So why is it offensive to consider homosexuality as a choice?

[CountryMike]

My housemate genuinely thinks homosexuality is a choice. He's an idiot.

Having sex is a choice. Wanting to have sex is not... sometimes.

Wanting to have gay sex doesn't make you gay. Actually having gay sex makes you gay. People are defined by their actions.
And having gay feelings or homosexuals urges might not be a choice. Acting on them is a choice.

Nothing wrong with that but having gay sex is a choice. Can't argue that.

 

[Avalanche91]

Because it's usually paired with offensive statements and factually untrue; sexuality is determined before birth trough hormonal magic/shenanigans in the womb.

 

[dementis]

I prefer to think of sexuality in much more grey terms, I don't think people are either gay, straight or bi. I think everyone is a varying scale of bisexual.

For most of my youth I considered myself straight but my first and longest sexual relationship was with another man, yet I've never really considered any other male sexually attractive and all further relationships have been with women. My first partner is engaged to a woman now and he seems to share my views.

 

[Caffiene]

So if you purely regard homosexuality as being dominantly sexually attracted to the same sex. Then yes it isn't really a choice, more something that just happens to you.
[...]
But still acting upon your homosexuality is surely a choice right? So why is it considered offensive to regard it as such?

I mostly see where the OP is coming from, and I agree that a lot of what you've said is technically correct - homosexuality is not a choice; acting on your urges is a choice (whether homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual), but (as you say in later posts) for most people it is the healthy and reasonable choice.

With that in mind, I think the question "so why is it considered offensive to call it a choice" is misrepresenting the statement that people are offended by.

People get offended either by:
a) the statement that "homosexuality is a choice" (not the acting on it) - you agree that this statement is not true.
or
b) the statement that "acting on homosexual urges is a choice", in a context that strongly implies that long term denial of sexual urges is a healthy, easy, and/or desirable choice. ie: People say "acting on your urges is a choice" as a way to tell people that they shouldnt act on their urges. The first part (its a choice) is true; the second part is attempting to convince someone to pursue a generally unhealthy and emotionally harmful behaviour and therefore can be quite offensive, particularly if the person being addressed has not asked for advice on the subject. Consider an analogy to, for example, telling somebody without provocation that they should go and self-harm.

edit:
Caveat - "Reasonable people are offended by..." There will always be some idiot who will get offended by anything somebody could possibly say, but I suggest that reasonable people, and the majority of people who speak up about being offended, are talking about one of the two categories above.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

It's "offensive" so to speak because it implies that homosexuals are just renegade heterosexuals when in reality thats not actually true. It also has connotations to the anti-gay scene ("These people aren't different why should we let them be?").

You're absolutely right that acting upon sexual urges is a choice, but when people talk about homosexuality as a choice they are generally referring to the idea of preferring one group of people over another which you admit is not a choice.

I suppose choosing to be *openly* homosexual is technically a choice, but it's no greater a choice then choosing to be openly heterosexual.

Edit: Also I would note that most people tend just to read the thread title, fly into a rage and then post stupidity that's covered in the OP. I recommend a more specific thread title coupled with a bold "This is not what I'm talking about" disclaimer in the OP.

 

[Alandoril]

Well, to be completely honest it kind of is a choice. At least it was for me. Women don't give me the time of day so I decided to change tactics and try men, since it was the only option open to me for intimate contact with another human being.

Although having said that I have always had bisexual tendencies, so I suppose the choice was more to actively pursue my interests in that arena.

But heterosexuality is also a choice, you can choose not to engage in relationships with women. Some of the straight blokes I see on dating sites, would have no need to be on such sites if they chose to set aside their rigid concepts of sexuality and decided to enjoy the company of men. I did it, despite my misgivings, and to be honest I don't regret it. In fact, it has made life a lot easier than being forever alone.

 

[Boris Goodenough]

Although having said that I have always had bisexual tendencies, so I suppose the choice was more to actively pursue my interests in that arena.

But heterosexuality is also a choice, you can choose not to engage in relationships with women. Some of the straight blokes I see on dating sites, would have no need to be on such sites if they chose to set aside their rigid concepts of sexuality and decided to enjoy the company of men. I did it, despite my misgivings, and to be honest I don't regret it. In fact, it has made life a lot easier than being forever alone.

But if you aren't attracted to men(or , wouldn't hat be weird sex? Having sex with someone you are not attracted to surely won't be too pleasent?

 

[Angie7F]

I kinda think that it is wrong for people to deny that to some people it is in fact a choice.
I understand that to many people it is not a choice.
But because sexuality is not a clean cut gay/ straight issue, many people fall in between and because fo that some people do feel that it is a choice.

I guess since all people have a right to feel however they want to feel about this matter, you just cant force people to think in just one way

 

[M0tty]

Whether we want to admit it or not, heterosexuality is the "natural" default-- without it life does not exist in sexually reproductive beings. It HAS to exist.

The world's hermaphroditic species called.
They disagree.

 

[Madgamer13]

'Nonsensical' is being used a lot in this thread, which is rather sad. How about we come from this alternate angle?

The problem is not to do with Homosexuality, it's existence as a sexual preference and predisposition or whether such preferences can be considered a choice. The real problem is the illusion of choice with discrimination, as those who would discriminate against anything most definitely have the choice to discriminate, but the victim of discrimination has absolutely no choice whatsoever in more than just the context of the discrimination.

Focusing too much on the hows, whys and ways of the concept of sexuality just gives more time for those who like to discriminate against others to ply their enjoyment. In the worst case scenario, conceptual wrangling of sexuality is likely to give them something to discriminate with.

Also, why is there such a focus on male homosexuality when there is a female equivalent in the form of lesbianism? Surely such a focus is discriminatory in itself.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

That's not exactly true, as he points out it's not a choice, but then brings up people doing homesexual things.

The implication is that doing anything gay is bad, or deviant, and people are actively choosing to do that. He's not making an observation, he's implying that it's wrong. There's a motive behind his observation, hence the title.

Except..

Again I want to stress that I think it's the right choice. Sexuality is a good thing, so I'd encourage people to do whatever they want on that area as long as all involved parties are consentfull.

No he doesn't. He specifically says that there is no implication behind. He's arguing that it's a "choice" to act upon any sexual urges whatsoever. It's a argument prone to misunderstanding, but there is absolutely no malice behind it.

 

[V8 Ninja]

Do you hear people talk about "acting upon" their heterosexuality?

I've acted upon my hetrosexuality before...

Spoiler

ON THOU MOTHER!

Be proud of yourself, Dangit; even though it was already dead to begin with, you made that joke funny. That is no small feat.

A Bit More OT: Because changing what triggers pleasure in an individual is really, really hard. Until dozens of hundreds of hospitals adopt neuron-altering surgeries specifically for changing those triggers, we're stuck with what we got. And even then, the question of whether or not it is ethical to change what someone naturally likes does not have a clear-cut answer.

 

[PatrickXD]

Because if you call it a choice, you can make it a crime. If you call it a choice, you can have an open court of people claiming that it should be an illegal choice. If you call it a choice you trivialise harrowing issues that gay teenagers have, by simply saying that they made the wrong choice. Mostly, because if you call it a choice, you are wrong.
Not calling it a choice does not mean we're calling it an 'affliction'. This is the whole point of gay rights activism. Sexuality is a spectrum, it is just as 'normal' to be gay as it is to be straight. It is not an affliction to be gay. In the same way that it is not an affliction to be black, or have blue eyes. These are natural differences between people that do not need to have negative impacts on people's lives. In the case of homosexuality, the first step to removing the negative impact - particularly on teens - is to accept the truth that it is not a choice.

The obvious counter argument is that we could just say it is a choice, and an okay one to make. But this is inherently a short term 'solution' to a long term 'problem'. Illegal choices can become legal choices. Legal choices can become illegal choices. The only solution is to never again say that homosexuality is a choice.

EDIT: On the topic of 'sexuality assignment' procedures. I don't think this should be a thing. I really don't. It brings too much control into the situation of sexuality. It would not stop someone too poor for the surgery from being born gay, into a world where it is illegal to be gay because now that it technically can be a choice for some people, it has been deemed an illegal one. We should be embracing who we are, to the extent that it does no harm.

 

[Something Amyss]

Huh, I didn't realize the community felt so strongly about this. Interesting...

In the end, I don't think it matters. There's nothing wrong with it if it is a choice. There's nothing wrong with it if it isn't.

Edit: Like really strongly. Garsh. These feels.

It shouldn't matter if it's a choice. People should be free to choose their own relationships, so long as they are not harming anyone. You shouldn't, for example, be able to choose lock up (insert C-List celebrity here) and make him/her your love slave. Well, unless they're onboard with it.

The reality is that it does matter, because if it's a choice, it's societally okay to discriminate against that choice.

I prefer to think of sexuality in much more grey terms, I don't think people are either gay, straight or bi. I think everyone is a varying scale of bisexual.

For most of my youth I considered myself straight but my first and longest sexual relationship was with another man, yet I've never really considered any other male sexually attractive and all further relationships have been with women. My first partner is engaged to a woman now and he seems to share my views.

This sounds more like "I can't imagine anyone being different from me, so that must be normal."

Which is the same way a lot of the homophobes operate. Hell, that's the way Dan Savage trivialises bisexuals.


I don't understand monosexual behaviour any more than they tend to understand bisexual behaviour or the other form of monosexual behaviour (heterosexual for homosexuals and vice versa), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's mountains of evidence, and to pretend otherwise is to do exactly what the 'phobes do.

Edit: Also I would note that most people tend just to read the thread title, fly into a rage and then post stupidity that's covered in the OP. I recommend a more specific thread title coupled with a bold "This is not what I'm talking about" disclaimer in the OP.

A lot of the people in this thread specifically reference what he's talking about, including the notion that sexuality may not be a choice, but "acting on it" is.

I kinda think that it is wrong for people to deny that to some people it is in fact a choice.
I understand that to many people it is not a choice.
But because sexuality is not a clean cut gay/ straight issue, many people fall in between and because fo that some people do feel that it is a choice.

I guess since all people have a right to feel however they want to feel about this matter, you just cant force people to think in just one way

I really do wonder where people get this mythical notion that bisexuals and the like can control who they are attracted to. Like, gays and straights can't, but the bisexual is some mythic creature that can freely choose its interests.

Those are the people who fall in between, and they're just as susceptible to matters of the heart/hormones as gays and straights are.

I mean, yes. Anyone can choose, technically. I could choose to make out with George W Bush. Doesn't mean I find him at all appealing, doesn't mean I'd enjoy it, and doesn't mean I would feel good about it later. Gays "choose" to live closeted lives and get wives/husbands and bear children all the time. Doesn't mean they're bisexual, or that "teh gay" can be chosen, or that they're happy.

Left-handed people can also "choose" to be right-handed, and people with lactose intolerance can "choose" to drink milk.

 

[Lightknight]

Primarily because people use the belief that it's a choice as the logic behind bashing or marginalizing gays.

If the debate between choice or nature was not related to the justification or vilification of homosexuality then this would just be a scientific discussion. But as such, homosexual advocates are not able to give any ground to choice for fear of justifying the other side and likewise people agianst homosexuality don't feel like they can give ground to biology. This is mildly humorous as Christianity teaches that the fall of man resulted in a sin nature that all people have. So Christianity would directly agree with biological sin natures if they feel that homosexuality is a sin. Likewise, because homosexuality is extremely maladaptive (maladaptive being any trait that inhibits the ability to pass on one's genes, not anything regarding it being intrinsically bad or something) then some environmental factors would be a given in at least some cases.

As such, I personally believe that homosexuality is arrived at by both environmental and biological factors. Whether that means a choice was made would be up to the individual. For example, my coworker has a daughter who decided to give up on men because of the way she had been treated by her first husband and subsequent fiance and is now marrying a woman. She readily acknowledges it as a choice for herself while another individual may be entirely sexually repulsed by the opposite gender. The existence of bi-sexuals would indicate that at least some individuals practice homosexuality by choice.

Frankly, even if it were entirely choice, I don't think it being a choice is anyone's business. So what if someone decides to live another lifestyle that you (royal you, not you the reader of this post necessarily) don't approve of? That's their call and as long as it isn't hurting anybody then why would you get to impose your own morals on them just because...? I think the gay community needs to stop debating the issue along the lines of choice or biology. I think they need to debate on the basis of basic freedoms and rights that reject forcing religious morals on someone else in situations that are not harmful to other individuals. They should reject the premise of the argument that it being choice or biology is a meaningful talking point and thereby place it firmly in the realm of a red herring.

Additionally, I think the government is somewhat at fault here. In creating marriage licenses to keep inter-racial couples from marrying towards the middle/end of the 1800's (circa the Civil War), they took control of something they should have no control over. The marriage license in general was originally issued by the Catholic Church towards the end of the Middle Ages in Europe to likewise have control over its subjects. The US needs to either drop the marriage license altogether and revert to commonlaw marriages that were the norm until the mid-1800's, or they need to change the name of the license itself to a term that is not currently synonymous with a religious practice. Multiple religions have marriage practices and associate the term "marriage" with their own religious or cultural practice which may have rigid rules including only permitting men and women to marry one another. So any laws being made regarding marriage licenses are percieved as being attacks on their religious institution by the government, whether real or imagined. As such, the government needs to get with the times and stop interferring with a religious and personal institution. I'm amazed that an initially racist practice has been allowed to remain on the books this far even after the use of it to prevent inter-racial marriages was struck down by the supreme court. The government should have no control over marriage. I believe it to be a human right and the ambiguity of the term is causing entire religions to keep the benefits of the marriage license from individuals who aren't even a part of their faith because of the association. The government's soul role should be in the arbitration involved in marriages/divorces and ensuring that both parties are consenting adults (aka, it is right that the government prevents a 40 year old man from marrying a 6 year old girl).

I only bring up the marriage issue because I believe it to be at the core of a lot of arguments against homosexuality. If it was not present, I think most people would be able to not care less who otherwise feel like their beliefs are being marginalized and legislated.

TL;DR
1. Choice is used as a reason to marginalize homosexuals and therefore is considered offensive even if true in some cases.
2. Twin studies and evolutionary principles seem to indicate a combination of environmental and biological choices that may vary in specific impact according to the individual (aka, some people may be more on the choice side and others may be more on the biological side of no choice. The existence of bi-sexuals at all would prove the point)
3. Choice shouldn't matter in the debates on homosexuality. Even if it were choice it wouldn't be anyone else's business so the topic is a red herring.
4. Regarding the current hatred towards homosexuality, I believe a lot of it being the result of the government appropriating the term "Marriage" in marriage licenses in a bygone era where the government was willing to poke its nose into religious practices. I proposed changing the name of the license to help ignorant people understand that a government marriage license is not a religious license and so changes to it are not the government infringing on their faith.

 

[Subscriptism]

1. That's a false statement about a group of people.
2. It's a common justification for bigotry.

 

[lunavixen]

Honestly why is it? Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality, in fact I can see myself experimenting some day. But for the live of me I can't see why it's most often considered offensive to think of it as a choice.
I can see that being more sexually attracted to the same sex isn't something you do so purposfully/consiously. So if you purely regard homosexuality as being dominantly sexually attracted to the same sex. Then yes it isn't really a choice, more something that just happens to you. But surely everything beyond that is a choice right?
Again I want to stress that I think it's the right choice. Sexuality is a good thing, so I'd encourage people to do whatever they want on that area as long as all involved parties are consentfull.
But still acting upon your homosexuality is surely a choice right? So why is it considered offensive to regard it as such? Especially as the alternative is to regard it as something like an affliction, which I personally would find much more offensive.

I can see what you're trying to get at, but having feelings for someone of the same gender as you is not a choice, choosing to have a sexually active life (or inactive one) is the same regardless of your sexual preferences so it's not really a choice per se. Trying to say people are 'acting upon their homosexuality' is demeaning and a phrase used to try and segregate people based on their sexuality. Humans are a sexually variant species (and we're not the only ones), so trying to nitpick about choice isn't really going to get you far.

The part that offends people is that when people regard homosexuality as a choice, they're not talking about being sexually active with someone of the same gender, they tend to be talking about the sexual preference itself and that it's something that can be changed, ex-gay ministries are very guilty of this (and they do significant harm to people mentally, often causing higher rates of suicide). Sexuality is a spectrum, there is no black and white.

 

[Headsprouter]

Because it's basically saying in the case of gay men "Welp, they COULD fuck women and blend into society like the rest of us, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, those bastards have to go and TRY to be different just to screw up society and generally cause a ruckus."

To put things into perspective, being gay is HARD. It makes life easier in some ways, but in more ways it becomes DIFFICULT, to be gay, it's in no way the kind of choice you would make. I have a friend who says he's probably rather be straight. At first I said I envy the ease in talking to your own sex compared to talking to the opposite, and that it's much easier to embed yourself in social groups with the same sex as your own, but the more I thought about it, the more I realised he actually has a really difficult time finding possible partners, and then he has so many other things to worry about including sex, prejudice and the fear of being alone.

Basically it's offensive to say being gay is a choice, because it's quite simply not, and expecting people to remain abstinent from it if they are is downright cruel.

 

[Snowbell]

If sexuality isn't ever a choice then what does that make paedophilia (those who molest children)?

Apparently some people have been calling for paedophiles to be recognised as a 'true' sexuality with the same rights granted as those given to homosexuals and for child porn to be made legal

I really don't agree with it at all, but if as many people are saying in this thread that sexuality is NEVER a choice then it does raise the question of whether negative fetishes such as bestiality are choices or not.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517

Urgh people using homosexuality to justify peadophilia makes me sick -_-;

 

[secretkeeper12]

If sexuality isn't ever a choice then what does that make paedophilia?

Apparently some people have been calling for paedophiles to be recognised as a 'true' sexuality with the same rights granted as those given to homosexuals and for child porn to be made legal

I really don't agree with it at all, but if as many people are saying in this thread that sexuality is NEVER a choice then it does raise the question of whether negative fetishes such as bestiality are choices or not.

Urgh people using homosexuality to justify peadophilia makes me sick -_-;

By "paedophile", you mean "child molester", correct? It's an important distinction to make, as being a paedophile is simply having a sexual attraction to children. So long as they never act on those urges, there's really no good reason to persecute them (no, being uncomfortable is not in any way a rational justification for it) . As for bestiality, it really depends on whether you consider animals to be a commodity or an individual lifeform. If one is fine with eating them, I don't see why having sexual relations is such a big leap to make.