• 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
"Is Homosexuality A Choice?"

Pay very close attention because most of you probably never heard homosexuality explained quite like this!

Sex is simply the evolved biological function of most complex organisms for the purpose of reproduction_

This sexual reproduction evolved exclusively around a female's egg being fertilized by the sperm from a male_

The reproduction process begins with the sexual arousal and union of a male and female of the same species_

For this to occur the male and female evolved a physical attraction to each other to stimulate sexual arousal_

But the minds of complex organisms don't always work the way they're suppose to which creates abnormalities_

Which is why some people are attracted to animals, children or the same sex, rather than the opposite sex_

Any and all abnormal sexual attractions, including "homosexuality", is the result of a psychological disorder_

Acting on an abnormal sexual attraction is a "choice" but deciding what we're sexually attracted to is not_

Which is why child molesters can't be rehabilitated anymore than a homosexual attraction to the same sex can_

This may not be the most Politically Correct explanation, but it is the reason I checked the No box in the pole!
 

This sexual reproduction evolved exclusively around a female's egg being fertilized by the sperm from a male_

!


Most organisms in the world don't need that
 
"Is Homosexuality A Choice?"

Pay very close attention because most of you probably never heard homosexuality explained quite like this!

Sex is simply the evolved biological function of most complex organisms for the purpose of reproduction_

This sexual reproduction evolved exclusively around a female's egg being fertilized by the sperm from a male_

The reproduction process begins with the sexual arousal and union of a male and female of the same species_

For this to occur the male and female evolved a physical attraction to each other to stimulate sexual arousal_

But the minds of complex organisms don't always work the way they're suppose to which creates abnormalities_

Which is why some people are attracted to animals, children or the same sex, rather than the opposite sex_

Any and all abnormal sexual attractions, including "homosexuality", is the result of a psychological disorder_

Acting on an abnormal sexual attraction is a "choice" but deciding what we're sexually attracted to is not_

Which is why child molesters can't be rehabilitated anymore than a homosexual attraction to the same sex can_

This may not be the most Politically Correct explanation, but it is the reason I checked the No box in the pole!

Here's the problem with your post, Empirica. Homosexuality has been proven to NOT be a psychological disorder.
 

Based on what I've seen of your posts, it's an accurate assessment. You have no knowledge on this issue.


Again opinion

Nope. Fact.

I am correct because it is a mental disorder...shall we examine what else happened around the time homosexuality was supposedly eliminated from being a mental disorder...Lets look at the names of the people involved in doing this...their politics as well...militant communists,jews and liberals.

This is what I mean about you not having any knowlege on this issue. All of your information seems to have been attained from the ignorant misinformation of the anti-gay agenda, folks like extreme conservatives, militant evangelicals, and ignorant white pride folks.

Now, I would hope that we can dispense with the stereotypes so I can take some time and actually teach you something. I have had to post this FOUR times in order to correct the misinformation presented by posters like you:

Dispelling the myth of Pro-Gay Politicizing of the APA
Reproduced, with permission from CaptainCourtesy

Part I

Homosexuality has been seen in a negative light for centuries. Early on, it was completely due to the interpretation of Bible passages and because of religious and moral beliefs. Genesis's description of "Sodom" coined the word "sodomy" which by the 18th century, came to describe an act that the Church saw as "unnatural' or "crimes against nature". Homosexuality, bestiality, masturbation, oral and anal sex were all included in this definition. There was zero research or evidence that any homosexual was disordered in any way. This was a moral stance, completely baseless in empirical evidence. No substance, just value judgements.

Karl Westphal, a German physician, was one of the first medical professionals to examine homosexuals, observationally. He concluded from these observations that homosexuality was a "condition "contrary sexual sensation" and claimed it was congenital. As such, he argued, it should come under psychiatric care rather then legal prosecution." He was the first, I believe, to argue that gays should be looked at as having a disorder. Note, this was based, purely on observation and his own theory and beliefs, probably based on the attitudes of the time (19th Century). No research was done. Jean-Martin Charcot, a teacher of Freud's and considered the founder of modern neurology, considered homosexuality to be a hysteric disorder, which, translated to 21st century vernacular, would be a psychiatric ailment. Charcot based this belief on the, at the time, widely accepted theory of "hereditary degeneration". This was a theory, expoused by Benedict Augustin Morel in the 19th Century. It is somewhat technical, but the essence of the theory is that any issue or disease that was deemed incurable, would be degenerative through heredity and damage future generations. Tuberculosis, hysteria, homosexuality, alcoholism, and cretinism were all issues that Morel determined were heredity based, untreatable, and those who had these issues should be placed in assylums and prevented from reproducing. Again, there was no research or evidence into any of these claims. Looking at the list of issue, we know now that this theory is ridiculous, but based on Morel's morals and the lack of knowledge about medicine and heredity at the time. Interestingly enough, the Nazi's used some of Morel's theories to justify placing Jews in concentration camps.

In the 20th Century,Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis' theories of sexual inversion, the belief that "homosexuality was an inborn reversal of gender traits. Interestingly enough, early on, Krafft-Ebing saw homosexuality as a severe hereditary degeneration (see above), but as he met more homosexuals, he saw it as a normal sexual varient, and not a disorder. Ellis also felt this way.

No discussion of psychology can be conducted without discussing Sigmund Freud. Freud did not view homosexuality as an illness, but rather as the unconflicted expression of an innate instinct based on trauma. He believed that all of us had both hetero- and homosexual traits, but under normal and non-traumatic circumstances, one would act like one's anatomical sex. He also saw homosexuality as an immature, but not pathological expression of sexuality. As with all of Freud's theories, there was not empirical research done; his belief was based on theory and observation, and the tenor of the times.

Late in life, Freud wrote this to a mother, asking him to "cure" her son's homosexuality: "Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness".

Continued in Part II...
 
Last edited:
Part II

In the mid-20th Century. two theorists/researchers theories propelled homosexuality far further into the realm of pathology. And both were based on flawed beliefs/research.

Sandor Rado argued that Freud's theory of homosexuality was based on a flawed 19th Century theory: embryonic hermaphroditism (the belief that all embryos had the potential to be either male or female). He was correct about this. His error in logic was to then assume that heteosexuality was the only non-pathological alternative. He did no reasearch or provided evidence of his theory.

The Bieber study is often used to prove the pathology of homosexuals, by showing that they could be "cured". The two major outcomes of his study was to show that 27% of homosexuals, treated, were "cured" and in identifying the familial traits of the families of homosexuals. Biber's study had major methodological flaws, and has been widely criticized and debunked. Firstly, he only used subjects that were already under psychiatric care. Secondly, no long term follow-up was done to determine if the result remained. Thirdly, Bieber was unable to produce even one of his subjects he claimed to have cured. Lastly, Biebers conclusions about the familial structure of a homosexual's family have been debunked by the 1981 study of a much larger, nonpatient gay population, a study that is methodologically sound. In essence, the Bieber study, often the cornerstone of the anti-gay agenda, has been shown to be completely flawed and invalid when studying this issue.

The Bieber study was a response to the Kinsey study. Alfred Kinsey, the well-known sex researcher, created the Kinsey scale, through extensive research. Kinsey was one of the first to do evidence based research on a nonpatient population. What he found was that people varied on a scale from "exclusive heterosexual" to "exclusive homosexual" and variations in between. His research showed that at any given time throughout history, 3%-7% of the population was gay. His theories showed that homosexuality was both natural and widespread. Though this had an impact on non-pathologizing homosexuality, as Kinsey's reasearch did not, specifically address this issue, it did not confirm it. The Hooker study, however, did.

Evelyn Hooker's study was published in 1956, and throughout the '60s gained more and more recognition, as more and more studies reproduced here findings, accurately. Here is a great brief description of Hooker's studyu and findings:

Psychologist Evelyn Hooker's groundbreaking study compared the projective test results from 30 nonpatient homosexual men with those of 30 nonpatient heterosexual men. The study found that experienced psychologists, unaware of whose test results they were interpreting, could not distinguish between the two groups. This study was a serious challenge to the view that homosexuality was always associated with psychopathology.
This was the first study that examined, psychologically, nonpatients; the opposite was a serious methological flaw in past studies. Experienced psychologists saw NO difference.

When the first DSM came out in 1952, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, not only matching with the societal attitudes of the time, and throughout the ages, but matching with the volume of research, all of which, as can be seen, above, was based on poor methodology, research based on observation only, morals, or opinions.

By 1973, the Hooker study, replicated studies showing the same results, and many other studies showing the non-pathology of homosexuality had been published. Yet, in spite of this evidence, the APA held onto it's position that homosexuality would remain a disorder, and many on committees had never seen much of the research proving this inaccurate. It was only when the gay activists, including gay psychiatrists/psychologists pressed the APA to review and examine the research, that they did. When the APA saw the volume of research that showed that homosexuality was not an illness, and examined the methological issues with the research that showed that it was, further discussions were had in order to determine whether homosexuality would be declassified or not.

When the APA voted, 58% voted to declassify homosexuality, which it was. Why only 58% if the research was so conclusive? For the same reason that we see here, at DP, that no matter how much conclusive research is presented that shows that homosexuality is not a disorder, some still hold onto that fallacious belief: bigotry, prejudice, inflexible thinking, morals over logic, and probably some other illogical reasons. Even Bieber, when presented with the evidence, and seeing his own study debunked because of methological reasons, refused to alter his belief. Why? Well, he was described as someone who would not admit he was wrong, even when proven so. Sounds like some folks around here. On this thread, even.

So, was the APA decision to declassify homosexuality as a disorder politically motivated? The politics involved was to force the APA to look at and examine, objectively, research showing that homosexuality was not a disorder, and that the research that showed it was, was flawed. As I said earlier, the concept of politicizing this issue has been misrepresented by the anti-gay side of this issue to appear as if it were something it was not. One can compare this, to some extent, to the black civil rights movement. Was that political? Yes, but not in the way a bigot would make it.
 
Part III

In 1981, Ronald Bayer wrote a book claiming that the reason that the APA declassified homosexuality was solely because of gay activists. Bayer, not a Psychologist, but a Professor of Political Science, reported on this, but was not an active participant. As a direct refutation on Bayer's work, the book, "American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History" was published 2007. In it 17 APA members who participated in the 1973 APA meeting, are interviewed and discuss what really happened and what the attitudes towards homosexuality was like, at the time. These are people who were actually there, not someone like Bayer, who just reported on this. Here is a description:

Product Description
Interviews and first-hand accounts of an historic decision that affected the mental health profession—and American society and culture Through the personal accounts of those who were there, American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History examines the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM). This unique book includes candid, one-on-one interviews with key mental health professionals who played a role in the APA’s decision, those who helped organize gay, lesbian, and bisexual psychiatrists after the decision, and others who have made significant contributions in this area within the mental health field.
American Psychiatry and Homosexuality presents an insider’s view of how homosexuality was removed from the DSM, the gradual organization of gay and lesbian psychiatrists within the APA, and the eventual formation of the APA-allied Association of Gay & Lesbian Psychiatrists (AGLP). The book profiles 17 individuals, both straight and gay, who made important contributions to organized psychiatry and the mental health needs of lesbian and gay patients, and illustrates the role that gay and lesbian psychiatrists would later play in the mental health field when they no longer had to hide their identities.
Individuals profiled in American Psychiatry and Homosexuality include:

Dr. John Fryer, who disguised his identity to speak before the APA’s annual meeting in 1972 on the discrimination gay psychiatrists faced in their own profession
Dr. Charles Silverstein, who saw the diagnosis of homosexuality as a means of social control
Dr. Lawrence Hartmann, who helped reform the APA and later served as its President in 1991-92
Dr. Robert J. Campbell, who helped persuade the APA’s Nomenclature Committee to hear scientific data presented by gay activists
Dr. Judd Marmor, an early psychoanalytic critic of theories that pathologized homosexuality
Dr. Robert Spitzer, who chaired the APA’s Nomenclature Committee
Dr. Frank Rundle, who helped organize the first meeting of what would become the APA Caucus of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Psychiatrists
Dr. David Kessler, AGLP President from 1980-82
Dr. Nanette Gartrell, a pioneer of feminist issues within the APA
Dr. Stuart Nichols, President of the AGLP in 1983-84 and a founding member of the Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists of New York (GLPNY)
Dr. Emery Hetrick, a founding member of both AGLP and GLPNY
Dr. Bertram Schaffner, who was instrumental in providing group psychotherapy for physicians with AIDS
Dr. Martha Kirkpatrick, a long-time leader in psychiatry and psychoanalysis, both as a woman and an “out” lesbian
Dr. Richard Isay, the first openly gay psychoanalyst in the American Psychoanalytic Association
Dr. Richard Pillard, best known for studying the incidence of homosexuality in families of twins
Dr. Edward Hanin, former Speaker of the APA Assembly
Dr. Ralph Roughton, the first openly gay Training and Supervising Psychoanalyst to be recognized within the American and International Psychoanalytic Associations
American Psychiatry and Homosexuality presents the personal, behind-the-scenes accounts of a major historical event in psychiatry and medicine and of a decision that has affected society and culture ever since. This is an essential resource for mental health educators, supervisors, and professionals; historians; and LGBT readers in general.
Amazon.com: American Psychiatry and Homosexuality: An Oral History: Jack Drescher, Joseph P. Merlino: Books
Some quotes and anectodes from the book:

By contrast, these first-person accounts provide corrective insider views of the process. Several speak of the depressing psychiatric attitudes prior to 1973. Lawrence Hartmann recalls, "The few analysts who wrote about gay people tended to describe them as nasty psychopaths, close to psychosis. I am not making this up!"
Judd Marmor recalls the view that "homosexuals were inherently seriously mentally disturbed, irresponsible, and completely driven by needs over which they had no control." They were supposedly "emotionally immature, deceptive, impulsive, unreliable, and incapable of truly loving."
...gay activist Ron Gold arranged for gays to meet with the APA's Committee on Nomenclature where they laid out evidence from studies supporting gay mental health. Robert Jean Campbell recalls, "They had a lot of data that I had never seen. I don't know where they got it, but I was really overwhelmed by the data."
Campbell argued that the committee should take its own look at the scientific evidence about homosexuality.
Spitzer recalls thinking, "Is there something that they (other mental disorders) all share that I can argue does not apply to homosexuality?" His conclusion was that people with other conditions "were usually not very happy about it. They had distress or...in some way the condition interfered with their overall functioning."
Spitzer continues, "If you accepted what the activists said, clearly here were homosexuals who were not distressed by being homosexual. Instead, they might be distressed by how people reacted to their being gay."
Cure-therapists, mostly psychoanalysts such as Irving Bieber and the zealously homophobic Charles Socarides (whose son is openly gay), were furious and began gathering signatures demanding a referendum to overturn the board's decision. Edward Hanin recalls, "The controversy was led by people who essentially said this was politics intruding into science. It wasn't. The APA Board of Trustees had reviewed very carefully the evidence related to homosexuality."
Judd Marmor agrees: "The fact is that the decision to remove homosexuality...was not based on gay political pressure but on scientific correctness and only after a full year of exploratory hearings and study of the issue. The so-called 'politics' surrounding the decision was subsequently instilled into the process by opponents."
Robert Jean Campbell comments, "I thought the only reason they were worried was that they wouldn't have any patients if this went through. People would no longer go to them for something that was no longer a disease."
Dr. John Fryer, M.D., a psychiatrist who in 1972 spoke at a psychiatry panel on homosexuality, appearing as “Dr. H. Anonymous,” disguising his true physical identity—and even his voice. In those days, to come out as a gay psychiatrist meant a ruined career.
I would take the word of those who were there, rather than that of a reseracher-reporter, any day.

I hope this has been helpful and cleared up a lot of misconceptions. I do not believe that those on the opposite side of this issue will change their mind because of this information. Prejudice and bigotry can rarely altered, even in the light of irrefutable evidence. Thing is, regardless of whether they believe it or not, they are wrong. And that is factual.

Now, since this was originally posted by me 2 and a half years ago, may of the links that I originally used are no longer working. However, I will provide links upon request.

So, in conclusion, the activism to declassify homosexuality as a disorder was to get research examined. And now, Lysander, another poster uneducated on this issue, has been taught the facts. It was a pleasure to correct him.
 
Ergo, it may be a subliminal choice depending upon circumstances, or a blatant choice.

If you can choose to be gay, then you're already gay. I'm not turned on by men. I couldn't choose to be turned on by men. That's because I'm heterosexual. If you have the choice to be turned on by men, then you're already bi or gay.

I'm sure gays couldn't decide to stop being gay because I couldn't decide to stop being heterosexual. If it's different for you, then you're bi, and not everyone else is. Don't assume that what's a simple matter of choice for you is also a simple matter of choice for others.
 
If you can choose to be gay, then you're already gay. I'm not turned on by men. I couldn't choose to be turned on by men. That's because I'm heterosexual. If you have the choice to be turned on by men, then you're already bi or gay.

I'm sure gays couldn't decide to stop being gay because I couldn't decide to stop being heterosexual. If it's different for you, then you're bi, and not everyone else is. Don't assume that what's a simple matter of choice for you is also a simple matter of choice for others.

I agree with your post precisely. I meant that for instance, a small child is molested by a same sex pedophile repeatedly and after a while, perhaps as a subliminal defense mechanism, enjoys the experience and becomes blueprinted with that sexual behavior for the rest of the child's life. Certainly not truly a choice, but self defense for survival or sanity. Just one example with a predictable result.
 
I agree with your post precisely. I meant that for instance, a small child is molested by a same sex pedophile repeatedly and after a while, perhaps as a subliminal defense mechanism, enjoys the experience and becomes blueprinted with that sexual behavior for the rest of the child's life. Certainly not truly a choice, but self defense for survival or sanity. Just one example with a predictable result.

There's nothing at all to back up the idea that such a scenario is the basis of homosexuality for any number of people. However, there are a number of empirical studies that show strong correlations between various genetic traits, or epigenetic traits, and male homosexuality. The jury is still out on the cause, but all evidence suggests that there are genetic influences, particularly in the mother, that result in greatly increased likelihood of homosexuality in men.

The most compelling study so far shows certain genetic traits in the mother that increase her likelihood of having gay sons, but increase her likelihood of having more children by an amount that offsets the selection cost of the homosexual son. In other words, it's an over-all benefit to procreation, so it's been selected for.
 
I agree with your post precisely. I meant that for instance, a small child is molested by a same sex pedophile repeatedly and after a while, perhaps as a subliminal defense mechanism, enjoys the experience and becomes blueprinted with that sexual behavior for the rest of the child's life. Certainly not truly a choice, but self defense for survival or sanity. Just one example with a predictable result.
Do you have any reliable evidence of that? It makes more sense that homosexuality itself could actually increase the chance of abuse.

There is one interesting theory put forward by Wachob (1999) that children who grow up later to identify as LGBT are more at risk of sexual abuse as children. She stipulates that being abused does not cause homosexuality, but rather that children who will later identify as LGBT are more vulnerable to child abuse.

The reasons she gives for this is that LGBT adults report that their behavior and interaction with others was often atypical in childhood when compared to their peers. Being or feeling “different” can result in social isolation / exclusion, which in turn can lead to a child being more vulnerable to the instigation and continuation of abuse (Gracia, 2003).

In addition to this, many gay men in particular, report that they remember feeling dissatisfied or uncomfortable with their body as children, and as young teens they sought out situations in which to try to make sense of their sexual feelings (O’ Leary, 2006). Unfortunately, therefore, abuse could occur in this situation because abusers take advantage of the child’s uncertainties and insecurities.
 
There's nothing at all to back up the idea that such a scenario is the basis of homosexuality for any number of people. However, there are a number of empirical studies that show strong correlations between various genetic traits, or epigenetic traits, and male homosexuality. The jury is still out on the cause, but all evidence suggests that there are genetic influences, particularly in the mother, that result in greatly increased likelihood of homosexuality in men.

The most compelling study so far shows certain genetic traits in the mother that increase her likelihood of having gay sons, but increase her likelihood of having more children by an amount that offsets the selection cost of the homosexual son. In other words, it's an over-all benefit to procreation, so it's been selected for.

Why is it that most of these studies seem to concentrate on homosexual men and not homosexuality in general? Or at least most of the ones cited here on DP?
 
Why is it that most of these studies seem to concentrate on homosexual men and not homosexuality in general? Or at least most of the ones cited here on DP?

I don't know. I've wondered that, but I've never seen an answer.
 
Why is it that most of these studies seem to concentrate on homosexual men and not homosexuality in general? Or at least most of the ones cited here on DP?

Nobody really cares about homosexual women. straight men always think homosexual women are hot. you got me as to why.
 
Nobody really cares about homosexual women. straight men always think homosexual women are hot. you got me as to why.

Not the ugly ones!
 
+
Most organisms in the world don't need that
If you check my post you will find that I specified "most complex organisms"_

The key word being "complex"_

Here's the problem with your post, Empirica. Homosexuality has been proven to NOT be a psychological disorder.
Definitely "NOT" by any psychological standards based on Political Correctness_

But according to biology, nature and common sense; same sex sex is obviously a psychological disorder_

In fact, a sexual attraction to anything incompatible for reproduction is a psychological disorder_

Excluding masturbation which is more of a self-release by one's self than a sexual attraction to one's self_

And providing one is fantasizing about the opposite sex rather than the same sex or a farm animal_ :giggle1:
 
+If you check my post you will find that I specified "most complex organisms"_

The key word being "complex"_

Definitely "NOT" by any psychological standards based on Political Correctness_

But according to biology, nature and common sense; same sex sex is obviously a psychological disorder_

In fact, a sexual attraction to anything incompatible for reproduction is a psychological disorder_

Excluding masturbation which is more of a self-release by one's self than a sexual attraction to one's self_

And providing one is fantasizing about the opposite sex rather than the same sex or a farm animal_ :giggle1:

that's really stupid. using your definition, using a condom or taking the pill is a psychological disorder.

fear of gays appears to be a psychological disorder IMHO
 
that's really stupid. using your definition, using a condom or taking the pill is a psychological disorder.

fear of gays appears to be a psychological disorder IMHO
Seriously Turtledude; this is what you gleaned from my post?! :yt

Or did you understand it completely and simply grasping at straws for lack of argument?!
 
Seriously Turtledude; this is what you gleaned from my post?! :yt

Or did you understand it completely and simply grasping at straws for lack of argument?!

the psychological disorder attack on gays has gone the way of "the sun revolves around the earth" nonsense
 
+If you check my post you will find that I specified "most complex organisms"_

The key word being "complex"_

Definitely "NOT" by any psychological standards based on Political Correctness_

But according to biology, nature and common sense; same sex sex is obviously a psychological disorder_

In fact, a sexual attraction to anything incompatible for reproduction is a psychological disorder_

Excluding masturbation which is more of a self-release by one's self than a sexual attraction to one's self_

And providing one is fantasizing about the opposite sex rather than the same sex or a farm animal_ :giggle1:

That really s a stupid comment.
 
the psychological disorder attack on gays has gone the way of "the sun revolves around the earth" nonsense
You're still grasping Turtle_

Think rationally and intelligently for a moment (like a Vulcan) and it just might come to you_

That really s a stupid comment.
Well of course it is___all Politically Incorrect realities appear "stupid" to liberals_
 
You're still grasping Turtle_

Think rationally and intelligently for a moment (like a Vulcan) and it just might come to you_

Well of course it is___all Politically Incorrect realities appear "stupid" to liberals_

lets see

homosexuals have been around for ages

Sparta for example

they are still here

logic dictates its a normal variation of human behavior
 
Back
Top Bottom