• 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
chromium said:
What i always notice in these polls is that gay people will all say it's not a choice and then a subset of heteros who think they know better, undoubtedly because they are homophobes, will say it is. Do we learn anything new from that?
Click to expand...

We're learning about you.
 
I guess it kind of depends on how you define homosexual. If we're just talking about someone who has sex with someone of the same gender, then yes, I think you can make that choice. Men who have gay sex in prison for lack of any women to have sex with are an example of this.

However if we're talking about homosexuals as people who are attracted to members of the same sex, and aren't just doing it for lack of other options, then no, I don't think that's a choice.
 
molten_dragon said:
I guess it kind of depends on how you define homosexual. If we're just talking about someone who has sex with someone of the same gender, then yes, I think you can make that choice. Men who have gay sex in prison for lack of any women to have sex with are an example of this.

However if we're talking about homosexuals as people who are attracted to members of the same sex, and aren't just doing it for lack of other options, then no, I don't think that's a choice.
Click to expand...

Weellll, if you think being on the bottom of a prison get-togther is always a "choice," I'd say you might wanna re-think that thunk. ;) LOL
 
Captain Adverse said:
Weellll, if you think being on the bottom of a prison get-togther is always a "choice," I'd say you might wanna re-think that thunk. ;) LOL
Click to expand...

You're right, it's not always consensual in prisons, but it's not always non-consensual either.
 
molten_dragon said:
I guess it kind of depends on how you define homosexual. If we're just talking about someone who has sex with someone of the same gender, then yes, I think you can make that choice. Men who have gay sex in prison for lack of any women to have sex with are an example of this.

However if we're talking about homosexuals as people who are attracted to members of the same sex, and aren't just doing it for lack of other options, then no, I don't think that's a choice.
Click to expand...

Good point. And I'd like to add that I see much more discourse on whether orientation is a choice than I see on what the relevant definitions are. I think if the discourse ever moves to that topic, the two polar sides of the argument may fracture and remix a little bit. Scary thought to those who have agendas. All the more reason to keep the discourse focused on choice and Not on definitions.
 
USNavySquid said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this is a pretty good analysis for your hypothetical experiment.
 
USNavySquid said:
Thank you. So where does that leave us? That social programming/environment plays a big part in sexual behavior/identity?
Click to expand...

No, it leaves us where we were before. That sexual orientation is caused by some combination of genetics, biology/hormones, and environment. Your hypothetical wouldn't yield us any new results. Let's say for example, the first kid to demonstrate any sexual identity, identifies as gay. We can conclude, reasonably, that his identity was probably created internally. The next child, however, has the environmental influence of the first child. Therefore the pure results are contaminated, and it could be internal or it could be external... or it could be a combination. Even the first child might have their internal prompts contaminated by other types of environmental socialization... or not. Sexual orientation is very complex.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it leaves us where we were before. That sexual orientation is caused by some combination of genetics, biology/hormones, and environment. Your hypothetical wouldn't yield us any new results. Let's say for example, the first kid to demonstrate any sexual identity, identifies as gay. We can conclude, reasonably, that his identity was probably created internally. The next child, however, has the environmental influence of the first child. Therefore the pure results are contaminated, and it could be internal or it could be external... or it could be a combination. Even the first child might have their internal prompts contaminated by other types of environmental socialization... or not. Sexual orientation is very complex.
Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying. Let me take a different direction. Let's say it is not so much of an "identity" at all. Let's say the first kid, a boy, is sitting next to another boy. Their legs are touching. The first boy recognizes that it feels good and wants more. (and more and more). At another opportunity, he is sitting next to a girl and her breasts rub against his arm. It feels good and he wants more. Down the road he enjoys having sex with both. Rather than identify him as bisexual, can't we just say that he has discovered pleasure and seeks pleasure for its own sake, regardless of the sex of his partner? Isn't our habit to label as gay, straight, or bi inhibiting our view of this possibility? Without the social cues, all he has to go on is skin-on-skin arousal and hormones. Now, on the other hand, he may have brushed against the breast of that girl and had no reaction b/c of a personality conflict with that particular girl. Then he might demonstrate a preference for the boy he brushed his leg against. But that does not make him a homosexual in my book. Another question: Is homosexuality determined by internal identity or external behavior? Are there other options?
 
USNavySquid said:
I hear what you are saying. Let me take a different direction. Let's say it is not so much of an "identity" at all. Let's say the first kid, a boy, is sitting next to another boy. Their legs are touching. The first boy recognizes that it feels good and wants more. (and more and more). At another opportunity, he is sitting next to a girl and her breasts rub against his arm. It feels good and he wants more. Down the road he enjoys having sex with both. Rather than identify him as bisexual, can't we just say that he has discovered pleasure and seeks pleasure for its own sake, regardless of the sex of his partner? Isn't our habit to label as gay, straight, or bi inhibiting our view of this possibility? Without the social cues, all he has to go on is skin-on-skin arousal and hormones. Now, on the other hand, he may have brushed against the breast of that girl and had no reaction b/c of a personality conflict with that particular girl. Then he might demonstrate a preference for the boy he brushed his leg against. But that does not make him a homosexual in my book. Another question: Is homosexuality determined by internal identity or external behavior? Are there other options?
Click to expand...

These are all excellent questions and a really good examination of the nuances and potential causes for one's sexual identity, behavior, and response. What it accentuates is how complex this issue is. Consider this. Let's say you have someone who is blind. And silently, they receive manual stimulation of their genitals... which they enjoy. This is the first time they receive any sexual stimulation from anyone. They do not know the sex of the person that provided the stimulation. What was their response based on? Sexual identity? I would say no. It was based purely on a physical response, irrelevant to sexual identity. This is yet another aspect of sexuality that complicates things further.

I would say that the best guess is still some combination of internal and external factors.
 
USNavySquid said:
Thank you. So where does that leave us? That social programming/environment plays a big part in sexual behavior/identity?
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
No, it leaves us where we were before. That sexual orientation is caused by some combination of genetics, biology/hormones, and environment. Your hypothetical wouldn't yield us any new results. Let's say for example, the first kid to demonstrate any sexual identity, identifies as gay. We can conclude, reasonably, that his identity was probably created internally. The next child, however, has the environmental influence of the first child. Therefore the pure results are contaminated, and it could be internal or it could be external... or it could be a combination. Even the first child might have their internal prompts contaminated by other types of environmental socialization... or not. Sexual orientation is very complex.
Click to expand...

HEY!!!!! :shock: Didn't either of you read MY post #103!!! (fumming) It's like i was talking to myself there . lol ;)
 
Captain Adverse said:
HEY!!!!! :shock: Didn't either of you read MY post #103!!! (fumming) It's like i was talking to myself there . lol ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I was just looking around at different threads and I across this one AFTER your post.

Good post. Got a thanks from me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
These are all excellent questions and a really good examination of the nuances and potential causes for one's sexual identity, behavior, and response. What it accentuates is how complex this issue is. Consider this. Let's say you have someone who is blind. And silently, they receive manual stimulation of their genitals... which they enjoy. This is the first time they receive any sexual stimulation from anyone. They do not know the sex of the person that provided the stimulation. What was their response based on? Sexual identity? I would say no. It was based purely on a physical response, irrelevant to sexual identity. This is yet another aspect of sexuality that complicates things further.

I would say that the best guess is still some combination of internal and external factors.
Click to expand...

I've used that example myself. The most frequent response is that "there is more to sexual orientation that getting off." But what more... and to what degree and how many people agree with this? I have tried to reason what defines our orientation: Who we prefer to receive sexual pleasure from, who we fall in love with or both? People have given me different answers. I have guessed that even love is a physical reaction to repeated exposure. Emotions are simply chemical reactions.... proteins and enzymes being synthesized, stored, released and sent through the body. This narrows it down to orientation having physical roots. The variable, I guessed, is who we pay attention to. In my opinion, that is a matter of choice.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Finally, when humans reach the age where they can physically participate in sex, they can still chose how to act on this.

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.
Click to expand...

I was with you and thought it was a choice up until the first sentence of the last paragraph. It seems to contradict the paragraph before it. Overall, I glean a sense of great variety from your post. Variety that dispels the labels and motivations we try to assign in today's society.
 
USNavySquid said:
I've used that example myself. The most frequent response is that "there is more to sexual orientation that getting off." But what more... and to what degree and how many people agree with this? I have tried to reason what defines our orientation: Who we prefer to receive sexual pleasure from, who we fall in love with or both? People have given me different answers. I have guessed that even love is a physical reaction to repeated exposure. Emotions are simply chemical reactions.... proteins and enzymes being synthesized, stored, released and sent through the body. This narrows it down to orientation having physical roots. The variable, I guessed, is who we pay attention to. In my opinion, that is a matter of choice.
Click to expand...

The problem with your example is that it ignores this scenario. Boy sitting next to Girl feels nothing when he realizes he has touched her breast. Boy sits next to boy, their legs touch, and he suddenly feels good. He hasn't made a conscious choice, he simply has no feeling for girls while he seems to have it for at least that particular boy.

But, and here is when your issues of emotional attraction truly come into play, there is no need for same-sex interest to involve ALL males in order to establish homosexual orientation, only that subset of males found personally attractive. It's no different for heterosexual desires; few men find ALL women attractive and vice versa. Then comes the physical and emotional issues involved in seeking and obtaining what one finds attractive.
 
Captain Adverse said:
The problem with your example is that it ignores this scenario. Boy sitting next to Girl feels nothing when he realizes he has touched her breast. Boy sits next to boy, their legs touch, and he suddenly feels good. He hasn't made a conscious choice, he simply has no feeling for girls while he seems to have it for at least that particular boy.

But, and here is when your issues of emotional attraction truly come into play, there is no need for same-sex interest to involve ALL males in order to establish homosexual orientation, only that subset of males found personally attractive. It's no different for heterosexual desires; few men find ALL women attractive and vice versa. Then comes the physical and emotional issues involved in seeking and obtaining what one finds attractive.
Click to expand...

But Why does the boy feel nothing when he touches the girl's breast. Until we know that, we can not judge. Nor can we judge until we know whether it is a habitual response or a fluke. The lack of response may have been due to the amount of attention he was putting into the book he was reading. At another time, he may have a strong reaction to that breast. It is a matter of attention, first and foremost in my opinion. If attention was not paid to that breast, then no other reaction will be possible. Unawareness is not a reaction.

I agree with the second point. However, attraction is relative. If I'm heterosexual and surrounded by ugly girls, I'll probably still stick my &*() in one. The standard changes based on the selection.
 
USNavySquid said:
I was with you and thought it was a choice up until the first sentence of the last paragraph. It seems to contradict the paragraph before it. Overall, I glean a sense of great variety from your post. Variety that dispels the labels and motivations we try to assign in today's society.
Click to expand...

I can see the confusion but from the examples given I had hoped it would have been clear what my actual position was. When I said "choice to act" I did not mean choice of orientation, only how the person might choose to act on his sexuality based on either a willingness to comform to normative behaviors or a determination to not comform and instead act on his actual desires.
 
Captain Adverse said:
I can see the confusion but from the examples given I had hoped it would have been clear what my actual position was. When I said "choice to act" I did not mean choice of orientation, only how the person might choose to act on his sexuality based on either a willingness to comform to normative behaviors or a determination to not comform and instead act on his actual desires.
Click to expand...

But isn't how he chooses to act indicative of his orientation? I don't necessarily believe it is. Just asking the question. In fact, I don't necessary believe that orientation is a static trait. I fathom that having one or another orientation is a temporary condition. Given a long enough timeline, it can change.
 
USNavySquid said:
But Why does the boy feel nothing when he touches the girl's breast. Until we know that, we can not judge. Nor can we judge until we know whether it is a habitual response or a fluke. The lack of response may have been due to the amount of attention he was putting into the book he was reading. At another time, he may have a strong reaction to that breast. It is a matter of attention, first and foremost in my opinion. If attention was not paid to that breast, then no other reaction will be possible. Unawareness is not a reaction.
Click to expand...

Well I was trying to conform to your original scenario. Perhaps a better example is the sole boy in an evironment full of girls. Regardless of orientation, all boys discover their penis has more than one function at some point in their physical development. They then discover the reaction caused by this second function can be created voluntarily. Yet this sole boy, surrounded by a bevy of developing girls, some of whom appear all to eager to help with this process, is unmoved and cannot get aroused by them or their attempts to stimulate him physically. Add now new girls he did not grow up with, and he still lacks all interest. This despite their interest and physical attempts to stimulate him. This satisfies your "attention" objection.

Add now a new boy, and suddenly the first boy finds an attraction coupled with a physical response that he did not have for any of the girls. This new boy is completely disinterested and focuses all activity on the girls. By his example the first boy realizes his proper role, and that he too could achieve satisfaction with the girls yet still fixates on the new boy. You might say it is the novelty of similarity that causes this, but that would not explain his inability to get aroused by the efforts of the females when he was alone with them.

USNavySquid said:
I agree with the second point. However, attraction is relative. If I'm heterosexual and surrounded by ugly girls, I'll probably still stick my &*() in one. The standard changes based on the selection.
Click to expand...

Can't quite agree with you here though, since if my choice was a lot of ugly girls or nothing...I'd take nothing...or actually moving away till I found something. lol

Ok ok, maybe if there were NO OTHER OPTIONS in the pocket universe you've created i would reassess my standards. ;)
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Well I was trying to conform to your original scenario. Perhaps a better example is the sole boy in an evironment full of girls. Regardless of orientation, all boys discover their penis has more than one function at some point in their physical development. They then discover the reaction caused by this second function can be created voluntarily. Yet this sole boy, surrounded by a bevy of developing girls, some of whom appear all to eager to help with this process, is unmoved and cannot get aroused by them or their attempts to stimulate him physically. Add now new girls he did not grow up with, and he still lacks all interest. This despite their interest and physical attempts to stimulate him. This satisfies your "attention" objection.

Add now a new boy, and suddenly the first boy finds an attraction coupled with a physical response that he did not have for any of the girls. This new boy is completely disinterested and focuses all activity on the girls. By his example the first boy realizes his proper role, and that he too could achieve satisfaction with the girls yet still fixates on the new boy. You might say it is the novelty of similarity that causes this, but that would not explain his inability to get aroused by the efforts of the females when he was alone with them.
Click to expand...
Now here we have a bunch of ideas I had not considered. I thank you for sharing them. I'll consider them and formulate a response.

1. It seems, through your example, you are (purposefully or no) leading to the conclusion that there is a drive of some sort that acts on this boy. When I hear homosexuals talk about an internal drive, it seems similar to this. But I don't believe in an internal drive. One reason being that I have not seen research that proves its existence conclusively. And another reason being that I believe arousal is possible if attention is exercised and stress, fear, anxiety extinguished and social programming overcome.

2. You've accounted for the novelty of similarity and I would have proposed that if you hadn't. How about the novelty of dissimilarity the boy feels towards the girls? They are strange and alien to him. On his own, he is too afraid or awed to perform with them. But the presence of the other boy makes him feel safe so he can enjoy the ministrations of the girl(s). This is something that can be strengthened so that the other boy is no longer needed as a crutch.

3. But if you are saying that the boy fixates -as in fantasizes- about the other boy while the girls are touching him, and that is how he is able to perform...... I can't accept that at face value. What is the reason the girl can not provoke pleasure? Saying the boy simply has homosexual proclivities is circular and I can't accept it. I'll think about this some more.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Interesting. Who is Cameron?
Click to expand...

You asked.

Homosexuality: Nature, Nurture, or Politically Correct?

The question of the nature of homosexuality has become an issue of a

significantly political, as well as, politically correct nature. Is it nature or nurture? The

fact that the standard question has eliminated the psychological possibility is a politically

correct success. The motivational politics of homosexuality are clarified by reading

"Homosexual Conduct and the Law," by Irving J. Sloan:

The earliest legal argument for outlawing homosexuality is found in

Plato's Laws ... Prohibitions on male homosexuality in the Old Testament,

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an

abomination (Leviticus: 18:22). . . ." "If a man also lie with mankind, as

with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall

surely be put to death; their blood shall be them (Leviticus: 20:13)."(1)

To paraphrase Sloan, death by burning, hanging, burying alive... exile, castration,

corporal punishment, etc., have been politically correct solutions for homosexuality (2-4).

This history presents some of the motivational forces driving advocacy groups to promote

studies indicating a genetic link to homosexuality. Recent genetic studies have shown

links to personality (Colt, George Howe, 1998), overall happiness, psychornotor reaction

time (Simonen et al, 1998), mathematics disability (Alarcon, Marciela, 1997) and many

factors which had been presumed to be the province of nurture (environment). Is there a

genetic component to homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality? This question begs

for answers, and answers are available if one approaches the subject matter logically.

In this age of computers, the logical starting place is established databases, and in

this specific case, a database of twins would be ideal. Hershberger's study of the study

by Lykken et al., "The Minnesota Twin Family Regist is exactly that and is used

extensively by many of the authors whose works are cited on these pages. To paraphrase

the study, twins registered in the State of Minnesota from 1936 to 1955 were sent

questionnaires, the replies allowing analysis of whether or not the twins were

monozygotic (identical) or dizygotic (fraternal). The questionnaire also requested the

twin~ sexual orientation, his/her twil sexual orientation, his/her non-twin siblings sexual

orientation, marital status, sexual orientation before age 25 and after age 25, and the

number and frequency of sexual encounters with persons of the same or opposite sex (3

of 3, 5,6,7 of 7).

An initial study of the Australian Twin Registry database by Michael Bailey of

Northwestern and Richard Pillard of the Boston School of Medicine was highly

publicized internationally as the proof of a high genetic influence for



homosexuality (Shapiro 4 of 6),,The study was refuted by one of the authors in a

subsequent and much less publicized study, as documented by Jones in "The Incredibly

Shrinking Gay Gene ... .. Michael Bailey of Northwestern has produced a study that

refutes his earlier research conducted with Richard Pillard of the Boston School of

Medicine, which claimed that there is a high genetic influence on homosexuality "(53).

In this same study " Only 3 pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a

total of 27 male identical twin pairs where at least one twin was homosexual"(53). These

27 pairs had 100% gene match in the individual twin pairs. If the gene was a significant

influencing factor, the incidence of homosexuality for both twins should have been much

higher. This is saying that homosexuality is not a genetic marker. These are identical

twins with same color eyes (genetic marker), same hair color (genetic marker), near

100% shared attributes (genetic markers), but no genetic marker for homosexuality.

Actually, 10% of the pairs were both gays, which begs a question.

Did the twin participant questionnaires used in the study ask if the twins were

raised by one or more gay parent/s? This is significant because children of gay parents

are 10 times (30%) as likely to be gay as the general population (3%)(Cameron, 1997, 8

and 9 of 14). In a twin study this is significant because it could cause sample bias. If this

error is not eliminated from any twin study an implication of genetic causation for

homosexuality will result; however, it will be a very small implication statistically. For

example, relate to the 27 pairs of twins and if one parent was gay (I in 33, or 3% would

be the average), then it is a strong possibility that one of the homosexual pairs could have

been caused by that factor and it dilutes an already minimal percentage (10%) to a lower

percentage (7.4%). It is worth noting again that this genetic marker is the same marker

that causes the 100% match of hair color and many other attributes that motivate the

researcher to choose a monozygotic twin study for meaningful analysis.

In a Minnesota Twin Registry study, "A Twin Registry Study of Male and Female

Sexual Orientation" by Hershberger, this data is analyzed with particular emphasis on the

monozygotic twins, because this represents an identical gene match (100%). This is

important for the purpose of the study because it would indicate that the sexuality of the

one twin has to be exactly the same for the co-twin if genetics causes the sexual

orientation. As in the Australian study, this is not the case, as this quote from the

Hershberger study reveals.

For men, depending on the criterion used, the prevalence of homosexuality

ranges for 1.06% to 3.24%, with an average of 2.49%; for women, the

range is from.55% to 2.11%, with an average of 1.68%. If combined with

bisexuality, the average rises to 4.57% for men and 3.26% for women.

These rates of homosexuality are very similar to those found in studies

using probability samples conducted in the United States and elsewhere(4

of 9 in 2 of 3).

The Hershberger study also states; "Specifically, significant genetic effects were

found for self-identified female homosexuality, but not for male homosexuality, in both

the twin and extended family analyses."(5 of 9 in 2 of 3) The questionnaire used for this

study is included (6 of 7 and 7 of 7 in 3 of 3), and the question of gay parents is not

included, causing the same potential flaws as indicated for the Australian study.

In the case of monozygotic twins, any marker that does not match is the deviation.

The deviation should be measured against 100%, meaning the further away from 100%

(which is the expected match), the greater the proof that the factor is not genetic. If twins

do not have the same eye color, they are not monozygotic, meaning no 100% gene match.

Does this statement sufficiently dramatize genetic correlation?

The factual conclusions do not support a link between genetics and

homosexuality. Many institutions have attempted to stand on high moral ground by

giving generous interpretations of minimal statistical data implying genetic

homosexuality. The data should be overwhelming, if true, in a monozygotic twin study,

most certainly not a minimal statistic. The ABCNEWS.com special, "Nurture, Not

Nature" concludes that a sense of humor is not genetic (1). Overall happiness: however,

is genetic as acknowledged by Simonen et al (1998). Asa reminder, referring to Emma

Wilson's, "Textuality and (homo) Sexuality in Tournier's Les Meteores" to acknowledge

the psychological inferences, in this case, narcissism, regarding homosexuality might be

enlightening (9 of 9). The backlash caused by the historical overreaction to

homosexuality is analogous to affirmative action. Do the words, "too much of a good

thing," strike a responsive chord here?
 
DaveFagan said:
Go ahead. Go for it. You go right ahead and then let us know how that works out.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give it a go.


Where would you like to meet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom