• 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
My guess is that these people are people who always had homosexual tendencies to some degree, but had previously chosen to ignore them.

That's an excuse you are using to preserve your belief that it is not a choice. in my opinion.
 
Yeah sure, I consider myself strongly straight, but I can "chose" to have a relationship with a male, including sex, but although I might accomodate myself with that situation over time if there are very good reasons to do so, I don't think it would ever be a fulfilled relationship, or that I ever would have a fulfilled sex life.

I guess most homosexuals can do the same with a heterosexual partner, and many have done so an are still doing that, because of social pressure, fear, sense of responsibility towards their children and so on ... but I don't think anybody has the right to tell them they *have* to do that. They have a right on a fulfilled relationship and a fulfilled sex life too.

I agree with this post from you, which contradicts, in my opinion, your other post that I just quoted and replied to.

I ask, how do we define fulfillment and don't many couples, regardless of orientation, testify to a lack of fulfillment?
 
Over the course of a life time, my likes and dislikes can change innumerable times. Every 5 to 10 or 20 years, I may even completely flip-flop about how I feel towards a certain thing (food, music, political issue, member of my family etc) because as life goes on, experiences influence perspectives. "I didn't like my @#$$% coworker until I heard her cursing at the boss, (or saving a kitty from a tree etc.) "I used to despise so-in-so until I realized what a hard life he has had. Now I see him in a completely different light. I'm spending more time with him and finding we have a lot in common."

The above examples exclude sexual and romantic attraction. Do you agree that the above examples happen? If not, why not? If yes, can we take it as a baseline and move onward to the area of sexual/romantic attraction? --Using new examples that involve that kind of attraction?

Do you agree that attraction grows stronger or weaker with increased familiarity/exposure to the person? If yes, then why can't attraction start at zero and grow stronger ( when a person first entertains the thought of taking the other to bed and then chooses to continue to entertain those thoughts?) The opposite example would be that the attraction starts at zero, then for whatever reason (perhaps it is suggested by a bystander, said in jest when drunk or whatever) the thiought of sex is entertained but the person chooses to push it away, thus making the attraction stay at zero.
That attraction can change does not mean you can control it. A gay man may find himself attracted to a man, and then over time lose that attraction, just like any other relationship. But he will only ever be sexually attracted to other men. Even if everyone starts at 0, only men will be able to go above 0. Trust me, I know from experience. Many gays try to push their attractions away. It doesn't work.
 
I agree with this post from you, which contradicts, in my opinion, your other post that I just quoted and replied to.

I ask, how do we define fulfillment and don't many couples, regardless of orientation, testify to a lack of fulfillment?

My argument is that it should be up to every individual to define for himself or herself what they consider fulfilled.

I would, for example, not consider a relationship fulfilled, if I was required to have a kind of sex within that relationship which I do not enjoy at all, even consider disgusting. As it would be, if I was "forced" to be in a relationship with a male. Or as homosexuals have to, who "chose" to stay with a woman.
 
That's an excuse you are using to preserve your belief that it is not a choice. in my opinion.

That is actually an informed opinion. There is no evidence that one can change their orientation by choosing to do so. I certainly could not choose to be gay. Could you?
 
That is actually an informed opinion. There is no evidence that one can change their orientation by choosing to do so. I certainly could not choose to be gay. Could you?

Of course. People say that makes me a bisexual. Again preserving their belief that orientation is unchangeable. There is also no evidence that it is not a choice. I think a lot of researchers are looking for differences in the genes or brain structures or the release of certain hormones during prenatal development among heterosexual and homosexual persons. --in order to prove a cause-effect relationship b/w those differences and the orientation. But what if there are no differences? If it is a lifestyle choice alone, they won't find any differences. They are still looking. That informs my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Of course. People say that makes me a bisexual. Again preserving their belief that orientation is unchangeable. There is also no evidence that it is not a choice. I think a lot of researchers are looking for differences in the genes or brain structures or the release of certain hormones during prenatal development among heterosexual and homosexual persons. --in order to prove a cause-effect relationship b/w those differences and the orientation. But what if there are no differences? If it is a lifestyle choice alone, they won't find any differences. They are still looking. That informs my opinion.
The evidence that it is not a choice is that straight camps and therapy have been proven not to work. If people that go to such extremes to "choose" differently and still can't change afterwards, nobody can.
 
That attraction can change does not mean you can control it. A gay man may find himself attracted to a man, and then over time lose that attraction, just like any other relationship. But he will only ever be sexually attracted to other men. Even if everyone starts at 0, only men will be able to go above 0. Trust me, I know from experience. Many gays try to push their attractions away. It doesn't work.

I won't argue with experience. What would really be helpful in research, is if gay men who changed their lifestyle to heterosexual and found fulfillment (or hetero men who changed their lifestyle to homosexual) would participate in more research. Maybe they are. But because we hold so strongly to our beliefs, we are labeling them bisexuals or repressed persons.

You say many gays try to push their attractions away and it doesn't work. I don't dispute that. i have heard the same thing. But does it hurt to try and find the (few?) people who have done it successfully and ask them about it? And until we have found them or eliminated the possibility that they are out there, can we not entertain the possibility that orientation may still be a choice?

I think I can control my attraction. Perhaps it is a matter of temperament (another changeable trait). Perhaps if I had the temperament that landed me in prison, that temperament might correspond to the ease in which I achieve gratification with my cell-mate. But since I'm not of that temperament, perhaps the gratification can still be achieved, just not so easily.

I don't want to fall back on the minor point that "well, it takes more than just sexual gratification to make one a homosexual." Which begs the question... "Why don't we agree on our definitions so we can argue more coherently?" The answer to that.... "well, everyone is different and decides for themselves." Conundrum.
 
The evidence that it is not a choice is that straight camps and therapy have been proven not to work. If people that go to such extremes to "choose" differently and still can't change afterwards, nobody can.


Those are failed attempts. Misguided if I understand their approach correctly. Failed attempts alone don't prove the opposite hypothesis.
 
I won't argue with experience. What would really be helpful in research, is if gay men who changed their lifestyle to heterosexual and found fulfillment (or hetero men who changed their lifestyle to homosexual) would participate in more research. Maybe they are. But because we hold so strongly to our beliefs, we are labeling them bisexuals or repressed persons.

You say many gays try to push their attractions away and it doesn't work. I don't dispute that. i have heard the same thing. But does it hurt to try and find the (few?) people who have done it successfully and ask them about it? And until we have found them or eliminated the possibility that they are out there, can we not entertain the possibility that orientation may still be a choice?

I think I can control my attraction. Perhaps it is a matter of temperament (another changeable trait). Perhaps if I had the temperament that landed me in prison, that temperament might correspond to the ease in which I achieve gratification with my cell-mate. But since I'm not of that temperament, perhaps the gratification can still be achieved, just not so easily.

I don't want to fall back on the minor point that "well, it takes more than just sexual gratification to make one a homosexual." Which begs the question... "Why don't we agree on our definitions so we can argue more coherently?" The answer to that.... "well, everyone is different and decides for themselves." Conundrum.
No. The definition of homosexuality is someone who is attracted to the same sex. If you can be attracted to both sexes, you are bisexual by definition. And you cannot choose to be attracted to both sexes. You can influence your attraction for specific individuals, you cannot influence your attraction for a specific sex.
 
Those are failed attempts. Misguided if I understand their approach correctly. Failed attempts alone don't prove the opposite hypothesis.
So what approach would you suggest? Those camps and therapists always suggest paying attention to the opposite sex, as you suggest. They suggest not paying attention to the same sex. They try to get people to really think and be attracted to the opposite sex. They seem to do exactly what you are doing. And to top it off, often the people at those camps and therapies sincerely want to change. I can't imagine a better test of whether it is a choice or not.

Regardless, they do serve as evidence that attraction is not a choice. So your claim "there is no evidence" is false. Where is your evidence that attraction is a choice?
 
No. The definition of homosexuality is someone who is attracted to the same sex. If you can be attracted to both sexes, you are bisexual by definition. And you cannot choose to be attracted to both sexes. You can influence your attraction for specific individuals, you cannot influence your attraction for a specific sex.

Ok. No argument from me regarding the definitions. But how do bisexuals do it? How about the co-ed who decides to explore? For the entire fall semester she could be exploring and have some good times and some bad times. By graduation, she found a nice guy and she thinks he's going to pop the question. She's excited. She sees herself in a monogamous relationship with children and grandchildren and her grave plot beside her husband's. What about her? hetero or bi? chosen or driven/compelled/forced?

optional scenario: her biographer knows nothing of her fall semester exploration 60 years ago and identifies her as heterosexual (just pretend that's important 60 years from now). Is she to be defined by the majority of her life or all the long-term and short-term episodes that make up her life? I think the answers weigh in on the matter of orientation as a choice.
 
Of course. People say that makes me a bisexual. Again preserving their belief that orientation is unchangeable. There is also no evidence that it is not a choice. I think a lot of researchers are looking for differences in the genes or brain structures or the release of certain hormones during prenatal development among heterosexual and homosexual persons. --in order to prove a cause-effect relationship b/w those differences and the orientation. But what if there are no differences? If it is a lifestyle choice alone, they won't find any differences. They are still looking. That informs my opinion.

Actually there is evidence that orientation is immutable. Conversion "therapy" has a near 100 % failure rate as one example. Also note that brain chemistry among gays is clearly different than straight people. One of the problems with finding a cause for how orientation is determined is of course that orientation may depend on a number of factors, with different people having different causes. It is not nearly so straightforward as you are trying to present it.
 
Ok. No argument from me regarding the definitions. But how do bisexuals do it? How about the co-ed who decides to explore? For the entire fall semester she could be exploring and have some good times and some bad times. By graduation, she found a nice guy and she thinks he's going to pop the question. She's excited. She sees herself in a monogamous relationship with children and grandchildren and her grave plot beside her husband's. What about her? hetero or bi? chosen or driven/compelled/forced?

optional scenario: her biographer knows nothing of her fall semester exploration 60 years ago and identifies her as heterosexual (just pretend that's important 60 years from now). Is she to be defined by the majority of her life or all the long-term and short-term episodes that make up her life? I think the answers weigh in on the matter of orientation as a choice.
How do bisexuals do what? They are attracted to both sexes. They don't "do" anything to be that way. The answer to your question is simple. She is to be defined by the sex or sexes she is attracted to. That she had a bunch of lesbian sexual encounters does not make her homosexual. Nor does marrying a nice guy make her heterosexual, and nor does doing both make her bisexual. Sexuality is not determined by actions.

How do you know "what" someone is? You can't, really.
 
Those are failed attempts. Misguided if I understand their approach correctly. Failed attempts alone don't prove the opposite hypothesis.

They do not prove, but they are evidence. You cannot ignore them simply for convenience. Failed experiments are every bit as important in developing accurate theories as successful ones.
 
So what approach would you suggest? Those camps and therapists always suggest paying attention to the opposite sex, as you suggest. They suggest not paying attention to the same sex. They try to get people to really think and be attracted to the opposite sex. They seem to do exactly what you are doing. And to top it off, often the people at those camps and therapies sincerely want to change. I can't imagine a better test of whether it is a choice or not.

Regardless, they do serve as evidence that attraction is not a choice. So your claim "there is no evidence" is false. Where is your evidence that attraction is a choice?

I don't suggest an approach. I hold lightly to my belief that there shouldn't be "an approach." I dispute your claim that my claim is false. I uphold that failed trials do not prove the opposite hypothesis. If it were another topic, I think you may agree with that notion.

My evidence that attraction is a choice is as weak as yours is that it isn't. Bisexuals exist. I have heard 1 gay woman, (the president of the local GLYS), in answer to a question, say "I'm gay because I don't do sex with men." Certainly, a man could get her off. Whether she is attracted to the man or not is a choice and that choice is influenced by many factors:

1) Is there such a thing as homosexuality?
2) is homosexuality detrimental to my well-being? (ppl choose to do many other things that Are detrimental)
3) is there opportunity for me to try homosexuality?
4) am i willing to try? weigh the pros and cons
5) Am I truly doing this for me?
6) am i willing to be honest in my attempt despite perceived, possible social consequences? -a key point that may have caused those failed, misguided therapies.
7) after trying it, do i like and can i sustain the results?

-Not a comprehensive list.

A failed attempt by one or 1000 individuals only suggests that all others will also fail.
 
They do not prove, but they are evidence. You cannot ignore them simply for convenience. Failed experiments are every bit as important in developing accurate theories as successful ones.

Ok. Then we will argue about what degrees of firmness exist within the classification of "evidence."
 
Used to think it was, but it clearly isn't. You don't have the free will to be straight or gay. You are who you are....I've known people to commit suicide because they thought they were an "abomination" to the world and their religion. It is very sad to see a human being taken to that level of grief...so far that they end it all.
 
How do bisexuals do what? They are attracted to both sexes. They don't "do" anything to be that way. The answer to your question is simple. She is to be defined by the sex or sexes she is attracted to. That she had a bunch of lesbian sexual encounters does not make her homosexual. Nor does marrying a nice guy make her heterosexual, and nor does doing both make her bisexual. Sexuality is not determined by actions.

How do you know "what" someone is? You can't, really.

If we can't know what someone really is then how can you say that I'm a bisexual or a repressed homosexual just because I say I can change my attraction? Don't go there. It kills the enjoyment of arguing.

"Sexuality is not determined by actions." You would say it is determined by something within us. Genes, chemistry, physiology. Until we prove that, we have only actions to go on. No?
 
Leviticus 18:22
New King James Version (NKJV)

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

I would venture to bet that the clothing you are wearing right now is also considered an "abomination" by Leviticus. Why is that ok?
 
Homosexuality is no more a choice than Heterosexuality is. But even it is was....so what? What makes it anyone's business other than that individual? Why do people have the arrogance to believe that they have any say at all in another person's "choice".
 
I would venture to bet that the clothing you are wearing right now is also considered an "abomination" by Leviticus. Why is that ok?

best part is he didn't understand he proved himself wrong, there has been nothing he posted that makes homosexuality itself a sin, nothing.
 
I don't suggest an approach. I hold lightly to my belief that there shouldn't be "an approach." I dispute your claim that my claim is false. I uphold that failed trials do not prove the opposite hypothesis. If it were another topic, I think you may agree with that notion.

My evidence that attraction is a choice is as weak as yours is that it isn't. Bisexuals exist. I have heard 1 gay woman, (the president of the local GLYS), in answer to a question, say "I'm gay because I don't do sex with men." Certainly, a man could get her off. Whether she is attracted to the man or not is a choice and that choice is influenced by many factors:

1) Is there such a thing as homosexuality?
2) is homosexuality detrimental to my well-being? (ppl choose to do many other things that Are detrimental)
3) is there opportunity for me to try homosexuality?
4) am i willing to try? weigh the pros and cons
5) Am I truly doing this for me?
6) am i willing to be honest in my attempt despite perceived, possible social consequences? -a key point that may have caused those failed, misguided therapies.
7) after trying it, do i like and can i sustain the results?

-Not a comprehensive list.

A failed attempt by one or 1000 individuals only suggests that all others will also fail.
Arguing that homosexuality is a choice assumes there is at least one approach that makes that choice possible. You can't say there is no "approach" as that makes no sense. How else would you prove your claim true or false?

Also, nobody is arguing that failed trials prove the opposite hypothesis. So stop bringing that up, as that was explained to you already. But they do provide evidence to the opposing hypothesis. And that a man can get a lesbian woman off doesn't mean she is attracted to the man. So logically your argument already falls apart.

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. No. You may engage in homosexual activity, but homosexuality is defined by an attraction to the same sex.

Argument fails.

Where is the evidence that suggests your hypothesis is true?
 
Actually there is evidence that orientation is immutable. Conversion "therapy" has a near 100 % failure rate as one example. Also note that brain chemistry among gays is clearly different than straight people. One of the problems with finding a cause for how orientation is determined is of course that orientation may depend on a number of factors, with different people having different causes. It is not nearly so straightforward as you are trying to present it.

What I have heard about conversion therapy I do not support. Please don't throw me in that camp just b/c we disagree.

Trips to the moon also had a 100% failure rate until the first one that was successful. I'm not saying we should continue to find a successful method of conversion. I detest that. I only make the point to demonstrate the relativity of failure rates.

I'm not making it any more straightforward than you are trying to make it.
 
If we can't know what someone really is then how can you say that I'm a bisexual or a repressed homosexual just because I say I can change my attraction? Don't go there. It kills the enjoyment of arguing.

"Sexuality is not determined by actions." You would say it is determined by something within us. Genes, chemistry, physiology. Until we prove that, we have only actions to go on. No?
If someone only has sex with the same sex and never with the opposite sex, it is reasonable to suggest they are gay. But do we "know" that they are gay? No. We cannot. You can't change your attraction to different sexes if you are homosexual or heterosexual. If you can be attracted to both sexes, then you are bisexual. That's simply the definition of the terms. Nothing worth arguing.

We have only actions to go on, yes. But those actions do not necessarily prove anything. Now show me your evidence that attraction is a choice.
 
Back
Top Bottom