• 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
Yes, because most people would love to choose to be ostracized and ridiculed by the rest of society while being legally prevented from marrying those whom they love :roll:

That's a weak argument. There are plenty of rebels and non-conformists in society. If life was like the allegory of the cave, the man who got free and saw the outside world would not put himself back in chains just to be accepted back into the group. He would free those who listened to him and then they would all leave together and say, To H with this cave! Just like homosexuals choose to do.
 
Yes it is a choice. This is my opinion as a heterosexual. The most frequent response is this...
So, you chose to be straight?
Yes. I did. And I continue to make that choice everyday. I could choose to be homosexual any day.
How did you do that?
Because I look at women, fantasize about them sexually/romantically, and I pay enough attention to them to fall in love with them. All the actions I have just described I can do also to men. But I choose not to. Let's say that in order to prove my point, I decide to become homosexual... tomorrow. I can start the process of that by doing the following...
Looking at men. Fantasizing about them sexually. Paying enough attention and searching until I find one that has traits that I can live with for the rest of my life. There is no internal drive that will stop me from doing any of these things. My eyes aren't going to avert themselves. My mind can imagine anything I put to it- a two-headed elephant or a man's naked body touching mine. You can do it too. There is nothing in my mind that, by default, prevents me from imagining anything.

As far as sexual arousal, that's the easiest part. Turn out the lights, relax your mind, and allow yourself to be touched. You habits and social programming may scream "No" but if you can relax, and of course you can train your mind to relax just like you can tolerate a colonoscopy without punching the doctor, then your mind will "listen" to the pleasure signals that the nerve endings in your skin are sending to your conscious mind. After all, the nerve endings send signals the same regardless of who is touching you. It's not like the nerve endings themselves say... "Whoa! Hold on, that is a man's appendage. Change the signal!" No. The skin doesn't know. Any averse reaction is the product of habit, social programming and identity, which are all temporary and changeable things.

The next response I always get is....
So you're bisexual?
I'm saying we are all bisexuals. We just choose to live as heterosexuals or homosexuals at certain times, or even the whole time. Some people can identify as heterosexual in their teens, have hetero relationships, then years later change to homosexual and have strictly homosexual relationships. And again, years later, in their 40's or 50's, change back to heterosexual. Looking at the entire life span, you would say that person is bisexual. But for those periods of 10-20 years, he/she was either living as a heterosexual OR a homosexual.

Any one can do this. Both love and sexual arousal/attraction are results of how much attention we pay to others. And there is no internal drive that limits how much attention or what kind of attention we pay.

Well I've been gay all my life and no matter how hard I tried to be straight, I just couldn't do it.
My response to that is you did not try hard enough, on a long enough timeline, nor do you open your mind to the possibility of being sexually aroused by a female's touch (allow the skin to send those signals to your conscious mind) nor to the possibility of paying enough attention to a particular woman's traits, and seeing the merits of spending more and more time with her, even falling in love. If you only pay attention to men, of course you will not find a woman you could romantically love. If you don't relax and open your mind to the pleasure, then of course your mind will filter out the signals her fingertips are sending to your central nervous system. "Ew! A woman is touching me! Stop it. I'm gay!"
Interesting. A bisexual who refuses to admit that there are people who are not bisexual. Or more likely, a closeted gay who has created such a persona to avoid coming out. Whatever is going on in your head, I am very sorry. Sorry you cannot choose who you are attracted to. You can choose who to get involved with and who to pay attention to, but you can't control who you are attracted to. Sorry. Nobody can. You can delude yourself, but I would consider that to be psychologically unhealthy.
 
I could not select an answer in the poll because I simply don't know, and selecting "Maybe/Don't know" is actually a skewed "yes" answer rather than a purely neutral "Don't know" answer.

I would have selected "Don't know" because while I believe the answer is probably yes I am not completely certain. The uncertainty does not come from a belief that homosexuality is not a valid form of sexuality. It comes from an understanding that there are many factors which come into play in human sexuality before any human engages in sexual activity.

I believe that since homosexuality has not only occurred throughout every era of human development, the fact that is does occur amongst other animal species tends to lean towards the possibility of some form of genetic imperative. I also think that as human children develop, environmental factors occuring during the socialization process may come into play. Ultimately, once a human reaches a stage of sexually functional physicality, there still remains a choice on how to act sexually.

Consider these examples for each of my points.

Evidence garnered from the studies of history and anthropology shows that same-sex activity has existed in every type of human culture, from tribal groupings up through highly civilized nation-states. Furthermore, biological studies of various denizens of the Animal Kingdom have demonstrated same-sex activity patterns among several species of Primates (monkeys, gorilla, etc) as well as species of rodents, insects, wolves, dogs, even dolphins. This tends to indicate a genetic trend that goes beyond simple "choice."

In terms of social environmental factors, there is resistance to religious and cultural pressure to comform that would otherwise tend to compel obedience to social norms and away from a socially negative "choice" to act out unacceptable sexual behaviors. There is no statistical evidence supporting belief systems convinced that homosexuality is driven by experience of child sexual abuse, neglect, economic deprivation, non-nuclear family guidance, or any other socio-economic situation; both heterosexual and homosexual youth share those environments.

Finally, when humans reach the age where they can physically participate in sex, they can still chose how to act on this. We have heterosexuals who may experiment and then reject not only same-sex activity but ALL sexual activity for one reason or another. We have homosexuals who may experience heterosexual encounters and continue to participate in such encounters or also reject ALL sexual activity for one reason or another. For the most part both heterosexuals and homosexuals will act "normally" as their sexual desires compel them, with heterosexuals seeking heterosexual relationships and homosexuals seeking homosexual relationships.

Having sifted through all this evidence myself over the years, I have come to believe that it is not truly a choice. However I acknowledge that there may be factors I am unaware of and so I may be wrong. Therefore I would pick "I Don't Know" with the caveat that it does not really matter to me whether it is a choice or not, because as long as all parties engaged in such activities are willing and able then it is perfectly alright with me.
 
Last edited:
The correct answer to this question is remembered, not discussed.

First, I need to remember when I chose to be straight. If I manage to jar that memory loose, my answer will be yes. So until then...

You choose it everyday. A man and a woman walk by you. Your eyes follow the woman. Guess what! You just made a choice! That's just the first step. Next, you're at the airport with time for a massage at the kiosk in the terminal. But only a male masseur is available! OMG! You sit down and despite your habits and social programming, the therapeutic pleasure of his motions does indeed relax you. Guess what! You just made a choice. You chose to ignore your initial discomfort and focus instead on the therapeutic objective. Congrats! If you can do that, then you can choose to focus on anything. Next step: The dreaded colonoscopy! You get through it without punching the doctor! Because you made the choice to relax and git 'er done. See how powerful choice is? We make em everyday. Do you see where this is going?
 
Interesting. A bisexual who refuses to admit that there are people who are not bisexual. Or more likely, a closeted gay who has created such a persona to avoid coming out. Whatever is going on in your head, I am very sorry. Sorry you cannot choose who you are attracted to. You can choose who to get involved with and who to pay attention to, but you can't control who you are attracted to. Sorry. Nobody can. You can delude yourself, but I would consider that to be psychologically unhealthy.

Are you a homosexual who declares that anyone who says they have a choice, is automatically a bisexual? Thus preserving that notion that sexual orientation is unchangeable? What do you think attraction is? It is a by-product of attention. Your eyes don't automatically follow an appealing specimen, you willfully point them to it.
 
Last edited:
I would think that any heterosexual who believes homosexualty is a choice test out their theory by choosing homosexuality for a little while to see how well that works out for them.

Should be an easy matter if there is anything to their opinion.

Ha! What a challenge. Well, I identify as a heterosexual. I believe orientation is a choice. I have chosen to be heterosexual. I believe I could easily choose to be homosexual. But how would I know that I had accomplished homosexuality? Is it simply a matter of having sex with another guy? Do I have to fall in love? How will we know that I fell in love? I would know, but how would I get you to believe me that I love this guy as much as any born homosexual loves another? Or do I have to do both: have sex and fall in love?
 
Ha! What a challenge. Well, I identify as a heterosexual. I believe orientation is a choice. I have chosen to be heterosexual. I believe I could easily choose to be homosexual. But how would I know that I had accomplished homosexuality? Is it simply a matter of having sex with another guy? Do I have to fall in love? How will we know that I fell in love? I would know, but how would I get you to believe me that I love this guy as much as any born homosexual loves another? Or do I have to do both: have sex and fall in love?

I think perhaps it would be more like: could you overcome your "natural aversion" not only to engage in the activity but also try to enjoy it. If you found that you could enjoy it would you continue to do it or not. In other words, would the experiment open your eyes to the possibility of continued activity simply because you enjoyed it enough to chose to do it again and again, possibly to the exclusion of sex with women.
 
Several people mentioned that environmental factors may be involved. So here's a hypothetical: A group of children are born and raised in a controlled environment, where absolutely no messages or hints or modeling of sexual behavior or romantic behavior occurs. No gender roles are modeled. Up until adolescence they are blank slates as far as those things. Puberty and curiosity hit. Exploring and normal sexual development. What will happen? hetero, homo or bi? Will it vary according to the individual kid?
 
Several people mentioned that environmental factors may be involved. So here's a hypothetical: A group of children are born and raised in a controlled environment, where absolutely no messages or hints or modeling of sexual behavior or romantic behavior occurs. No gender roles are modeled. Up until adolescence they are blank slates as far as those things. Puberty and curiosity hit. Exploring and normal sexual development. What will happen? hetero, homo or bi? Will it vary according to the individual kid?

Interesting experiment. It would be unethical of course. ;) My guess... it will vary according to the individual.
 
I think perhaps it would be more like: could you overcome your "natural aversion" not only to engage in the activity but also try to enjoy it. If you found that you could enjoy it would you continue to do it or not. In other words, would the experiment open your eyes to the possibility of continued activity simply because you enjoyed it enough to chose to do it again and again, possibly to the exclusion of sex with women.

Good approach. My answer is yes. I could overcome the natural aversion, I could enjoy it, I may continue to do it. I have just chosen to be homosexual. Ah but not so fast. They will just call me a bisexual and nothing will have changed or been proven. Well, there must be a better way. Perhaps change the way we conceptualize orientation and attraction? Whether a single instance defines a lifetime or when a label on someone expires?
 
Last edited:
Several people mentioned that environmental factors may be involved. So here's a hypothetical: A group of children are born and raised in a controlled environment, where absolutely no messages or hints or modeling of sexual behavior or romantic behavior occurs. No gender roles are modeled. Up until adolescence they are blank slates as far as those things. Puberty and curiosity hit. Exploring and normal sexual development. What will happen? hetero, homo or bi? Will it vary according to the individual kid?

Based on human history, I think they would develop all three anyway. This does not disprove a genetic link, and it also does not disprove the possibility of social environment factors, since kids would develop their own social patterns if none were around to emulate.
 
Last edited:
Interesting experiment. It would be unethical of course. ;) My guess... it will vary according to the individual.

Then it must be genetics that is the cause of the variation, since environment was controlled for. Of course, we'd have to repeat this experiment many times to get dependable results? What if we don't get consistent results?
 
Good approach. My answer is yes. I could overcome the natural aversion, I could enjoy it, I may continue to do it. I have just chosen to be homosexual. Ah but not so fast. They will just call me a bisexual and nothing will have changed or been proven. Well, there must be a better way. Perhaps change the definitions?

No, they would only call you bisexual if you continued to have sex with women as well. If you opted for the last part of my results "to the exclusion of sex with women" they would call you homosexual.
 
Then it must be genetics that is the cause of the variation, since environment was controlled for. Of course, we'd have to repeat this experiment many times to get dependable results? What if we don't get consistent results?

My question is this. In your hypothetical experiment, are these children each alone, or are they socializing with each other. If it is the latter, then environment is not controlled. If it is the former, I don't think we'd get any results whatsoever. Since the children would have no knowledge of opposite sex or same sex... or gender at all and would have never experienced attraction, I don't think any results would be obtained.
 
No, they would only call you bisexual if you continued to have sex with women as well. If you opted for the last part of my results "to the exclusion of sex with women" they would call you homosexual.

Ah. ok. But if I had been living as a heterosexual up until I changed, then because they cling to their beliefs, they will not count it so easily as a true change. They will say I was in the closet or a bisexual all along. Someone already said that to me in this thread, page 10-11. -Rather than entertain the idea that orientation is changeable.
 
Last edited:
My question is this. In your hypothetical experiment, are these children each alone, or are they socializing with each other. If it is the latter, then environment is not controlled. If it is the former, I don't think we'd get any results whatsoever. Since the children would have no knowledge of opposite sex or same sex... or gender at all and would have never experienced attraction, I don't think any results would be obtained.

Socializing with each other. It's still controlled b/c the kids aren't giving/receiving sexual messages/examples from/to each other or anyone else. Normal human sexual development still occurs. Pubic hair, breasts, wet dreams (now That's interesting!) and hormones. Controlling for the lack of messages/models of sexual behavior shuld Not inhibit the kids' sexual development, right?
 
Ah. ok. But if I had been living as a heterosexual up until I changed, then because they cling to their beliefs, they will not count it so easily as a true change. They will say I was in the closet or a bisexual all along. Someone already said that to me in this thread, page 10-11.

I was only addressing this as a hypothetical, attempting to view it as someone who believes it is a choice (even though I do not). People who are absolutely convinced it is not a choice would say you were always a closet case. I'm a little more open-minded simply because I do not know for sure between choice or non-choice, but I am indifferent because either way I find the activity perfectly acceptable.
 
Based on human history, I think they would develop all three anyway. This does not disprove a genetic link, and it also does not disprove the possibility of social environment factors, since kids would develop their own social patterns if none were around to emulate.

Exactly. What social patterns would they develop is the question.
 
Socializing with each other. It's still controlled b/c the kids aren't giving/receiving sexual messages/examples from/to each other or anyone else. Normal human sexual development still occurs. Pubic hair, breasts, wet dreams (now That's interesting!) and hormones. Controlling for the lack of messages/models of sexual behavior shuld Not inhibit the kids' sexual development, right?

The fact that they see other kids... and see how other kids react sexually may be an influence. If you have kids interacting with other kids, you cannot completely control for environment... though you could get somewhat close.
 
Exactly. What social patterns would they develop is the question.

Well, probably those similar to human hunter-gatherer tribal groupings. In those we know of from relatively recent history, we get dominant and submissive males, and exemplars of all three sexual behaviors. Absent outside influences in your controlled environment it is also unlikely that there would be any negative stigma attached to these behaviors, they would just be considered natural.
 
Last edited:
No, homosexuality is not a choice. Neither is heterosexuality.
 
Well, probably those similar to human hunter-gatherer tribal groupings. In those we know of from relatively recent history, we get dominant and submissive males, and exemplars of all three sexual behaviors. Absent outside influences in your controlled environemt it is also unlikely that there would be any negative stigma attached to these behaviors, they would just be considered natural.

Agreed. Good point. Do we dare assign labels to them such as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual? I doubt they would identify themselves as any of those labels using the same rationale that we would use to assign those labels.
 
Agreed. Good point. Do we dare assign labels to them such as homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual? I doubt they would identify themselves as any of those labels using the same rationale that we would use to assign those labels.

Correct. There was a movie starring Dustin Hoffman I enjoyed greatly called "Little Big Man." In it the Sioux tribe that adopted him there was a gay male he grew up with who was treated with not only acceptance, but great honor. That is not unusual in hunter-gatherer tribal groupings.
 
The fact that they see other kids... and see how other kids react sexually may be an influence. If you have kids interacting with other kids, you cannot completely control for environment... though you could get somewhat close.

Seeing how kids react sexually. Ok. I think that the first kid to give a sign will probably be followed by the others. Conformity. And if someone deviates, they may be ostracized not because of the nature of the deviation, but because they deviated in the first place. Meaning: I don't care whether you practice hetero, homo or bi, I care whether you are going with the group and whatever it may be practicing.
 
Back
Top Bottom