• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

Is Homosexuality A Choice?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 15.9%

  • No

    Votes: 136 65.7%

  • Maybe/Don't Know

    Votes: 38 18.4%
  • Total voters
    207
USNavySquid said:
If homosexuality is not a choice, then must there be genetic markers for it?
What about bisexuals? Should they also have distinct genetic markers for bisexuality?
How do people who believe that sexual orientation is not a choice explain bisexuals?


Is sexual orientation evidenced by sexual acts, falling in love (with a certain sex), or both?

I've heard many people say that it is not sexual acts alone. I agree. After all, everything (not everything you literal idiots) feels good with the lights off.
I haven't heard any comments on whether it is or isn't related to who you fall in love with. I have heard that sexual orientation is related strongly to attraction. As in: If you are attracted to the same sex then you are homosexual.

And that being attracted to whichever of the two sexes you are attracted to... never changes. This point I find difficult to agree with. I find that familiarity (among other things) breeds attraction. You become familiar by paying attention. Who you pay attention to is influenced in part by who is in your environment. Not that your environment forces you to pay a certain amount of attention to someone. It certainly does not.

It's a tricky call. Which is the cause of the other?
I looked at his butt as he walked by because I am attracted to him
Or
I became attracted after staring at his butt?

The first situation implies (to me) that I have no control over where my own eyes point. The second situation makes more sense to me.... Staring lead to contemplating and contemplating lead to lusting.

In guys who say they did not choose to be straight, I think they simply have not allowed themselves to get to the contemplating phase, or to get past it.

In guys who say they tried to be attracted to girls but it never worked.... Well, I don't want to argue with their personal experience. After all, they are firsthand, expert witnesses. Still, I think on a long enough timeline, with the right kind of contemplating, then attraction would occur. Attention comes first.
Click to expand...

Well, i appreciate that you approach it with questions and an open mind. The way i would define sexuality is physical and emotional attraction to whatever gender. For your genetic marking question, I believe most research of late has indicated the womb environment and epimarks determines this.

The thing about your familiarity argument, I can buy that up to a point. My uncle had 3 kids and 20 years of marriage and finally came out last year. It's long been argued that sexuality exists on a spectrum. For people at the extreme of either end, familiarity alone cannot make them fall in love with someone they're not at all attracted to, not even if they see that person on a regular basis in a marriage.

How I would account for bisexuals is they are naturally attracted to both genders, to one degree or another. On the spectrum, they fall somewhere in between. I think where your point is most relevant is when we may glance at someone and not give it much thought, but after spending time with them, we may fall for their personality or their looks. This is not the same as sexuality changing though. A conclusion is appropriate after a person sees hundreds/thousands of people and every single case of being attracted is toward the same/opposite gender.
 
Last edited:
USNavySquid said:
My understanding is that the world's population has boomed over the past 1000 years compared to that previous 10,000. You are suggesting that, despite being able to grow our own food and increase beef production, that evolution in the past 1000 years has turned on a control-the-pop-via-homosexuality-function? That's pretty fast-acting evolution. Or, are you saying the marker is already there and just awaits being turned on? Of course, it would help to know how many homosexuals there were between 1000 and 10,000 years ago. And it would help to know what environmental cues turn on the homosexuality function. Lack of food? Possibly. -If there is a difference in the # of homosexuals in food poor nations and the # of homosexuals in food rich nations. If the rate is the same, then lack of food will not turn on the cue/marker.
Click to expand...

1000 years is pretty short for evolution to work. However, population control has been a factor for millions of years. Still, populations are not an evolutionary unit, so it is highly unlikely. This does not preclude homosexuality being evolutionarily selected for, which is entirely possible though without any evidence either way at this time.
 
USNavySquid said:
My understanding is that the world's population has boomed over the past 1000 years compared to that previous 10,000. You are suggesting that, despite being able to grow our own food and increase beef production, that evolution in the past 1000 years has turned on a control-the-pop-via-homosexuality-function? That's pretty fast-acting evolution. Or, are you saying the marker is already there and just awaits being turned on? Of course, it would help to know how many homosexuals there were between 1000 and 10,000 years ago. And it would help to know what environmental cues turn on the homosexuality function. Lack of food? Possibly. -If there is a difference in the # of homosexuals in food poor nations and the # of homosexuals in food rich nations. If the rate is the same, then lack of food will not turn on the cue/marker.
Click to expand...

You take "over-population" too literally. You forget our species has developed over a period of about a million years (unless you are a member of a Christian sect that believes we've only been around about 5,000 years). ;) Population issues involve availability of, and competition for, resources. Furthermore we must also deal with natural selection factors of climate, disease, and predators. During our initial stage of development (hunter-gatherer?) even relatively tiny populations in comparison to today could deplete available local resources. Thus this cue/marker would become established in our early development in such small populations as periodic aberrations indistiquishable from the norm except to serve as a neuter, i.e. one less male or female interested in procreating.

However, as humanity gained more and more control over these various factors reducing their effect on population control, such "aberrations" would statistically increase in proportion to growth. Yet it would still remain statistically small in comparison to our over-all population. It is just more noticeable because while statistically small, the overall population is very large and so the incidence of noticeable same-sex and bisexual orientations seems larger then prior experience. See?
 
chromium said:
Well, i appreciate that you approach it with questions and an open mind. The way i would define sexuality is physical and emotional attraction to whatever gender. The thing about your familiarity argument, I can buy that up to a point. My uncle had 3 kids and 20 years of marriage and finally came out last year. It's long been argued that sexuality exists on a spectrum. For people at the extreme of either end, familiarity alone cannot make them fall in love with someone they're not at all attracted to, not even if they see that person on a regular basis in a marriage.

How I would account for bisexuals is they are naturally attracted to both genders, to one degree or another. On the spectrum, they fall somewhere in between. I think where your point is most relevant is when we may glance at someone and not give it much thought, but after spending time with them, we may fall for their personality or their looks. This is not the same as sexuality changing though. A conclusion is appropriate after a person sees hundreds/thousands of people and every single case of being attracted is toward the same/opposite gender.
Click to expand...

I think physical attraction and emotional attraction are the same thing, but I could be convinced otherwise. I think they are the same because they both manifest as a result of chemical reactions in the body AKA physical responses. That's based on my layman's understanding of feelings and the hormones that correspond to them.

Regarding your uncle, what we as bystanders say about him carries less weight than what he says about himself. I may observe that after 20 yrs with kids in a hetero relationship that he must be bisexual to change to homosexual relationships. But if he says, "No. I was homosexual all along." Then how can i argue with that? I wouldn't argue, of course. But I would love to ask him a bunch of questions: Did you love your wife? Deeply? How did you show it? Did she arouse you? How? Did you fantasize about her? Others? etc etc. This would be enlightening for the purpose of understanding more about love/attraction.

I'm usually for the spectrum idea as related to other aspects of the human condition. I haven't applied it to sexuality. I tend to agree with what you say about familiarity not being enough to make people at the extremes attracted to others. But.... on a longer timeline perhaps familiarity would be prove to be enough.

bisexuals.... naturally attracted to both genders, you say. For me, that attraction comes as a result of the staring-contemplating-lusting progression. During the contemplating phase, the bisexual suppressed or rewrote his/her social programming and opened up to the possibility of pleasure/love/both with an "other". Then tried it out. And again and again.

If we are not attracted to someone, I think it is due to social programming and lack of familiarity. How do you explain acquired tastes? I didn't like coffee the first time i drank it. But I re-wrote that program, paid attention to coffee and now I like it. Now I crave it. That process of developing a like for something..... on a low level, is it much different from developing an attraction to a man or woman? Of course people may say, "you can't compare sexual orientation to coffee drinking." But the two have underlying processes that I think may have some steps in common. First I had to open myself up to the possibility of coffee.

Your last sentence, i disagree with because it diminishes the truth of a single occurrence. To me, a conclusion is appropriate only when it accounts for all observed variations. --Not just the occurrences that agree or are the same. To eliminate the minor differences in the results from the final conclusion is to make a weak conclusion.
 
Agree with your 1st paragraph.

2nd paragraph.... you are saying that since we have gained control over various factors (medicine vs. disease, strong shelter vs. weather, farms vs. gathering) but the marker is still present, so homosexuals will increase without having the need to... as in the need to prevent conflict/population loss due to the various factors listed. So.... with homosexuals increasing, they still remain a small % of our overall population, but b/c that % represents a large number, we see them more frequently....? I can't say I agree with that. It seems to assume too much. We don't know how frequently ancient societies saw homosexuals. (or do we?) If it's genetic, then heterosexual parents are only carriers? Despite both heterosexual parents coming from well nourished, healthy, well-resourced neighborhoods, their spoiled rich kid is a homosexual? Am I taking it too literal again?
 
USNavySquid said:
I think physical attraction and emotional attraction are the same thing, but I could be convinced otherwise. I think they are the same because they both manifest as a result of chemical reactions in the body AKA physical responses. That's based on my layman's understanding of feelings and the hormones that correspond to them.

Regarding your uncle, what we as bystanders say about him carries less weight than what he says about himself. I may observe that after 20 yrs with kids in a hetero relationship that he must be bisexual to change to homosexual relationships. But if he says, "No. I was homosexual all along." Then how can i argue with that? I wouldn't argue, of course. But I would love to ask him a bunch of questions: Did you love your wife? Deeply? How did you show it? Did she arouse you? How? Did you fantasize about her? Others? etc etc. This would be enlightening for the purpose of understanding more about love/attraction.

I'm usually for the spectrum idea as related to other aspects of the human condition. I haven't applied it to sexuality. I tend to agree with what you say about familiarity not being enough to make people at the extremes attracted to others. But.... on a longer timeline perhaps familiarity would be prove to be enough.

bisexuals.... naturally attracted to both genders, you say. For me, that attraction comes as a result of the staring-contemplating-lusting progression. During the contemplating phase, the bisexual suppressed or rewrote his/her social programming and opened up to the possibility of pleasure/love/both with an "other". Then tried it out. And again and again.

If we are not attracted to someone, I think it is due to social programming and lack of familiarity. How do you explain acquired tastes? I didn't like coffee the first time i drank it. But I re-wrote that program, paid attention to coffee and now I like it. Now I crave it. That process of developing a like for something..... on a low level, is it much different from developing an attraction to a man or woman? Of course people may say, "you can't compare sexual orientation to coffee drinking." But the two have underlying processes that I think may have some steps in common. First I had to open myself up to the possibility of coffee.

Your last sentence, i disagree with because it diminishes the truth of a single occurrence. To me, a conclusion is appropriate only when it accounts for all observed variations. --Not just the occurrences that agree or are the same. To eliminate the minor differences in the results from the final conclusion is to make a weak conclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't want to come across as rude and ask specifics about their sex life, but he did tell me that he loved her as a friend only. He married her because it was the only realistic path to having kids and career advancement at the time. This is not uncommon for gays in that age group. He got an opportunity to transfer his job to CA, their kids are now grown up, so he came out and moved to a place where he can start a real relationship. In hindsight, it was not surprising. They never showed much affection for each other, that i noticed. The point I was making was that, even if sexuality could be changed, the toll is too great. I think if he was bi they would just stay married.

I don't recall any 'observed variations' that would make me rethink the label. I'm sure others have experienced those. Whether that means they are not fully hetero, I don't know. I'd rather just take their word for it. There are other characteristics that often come with sexuality, so it's unlikely be so simple as willing yourself to be hetero/homo. If your taste buds were also tied up in your gestures, voice, and musical talent, maybe you couldn't suddenly develop a preference for coffee.
 
USNavySquid said:
Agree with your 1st paragraph.

2nd paragraph.... you are saying that since we have gained control over various factors (medicine vs. disease, strong shelter vs. weather, farms vs. gathering) but the marker is still present, so homosexuals will increase without having the need to... as in the need to prevent conflict/population loss due to the various factors listed. So.... with homosexuals increasing, they still remain a small % of our overall population, but b/c that % represents a large number, we see them more frequently....? I can't say I agree with that. It seems to assume too much. We don't know how frequently ancient societies saw homosexuals. (or do we?) If it's genetic, then heterosexual parents are only carriers? Despite both heterosexual parents coming from well nourished, healthy, well-resourced neighborhoods, their spoiled rich kid is a homosexual? Am I taking it too literal again?
Click to expand...

Although you didn't quote me (so I just lucked into the reply because I happened to read it) I think I can assume this reply was meant for me. :)

Again you are taking the reply too literally. In the earliest development of our species it's cognitive ability was not as pronounced as it is in the last 100,000 years or so. So for that period among alpha males it would be a matter of complete indifference if any beta or gamma male failed to compete for control of females. As for any female disinterest? An alpha male would be indifferent as long as she was ripe for the taking.

During the initial period of the last 100,000 years, heterosexual males would not be upset by less competition for females, but probably annoyed by the interest of any fellow males who displayed this behavior towards them (excepting the possibility of experimentation during the intial period of puberty). This may very well be the foundation for so many of the religious admonitions against the practice. After all, religion served as the first determiner of laws and punishments by drawing upon the power of diety as cause for obedience.

In any case in the last 5,000 years it WAS noticed. For example: in the incidence of legal same-sex unions in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia (even codified into Hammurabi's Laws); in Ancient Greece we get the Theban Bands, and the tradition of pederasty; and in Rome men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers. There are more examples in other cultures but that is unnecessary to point out, since I think sufficient examples have been provided to show my response to your point about "notice."

Religion again played a role in repressing the display of such activities in Western Civilization after Constantine made Christianity the State religion, but it only succeeded in driving it underground. Clearly history shows that despite repression, the activity persisted. Today, the population is so large and the activity so openly prevalent among this minority we have been compelled to deal with it.

What think you?
 
Last edited:
The answer to the OP is yes, and no, and sometimes. Attraction is natural so in that sense, to most homosexuals the answer is no...it is NOT a choice. The desire for love and belonging is a natural drive as well. People will go to extraordinary lengths to find love and belonging and sometimes people will seek love and belonging wherever they can find it. So in that sense, yes, it is a choice.
 
its not a choice just like any other mental illness
At one time about 30 years ago it was considered a mental illness and thanks to the homosexual lobby it was struck off the list with no scientific evidence to prove it is not as other abnormal sexual preferences remain on the list

a study done by the university of Florida has determined that mercury poisoning has caused homosexual behavior in birds and mercury poisoning has been linked to cause mental illnesses
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
The answer to the OP is yes, and no, and sometimes. Attraction is natural so in that sense, to most homosexuals the answer is no...it is NOT a choice. The desire for love and belonging is a natural drive as well. People will go to extraordinary lengths to find love and belonging and sometimes people will seek love and belonging wherever they can find it. So in that sense, yes, it is a choice.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a choice..I mean no-one ''decides'' to be straight..you can't help who you are attracted to..
 
wolfie said:
I don't think it is a choice..I mean no-one ''decides'' to be straight..you can't help who you are attracted to..
Click to expand...
For many it is not. For many it is. Many people DO decide to 'be' straight...even people with a homosexual attraction. Are you trying to defend a cause or answer the question honestly?
 
trfjr said:
its not a choice just like any other mental illness
At one time about 30 years ago it was considered a mental illness and thanks to the homosexual lobby it was struck off the list with no scientific evidence to prove it is not as other abnormal sexual preferences remain on the list

a study done by the university of Florida has determined that mercury poisoning has caused homosexual behavior in birds and mercury poisoning has been linked to cause mental illnesses
Click to expand...
Attraction is not a form of mental illness.
 
VanceMack said:
Attraction is not a form of mental illness.
Click to expand...

then why is bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia and other abnormal sexual preferences are all considered a mental illnesses?
 
VanceMack said:
For many it is not. For many it is. Many people DO decide to 'be' straight...even people with a homosexual attraction. Are you trying to defend a cause or answer the question honestly?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to be honest..you can put a gay guy in bed with the most beautiful woman in the world..and yet he will still not desire her..

So it is not a choice!
 
wolfie said:
I'm trying to be honest..you can put a gay guy in bed with the most beautiful woman in the world..and yet he will still not desire her..

So it is not a choice!
Click to expand...
That is simply not true. Or have you missed the NUMEROUS times people 'come out' as gay after years of marriage, with families.
 
VanceMack said:
That is simply not true. Or have you missed the NUMEROUS times people 'come out' as gay after years of marriage, with families.
Click to expand...

Yes..I know many do..but it is often due to family pressure and the desire to appear ''normal''..

Pressure from peers and expectations of society will make them do crazy and self-destructive things.
 
wolfie said:
Yes..I know many do..but it is often due to family pressure and the desire to appear ''normal''..

Pressure from peers and expectations of society will make them do crazy and self-destructive things.
Click to expand...
Hence the word...choice.
 
VanceMack said:
Hence the word...choice.
Click to expand...

No...just the fear of telling their parents..society...workmates..just keeping up a facade..

If their parents were totally anti-gay??

Old school, my son marries and has children..end of..

Can you see why so many gay men live a lie??
 
wolfie said:
No...just the fear of telling their parents..society...workmates..just keeping up a facade..

If their parents were totally anti-gay??

Old school, my son marries and has children..end of..

Can you see why so many gay men live a lie??
Click to expand...

While I agree, as you can probably see from all my prior posts, that sexual orientation is not a choice, still the actions taken as described by you and Vancemack are in fact technically choices.

The person chose to pretend to be heterosexual to comform. He could have also chosen to be celibate, or to not comform and act within his innate orientation. The fact that in the example he chose to behave as expected does not mean he is not homosexual or that this type of choice indicates his actual orientation is also just a choice.

Understand?
 
Last edited:
wolfie said:
No...just the fear of telling their parents..society...workmates..just keeping up a facade..

If their parents were totally anti-gay??

Old school, my son marries and has children..end of..

Can you see why so many gay men live a lie??
Click to expand...

And some do it simply because they believe it is 'wrong'. All completely irrelevant to the OP. Not suggesting WHAT people should choose, only THAT people choose. Its a fairly common occurrence.
 
Captain Adverse said:
While I agree, as you can probably see from all my prior posts, that sexual orientation is not a choice, still the actions taken as described by you and Vancemack are in fact technically choices.

The person chose to pretend to be heterosexual to comform. He could have also chosen to be celebate, or to not comform and act within his innate orientation. The fact that in the example he chose to behave as expected does not mean he is not homosexual or that this type of choice indicates his actual orientatin is a choice.

Understand?
Click to expand...

I don't think he could have been ''celibate''..an unmarried son of a certain age raises questions especially if he isn't seen in the company of women..

I don't have a choice as to whether I find men attractive..I just do

And I am not attracted to women...

It's not a choice...
 
wolfie said:
I don't think he could have been ''celibate''..an unmarried son of a certain age raises questions especially if he isn't seen in the company of women..

I don't have a choice as to whether I find men attractive..I just do

And I am not attracted to women...

It's not a choice...
Click to expand...

I apologize, but it appears you are "reacting" rather than reading for clarity and then responding.

I am certainly not arguing Homosexuality is a choice. However, when the man in the scenario decided to comform that WAS a choice. It was not about his homosexual orientation. It was about how he wanted to appear to family, and society at large. In doing so he made an informed decision...i.e. a rational "choice"

He then kept making the effort, no matter what it took. Again, all choices. But he was, and still is homosexual. That was never a "choice." Is that any clearer, or is my post and position still unclear? :)
 
Captain Adverse said:
I apologize, but it appears you are "reacting" rather than reading for clarity and then responding.

I am certainly not arguing Homosexuality is a choice. However, when the man in the scenario decided to comform that WAS a choice. It was not about his homosexual orientation. It was about how he wanted to appear to family, and society at large. In doing so he made an informed decision...i.e. a rational "choice"

He then kept making the effort, no matter what it took. Again, all choices. But he was, and still is homosexual. That was never a "choice." Is that any clearer, or is my post and position still unclear? :)
Click to expand...

Maybe he just made a choice to be what his parents expected him to be, out of love for them...or fear for his social status..

I believe that in 29 states in the USA..you can be fired if you are openly gay...

Quote from Martina Navratilova..

''29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."
 
wolfie said:
Maybe he just made a choice to be what his parents expected him to be, out of love for them...or fear for his social status..

I believe that in 29 states in the USA..you can be fired if you are openly gay...

Quote from Martina Navratilova..

''29 states in this country you can still get fired for not just being gay, but if your employer thinks you are gay."
Click to expand...

Understood, since there is no Federal protection against descrimination based on sexual orientation at the present time. Still, that is just more support for my point that a gay or lesbian would make a rational choice to act in conformity with expected social norms, all the while still remaining homosexual.

Never fear that by accepting some anti-gay argument that visible choices to comform to social expectation means that you must also making a choice to be gay. They simply confuse the difference and think it proves their point.
 
AGENT J said:
you are 100% factually wrong and thats already been proven

like i have asked you many times already if you disagree simply factually prove it using "your" religion

everytime you tried and posted something you completely failed and it proved me right

maybe in your next post youll have some facts or something that supports you, if you are right why dont you simply just post this evidence, i cant wait to read it
Click to expand...

Actually you have proven nothing. I mean really, apparently you think you have in your self-centered reality. But you haven't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom