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

[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.

 

[bz316]

It's offensive because the idea that homosexuality is a choice feeds into the notion that heterosexual relations are the only "natural" form of sexual behavior and everything else is something abnormal that people choose to do for the sake of novelty or amusement (when it is, in reality, an in-born state of being that forms an integral part of a person's identity).

 

[Quellist]

Its no more a choice than liking the taste of strawberries or enjoying hang gliding. Its part of who you are. And as for 'acting upon' seriously?

Its not like acting upon paedophilia or a desire to murder...

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

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

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

This is a touchy issue, so I'm going to try and address it as carefully as possible.

It's true. There's mounting evidence that a large portion of pedophiles are wired that way, that it is a sexuality, that "cures" are about as effective as "cures" for "teh ghey."

However, and of course, this is a big however....

Pedophiles cannot express their sexuality in a way that is safe. Homosexuality is conducted between consenting adults. Gay porn is done by consenting adults (or it's illegal, but the point is it can be done by people who consent). Acting on pedophilia causes actual harm, in part because the kids involved generally have trouble grasping the scenario.

While I feel bad for people with such an attraction, as the evidence shows they were very likely born that way, that's not sufficient to let them actually harm children.

Speaking, of, that link mischaracterises the APA. Then again, so do the advocates for pedophilia. Rind etc al. was a meta study published in one of the APA's peer-reviewed academic journals, and was not inherently endorsed by the APA. This is similar to the fact that you can occasionally find studies refuting global warming/climate change in respected, peer-reviewed scientific publications; it does not equal endorsement. The findings do not endorse allowing adults to have sex with kids, and both the findings and methodology have received much criticism and scrutiny.

Suffice to say, there is little standing to the notion that pedophiles don't cause harm.

And, I will reiterate, pedophiles differ from homosexuals in that pedophiles cannot act without harm. While the root cause may be the same, we definitely can't equate the end act.

In any event, I'm just trying to add context and clarification.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't buy it. It's like a feeble "I'm not racist some of my friends are black" excuse.

Actually, let's take it one step further. He's okay with black people in theory, as long as they don't "act black."

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Because why would anyone choose to be one of the most socially persecuted groups in history? People that claim that homosexuality is a choice (or that bisexuality is just ?people being picky?) don?t seem to understand basic biology, and are probably the same people that argue that if you orgasm during rape, you ?secretly wanted it?.

You literally can?t help what attracts you, and you can?t make yourself like something. I mean, no matter how I hard I try, I would never be able to like broccoli, even if you doused it in shitloads of chilli sauce in an attempt to mask the taste. Just like you couldn?t introduce a gay man to a woman and say, ?If you think really hard, I bet you?ll get into it. Now fuck her.?

And that?s not even getting into the love/romance aspect of things. Ultimately, the only ?choice? when it comes to sexuality is who you pick as a partner, not the actual attraction in the first place. So yeah, it?s just a method of victim-blaming perpetuated by homophobes who don?t want to admit that the primary reason they?re against gay people doing whatever they want in their private lives is because ?it?s icky, so stop liking things I don?t like?.

 

[rodeolifant]

Whilst homosexuality isn't a choice - There's an entire lifestyle surrounding it - that sure as hell is a choice.

One can be attracted to the same sex whilst not changing the way one speaks, dresses and acts. Taking part in a scene, putting oneself in a corner, for whatever reason - is.

This scene, however is the most noticeable thing people perceive, and as a result - that's what they generally mean that it's a choice.

 

[MrMixelPixel]

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.

But surely the end goal for the gay rights movement would be to remove most of that discrimination?
"It doesn't matter that I chose to be gay, or if I was born gay. The point is I am, and that's okay"