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

[chadachada123]

snip

Unlike the first few posters, OP, I actually read and understood your post.

You clearly say that base attraction is not a choice, but that actions were.

My sole disagreement is the definition of homosexuality, which, to my understanding, only has regard to the attraction, not the action, thus making it not a choice.

However, I also don't think that sexuality exists to begin with, with ancient Greece, Rome, and Japan as good examples. In those areas/times, male-to-male sex was about as common or at least as accepted as male-female sex (female-female sex being rarely discussed in the surviving texts), being seen as by many as a thing of beauty for Greeks or an intense bond between a Japanese master and his student.

So in that sense, I don't think that most of us are, strictly-speaking, homosexual or heterosexual. I think that the vast majority of us would like dudes and dudettes with fairly equal regard if we were raised in a modernized Ancient Greece.

Anyway, I imagine the confusion is from your definition of homosexuality, with some of the naysayers likely using a different definition (the one I used, where attraction = sexuality, action =/= sexuality) than you (which appears to be that a homosexual act makes you homosexual regardless of attraction).

People find the idea that Homosexuality is a choice offensive because they think that it demeans Homosexuality, but it really doesn't. Homosexuality is a preference, and like all preferences is the result of upbringing, both by their parents and the community at large, that eventually develops from these things into a subconscious drive. Homosexuality is no more a choice than a preference for say, Diet Coke over regular Coke, but neither is it something genetic. Why? It's because as anyone who knows anything about genetics and evolution will tell you, if Homosexuality was a result of a gene then Homosexuality wouldn't exist, since it's a self culling gene. If a gene for Homosexuality was mutated into a person at some point, it couldn't be passed on to subsequent generations and thus become widespread because by the very nature of the sexual orientation Homosexuals are much less likely to have children. It's like someone mutating a gene for a inherent tendency to kill their own children, that gene would die out with the person that first had it.

As a small note, homosexuality (in males) may actually be selected for to a degree. I'll explain.

Females with gay brothers tend to be fertile and raise more-successful children. Males are also more likely to be gay with each older male brother he has. Both of those are straight-up facts according to research.

The leading hypothesis is this: As a woman has more sons, each individual son is less and less 'useful' or 'valued' for spreading the family's genes than a daughter would be, since you only need one guy to seed multiple women and not vice-versa. So a pregnant woman that already has multiple sons is going to pump more estrogen (or was it less testosterone? I forget) into the womb so that if it is female, she will be a more successful daughter, or if it is male, he will be more likely to not sire his own kids but instead help raise his sister's/s' kids.

 

[BlackStar42]

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

I've acted upon my hetrosexuality before...

Spoiler

ON THOU MOTHER!

OT: It's not offensive in itself, but sexuality isn't really a choice. It's something hardwired in at birth.

It's THY mother, thou senseless villain! I do bite my thumb at thee, that thou might'st use archaic pronouns properly!

 

[direkiller]

No one ever considers heterosexuality to be a choice.

I've always found this argument to be just as nonsensical as saying the opposite.

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. Homosexuality does not. There is no "choice" in being what nature has evolved you to be.

Now, that being said, I'm not making an argument one way or the other. I'm simply stating that applying the "choice" argument to heterosexuality is just as straw man-ish, if not more so, as applying it to homosexuality.

I think you missed the point there you are both saying the exact same thing.

When someone says "hetorsexuality is a choice" they are pointing out the double standard when someone is saying "homosexuality is a choice".

It's also not a straw man, some people think of homosexuality as a choice but hetero is not one for some reason. So it's not building up a false argument to knock down, it's attacking a very real one.

 

[Skull Bearer]

[/quote]

I gotta be that guy, because these types of inquiries inevitably lead to this:

If homosexuality is not a choice.. then are we incorrectly prosecuting pedophiles?
Because for them there is no "choice" in their desires either. They simply have no attraction at all to anyone of their own or adult age.
And then there are bisexuals like me.
Where do we stand? Because I personally feel that my attractions are a result of psychological things gained in childhood rather than a predisposed genetic "preference" for any one gender sexually.

And then there's the conundrum of men who develop homosexual relationships whilst incarcerated.

I bring these things up, not to offend, although people will be offended just by the asking, but because they are the basis for most of the people who believe homosexuality is "choice" in their arguments, and to be honest, it's pretty hard to argue against those points with anything resembling logic... especially since we know that people can be taught behaviors psychologically to create preferences, addictions, and phobias. So why not sexual preferences?

I think ultimately, Homosexuality can be both a choice AND/OR something you're "born with" but it is all in the eye of the beholder.

It depends a lot on the individual. Some people are very set gay or straight, while others are more fluid. I think the reason women often appear more open to same sex encouters is that the repercussions are much less harsh. If homosexuality in men were as accepted, I think you would see a lot more men being bicurious.

For paedophiles, it's kinda tragic really, yes, it's looking likely that they really are 'wired that way', but unlike with homsexuals, whos relations can be easily kept to consenting adults, the relations of paedophiles by default cannot. There is no way ofn making that relationship anything but abusive to one of the members. It's sad, but there you go.

Bisexuals stand pretty much in the middle of a kinsey scale Not to discount your experiences, but please remember that your experiences are only truely accurate for you, and someone at the far end of the kinsey scale may feel very different.

I think you're getting the idea of conscious and unconscious choices mixed up. Unconscious choices are things like phobias, things you develop over time but have no real control over. Conscious choices are things like what job you do, what you'll have for dinner etc. There can be an argument made that sexual preference is an unconscious choice, dependant on factors we're not really aware of, but it cannot be a conscious choice.

As for me, I'm asexual; so frankly, you're all weird.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Meh. I tend to go with "it can be a choice, but a lot of times it isn't" personally, because I have one friend who tells me she's equally attracted to an attractive-to-her (good personality, likes the same things, yadda yadda) person regardless of sex, but only goes out with the females of that group out of preference. I'm saying it can be a choice, but more often than not - again based on friends of mine over the years - it's just something you feel and homosexuals don't really get an option B any more than people who are heterosexual and can't make themselves attracted to the same sex regardless of how open minded they might be about homosexuality have a choice about being heterosexual.

 

[kingpocky]

While I don't believe it is a choice, I personally don't see how it would make any difference if it were. Religion is obviously a choice; race is obviously not a choice. It is wrong to treat someone unfairly because of either of those things, so whether it's a choice or not shouldn't be a factor.

On the other hand, I really think anyone who thinks that homosexuality is a choice either hasn't really thought about the question, or is bisexual. You're effectively saying "yes, I think it is possible for any person to enjoy sexual activity with either sex."

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I'm guessing due to the bigotry it inspires, and the fact the % of people who actually chose their sexulaity must be tiny. I'm guessing you are saying they chose to act on it, but thats no different than hetro's acting on it. sounds pretty stupid going around saying hetro is a choice don't it?

you make me think of this

 

[HyenaThePirate]

As for me, I'm asexual; so frankly, you're all weird.

LOL!!! How exactly is one "asexual?"
Do you just divide at will?!? Lol are you strictly monogamous in regards to loving yourself?

Sometimes I like to think of myself as "BUYsexual"

You BUY me something, I'll get real SEXUAL

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

I gotta be that guy, because these types of inquiries inevitably lead to this:

If homosexuality is not a choice.. then are we incorrectly prosecuting pedophiles?
Because for them there is no "choice" in their desires either. They simply have no attraction at all to anyone of their own or adult age.
-snip-.

well, acting above age of consent and taking advantage of a minor are quite different circumstances.
if you're say the choice is the choice to act on it; denying your feelings for the same gender and denying your feelings for children are very different situations indeed

 

[Skull Bearer]

As for me, I'm asexual; so frankly, you're all weird.

LOL!!! How exactly is one "asexual?"
Do you just divide at will?!? Lol are you strictly monogamous in regards to loving yourself?

Sometimes I like to think of myself as "BUYsexual"

You BUY me something, I'll get real SEXUAL

No, it means I don't want sex, at all. I have no sexual attarction to anything. We do exist, but tend to be pretty invisible for the obvious reasons . A little group that will always pick cake over sex.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Well first of all it isn't a choice. You can't just wake up today and say "You know what, I'm going to be attracted to that person."

The main reason, I think, is that it's often used to try and justify homophobia and condemn homosexuality as somehow being immoral.

 

[Senare]

As for me, I'm asexual; so frankly, you're all weird.

LOL!!! How exactly is one "asexual?"
Do you just divide at will?!? Lol are you strictly monogamous in regards to loving yourself?

Sometimes I like to think of myself as "BUYsexual"

You BUY me something, I'll get real SEXUAL

There are several different kinds of asexuality. But generally, it is this:

"What is Asexuality?

Asexuality is a sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality, etc., but instead of being sexually attracted to men or women, asexual people are sexually attracted to no one. This doesn?t mean we all hate sex or avoid it, it just means we don?t find people sexually attractive." from http://www.asexualityarchive.com/

And read a book while you're at it: http://www.asexualityarchive.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/AsexualityABriefIntroduction.pdf

 

[Kinitawowi]

Fundamentally, it's all because "sexuality" is an extremely poorly understood concept.

It ends up coming down to the very romantic-sounding "you can't choose who you're attracted to", which seems to be leading to the "everyone is bi" horse (the old "lesbians just haven't found the right man yet" chestnut).

The problem is that in terms of pure logic, homosexuality isn't really genetically selected for. Obviously very few of us are geneticists, but to a lot of laymen genetics are about the only immutable concept we as individuals have and everything else is considered relatively pliable; sexualities are therefore seen as being either due to social factors (which runs straight into "OMG HETERONORMATIVE PATRIARCHY") or psychological ones, comparable to something like an addiction - barring peculiar circumstances, an alcoholic most likely chose to take his first drink and it went from there.

This is where the choice argument comes in; that eliminating genetics from the equation leaves sexuality seeming to be something determined by factors within individual control, and therefore homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and probably several other permutations are all choices. Obviously these arguments aren't great; as stated up top, sexuality is so badly understood at any level that even genetic considerations can't really be ruled out. The reason choice as an argument offends has been stated multiple times; that enough people are squicked about it that historically it's become "if you can choose to be gay, you can choose to be not gay so we're going to (persecute you / murder you / legislate against you / send you to gay camp / etc) until you choose otherwise".

 

[Mikeyfell]

Honestly why is it? Don't get me wrong I've got no problems without homosexuality,

I realize that's a typo, but it's still funny.

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.

Well there! You cracked it!
It's like "Well you just choose to be allergic to bees! Stop being allergic to bees because it offends me!"

But surely everything beyond that is a choice right?

um... uhhhhhh. What? Technically... I suppose. In the exact same way that a straight person choosing to have straight sex is also the exact same level of choice... I um... um...

Especially as the alternative is to regard it as something like an affliction, which I personally would find much more offensive.

Um... Do you think you are straight by choice?
Is there really no middle ground between a choice and affliction?
Why do you make any distinction at all?

 

[Senare]

I gotta be that guy, because these types of inquiries inevitably lead to this:

If homosexuality is not a choice.. then are we incorrectly prosecuting pedophiles?
Because for them there is no "choice" in their desires either. They simply have no attraction at all to anyone of their own or adult age.
-snip-.

well, acting above age of consent and taking advantage of a minor are quite different circumstances.
if you're say the choice is the choice to act on it; denying your feelings for the same gender and denying your feelings for children are very different situations indeed

I am under the impression that there is no prosecution of pedophiles per se, but of child molesters (which can or can not be pedophiles).

 

[HyenaThePirate]

denying your feelings for the same gender and denying your feelings for children are very different situations indeed

How so?

You feel what you feel. You can control ACTING on your feelings, but that does not change what you desire. The question could be what should be done about it? 13 year olds are choosing to have sex with EACH OTHER now.. they don't seem incapable of not making a decision about if they would sleep with an older person or not. How does society intend on reconciling the hypocrisy?

On the other hand,

Well first of all it isn't a choice. You can't just wake up today and say "You know what, I'm going to be attracted to that person."

The main reason, I think, is that it's often used to try and justify homophobia and condemn homosexuality as somehow being immoral.

I think it's quite like that.. because to be frank, I didn't really find myself attracted to ANYONE male OR female till I was about 14. I just didn't care or think of emotional or sexual things.. I wanted to play with video games or toys.

So yeah, I do believe you sort of wake up one day and realize what you are attracted to. I personally know people that were complete breeders and never once really thought of it until one day they found themselves in the mood to experiment because they were BORED and decided to switch teams because it was more exciting, I'm assuming because it was new. Just as I know people who used to be gay and are now straight for some reason... although I admit, like someone earlier mentioned, this seems to be a commonality amongst females, as all of the examples I mentioned are female.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Fundamentally, it's all because "sexuality" is an extremely poorly understood concept.

It ends up coming down to the very romantic-sounding "you can't choose who you're attracted to", which seems to be leading to the "everyone is bi" horse (the old "lesbians just haven't found the right man yet" chestnut).

The problem is that in terms of pure logic, homosexuality isn't really genetically selected for. Obviously very few of us are geneticists, but to a lot of laymen genetics are about the only immutable concept we as individuals have and everything else is considered relatively pliable; sexualities are therefore seen as being either due to social factors (which runs straight into "OMG HETERONORMATIVE PATRIARCHY") or psychological ones, comparable to something like an addiction - barring peculiar circumstances, an alcoholic most likely chose to take his first drink and it went from there.

This is where the choice argument comes in; that eliminating genetics from the equation leaves sexuality seeming to be something determined by factors within individual control, and therefore homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality and probably several other permutations are all choices. Obviously these arguments aren't great; as stated up top, sexuality is so badly understood at any level that even genetic considerations can't really be ruled out. The reason choice as an argument offends has been stated multiple times; that enough people are squicked about it that historically it's become "if you can choose to be gay, you can choose to be not gay so we're going to (persecute you / murder you / legislate against you / send you to gay camp / etc) until you choose otherwise".

This was EXTREMELY well put. Wow. I wish I had spoken to you when I was younger. I wouldn't live in such fear today and with such guilt.

 

[NiPah]

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?

Per the American Psychological Association:

People express their sexual orientation through behaviors with others, including such simple actions as holding hands or kissing. Thus, sexual orientation is closely tied to the intimate personal relationships that meet deeply felt needs for love, attachment, and intimacy. In addition to sexual behaviors, these bonds include nonsexual physical
affection between partners, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing
commitment. Therefore, sexual orientation is not merely a personal characteristic within an individual. Rather, one?s sexual orientation defines the group of people in which one is likely to find the satisfying and fulfilling romantic relationships that are an essential component of personal identity for many people.

Most times when someone says homosexuality is a choice they are coming from an uneducated background with little to no knowledge on what sexual orientation even means, the argument isn't offensive in itself (it's just wrong) but normally the person arguing is the actual cause of the annoyance. Most times the argument is used to push religious agendas and has little to do with actual scientific insight, so yeah for the most part it comes from religious bigots and the uneducated, not much good comes from those two groups.

 

[Filiecs]

The truth is, sexuality is a lot more complicated than to simply be summed up as either "choice" or "not a choice".
The human brain is an incredibly complex organ; it is not hardwired, but not easily changed on a whim either. The human brain is plastic and a lot of different factors can affect the way it shapes itself, many of which are in your control and many of which aren't entirely in your control.
Your brain is constantly rewiring itself and genes, epigenetics, the environment, and your own conscious thoughts ALL have an effect on your mind. Simply reducing the issue down to "choice" or "no choice" is grossly oversimplifying.

To imply that sexuality is 100% not a choice is to disrespect or ignore those who claimed to have changed their sexuality on their own accord, and are perfectly happy and secure. It is also implying that one cannot control their feelings, which is simply not true as many mental health therapists and neurobiologists will tell you.

To imply that sexuality is an easy thing to change is also incredibly disrespectful to those who know that the attraction they feel is real. Those people should not in any way be treated as if they made a conscious choice as to what they wanted their dick to get hard to, because they didn't. A persons initial sexuality is most certainly not a choice they got to make, nor is it something that needs to be changed in any way. However, that does not mean that a person is trapped and forced to like what the primal parts of their brain tell them they should.

All in all the way I see it is that no sexuality is wrong, but sexualities and attractions aren't 100% hardwired either. We are not slaves to the primal and emotional parts of our minds.

Any the case, it's our actions that people should care about, not what a person fantasizes about having sex with.

 

[Naeo]

Because it's not a choice, and because that argument is almost exclusively used to marginalize the gay community. The rationale is that, being a choice, homosexuality isn't protected under the law in the same way that, say, race or gender is. Ergo, you get things like gay people being unable to marry in most of the US, and states/localities (I don't know the number offhand; it might well be smaller than I think) offering no protection whatsoever for discrimination against gays. I.E., you can fire someone for no other reason than "they're gay/I think they're gay".

Plus, the logic of the arguments that follow is bullshit (religion is a choice--how about Muslims and Jews can't marry? Political leaning is a choice--how about independents can't vote?). Since it's pretty exclusively used by people trying to deny rights to gay people, and since the "logic" that connects the assertion of "being gay is a choice" to "therefore we can deny them whatever rights we want" typically consists of zero steps and isn't applied to anything else, the assertion of "being gay is a choice" has an overwhelmingly negative association with people who are ardently opposed to granting equal rights to gay people. I.E., backwards-thinking hateful dickwaffles.