By the way, whatever happened to the notion that (almost) everyone came in somewhere on a continuum between 100% heterosexual and 100% homosexual? I remember (in a very fuzzy way) that idea being current 10-15 years ago, but it seems to come up much less these days.
I don't find that notion controversial, personally. Knowing various people who fit all over the continuum, it seems that it is a pretty accurate representation.
Where one falls on that continuum is probably a result of a complex mix of genetics, biology, upbringing and various environmental influences. .
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Honestly I think everyone is likely born with the capacity for both, and a preference for one. If you truly believe there is zero influence in how you are raised and what you experience then I think you are just being insane. Now, if you were to say that this or that experience made someone choose to be gay then I'd say you were also insane. Its a whole combination of genetics and experiences. I bet if there was a test for the 'gay gene' and if it even existed in such a simple form then you'd find that not all gay guys had it and not all straight guys didn't.
I mean, if there is a gene which 100% controls you liking guys, is there a gene which controls liking blond hair? Or whether you like women tall or short? Or whether you like to be on top? When does it become offensive to say something is, at least to some extent, a choice. I've dated a few girls of different skin color to me in my time, am I genetically predisposed to be attracted to women of different races?
Yes, there are straight guys who come out and say 'I've been secretly gay all these years! I can't take it any more!" but there are also gay guys (and girls) who suddenly throw their hands up and say "This has all been a big mistake, I think I'm really straight" it's just not so common since one is a passive assumption and one requires you to 'come out'.
I think the truly weird thing about this whole situation is how important people think this is, especially in the gay community. If you tell them you think it is to some degree a choice, then often they will look at you as if you just stabbed their dog, or said "Being gay is sick and wrong" which of course it isn't. Just because you chose something doesn't make it wrong, or a temporary changeable thing. If you chose to be a democrat you shouldn't be discriminated against. If you chose to be a piano player, or to write plays, or be a scientist. Choices can be just as protected and important as something genetic, and just as much a part of who you are.
I mean, there is no point in your life when you can say "I now choose to be straight" but there is also no test you could do on a baby to say "This is a gay baby"
You're confusing experience/environment with choice.
The fact it's not 100% genetic does not mean that it's chosen at all. A facetious example would be a land mine: it's not genetic, but to go to somebody missing a leg from a mine and tell them "it was your choice" would be odd.
You don't choose most of your environment, you don't choose most of your experiences.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
Just ask them if therefore they're perfectly ok with cocksucking, problem solved :P
Thing is, with sexuality, I think it's far too complex to boil down to either nature or nurture, or to even decide whether it's both, because for individuals, the contribution of each varies wildly.
Some people are just born with a preference for the same sex. Despite everything that their environment teaches them, they remain homosexual. There are some people for whom their experiences growing up drastically shape their subconscious sexual preference. There are some people for whom this is mixed. There are some that are homosexual because, subconsciously, they buck normality, and there are some that desperately want to be "normal" and forsake their homosexuality for the sake of it. There are some that are heterosexual that, because of trauma with members of the opposite sex, seek same sex. There are some people that are homosexual that do the same with the opposite gender. And all of these things are completely fluid.
Do I think it's possible some people made a conscious decision? Yes. Do I think they're anywhere close to a majority? Hell no.
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
Vaginal sex isn't exactly all sunshine and lollipops either, done incorrectly.
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
Point out the following:
1) Anal sex is not limited to homosexual couples.
2) There are plenty of gay men that don't have anal sex, and (I don't have statistics here, it's just assumption) most lesbians are unlikely to engage in it at all.
3) Vaginal intercourse can also hurt. (I assume)
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
Vaginal sex isn't exactly all sunshine and lollipops either, done incorrectly.
This is incredibly true, to the point that it is kind of an important issue with my current girlfriend, though we work around it (far as I can tell it's an issue with muscle tension since if we're very very careful it doesn't arise, but it's the first time I've encountered it so consistently - for some women this is a major issue and cause of concern however).
This is incredibly true, to the point that it is kind of an important issue with my current girlfriend, though we work around it (far as I can tell it's an issue with muscle tension since if we're very very careful it doesn't arise, but it's the first time I've encountered it so consistently - for some women this is a major issue and cause of concern however).
I think the truly weird thing about this whole situation is how important people think this is, especially in the gay community. If you tell them you think it is to some degree a choice, then often they will look at you as if you just stabbed their dog, or said "Being gay is sick and wrong" which of course it isn't. Just because you chose something doesn't make it wrong, or a temporary changeable thing. If you chose to be a democrat you shouldn't be discriminated against. If you chose to be a piano player, or to write plays, or be a scientist. Choices can be just as protected and important as something genetic, and just as much a part of who you are.
It bugs me because I know that it wasn't a choice, and it's really not your place to tell me that I'm lying or delusional. But hey, thanks for the condescension; if I need a psychic I'll call you.
Like folks have been saying, even if there is a psychological component, formation of sexuality still takes place outside the realm of choice. And I think you'll find that even people whose orientation works in phases or shifts over time don't experience that as choice.
One thing I find interesting is that different cultures have differing definitions of what makes one gay. I've read that there isn't much of a stigma in machismo-heavy South American cultures when it comes to sex with she-males, so long as you're the one pitching. And male-on-male sex is surprisingly common in Islamic countries, in many cases involving older men and younger boys (the saying is, women for marriage, boys for pleasure).
Heck, in the US women are fairly free to sleep with other women without automatically being labelled gay.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Conversely, I don't understand why anti-gay groups care if being gay is a choice or not. I seriously doubt any of them would change their tunes if you could prove it was not a choice to their satisfaction.
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Well, the terminology doesn't make any sense. It isn't self inflicted. You can't fuck yourself in the ass. Someone else is doing it to you.
Because I'm a sci-fi geek and I suspect this thread may end up being everyone against one guy who might never post here, I'd like to add a hypothetical to the situation: what if it WAS a choice? Not in the modern sense of the concept, of course, which makes no sense, but if one assumes the biological element to one's sexuality, what if genetic engineering progressed that one could actually alter one's sexuality? Let's assume that the process was harmless, would it ever be a good idea? Would it be ethical to pre-natally change your children to straight to avoid discrimination and improve their chances at natural childbirth should they choose so, or would it still be an attack on their identity? Or can we assume that current trends will continue and that homosexuality loses its taboo by that point? If so, would standardization of bisexuality be possible?
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Well, the terminology doesn't make any sense. It isn't self inflicted. You can't fuck yourself in the ass. Someone else is doing it to you.
Conversely, I don't understand why anti-gay groups care if being gay is a choice or not. I seriously doubt any of them would change their tunes if you could prove it was not a choice to their satisfaction.
Well, homosexuality has to be a choice. See, man commits sin by choice through temptation and it makes no sense that the Almighty Yahweh would create anyone who would feel compelled to defy His perfect law naturally. Everyone gets a fair shake at birth to lead a clean, God-fearing life; to suggest otherwise would mean Yahweh is cruel and unloading an unbearable burden on the shoulders of a gay person. This is also why there are no such things as birth defects or complications during childbirth occurring naturally - any malformed organs are solely the result of the fetus' choice. Again, all people are born able to follow the divine law of the Judeo-Christian faith.
Conversely, I don't understand why anti-gay groups care if being gay is a choice or not. I seriously doubt any of them would change their tunes if you could prove it was not a choice to their satisfaction.
You won't be able to prove it to their satisfaction, because they'll move the goalposts until they get back to the spot they started from.
Homosexuality being a choice is an extremely powerful tool in their rhetoric, because lifestyle choices aren't "as valid" as things we can't have any control over, such as gender, race, or religious beliefs, and as such they don't deserve the same sort of protection that is afforded to all of those.
I think the truly weird thing about this whole situation is how important people think this is, especially in the gay community. If you tell them you think it is to some degree a choice, then often they will look at you as if you just stabbed their dog, or said "Being gay is sick and wrong" which of course it isn't.
Your perspective seems a bit skewed. The truly weird thing about the whole situation is how much importance "normal" people ascribe to sexual orientation. There wouldn't even be a "gay community", and homosexuality wouldn't be seen as a major part of a person's identity, if being gay wasn't so goddamn difficult because OMG SODOMY.
Bliss 101 on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Doesn't that imply science can 'fix' homosexuals? Or 'fix' heterosexuals?
emnmnme on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
only in the same way that you can fix being, say, hispanic. what would you change them to? what is correct?
no, it can't be fixed
we are talking about massively complicated differences in how the brain is set up that occured during devolopment. its not something that could be rewired on the go and its not a simple difference that, say a drug or some cutty choppy can fix.
its complication on a level of "can we change you into me with science?"
Conversely, I don't understand why anti-gay groups care if being gay is a choice or not. I seriously doubt any of them would change their tunes if you could prove it was not a choice to their satisfaction.
If it is a choice, people can judge it as part of a lifestyle decision; like drinking Pepsi over Coke. Or following the principles of Feng Shui in how you decorate your house. Or doing narcotic drugs. None of these things deserve special protection.
If it's not a choice, though, it enters into consciousness as a part of someone's being, like gender or race. And you can't argue against something like that without looking like an incredible asshole.
Sexuality is slightly different because, unlike gender and race, you can willfully deny that aspect of yourself any expression, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.
EDIT: Starcross, I don't know what you're getting at.
Bullio on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
We aren't biological robots.
And we aren't 100% free agents able to switch off biological predisposition at will.
I know this so called "contradiction" makes all the philosophers and moralists uncomfortable, what with not being all black and white and easy to understand, but that's how it fucking works.
It's a complete mix of both with no line being able to be drawn with any clarity to start laying blame or playing the black n white morality game.
I like that kipling thing posted earlier simply because it's a continuum (representing it as a scale) more than anything else.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
We aren't biological robots.
And we aren't 100% free agents able to switch off biological predisposition at will.
I know this so called "contradiction" makes all the philosophers and moralists uncomfortable, what with not being all black and white and easy to understand, but that's how it fucking works.
It's a complete mix of both with no line being able to be drawn with any clarity to start laying blame or playing the black n white morality game.
I like that kipling thing posted earlier simply because it's a continuum (representing it as a scale) more than anything else.
Agreed. Everything a person does is a function of biological and environmental factors. Which I guess sheds light on the "it's not a choice!" focus, since part of the trouble with religious bigotry against homosexuals seems to lie in the totally flawed Abrahamic religious concept of "free will".
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Lots of heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex too. Of course, a lot of heterosexual couples have the men begging for anal sex as well. Hell, look at the amount of "anal" porn out there that is strictly 1 man/1 woman.
Anal sex is not even remotely near the realm of gay-only sex.
Bionic Monkey on
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Lots of heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex too. Of course, a lot of heterosexual couples have the men begging for anal sex as well. Hell, look at the amount of "anal" porn out there that is strictly 1 man/1 woman.
Anal sex is not even remotely near the realm of gay-only sex.
And yet the idea that receiving anal sex is an unpleasant, submissive, and feminine act still persists. Go figure.
Anyone mind while we're talking about this to address a silly "anti-gay" argument I had recently?
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
Lots of heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex too. Of course, a lot of heterosexual couples have the men begging for anal sex as well. Hell, look at the amount of "anal" porn out there that is strictly 1 man/1 woman.
Anal sex is not even remotely near the realm of gay-only sex.
In fact, a majority of anal sex acts are performed by heterosexuals. That is to say more straight people enjoy regular buttseks than do gay. So as an argument against homosexuality, that pretty much misses the mark.
I love Wanda Sykes, in her latest HBO special she talks about the coming out gay and not having to come out black.
Who you are attracted to isn't a choice, it just is. But who you sleep with is.
I'm bisexual on a fairly equal ratio, meaning I like men and women pretty much equally. Now my brother is bi but I've only known him to date men but he still gets aroused by women just not as frequently. He chooses to sleep with men because that is who is more attracted to. In some people's eyes he would only be considered homosexual.
I married a wonderful man, in the public's eye it means I'm straight, but I'm not. I'm still attracted to women but I chose to be with the person who I am absolutely in love with, who I want to grow old and die with. And I'm very fortunate that no one has tried to take away my happiness and love because of their religious beliefs.
When I entered puberty and those feelings of desire and arousal started up and I would watch a movie couple make out on screen it would vary on if I wanted to be the one kissing the girl or be the girl getting kissed. There was no decision to be made, it was what popped in my head based on which character I was more attracted to.
Thing is, with sexuality, I think it's far too complex to boil down to either nature or nurture, or to even decide whether it's both, because for individuals, the contribution of each varies wildly.
Some people are just born with a preference for the same sex. Despite everything that their environment teaches them, they remain homosexual. There are some people for whom their experiences growing up drastically shape their subconscious sexual preference. There are some people for whom this is mixed. There are some that are homosexual because, subconsciously, they buck normality, and there are some that desperately want to be "normal" and forsake their homosexuality for the sake of it. There are some that are heterosexual that, because of trauma with members of the opposite sex, seek same sex. There are some people that are homosexual that do the same with the opposite gender. And all of these things are completely fluid.
Do I think it's possible some people made a conscious decision? Yes. Do I think they're anywhere close to a majority? Hell no.
Both of these posts, spoiled above, are pretty much exactly on the money.
Full disclosure: I'm gay. And it wasn't a conscious choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to guys, I just find that I am. That's the reality. I don't really know anyone who can choose to be attracted to something, it seems to be something that's almost totally out of your control. Of course, it is a choice to act on those feelings and assume the identity of "being gay."
But I'd like to call attention to something else Rent said:
Considering one is hatred of a lifestyle choice and another is hatred of a completely uncontrollable aspect of someone (the color of someone's skin), yeah, they are completely different. Not that denying gay people rights because they're gay is an okay thing to do, it's fucked up and wrong. But comparing homophobes to the KKK is an insult to blacks having to deal with raced-based terrorism, and is at best intellectually dishonest.
Homosexuality was illegal in nearly every western nation up through the middle of the 20th century. Alan Turing, for example, the father of the computer and the one who cracked the Enigma Code - critical to the Allied victory in Europe - was caught in a wave of an anti-homosexual crime crackdown in England. He was forced to make a choice between hard prison time and chemical castration. (Eventually, he chose suicide.) And his experience is far from unique. Homosexuality, historically speaking, has indeed been the subject of targeted, institutional persecution.
But it goes deeper than that. Think for a moment about what it means to be a gay man. You're attracted to guys. That's who you love. That's who you would like to be with. The world, however, expects you to be heterosexual. They want you to marry a woman. That's what they expect from you. Think about how that might make a gay person feel: everywhere you look, heterosexuality is the norm.
Even in Austin, a town generally accepted to be pretty liberal and "gay-friendly," you don't see gay people holding hands on the street or in movie theatres or while walking their dogs. And further, you hardly ever see positive gay relationships as role models on television or in movies. We're generally an invisible sub-set of the American population. At least when you're black, you have your black culture and black community and black churches and an entire identity that's okay to be openly expressed. It's okay to express your culture on the street as a black man or woman. But for gays? Totally different story. We're invisible.
And furthermore, "homophobia" is absolutely rampant in the United States today. Half of the United States disapproves of our identity and relationships out of hand. 40% of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal. (Source.) It's a massive problem.
Comparing homophobes to the KKK is absolutely reasonable, and here's why: Their collective opinions and attitudes cause massive harm to gay people everywhere. And it's not just because of actual hate crimes, which are relatively rare. It's because they have forced us to be invisible. That's the ultimate marginalization - to make the object of your prejudice simply invisible.
Well that can easily be repaired by changing that last line to "I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you as long as the person you are doing it with fully understands and agrees with the actions you are performing together."
As long as the action causes no harm and involves the informed consent of everyone involved, why the fuck not? Pedophilia does not fall under that definition, because children cannot understand the full consequences of what would be happening to them, and therefore cannot consent.
Remember that you always have the choice to pretend you are something you are not or ignore the feelings deep inside of you.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.
I know much of his research has been derided over the years but I think Kinsey had the right idea. Looking at hetero/homo sexuality as a binary switch is pretty silly in my eyes. The terms themselves are culturally decided rather than biological.
Posts
Where one falls on that continuum is probably a result of a complex mix of genetics, biology, upbringing and various environmental influences. .
Rigorous Scholarship
I'd never seen it before and I'm too boggled by how stupid it is to figure out a good, concise dismissal. Specifically, "Anal sex is self-mutilation", because it can cause some damage.
Now, my counter-argument has thus far been: Anal sex is riskier than other forms of sex, but these risks can be mitigated. No psychologist considers anal sex a form of self-injury; the point is physical intimacy, pleasure and bonding not inflicting tissue damage to the body. Plenty of activities can cause some form of damage to the human body we nevertheless condone- alcohol use is the 'self-mutilation of the brain' by this logic.
EDIT: Also, "gay sex is not exclusively buttsex."
You're confusing experience/environment with choice.
The fact it's not 100% genetic does not mean that it's chosen at all. A facetious example would be a land mine: it's not genetic, but to go to somebody missing a leg from a mine and tell them "it was your choice" would be odd.
You don't choose most of your environment, you don't choose most of your experiences.
Just ask them if therefore they're perfectly ok with cocksucking, problem solved :P
Some people are just born with a preference for the same sex. Despite everything that their environment teaches them, they remain homosexual. There are some people for whom their experiences growing up drastically shape their subconscious sexual preference. There are some people for whom this is mixed. There are some that are homosexual because, subconsciously, they buck normality, and there are some that desperately want to be "normal" and forsake their homosexuality for the sake of it. There are some that are heterosexual that, because of trauma with members of the opposite sex, seek same sex. There are some people that are homosexual that do the same with the opposite gender. And all of these things are completely fluid.
Do I think it's possible some people made a conscious decision? Yes. Do I think they're anywhere close to a majority? Hell no.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
Vaginal sex isn't exactly all sunshine and lollipops either, done incorrectly.
1) Anal sex is not limited to homosexual couples.
2) There are plenty of gay men that don't have anal sex, and (I don't have statistics here, it's just assumption) most lesbians are unlikely to engage in it at all.
3) Vaginal intercourse can also hurt. (I assume)
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Yeah, that's a good point as well.
This is incredibly true, to the point that it is kind of an important issue with my current girlfriend, though we work around it (far as I can tell it's an issue with muscle tension since if we're very very careful it doesn't arise, but it's the first time I've encountered it so consistently - for some women this is a major issue and cause of concern however).
TMI.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
It bugs me because I know that it wasn't a choice, and it's really not your place to tell me that I'm lying or delusional. But hey, thanks for the condescension; if I need a psychic I'll call you.
Like folks have been saying, even if there is a psychological component, formation of sexuality still takes place outside the realm of choice. And I think you'll find that even people whose orientation works in phases or shifts over time don't experience that as choice.
Heck, in the US women are fairly free to sleep with other women without automatically being labelled gay.
Rigorous Scholarship
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Well, the terminology doesn't make any sense. It isn't self inflicted. You can't fuck yourself in the ass. Someone else is doing it to you.
Butt Plugs?
Well, homosexuality has to be a choice. See, man commits sin by choice through temptation and it makes no sense that the Almighty Yahweh would create anyone who would feel compelled to defy His perfect law naturally. Everyone gets a fair shake at birth to lead a clean, God-fearing life; to suggest otherwise would mean Yahweh is cruel and unloading an unbearable burden on the shoulders of a gay person. This is also why there are no such things as birth defects or complications during childbirth occurring naturally - any malformed organs are solely the result of the fetus' choice. Again, all people are born able to follow the divine law of the Judeo-Christian faith.
You won't be able to prove it to their satisfaction, because they'll move the goalposts until they get back to the spot they started from.
Homosexuality being a choice is an extremely powerful tool in their rhetoric, because lifestyle choices aren't "as valid" as things we can't have any control over, such as gender, race, or religious beliefs, and as such they don't deserve the same sort of protection that is afforded to all of those.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Your perspective seems a bit skewed. The truly weird thing about the whole situation is how much importance "normal" people ascribe to sexual orientation. There wouldn't even be a "gay community", and homosexuality wouldn't be seen as a major part of a person's identity, if being gay wasn't so goddamn difficult because OMG SODOMY.
And for dudes that are one-egg twins, chances were higher that they were both gay. Some Australian study or something anyway.
Lesbianism had more complicated origins.
Doesn't that imply science can 'fix' homosexuals? Or 'fix' heterosexuals?
no, it can't be fixed
we are talking about massively complicated differences in how the brain is set up that occured during devolopment. its not something that could be rewired on the go and its not a simple difference that, say a drug or some cutty choppy can fix.
its complication on a level of "can we change you into me with science?"
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/27/9403
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-says-brains-of-gay
also i found this funny youtube vid, its pretty long but i love the announcer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1u-7jW7opc
If it is a choice, people can judge it as part of a lifestyle decision; like drinking Pepsi over Coke. Or following the principles of Feng Shui in how you decorate your house. Or doing narcotic drugs. None of these things deserve special protection.
If it's not a choice, though, it enters into consciousness as a part of someone's being, like gender or race. And you can't argue against something like that without looking like an incredible asshole.
Sexuality is slightly different because, unlike gender and race, you can willfully deny that aspect of yourself any expression, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Are you talking about this study? It was done with twins in Sweden.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3695686/Genetic-and-Environmental-Effects-on-Samesex-Sexual-Behavior-A-Population-Study-of-Twins-in-Sweden
EDIT: Starcross, I don't know what you're getting at.
And we aren't 100% free agents able to switch off biological predisposition at will.
I know this so called "contradiction" makes all the philosophers and moralists uncomfortable, what with not being all black and white and easy to understand, but that's how it fucking works.
It's a complete mix of both with no line being able to be drawn with any clarity to start laying blame or playing the black n white morality game.
I like that kipling thing posted earlier simply because it's a continuum (representing it as a scale) more than anything else.
Not sure if this is your point, but if you're attracted to men then that's penis
Agreed. Everything a person does is a function of biological and environmental factors. Which I guess sheds light on the "it's not a choice!" focus, since part of the trouble with religious bigotry against homosexuals seems to lie in the totally flawed Abrahamic religious concept of "free will".
Lots of heterosexual couples enjoy anal sex too. Of course, a lot of heterosexual couples have the men begging for anal sex as well. Hell, look at the amount of "anal" porn out there that is strictly 1 man/1 woman.
Anal sex is not even remotely near the realm of gay-only sex.
And yet the idea that receiving anal sex is an unpleasant, submissive, and feminine act still persists. Go figure.
In fact, a majority of anal sex acts are performed by heterosexuals. That is to say more straight people enjoy regular buttseks than do gay. So as an argument against homosexuality, that pretty much misses the mark.
Both of these posts, spoiled above, are pretty much exactly on the money.
Full disclosure: I'm gay. And it wasn't a conscious choice. I didn't choose to be attracted to guys, I just find that I am. That's the reality. I don't really know anyone who can choose to be attracted to something, it seems to be something that's almost totally out of your control. Of course, it is a choice to act on those feelings and assume the identity of "being gay."
But I'd like to call attention to something else Rent said:
Homosexuality was illegal in nearly every western nation up through the middle of the 20th century. Alan Turing, for example, the father of the computer and the one who cracked the Enigma Code - critical to the Allied victory in Europe - was caught in a wave of an anti-homosexual crime crackdown in England. He was forced to make a choice between hard prison time and chemical castration. (Eventually, he chose suicide.) And his experience is far from unique. Homosexuality, historically speaking, has indeed been the subject of targeted, institutional persecution.
But it goes deeper than that. Think for a moment about what it means to be a gay man. You're attracted to guys. That's who you love. That's who you would like to be with. The world, however, expects you to be heterosexual. They want you to marry a woman. That's what they expect from you. Think about how that might make a gay person feel: everywhere you look, heterosexuality is the norm.
Even in Austin, a town generally accepted to be pretty liberal and "gay-friendly," you don't see gay people holding hands on the street or in movie theatres or while walking their dogs. And further, you hardly ever see positive gay relationships as role models on television or in movies. We're generally an invisible sub-set of the American population. At least when you're black, you have your black culture and black community and black churches and an entire identity that's okay to be openly expressed. It's okay to express your culture on the street as a black man or woman. But for gays? Totally different story. We're invisible.
And furthermore, "homophobia" is absolutely rampant in the United States today. Half of the United States disapproves of our identity and relationships out of hand. 40% of Americans believe homosexuality should be illegal. (Source.) It's a massive problem.
Comparing homophobes to the KKK is absolutely reasonable, and here's why: Their collective opinions and attitudes cause massive harm to gay people everywhere. And it's not just because of actual hate crimes, which are relatively rare. It's because they have forced us to be invisible. That's the ultimate marginalization - to make the object of your prejudice simply invisible.
We are humans with the ability to reason after all, we don't have to go with our instincts.
So yes, technically, sexuality is a choice you can make, just not always an honest one.
I'm all in for the go where your heart tells you approach though.
Help! XoB opened a can of worms! There are pedophiles eeeverywhere!
As long as the action causes no harm and involves the informed consent of everyone involved, why the fuck not? Pedophilia does not fall under that definition, because children cannot understand the full consequences of what would be happening to them, and therefore cannot consent.
Nah; this only makes sense if you believe, as some conservatives apparently do or would like to, that being in the closet is exactly the same as being straight. It's not, of course, and even a gay person who chooses to follow Jesus into chastity or feigned heterosexuality will still be gay, and will have to constantly police his body language lest he inadvertently show too much interest in some hot dude and not enough interest in beautiful women.