Homosexuality

[J. J.]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not mean that the person will act upon that preference.

I'd like to distinguish between the preference and the action.

[Joe Republic]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

A lack of thought

[LBJer]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not mean that the person will act upon that preference.

I'd like to distinguish between the preference and the action.

If a robber demands money from a cashier at gunpoint, the cashier can choose to say no and risk getting killed.  But what sane person would do that?  Similarly, who (gay or straight)  would choose not to act on their sexual preference (unless you're talking about priests and nuns, etc.)?

[minionofmidas]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference is totally gay.

Corrected.

[J. J.]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

Someone who is straight can choose not to engage in heterosexual activity, however.  That person's heterosexual preference does not to be acted upon.

Choosing not to act on your innate sexual preference doesn't remove the sexual desire.

Why do so many people seem to think that heterosexuality/homosexuality/whatever is determined by who you actually have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with?

I think, however, you have to make that distinction when you talk about "choice."  Someone can have a sexual preference and, for a number of reasons, choose to to act upon it.

Yes, that reason can be religious, but can also be not finding the right person and believing sex should not be casual and only in a committed relationship.  I think that would apply to any sexual preference, i.e. I don't think being gay means you have to sleep around.

Sexual activity, excluding rape, is a conscious choice.  Sexual preference probably is not a conscious choice, but it might not be genetic either.

[minionofmidas]

All right and true, but sexual preference is what the terms straight and gay refer to, so it's irrelevant.

[Lulz]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip.  They still manage to get laid.  Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip?

This is why I say this poll makes no sense.  Everyone has an agenda.  Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact.  It is not an opinion.  And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best.  If you know more than those of us with "no brain."  Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene.

Though I appreciate your desire for more data, no one will ever find "the genetic sequence for this 'gay' gene"; for one, there's probably many more than one gene which affects sexuality, and, for two, genes are inherently way more complicated than one gene -> one trait.

Well then this gentleman should have a variety of genetic sequences to post to prove his point.

My point is we don't know.  I know there are those with an agenda that want to say its genetic yet they can't point to any definitive data to back up their point of view.  And there at those with equally little evidence that wish to close their minds to the possibility that it may be genetic.  Neither party is correct.  The answer is we need to do more research to answer the question.

If this was a disease there is no way members of the public with no scientific background would spend days on internet forums fiercely arguing about something with so little data.  Its absurd.

[J. J.]

All right and true, but sexual preference is what the terms straight and gay refer to, so it's irrelevant.

"Sexual preference," "Sexual Attraction," or "Sexual orientation," all refer to what sex or sexes a person finds attractive.  It has nothing to do with any action of the individual.

I'm reminded of a story Pope John XXIII told about his days as Papal Nuncio in Paris:

"You know, it's rough being a papal nuncio. I get invited to these diplomatic parties where everyone stands around with a small plate of canapes trying not to look bored. Then, in walks a shapely woman in a low-cut, revealing gown, and everyone in the whole place turns around and looks -- At Me!"

Years later, he could remember the woman, probably indicating an attraction.  He didn't act upon that attraction.  Obviously, he didn't for religious reasons, but it did represent a choice.

I think you have to make that distiction, and I'm not suggesting that all gay people should be celibate.

[Del Tachi]

It's really in one's upbringing.

If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations?

[J. J.]

It's really in one's upbringing.

If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations?

You can have identical twins with some notable differences, however.

[ilikeverin]

Anyone who claims homosexuality a choice doesn't have a brain. You can't control to what/whom you're attracted to.

Did I ever "choose" to be straight? I don't recall.

There are women walking around Africa with a plate in their lower lip.  They still manage to get laid.  Does that mean African men are genetically predisposed to dig chicks with plates in their lip?

This is why I say this poll makes no sense.  Everyone has an agenda.  Whether or not homosexuality is 100% choice or 100% genetic or something in between is a matter of scientific fact.  It is not an opinion.  And frankly the evidence is inconclusive at best.  If you know more than those of us with "no brain."  Please post the genetic sequence for this "gay" gene.

Though I appreciate your desire for more data, no one will ever find "the genetic sequence for this 'gay' gene"; for one, there's probably many more than one gene which affects sexuality, and, for two, genes are inherently way more complicated than one gene -> one trait.

Well then this gentleman should have a variety of genetic sequences to post to prove his point.

Of course not; we simply need studies of heritability to prove that some of differences between human in sexual orientation are genetic in nature.  There have been some, which have found mixed results, but most of which find levels of concordance between identical twins higher than those between fraternal twins (see also: the work of Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey.  they're controversial figures, for sure, and I definitely don't believe everything they've said, but they've done a lot.).  You can also see here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Watch your mouth

It's really in one's upbringing.

If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations?

Not 100% genetic does not imply 0% genetic

[Holmes]

Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either.

[J. J.]

Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either.

But there might be some common factors.

I have a blood uncle who is gay, and so far as I know, none are of his siblings children are.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think the issue of human sexuality is very very complex.

I'm personally of the view that sexuality is largely based on genetic traits, but there are also elements of external factors in some people... but the thing I've noticed is that there are virtually no common factors in the backgrounds of any of my gay or lesbian friends.

There is some evidence which supports the younger brother factor... but it's not that compelling.

While I agree that the act of sexuality is a choice, but I think the recipe for mental instability is the suppression of normal healthy sexual expression. I know some people who were and some who are still in the closet... and I honestly don't think I've known more miserable people.

[J. J.]

While I agree that the act of sexuality is a choice, but I think the recipe for mental instability is the suppression of normal healthy sexual expression. I know some people who were and some who are still in the closet... and I honestly don't think I've known more miserable people.

Two points.

1.  When I say sexual activity is a choice, I'm not suggesting that the choice should be no, only noting that it is a choice.

2.  Someone who engages in secret sexual activity, i.e. "in the closet," has already made that choice.  I think that is a matter of personal preference, which I'll respect.

[Person Man]

Perhaps a better wording for this poll is whether someone can be "naturally" gay or not. Beyond that, there's the issue of whether that makes it ok to be gay. I mean, it could still be possible to believe that there are people who are naturally gay but that its still not ok to be gay...as JJ has pointed out by alluding to the fact that beyond who we have sex with, we first make the choice to actually have sex with another person.

...and my answer is "genetic" but not because I think it actually is "genetic" but that I think that most gay people wouldn't not be gay but for wanting to be gay.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality.

[John Dibble]

It's really in one's upbringing.

If it is purely genetic, then how can identitical twins have different sexual orientations?

Not 100% genetic does not imply 0% genetic

Yes, and having genes that might be associated with homosexuality isn't a guarantee of being homosexual. Our genes are kind of like a recipe, and when you cook a recipe it isn't necessarily going to come out 100% identical every time.

[J. J.]

Actually no, one can be in the closet and not be having sex, being in the closet is about deliberately hiding your sexuality.

Being in the closet means a "public" denial of your sexual preference, I will give you that.  The cases you described were of people sexually active that operate, or wish to operate, on that preference.

[Holmes]

Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either.

But there might be some common factors.

Such as?

[bullmoose88]

Republican; genetic.  Though I suppose one can't entirely rule out the possibility (however remote) that a handful of persons are homosexual by choice.  I don't know how many people would choose to be persecuted, but for the handful that might I'm sure they have reasons.

[afleitch]

Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this.

Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have?

[angus]

Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this.

Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have?

I agree that it should not matter.  Marriage rights, spousal visitation in hospitals, beneficiary advantages, service in the military, etc.  All should be equal under the law. 

But I disagree with you that it should be instinctive to ponder the source of one's heterosexuality.  Really, I'm the product of billions of generations of biological endeavor.  Even before any species capable of pondering the philosophical intricacies of things like liberties had evolved, the phenomena of sexual selection and sexual production were out there.  They'd go unlabeled and unrecognized for hundreds of millions of years, but the physics behind the chemical reactions behind the physiological urges were there.  I'm attracted to folks who are (a) members of my own species, and (b) females for the same reason that I eat:  To survive and pass on my genes.  I don't choose it.  

Now, I didn't vote in this poll for several reasons.  One, the dichotomy is false.  Two, there are other possible reasons to explain homosexuality.  Three, I honestly don't know the answer.  Four, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me.  But I'd be lying if I said I never wondered about it.  What makes folks gay?  I don't know.  But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

[J. J.]

Not all gay people have the same upbringing. Similarly, not all straight people do either.

But there might be some common factors.

Such as?

If I had some for sure, I would not have said "might."  Birth order has been mentioned.  A strong mother/father might be an environmental factor.