Is homosexuality a choice?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2012 1:43 PM GMT
    Hey Alex, "So, if that were true, in a sense, it would be a choice because at some point a person choices to come out of the closet and live the life of a gay person."

    Coming out is a choice. Whether you do or not, you are still gay icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2012 1:49 PM GMT
    To the OP: the twin studies you cite demonstrate that orientation is not a genetic phenomenon; if it were then 100% of identical twins where one person is gay would both be gay.

    But that does not mean that it is a choice—whatever that actually means. Moreover, there is a clear birth-order bias to orientation. The present understanding is that it is connected with prenatal environment. We are far from a complete explanation, and since sexuality is a very complicated phenomenon it is extremely unlikely to ever be boiled down to a single, simple factor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2012 1:57 PM GMT
    Obviously it's a choice. Heck, my own brother chose to be straight, mostly because he is not into anal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2012 2:15 PM GMT
    Medjai said

    Except those are genetic factors. We've even identified the exact alleles that code for those. Can we do the same or sexuality? No, because there's no evidence to say its genetic.

    Why is this so difficult?


    Not all genetic factors can be identified by a single allele. There are many genetic traits that are comprised of a complex set of alleles that have not yet been identified. For example, there is no black (in the colloquial context of 'African American') gene. The idea that the only things that exist is that which we have already discovered is a very narrow view. There is great evidence of a genetic component, but there isn't a 'gay' gene.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 9:22 AM GMT
    meninlove said Hey Alex, "So, if that were true, in a sense, it would be a choice because at some point a person choices to come out of the closet and live the life of a gay person."

    Coming out is a choice. Whether you do or not, you are still gay icon_wink.gif


    Hola Doug and Bill, I think that is true or I should write that I hope that is true but it is not established fact. There is still the conundrum, which came first, the chicken or the egg.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 9:24 AM GMT
    alexander7 said... There is still the conundrum, which came first, the chicken or the egg.
    chicken_20or_20egg.gif
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 322

    Oct 25, 2012 11:50 AM GMT
    There is a widespread fallacy that if it is indeed a choice, it is therefore wrong. Suppose it is a choice, what's wrong with that choice? No philosophical argument can soundly say that if it is a choice, it is wrong. So until that happens, whether it is a choice is irrelevant (at least with respect to legal issues).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 12:10 PM GMT
    Hawk_Guy13 said
    spgem saidIt's naive to think that all men are created equal when u have guys on RJ posting "WHITES ONLY" or "no Asians", "no blacks". But that's another thread....


    It's not naive at all. One issue deals with sexual attraction/personal preference. The other with institutionalized discrimination. The two have not one thing to do with another. I find tall men more attractive than short men. That's my preference. What I can not and will not do is say short people and tall people should be treated differently under our laws.



    Although the 2nd issue is on a larger scale than the first the concept is basically the same as Spgem points out. Keep in mind that whether on a lower or higher scale people are people. The person who endorse the first and rejects the 2nd would not appear as credible as the person who reject both issues
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 12:52 PM GMT
    maxferguson saidThere is a widespread fallacy that if it is indeed a choice, it is therefore wrong. Suppose it is a choice, what's wrong with that choice? No philosophical argument can soundly say that if it is a choice, it is wrong. So until that happens, whether it is a choice is irrelevant (at least with respect to legal issues).


    That widespread fallacy is a lot more dangerous than you think. The Religious Right, which both the Republican Party and Canada's Conservative Party is full of are the ones that decree it wrong, perverted, a danger to kids etc etc and maintain that it is a choice that can and should be corrected.


    (and if it were a choice I surmise there would be less members on RJ. As well, Bill and I's struggle to accept what we could not change when we were young would be a lie. )

    *thinks also of the many men and women who struggled to come to terms with something they were powerless to change, as they had no choice, some of them committing suicide in the process*
  • maxferguson

    Posts: 322

    Oct 25, 2012 2:50 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    maxferguson saidThere is a widespread fallacy that if it is indeed a choice, it is therefore wrong. Suppose it is a choice, what's wrong with that choice? No philosophical argument can soundly say that if it is a choice, it is wrong. So until that happens, whether it is a choice is irrelevant (at least with respect to legal issues).


    That widespread fallacy is a lot more dangerous than you think. The Religious Right, which both the Republican Party and Canada's Conservative Party is full of are the ones that decree it wrong, perverted, a danger to kids etc etc and maintain that it is a choice that can and should be corrected.


    (and if it were a choice I surmise there would be less members on RJ. As well, Bill and I's struggle to accept what we could not change when we were young would be a lie. )

    *thinks also of the many men and women who struggled to come to terms with something they were powerless to change, as they had no choice, some of them committing suicide in the process*



    I'm glad you mentioned powerless to change and suicide in the same sentence. I remember taking a psych class and we learned what was called "The Suicide Equation." When Stress exceeds coping resources, suicide becomes the next available coping resource. It never hit me until I came out, but with suicide rates in gay youth (and non-youth) so much higher than straight people of the same age, I figured that if it were a choice, that would be a much more accessible coping resource (because it's always within your power to change) than suicide. Since gay suicide rates are that much higher, it's extremely unlikely (Assuming that description of suicide is at least in some part true) that choice is an available coping resource and therefore was never a choice in the first place.

    I saw the recent stats for gay marriage support in Canada - it's gone way up, but you're right about the PC party. Where I see a disconnect though is the motivation of the masses to do something about it. They'll have their positions, but they don't feel wronged (enough) by not changing it, so it's at least within their comfort zone even though they may disagree. I don't care much for Harper anymore, but the number of times he's shut down the abortion debate on his own party is kind of impressive icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 2:53 PM GMT
    Of course its a choice.

    Fuck it, I'm straight today, tomorrow, I'm a gay man, and the day after that, and the day after that too! Then I'll be straight again on the weekends!

  • maxferguson

    Posts: 322

    Oct 25, 2012 2:57 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    maxferguson saidThere is a widespread fallacy that if it is indeed a choice, it is therefore wrong. Suppose it is a choice, what's wrong with that choice? No philosophical argument can soundly say that if it is a choice, it is wrong. So until that happens, whether it is a choice is irrelevant (at least with respect to legal issues).


    That widespread fallacy is a lot more dangerous than you think. The Religious Right, which both the Republican Party and Canada's Conservative Party is full of are the ones that decree it wrong, perverted, a danger to kids etc etc and maintain that it is a choice that can and should be corrected.


    (and if it were a choice I surmise there would be less members on RJ. As well, Bill and I's struggle to accept what we could not change when we were young would be a lie. )

    *thinks also of the many men and women who struggled to come to terms with something they were powerless to change, as they had no choice, some of them committing suicide in the process*


    PS: Cute display picture icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 4:16 PM GMT
    Nope, it's biological. Homophobes just need it to be a choice to justify their discrimination, so they can compare it to immoral things like theft or murder.

    http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/rollofhonour/specialinterestgroups/gaylesbian/submissiontothecofe/psychiatryandlgbpeople.aspx

    Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences have any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation (Bell and Weinberg, 1978 />.


    It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by genetic factors (Mustanski et al, 2005) and/or the early uterine environment (Blanchard et al. 2006). Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice, though sexual behaviour clearly is.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html

    However, in the latest study the authors claim the phenomenon is not only widespread but part of a necessary biological adaptation for the survival of the species.


    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html


    Brain scans have provided the most compelling evidence yet that being gay or straight is a biologically fixed trait.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 4:23 PM GMT
    Hetero, is unquestionably a choice; the rest, will be debated unceasingly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2012 5:14 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidOf course it's a choice. I've always wanted to identify as the most hated type of human to ever exist.


    I now have a new response when I get this question 10x a day.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:04 AM GMT
    TigerTim saidTo the OP: the twin studies you cite demonstrate that orientation is not a genetic phenomenon; if it were then 100% of identical twins where one person is gay would both be gay.

    But that does not mean that it is a choice—whatever that actually means. Moreover, there is a clear birth-order bias to orientation. The present understanding is that it is connected with prenatal enviricon_neutral.gifonment. We are far from a complete explanation, and since sexuality is a very complicated phenomenon it is extremely unlikely to ever be boiled down to a single, simple factor.


    Dude you need to update your understanding of modern genetics. I'm glad you mentioned the twins because twins studies are the ideal candidates for genetic study. This is because their environment is the same- they eat, breath, drink, neglected the same. So the twin study actually proves why genetics is a more valid argument to sexual orientation. Just a quick 101 on genetics. Your parents at conception bring a total of four alleles (not one but two each). At random.

    But you might ask don't twins have the same DNA at least the identical ones? Well, No. Research has shown the DNA might be the same but they differ on the gene expression which is somehow spontaneous. This has been shown in twins studies in diseases such as autoimmune disorders as well as rapid aging. As far as the gay gene in twins, a 1993 study by Whitman and Martin found that identical twins have the same sexual orientation approx 65% of the time and just only 23% of the time for fraternal twins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:08 AM GMT
    ******sexuality in general isnt a choice to me.u r given ur sexuality and it reveals itself in due time.

    ******its ur choice to either accept it or not.its betetr to accept it than to liv a depressing miserable life.

    *****if it was a choice,y woud we choose to make our lives more complicated than it is?

    ****** to be ostracized by other and probably hated?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:09 AM GMT
    pharmstudent said
    TigerTim saidTo the OP: the twin studies you cite demonstrate that orientation is not a genetic phenomenon; if it were then 100% of identical twins where one person is gay would both be gay.

    But that does not mean that it is a choice—whatever that actually means. Moreover, there is a clear birth-order bias to orientation. The present understanding is that it is connected with prenatal enviricon_neutral.gifonment. We are far from a complete explanation, and since sexuality is a very complicated phenomenon it is extremely unlikely to ever be boiled down to a single, simple factor.


    Dude you need to update your understanding of modern genetics. I'm glad you mentioned the twins because twins studies are the ideal candidates for genetic study. This is because their environment is the same- they eat, breath, drink, neglected the same. So the twin study actually proves why genetics is a more valid argument to sexual orientation. Just a quick 101 on genetics. Your parents at conception bring a total of four alleles (not one but two each). At random.

    But you might ask don't twins have the same DNA at least the identical ones? Well, No. Research has shown the DNA might be the same but they differ on the gene expression which is somehow spontaneous. This has been shown in twins studies in diseases such as autoimmune disorders as well as rapid aging. As far as the gay gene in twins, a 1993 study by Whitman and Martin found that identical twins have the same sexual orientation approx 65% of the time and just only 23% of the time for fraternal twins.


    If 1993 is the latest paper you can cite... Maybe you need to update your understanding of genetics?!?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:11 AM GMT
    spgem saidIt's naive to think that all men are created equal when u have guys on RJ posting "WHITES ONLY" or "no Asians", "no blacks". But that's another thread....


    Any aficionado of gay porn can tell you all men are NOT created equal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    You don't choose to be sexually attracted to the same sex, but you do choose whether or not to act on that attraction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:29 AM GMT
    I'm bi (like 40% straight, 60% gay).
    Yet my sexuality has been 100%gay for the last 15 years.

    So, for me, it's a choice.

    And I don't feel any pride, or any shame about that choice.

    My partner is 100% gay, he would not be able to raise it for any woman, never had the smallest interest toward it.

    He has no choice, but don't feel proud or ashamed about it.

    As for the genetic part, it's more complex than having a gene for it or not.
    Turtles and crocodile, for example, have no gene for gender. The are born male or female, but it's all about how warm/cold they were during egg development.
    It's called 'epigenetic', the processes that shut off genes and turn them inactive or modulate how strong they work.
    Homosexuality likely have an epigenetic componant, but as well be linked to early brain development, or both.
    Think about the baby duck who end up adopting as 'mother' the first moving thing they see when they break the egg shell. Once it's done, it will never change. It' not a directly a question of genes, yet it's 'engraved' in brain forever.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 1:51 AM GMT


    If 1993 is the latest paper you can cite... Maybe you need to update your understanding of genetics?!?![/quote]

    Hahaha point taken I just like their paper but it sucks when people say its a choice. Even that moron Michele bachmann run her stupid campaign on it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2012 2:03 AM GMT
    It's only a choice to accept it in yourself or not!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2012 3:12 PM GMT
    So true. As long as ur happy being gay with who ur gay with & u have the best & hottest times with him/them that's all that matters icon_smile.gif