas, desires, etc. I suppose I am wrong. Because I have always felt that one having a so called "gay thought" doesn't make them gay until they begin to engage in "homosexual activity" (choice). Mainly because you don't know whats in someones head anyway. But it's just as unfair for you "born-gay" believers to assume that just because someone thinks it's choice automatically means they have no grounds. Everyone has a different frame of reference.

I know I am probably alone on this one. But I do honestly believe that a person who is said to be straight can choose to be gay (or do anything sexually with a male). But if something else is needed I will listen (I don't claim to have an abundance of knowledge on the subject). I'm not so narrow that I can't be convinced. But right now everyone seems to have their own definition for what it means to be gay.

It seems to me that you are falling into the same trap of behavioural determinism.

I am not gay because I have sex with men. I am gay because that is the only way in which I have any interest in having sex.

Homoerotic thoughts do not make a person gay. Homosexual acts do not make a person gay. It is entirely possible for a heterosexual person to have homoerotic thoughts and to engage in homosexual behaviour whilst continuing to have a heterosexual orientation (and the reverse is true, as well).

Sexual orientation is, to my way of thinking, deeper and more inherent than its mere manifestations.

What was highlighted I already said or simply threw it out there as a suggestion to what one might say (when taking into consideration thoughts and actions)

I'm not "falling" into anything. You've just succeeded in making this argument even more silly by stating that sexual orientation is "deeper and more inherent." The closest thing anyone can use to back this idea that its more inherent is by blaming a biological disposition(which is still not proof that one is born ________). In a sense you could say being gay doesn't even exist. We always have this urge to label people (turning "gay" into a thing). Also I never said that homoerotic thoughts make someone gay. Almost my entire post is speaking hypothetically.

BTW I'm not against gays or anything like that, if I come off that way I apologize in advance.

Well said.

I didn't choose to be gay. But if I did, it still wouldn't justify people hating me.

(On the other hand, one can certainly choose whether or not to identify as gay, and that's actually something I grapple with. I'm not entirely comfortable with the identity but it is the closest thing to the "real" me that people will understand without me having to explain it to them.)

I wouldn't think too far into the nonsense the right come up with, they're usually just regurgitating buzzphrases, but it is interesting to examine the mentality that came up with it in the first place.

The reason for a harsh response is because most of the time people who say that being gay is a choice actually are trying to imply "being gay is a sin." And could you please explain to me why someone would choose to be gay considering all of the difficulties it chooses? Believe me, I've thought quite often that it would be easier to be straight. But that doesn't make me any more attracted to girls.

I have an interest in primatology/anthropology. The primatologist Frances De Waal has suggested, as have others, that human sexuality exist on a continuum and that there are very few people who are 100% "straight" or 100% "gay." How an individual's sexuality emerges is a complex interaction of biology, genetics, and environment, which explains how "straight" prison inmates can begin engaging in homosexual behavior and then resume exclusive heterosexuality once released.

The practice of putting people into boxes of "heterosexual" and "homosexual" is a cultural convention that can and has changed depending on the time period and the society. For example, there really weren't "homosexuals" in ancient Greece as we understand them today; there were just male teachers who occasionally enjoyed engaging in sexual activity with male students, but they weren't "gay" because "gay" didn't exist as a concept for them. Ditto for the animal kingdom. Bonobos are often cited as "gay" apes, but they don't form exclusive pair-bonds with the same sex, nor are there bonobos who express a clear preference for one over the other. A bonobo will engage in sexual activity with just about anyone, but there are no "gay" bonobos.

As to the "choice" debate, I've know people who whole-heartedly believed it was a biological phenomenon, but who also believed scientists needed to hurry up and "cure" it. I've also known people who thought it was a "choice," but who whole-heartedly supported equal rights for everyone. Not everyone who believes orientation is a "choice" is an enemy.

No, it most certainly is not what you already said.



This appears to me to very clearly demonstrate that the acid test for you is behavioural. "Thoughts," don't make a person gay until that person chooses to engage in homosexual behaviour. A person can "choose" to be gay, or to engage in sexual behaviour with a member of the same sex.

This looks entirely like behavioural determinism to me--you are classifying people according to their actions.



"If?"

I can assure you, you will very likely appear that way to many LGBT people. Dismissing an assertion that sexual orientation is deeper and more inherent than its manifestations is the height of disrespect. I am expressing my experience with my sexuality and you are dismissing it as, "silly."

Ok, if you are going to quote someone. Don't chop off what I said before and disregard the fact that I stated my post was primarily hypothetical. Not to mention I was making a quick dart. All I was saying was, that anyone can think, be attracted to, have something in them biologically that makes them more prone to be, etc. whatever, but people could still argue that ones actions is the only way to label. Obviously now that there is much more knowledge available (going back to my comment that says: until they begin to engage in "homosexual activity") my opinion on the subject has thus moved a bit(not exclusively to one side or the other).


Check my post again it says "But I do honestly believe that a person who is said to be straight can choose to be gay (or do anything sexually with a male)"
^^^ in general that is agreeing with what you said which was...
It is entirely possible for a heterosexual person to have homoerotic thoughts and to engage in homosexual behaviour whilst continuing to have a heterosexual orientation (and the reverse is true, as well).

in many cases people would consider them bi around the area I live (not saying that makes it fact)

Whereas the first part of your post, I used a idea that Homoerotic thoughts could give weight to whether or not someone may or may not be gay. But I guess you didn't read my whole post. Oh well

I can assure you, you will very likely appear that way to many LGBT people - visagrunt

This was funny. I have never came off that way to anyone in person (your the first... to speak at least) and I know a fair amount of homosexuals. People who are "gay" have been in my home(and know where I stand on this debate). A woman I was involved with several years ago had a massive amount of friends in the LGBT community ( three occasions they were her roommates). All which I befriended with no issues in regards to my beliefs on sexual orientation.

Which makes this even funnier because. One in particular whom I've know since I was around 7, was not considered bi until high-school/college (seemingly of course).

And not only that, just on a side note. A friend of literally stated to me and my friends that two young men (friends of mine) "turned her into a lesbian." Now, none of what I said proves anything. I'm just going back to my original statement that everyone who doesn't agree with you isn't against you. But you are trying to make it look that way.

Well I don't have all the answers. I simply believe that it is a possibility. I have been hearing a lot of you ask that same ole question why would they choose? First off I can ask that same question of many things. Why do we eat s**t that we know isn't good for us in the long run (why would we do such a thing). People have been doing things forever that are in someway getting them treatment that they don't deserve or putting them at risk. I don't think sitting down and saying "you know what, I am going to be gay" is how it happens. There are obviously other factors that determine it. I haven't I been convinced with any evidence that either side is the absolutely right.

As far as it being a sin. I'm not getting into that. In some religions it is, who cares. Are you religious?

yes. that is basically where I was getting at by saying that one could argue gay doesn't exist.

Unfortunately for me some people think my comments imply that I am against gays. And that is just not the case nor has it ever been.

People eat unhealthy food because it tastes good. From a purely physiological point of view, friction is friction, regardless of what gender is applying it. The only reason someone would enjoy one gender more than another is because of an inherent attraction.

No, I am not religious at all. And I think that the world has every reason to care that in some religions being gay is seen as a sin--that is preaching intolerance and tries to violate equality and human rights. We care when human rights are violated in China or Cuba or when woman's rights are violated under Sharia law, so we should care if gay rights are violated by a religion.

I think the basic disagreement here comes down to definitions. Visagrunt defines someone as being gay if they live a homosexual lifestyle (ie: have a partner or at least don't try to hide in a heterosexual marriage) and consistently would prefer to engage in intercourse with their own sex, whereas you simply define it as someone who has sex with their own sex. Most people would tend to think in terms of visagrunt's definition. After all, I define myself as gay even though I have never had an...er, encounter...with another male.

*sigh* I don't have a definition, you people come up with new definitions everyday. For the third time, what I said about having sexual intercourse with one of the same sex is a simple way (not gonna say most, I'll just say in my experience many other people) tend to think a particular person might be homosexual, I'm not saying the action absolutely defines gay. (I apologize for not knowing people who have sexual intercourse with people of the same sex that aren't gay. Not my fault)

So lifestyle is what it comes down to aye? Lifestyle isn't a choice (well maybe not entirely...to a degree?)? My mistake. And I like how you two continue to act as if you know most people see things your way. As if you guys have taken a poll or something. "Most people would tend to think in terms of visagrunts definition." I think it's very ironic that I'm being bashed here. But you guys have stronger... much stronger opinions on this because it affects you directly. So I'm gonna leave this thread alone before I upset anyone else. I hope all the hatred and in some cases violence towards homosexuals stops soon. Anyone else reading this, simply forget my opinion on the matter... It doesn't count apparently. Goodnight.

I don't know that you'll read this but I don't want you to get the wrong impression. First, I'm not offended by you, I simply disagree. If you want to see me offended, watch me talk about right-wing Christians. Also, I didn't explain myself properly. Visagrunt's definition of being gay is living the lifestyle (which is a choice--assuming we have free will at all, anyway) while being homosexual he defines as feeling attracted to the same sex and not the other. Most people think of being gay in terms of visagrunt's definition of homosexuality (I think--as you said, I have not polled people. But based on how the word is used I would guess that that is how they think of it). I do not think that people who go "gay-for-pay" really should be called gay. The commit a homosexual act, yes, but they would still call themselves straight as it is still the opposite sex that they are actually attracted to.

I will admit thought, that I think a lot of people out there are actually bisexual, at least to a degree. But because of stigma most "straight" people who are actually bi don't act on those impulses, and for gay people it is often easier to be labelled that way (makes life less complicated). In other cases I do not think these impulses are strong enough to at upon--in my case, although I can certainly admire a female face I find the body almost totally unattractive and as such would not feel the desire to be with a woman.

Even if someone is not born gay, I do not think it is a conscious decision. Was it you or somebody else who said maybe it's an unconscious decision? I sort of agree with that, but in some ways I feel that putting anything onto the subconscious is just a way of saying that someone's past experience has conditioned them to be that way. As such it is not a decision at all.

I should probably point out, that I don't really believe that human beings have free will (please let's not get started on that debate right now), so to me nothing we do is truly a choice, merely the result of biochemical and electrochemical reactions in the brain. We are nothing but biological automatons.

Your words are not serving you well, because they are creating an offensive impression where you intend none.

Consider a statement like, "I apologize for not knowing people who have sexual intercourse with people of the same sex that aren't gay. Not my fault." A plain reading of this suggests hypocrisy--an apology tendered where no fault is admitted. Now it is just as likely that you intended to convey a meaning of sincere acknowledgement of new information that has changed your point of view--but that's not what your words say. But the statement that you typed looks like a virtual shrug and that is certainly a more straightforward interpretation of your words than my attempt to find another motivation behind your words.

I think you hit an important point when you say, "But you guys have stronger... much stronger opinions on this because it affects you directly." Consider that for a moment. I don't stop being a gay man when I leave the bedroom or when I leave the house. Being gay is integral to who I am--all the time. Its impact is most apparent and direct in my sexual behaviour, but it also affects my family life, my taste in art and culture, my political opinions and my professional practice. I am a gay man all the time--not just when I am engaging in sexual behaviour.

Rather than getting defensive, perhaps it might serve you better to try to understand why your statements are giving offence.