Is having homosexual feelings a choice?

[WMS]

(I) - No. People are who they are, somewhere along the Kinsey scale.

Also, using the Bible to condemn homosexuality is a bit problematic - and that's coming from a born-again Christian! [me, obviously ] But I'll discuss that on a day when I have a lot more time and energy to devote to the subject...

[Smash255]

everytime I hear that line in that commercial, "twelve men, one boat, what could be better?"  I think about JC.  still, it's just a random free association, I suppose.  I'm no psychologist.  still, I cannot imagine how much coaching it took Rove & company to get the president to answer that line correctly at the debate.  I actually asked some folks that very question, both gay and straight, and they all claim that they never made such a choice.  I'm inclined to believe them.  who, among you, is such a clarivoyant that you can honestly say you know they're all lying? 

I retract the big turd I attempted to dump on your question, nclib.  I see now it was an excellent question.  my sincere apologies.

Angus, you've just heard a heterosexual say that he cannot determine why he is straight.   I think that is honest answer.

Exactly.  I'm heterosexual.  i have no clue why I am, I just know I like women.  I didn't choose to think women were attractive i just do, same thing with gays.  They didn't choose to like other guys, or fine them attractive they just did

[J. J.]

Acting on a sexual perference, be it a gay, straight, or bi preference is a matter of choice.  A heterosexual can chose not engage in hetreosexual activities, for example; I would assume that a heterosexual could engage in homosexual activity and vice versa.

One conclusion that I've reached from reading this site is that we don't know what causes sexual preference.

[??????????]

I am willing to concede it may not be a choice. But I still believe it may be a chemical imbalance in a persons brain or some deeper mental disorder.

[Gabu]

I am willing to concede it may not be a choice. But I still believe it may be a chemical imbalance in a persons brain or some deeper mental disorder.

What makes it a "disorder", though?  They're not "normal" by the usual definition of the word, but I've known homosexuals before, and there's nothing wrong with them.  There obviously are differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals at some level of things, but homosexuals are just as equally capable as heterosexuals of being normal, productive members of society and living a long, happy life.  The only thing "wrong" with them, really, is the arbitrary labelling of "wrong" that has been attached to homosexuality for no real reason whatsoever.

I've never understood the concept of "curing" homosexuality, really.  The homosexuals I've known didn't want to be cured.  They had accepted their homosexuality and it had simply become a part of their life.  What needs curing is the mentality that there's something wrong with being a homosexual, since that's the thing that hurts them the most.  Homosexuality certainly isn't a disease; barring the usual fallacies around this issue*, there is absolutely nothing that makes homosexuals less healthy than heterosexuals.

*I add this note because I know that there's going to be someone who will chime in with the line, "But homosexuality causes AIDS!"  This is 100% false.  Promiscuous sexual activity is what causes the transmittal of AIDS just as it does with heterosexuals.  AIDS is not something inherent in homosexuality, just as it is not something that heterosexuals are immune to.  While it's true that anal sex poses a higher risk of AIDS transmittal than regular sex, the transmittal can only occur if one person already had AIDS, just as in the case when two heterosexual people have sex and one has AIDS.  Finally, as there is no convincing evidence at all that homosexuals are inherently more promiscuous than heterosexuals, the logical conclusion follows that there is nothing that would make homosexuals less healthy than heterosexuals.

[Platypus]

Please don't talk about AIDS, someone will say something stupid and it'll become and extremely negative thread, as always

[opebo]

The obvious answer any reasonable and decent person would give would be - 'I don't know and it is none of my business'.

However, it is also rather easy to see from common sense observation that it doesn't seem to be a choice for most people.  Still, we can never know for sure other people's mental state.

Finally, anyone who stresses this rather pointless distinction is a busybody and a bigot.  So what if being homosexual has something to do with role models or abuse (an absurd notion, but not impossible)?  The point is that being homosexual is not 'worse' than being heterosexual, and if you think it is you're an intolerant bigot.

[angus]

everytime I hear that line in that commercial, "twelve men, one boat, what could be better?"  I think about JC.  still, it's just a random free association, I suppose.  I'm no psychologist.  still, I cannot imagine how much coaching it took Rove & company to get the president to answer that line correctly at the debate.  I actually asked some folks that very question, both gay and straight, and they all claim that they never made such a choice.  I'm inclined to believe them.  who, among you, is such a clarivoyant that you can honestly say you know they're all lying? 

I retract the big turd I attempted to dump on your question, nclib.  I see now it was an excellent question.  my sincere apologies.

Angus, you've just heard a heterosexual say that he cannot determine why he is straight.   I think that is honest answer.

Exactly.  I'm heterosexual.  i have no clue why I am, I just know I like women.  I didn't choose to think women were attractive i just do, same thing with gays.  They didn't choose to like other guys, or fine them attractive they just did

my feelings exactly.  still, I think I do rember seeing a clip of the president being asked whether he thought it was a choice.  I also recall that he said he thought it was.  Given that as Governor, Bush has named openly homosexual gay-rights advocates to his campaign steering committees, and that he's a self-proclaimed christian and says he loves Jesus, etc., I couldn't help but reflect on the intense amount of coaching it must have taken to get him to answer the question "correctly"

but apparently I'm remembering wrong, because a cursory search on the internet yielded the following result: 

When the candidates were asked whether they thought being gay was a choice or the way you were born, Bush answered, “I don’t know". 

Good for him.

on another note, Hughento mentioned something about "...before the more modern era, when it was slightly more acceptable to be gay..."  that was surprising!  care to elaborate?  I'm thinking that homosexuality was accepted in ancient greece, but then went out of vogue, generally, in the West, for a very long time, and only recently (circa 1920) became "acceptable"  In England, for example, you could actually be prosecuted under criminal law for homosexuality.  (Recall Oscar Wilde's 1895 trials for committing "acts of gross indecency with men," when he lost his freedom, his family, his reputation, his will to create, and even his will to live.)  Of course, in the East (e.g., Japan and China) it is still a huge social faux-pas to admit to being gay.  Or such is my impression.  But then I'm given to fits of alcohol and drug abuse so my memory isn't what it ought to be. 

[Gabu]

Please don't talk about AIDS, someone will say something stupid and it'll become and extremely negative thread, as always

Sorry.  I mainly brought it up because it always gets raised, without exception, whenever the discussion of what's wrong with homosexuality gets brought up, so I figure I might as well get a jump on it and refute it before someone even gets a chance to make that stupid comment.

[??????????]

The obvious answer any reasonable and decent person would give would be - 'I don't know and it is none of my business'.

However, it is also rather easy to see from common sense observation that it doesn't seem to be a choice for most people.  Still, we can never know for sure other people's mental state.

Finally, anyone who stresses this rather pointless distinction is a busybody and a bigot.  So what if being homosexual has something to do with role models or abuse (an absurd notion, but not impossible)?  The point is that being homosexual is not 'worse' than being heterosexual, and if you think it is you're an intolerant bigot.

Please apply the "mind your own business" part to religious discussions on your part as well.

[opebo]

The obvious answer any reasonable and decent person would give would be - 'I don't know and it is none of my business'.

However, it is also rather easy to see from common sense observation that it doesn't seem to be a choice for most people.  Still, we can never know for sure other people's mental state.

Finally, anyone who stresses this rather pointless distinction is a busybody and a bigot.  So what if being homosexual has something to do with role models or abuse (an absurd notion, but not impossible)?  The point is that being homosexual is not 'worse' than being heterosexual, and if you think it is you're an intolerant bigot.

Please apply the "mind your own business" part to religious discussions on your part as well.

Ah, I criticize the bigotry and political activities of the religious - in other words I think it is my business if they use the aparatus of the State to push their views and oppress those who disagree with them.  True, I probably do cross the line occasionally by calling attention to their attenuated reasoning abilities, but a fellow has to have a little fun.

[BobOMac2k2]

I dont think it is an option.

[Platypus]

angus-I should have said the recent era. I meant sort of 1970 onwards, basically, and especially 1990 onwards, when now in most western countries it is at least tolerated by the majority

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Find me a homoesexual who says they werent abused mentally or physically, or raised without a male influence, and still are gay, and i'll show you someone who's lying.

It's a shame whats happened to them to turn them in that direction.

they are ALWAYS a product of their environment

It is not a biological thing that is predetermined

Less than 20 years ago people were saying crap like this on this forum.

[afleitch]

Odd to resurrect a thread like this, but yes.

From my experience on here at the time and my life at that time in general, people have memory holed how homophobic people still were and the 'straight trauma' of how homophobic they were; just creating in effect, elaborate fantasies about gays and why people are gay.

[°Leprechaun]

There is still a long way to go.
Many people still use religion as the reason to deny others basic human rights.
I don't think religion is in general, liberal, although there are liberals (like  Biden, if you would call him liberal) who are very religious.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Odd to resurrect a thread like this, but yes.

From my experience on here at the time and my life at that time in general, people have memory holed how homophobic people still were and the 'straight trauma' of how homophobic they were; just creating in effect, elaborate fantasies about gays and why people are gay.

I still know many people who think like this. These attitudes are verboten, not nonexistent.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Maybe maybe not but it really doesn’t matter imo . Adults have the right to make their own decisions as long as they don’t hurt others and should be treated equally under the law .

[Cokeland Saxton]

It's not a choice, has never been a choice, and never will have been a choice.

And even if it was, your personal disgust or religious beliefs are no excuse to look down on someone because of how they identify. Nor is it your place to try to force them to change because you think it's "sinful".

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

No, its an innate part of who a person is. Unlike a persons religion btw.

[Kleine Scheiße]

Who gives a sh**t I'm crackin' a beer

[RINO Tom]

I have never seen any good evidence either way, but my inclination is to say no.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't think necroing this thread was a very good idea, so I'm locking it, although Andrew's observation is an important one when we're thinking about our recent history.