So what if it's "a choice" (Homosexuality)?

[JugDack]

I'm curious, what is the logic behind the constant use of the "it's a choice, not a genetic condition" argument with regards to homosexuality? I've never understood it. I don't agree, of course, but even if it IS a 'choice', so what? Isn't being a Christian a choice? We're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion - how is this any different?

[savemefromdumbya]

1. either you are or you aren't

there is no choice that's how you were born - religion is different

[maximovich]

2. flamebait

and boy is there plenty of it today.

[JugDack]

14. Honestly, not flamebait! I just don't understand...

...why choices of this type are considered "lesser" justification, i.e., whether you believe in the Catholic or the Baptist version of God, or like jazz vs. blues or root for the Yankees instead of the Red Sox, like mates with blonde hair vs. brown. Or, if you like males or females. Even if you stupidly accept that sexual preference is a choice (which I DO NOT!), isn't being Catholic or Christian just as much of a choice? Yet that choice is respected as a sacred private decision and respected both in custom and in law. I don't see any difference.

[LostinVA]

23. I actually think you're not flamebaiting

But, if you're reading this at home right now, saying, "Stupid Commie bitch," then I heap many abuses upon your head.

[Touchdown]

25. They can't see more than two dimensions

Since, as you've noted that religious belief is a choice, and they know that, and that for many of them, there is only "one way" to salvation (through the blood of Christ), then they project that choice they made to serve God, and assume that everything they think is contrary to God's will is also a choice, and a wrong one.

What they can't see, is the millions of different animal species, billions of plant life, numerous different elements, atoms, molecules that make up this mass of diversity we call life (GAWD! I sound like Carl Sagan, only dumber), and conclude that God created variety, diversity, and millions of possibilities that we cannot, and should not control. See Titanic, SF Earthquake or Tsunami disasters when we try to control nature.

They can't accept that if Goid created homosexuality, then it can't be wrong or sinful, and they would have to put forth some effort to get over their hatred and fear of it. So, instead, they keep saying "it's a choice" and creatively interpret 5 Bible verses, so they won't have to change, just make all gays do it, so they can feel more comfortable with their limited view of human nature with little or no effort. ...Now I sound like Jeannine Garafalo, only with less yelling.

[meegbear]

3. Since they think homosexuality is wrong ...

then if it's a "choice", then you can choose the "right path".

[BuyingThyme]

4. The assumption is that you are choosing to commit evil against

society.

If it's a choice, and it's evil, you are choosing to be evil and thus must be destroyed.

Amen.

[Sgent]

5. Because choices

are generally open to regulation -- drug laws, alcohol laws, etc.

Something you are born with (which is what I believe) are not subject to mans' law.

[whoneedstickets]

15. Exactly....

Furthermore, certain choices are given protected status by the Constitution (religion, free assembly, the choice to produce journalistic materials, to own a gun <debatable based on interpretation of the 2nd>, to choose whether to house soldiers in their homes, to confess to crimes etc...) we label those protected choices rights.

Currently, there is no right to be homosexual. The generic 'right to privacy' implied in the Bill of Rights should certainly govern personal behavior in this area (something the courts have generally supported vis-a-vis overturned sodomy laws). But whether one's choice of sexual orientation deserves the same protected status as one's choice of religion is an open question. Like any open question it is subject to politics and debate and perhaps majority opinion.

Our democracy has determined that certain, seemingly personal, choices (for example, the choice to use drugs, to engage in intra-family marriage, to have sex with minors, or to engage in bigamy) are dangerous enough to society to declare them, not just 'not protected', but illegal!

I imagine some think homosexuality is among these dangerous behaviors. Others think it not dangerous, but hardly worth special protection. A small segment seems to think it deserves legal protection at the level of race.

[hippiegranny]

6. The "choice"

lies in whether a person decides to live their life authentically instead of trying to fit into society's "norms."

And I think this is an honest question - not sure why anyone would consider it flamebait.

[Rowdyboy]

7. The assumption is you deliberately choose to be gay just like another

will choose to rob a bank or rape a child. To these people, homosexuality is inherently evil and you are deliberately making a choice to be evil, therefore you deserve social ostracism and moral belittlement.

[ComerPerro]

9. Exactly. Well said.

[Love Bug]

8. Religious fanatic homophobes claim it's a choice because they

don't want to accept their gay sons and daughters can't change. If homosexuality is a sin, then their gay sons and daughters are going to hell, you see. Otherwise, they have to accept the fact that God made gays that way and that would prove the Bible is fallible. They would have to start to doubt a lot of the other things the Bible says, too, and then their whole belief system collapses.

They have to believe it's a choice because the cognitive dissonance is too painful for them.

[FreedomAngel82]

18. The thing that gets me

is those who go around and say God made everything and than do a total flipflop and say gay people choose to be gay. So if God made everything wouldn't that include gay people?

[Love Bug]

27. That's why they claim it's a choice

they don't want to accept the idea that God would deliberately make someone gay.

[porphyrian]

10. Sure, it's a choice.

People are lined up around the block to be gay. There's such prestige and acceptance in it, and it's especially attractive to all-American Christian boys. Why, it's amazing everyone hasn't chosen to be gay.

:eyes:

[yellowcanine]

11. If I chose to be a hetero it must be a choice to be gay....Oh wait....

Nevermind.

[whatever4]

12. In addition to what everyone has said

If it were only a "choice", people can say it's a sinful choice according to how they interpret the bible.

My understanding is that if it were biological, it would be "natural". If homosexuality is created by God, it's much harder to say it's sinful. In effect, God made them that way. So, they don't want go there. They really resist all scientific proof that there are any biological links. Our homosexual humans have some statistical differences in brain structure and brain chemistry, and at this point it's almost undeniable homosexuality is natural, so of course, they're denying the science. They don't like losing that argument, that homosexual people come that way straight out of the box, so to speak, and therefore are not a perversion, mental illness or a danger to anything normal.

They hate gay animals too, in my experience.

[FreedomAngel82]

19. Going along that line

there is a program on the Sundance Channel that is called "TransGeneration" that is about people who are born one sex but in their souls and mind they think and feel like they are the opposite sex. It's really interesting to watch and I think this sort of helps me to personally understand where gay people come from. If you get the Sundance Channel try to check it out.

[LostinVA]

24. Of course, the huge majority of transgendered people aren't gay

They are actually born the wrong sex! Which is something these pointy-heads cannot even begin to grasp. I find that so inbteresting... and so distressing for the many people who have to live with this (REad "She's Not Here" sometimes -- GREAT first-person account of this).

[Touchdown]

30. Not all of them were born the wrong sex.

Some were "made" female surgically to cover up for botched circumcisions.

[whatever4]

38. I never even heard of that

Showing my ignorance, but it doesn't come anywhere close to the ignorance of doing that, after such a mistake. Cringe.

Circumcision. Sigh. When I had kids, it was the thing to do without question. Now it isn't, and I believe if I knew then what I know now, there's no way I would have done that "for" them. I'm not positive I would not have, but I think it's most likely.

There was a study once, many years ago but after I had children, over how much pain infants went through during a circumcision. You aren't going to like this. I don't recall where or the name, but what I remembered was that the levels of pain they measured (heart rate, respiration, etc) were so high, so much higher than they had any idea, that they stopped the study. They couldn't do it. That would be one very good reason I wouldn't have done it.

Knowing that for some poor kids their sex was changed just to cover up horrific mistakes during a normally excruciatingly painful "procedure" is, well, mind numbing. Overload. White out.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

13. It's not any different.

That's what REALLY pisses me off. Leave these people alone, wacko fundies.

[readmoreoften]

16. The thing that makes me sad is that I think it's a GREAT CHOICE.

But I realize that I'm probably just born queer ;(

How about... if I wasn't born gay, I'd choose it!!!

[noiretextatique]

34. i don't know if i was born gay or not...i do know that i chose to live

openly as a lesbian, and it's a choice i continue to make.
honestly, i think choosing to be gay is even more disturbing to the haters than being born gay, so i make sure to tell them it is indeed a choice.

[murray hill farm]

17. But are they not also saying that...

if it is a choice, then it is possible that their born straight children might decide at some point to make the choice for homosexuality...or bisexuality? For them, i would think that thought would be even more disturbing? Hey, i was born hetrosexual...and there have been lots of times when if i could have made the choice to change, i sure would have..ha! i am serious. But you cannot make that choice...it cannot be done...you are born with a sexual orientation...and you cannot chose to change it.

[noiretextatique]

33. you can't...but someone else might be able to

i understand where you're comign from, but i think sexuality is a lot more fluid than either/or, but social conditioning makes us believe it is really set in stone. i can honestly say that i made a decision to live as a lesbian, and whether or not i was born this way...i still made that choice. i could make different choice at some point (not likely, but possible).

[noiretextatique]

20. i agree: so what if it is?

i shouldn't make a bit of difference. and i think your question is an important one because i know so many people who can do the act, but not live the life. so i think it's the choice to live the life that is really problematic for homophobes who prefer people stay in the closet so they don't have to know about it.

[northzax]

21. being gay is not a choice

any more than being straight is a choice. engaging in sex is a choice, whether you are straight or gay (unless, of course, you are a victim of sexual assault)

That doesn't mean that government has any role in restricting the choices consenting adults make on private property.

[whoneedstickets]

28. I agree...

Homosexuality is likely an inherent trait or genetic predisposition, but even this assertion opens up the possibility that a 'cure' for homosexuality (or more accurately a prophylactic in-vitro genetic treatment or drug regimen for pregnant women could) be discovered.

Most women now take folic acid religiously during pregnancy to prevent a host of birth defects. If it were to be determined that homosexuality is genetic, I wonder how long it would be before a preventative treatment would be found. I wonder what percentage of the population would adopt the regimen or opt for embryonic screening.

One great irony might be that the religious right could turn a blind eye to the abortion of 'gay-gene' bearing fetuses (as they already turn a blind eye to the destruction of fertility clinic embryos) in support of their even more virulent hatred toward gays.

Frankly, choice or trait, homosexuality is endangered.

[northzax]

29. nah, we still need interior decorators :)

most of the wingnuts would never take the pills, that would be a tacit acknowledgement that homosexuality is a genetic trait. And, as such, determined by God.

[LostinVA]

22. Once they accept it's an inherent part of a person, they have to

accept that their God made us that way... and "God doesn't make junk." If it's basically the same as being left-handed, white, blue-eyed, being heterosexual, etc., then their WHOLE ARGUMENT goes out the window. Every bit of it!

Why? Because:

1.) God doesn't make mistakes
2.) t's not a sin (ie correctable behavior), so it isn't wrong

They are fucking scared to death of this. I've had people get some spazzed talking to me about this, they start spitting. It's kinda amusing.... especially when I tell them how young I was when I had crushes on other little girls instead of little boys.

[sojourner]

26. Choice is akin to what we do when we decide whether to rob a bank or not.

But being born with blonde hair vs brunette hair or with some congenital disorder are things for which an individual has no personal responsibility.

And "personal responsibility" is a catch-phrase for these folks that pretty much helps them justify how their loving God is going to burn sinners in an unendurable flaming hellfire for all eternity. You "choose" (wrongly), you lose (big-time!)!

[noiretextatique]

31. living openly as a gay person is a choice

many prefer we not make. as long as we are cowering in the closet and lying and pretending...then it's fine.
i say this because i know several people who are doing just that: pretending, hiding and lying about who they really are; some even have husbands and wives. they lie and pretend because they cannot make the choice to live without the cover of heterosexuality. i can't really blame them and i most certainly have learned not to get too involved with anyone who isn't out because i know how long my own coming out process took.

[Azathoth]

32. It's a way of alleviating guilt for discriminating against them

The type of hatred toward homosexuals that fundies and other homophobes harbor conflicts at a fundamental level with basic human decency. Even the far fundie Right realizes that you can't be a "good person" if you arbitrarily decide to viciously hate groups of people simply because of the way they were born. After all, what type of Christian would you be if you hated people because of the way God made them? By attempting to rationalize homosexuality as "a choice," homophobes shift the responsibility for their beliefs and actions from themselves to those they hate. In their minds, it becomes the homosexual's fault that people hate him/her, because he willingly chose to act and feel the way he does. As someone else pointed out, this also allows homophobes to hold out hope that people they actually care about (ie a gay child) can simply choose to stop being gay and be "normal" again.

[seeminer21]

35. Well.....

The evidence the homosexuality is a genetic condition is VERY light if not simply non-existent.

However, to say that it's a "choice" or that one could possibly go back and forth is absurd. I'd say it's more of a developmental issue (my opinion).

And, of course, there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with it. I just want to make that clear. Anyone who thinks it's evil or sinful or "bad" is just a fool..... or worse.

[noiretextatique]

37. explain bisexuals

they seem to be able to go back and forth.

[seeminer21]

39. They're just.....

.....VERY sexual people (IMO). Whether you believe it's genetic or not, everyone clearly must agree there is a VERY wide variety of sexual preferences. There are people that claim to be straight but only get off through sado-masocism. Is there a particular gene for that? I don't have the answers. Best I can come up with is that psychological developments bring us to who we are sexually, whether it coincides with "natural" procreative duties or not. As long as everyone consents and is over 18, I think all sex is great. Whatever you're into is who you are sexually and no one should have a problem with that.

[noiretextatique]

40. sexuality is far more fliud than many believe

i agree with that. but i don't think bisexuals are more sexual, i would say that they are more comfortable with the fluidity of their sexuality.

[MurrayDelph]

36. Having grown up as a straight Jewish male:

I can honestly say the difference is that the gay folk I have known have never tried to talk, trick, or coerce me into being gay.

The same cannot be said for some of the Christians I knew.

[UncleSepp]

41. Interesting food for thought. In a way, insisting on genetics...

(On edit: I do believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait, and that the 'choice to be gay' is between living miserably and pursuing happiness.)

Interesting food for thought. In a way, insisting on genetics already gives up part of the argument for human rights. People ought to have the freedom to make the choices that make their lives happy and complete, so long as those choices do not impinge upon the freedom of other people to make their own choices. By basing arguments in favor of people's freedom to be homosexual and enter into homosexual relationships on the idea that homosexuality is an inborn condition, one gives up on arguing for the freedom of choice to do with one's body what one likes.

Further, insisting on a genetic basis for homosexuality may support arguments in favor of pathologizing homosexuality. Homosexuality was originally pathologized as a psychological disorder. Are we to make of it a neurological disorder? An endocrine malady? A genetic defect?

In order not to make the argument for homosexual pathology, it is necessary to make the argument for normal variants in human biology which do have behavioral effects. No one seems to be arguing that the unattached earlobe is a normal ear and an attached earlobe is a defective ear, as both are seen as normal variants. However, where brain architecture and chemistry influence behavior, there is a much stronger tendency to insist on a single norm. One example of such a variant that is perhaps needlessly pathologized is Asperger's syndrome. The behavior of a typical Aspie is seen not as a normal variant, but as abnormal and therefore wrong even where the Aspie traits have helped the individual with them to succeed. Not all Aspies want or need to be fixed, and for that matter, neither do all persons with high functioning autism. An example of a variant that is pathologized for good reason would be paranoid schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is not a choice and appears to have a genetic and an environmental basis, yet it would be difficult to argue that it is a normal, healthy variant.

If the argument for homosexuality as a healthy biological variant is not won, but the argument for homosexuality as a biological defect or disease wins, then homosexuality becomes a medical condition to be treated. At worst, it becomes a defect to be screened for, and a target of eugenic thinking. In a society that conflates the physical with the moral - that mistakes beauty for virtue and poor health for sloth, and that seems increasingly to equate poverty with mental inferiority - the eugenic argument has an audience. In my opinion, it behooves a person at all times to be cautious that his actions taken to win one battle do not arm his enemy for the next.

Finally, the people who believe that homosexuality is not just pathological but morally evil will not be convinced by the argument that homosexuality is genetic. Among people who believe in original sin, human beings have a wicked nature, and it is the duty of each person to struggle to overcome his own natural sinfulness. Genetic homosexuality would fall into this worldview as simply one more aspect of the natural inclinations of man toward evil.

[xchrom]

42. i've always known i was gay -- from the time i was small.

i had my first crush in 4th grade on donny.

anyway -- if i hadn't been born gay -- i would choose to be gay.

um -- and to freep fuck lurkers -- i've fucked more than a few girls/women as well.

and had one significant affair with a woman -- and it was fine.
but i love men!
lol -- boy do i ever.

[Lethe]

43. the counter is to ask the straight man when he chose to be straight

and they will say, "well i never chose to be straight, i just always liked women."

well there you go

[mondo joe]

44. Gay maan here and JugDack is right - it shouldn't matter whether it's

a choice or not.

(Even though by and large it is not!)