Is Being Gay a 'Choice'?

Post Reply New Topic

I was stating that the question itself was irrelevant (to anything really, namely as it is applied to the apologetics of homosexuality).



Now this I didn't state, nor do I believe it, though I suspect that's partially true - nevertheless, it can still be taught, otherwise encouraged (or vice versa, suppressed) or even forced, and the ways in which you could develop seemingly suddenly appear highly complex and not limited to any single rule. Doesn't seem right to simplify it like that.

There is no need for an apologetics of homosexuality. It's quite fine and dandy.

No need to invent unnecessary invalid and incorrect/questionable arguments in its defence then?

This is starting to seem like harassment of Valk. He doesn't want to say it, and you should stop trying to make him say it. Not saying it is at least a start.

At the same time, let's stop beating around the bush and run the numbers, clicky

Excuse me. That is precisely what you DID state.

You said people have urges. The only question is whether or not they act on the urges. So you admitted that they dont choose to have the urges. What they choose is whether to act them, or not.


Then in the above paragraph you deny saying what you clearly did say. And then procede to say it AGAIN! But then you cover your tracks by saying that its some kind interaction between enviroment and the innate.

And whats this about "apologetics" for homosexuals?

Who exactly is apologizing for them? Did gays just form some new mafia or something? What exactly are gays doing that needs to be apologized for?

what i find interesting is the correlation between feeling sexual orientation is a choice and feeling it is immoral and to be avoided. and then the corresponding correlation between feeling it is not a choice and then feeling it is a blameless situation.
but there's really nothing necessarily moral about this question.. the question is simply about whether or not homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. which is in itself a contradictory question. do you ever really choose any preference? do you choose to prefer your favorite color? do you choose to prefer chocolate ice cream? choice is irrelevant here by definition, no?

that's why morals come into it, isn't it? making homosexuality immoral must suppose that it is chosen, that's for sure. and to do this, they must focus on the voluntary actions of homosexuals. preferences or involuntary acts cannot be immoral.

but in both cases, i'd argue that nothing is really being said. the question is about preferences, not actions. the focus on actions is a straw man and nothing more in this scenario. doubtless we could have a lively debate on whether or not homosexual acts are immoral, but really f**k that. and on the other side, this scientific focus on how homosexual preference is inborn seems really irrelevant to me. whether by environmental influence or genetics, nature or nuture, or more likely a complex mixture of both that we get the homosexual preference does not really f*****g matter, does it? it's a preference. would you condemn a man to death for liking eggs served in a bowl of strawberry jam? unconventional but kind of his own business and not particularly relevant to you, right?

does the inclusion of scientific evidence for homosexual preference genes really shift the focus to or from morality at all? it all just seems too much like an apology for gays.. like, they can't help it, poor little buggers... as if you did not have your very own idiosyncratic preferences. and i understand that that condescension is not intentional, and in fact basically humane in intent, but i dunno guys, condescension sucks. or perhaps i'm being too harsh. maybe it's nothing more than a reaction to those who would say it is immoral, and cannot help in refuting that idea to more or less agree to the terms of the world it creates. which is namely that it is at all a moral issue, which needs to be refuted by saying it is involuntary and therefore innocent. there is no innocence or guilt here. why scramble for evidence of innocence? you need none. it is not a matter of logic or morality to have a preference.

If I were able to choose my sexuality, I would actually choose to be gay just so that I'd have an excuse to not act like an uber-macho man. I'm not macho, and I think machismo is highly overrated, but at the same time I'm sexually attracted to females, and for some reason a lot of people, at least around here, think that those two things are mutually exclusive.

Others have pointed you to evidence that you are wrong about homosexuality serving no benefit.

You are also wrong about it not being hereditary. Popular article. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=23397798&dopt=abstractplus]Scientific paper[/url]. To be honest, this is a ridiculous claim - this is an extremely well studied claim.

As those links show, something does not have to be genetic to be natural (or hereditary). Epigenetics seems likely. Conditions in the womb also play a role - youngest sons are more likely to be homosexual than oldest sons.

Heterosexual people will say, "I choose to be celibate".

Can't gay people choose to be celibate too ? So, the behavior identified as "being gay" -- is a choice ?

Priests can't do it, "Family values" politicians can't do it, etc.

A celibate heterosexual is still heterosexual, and a celibate homosexual is still homosexual.
The only choice made here is one of celibacy.

Wikipedia: "A study in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality )

See study here, http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/10 ... index.html

Do you argue against the possibility someone can be homosexual then asexual ?

Celibacy is not equivalent to asexuality. There is a huge difference between not feeling any sexual attraction towards anybody (asexuality) and repressing/suppressing one's sexual desires / activity (celibacy).

If humans can go from homosexuality or heterosexuality to asexuality, then a choice has been made to NOT be heterosexual, or NOT to be homosexual.

I can't see people who are distinctly heterosexual or homosexual choosing to be asexual. Some may chose celibacy but that isn't the same thing. Those who declare themselves asexual likely never had much/any sexual desires to start with.

What Tallyman said.


There are monks who identify as "gay but celibate" just like most monks identify as "straight but celibate". In both cases they have the respective urges, but choose not to act on them.