Is homosexuality a choice?

[Behind the Aegis]

I chose that question instead of my normal one, "Is heterosexuality a choice?" Of all the things the candidates could have been asked, that, in my opinion was STUPID! Why not ask about EQUAL rights for gays and lesbians? Why not ask about writing discrimination into the constitution and placing federal rights over states' rights? Anyway, what do you think?

[Dookus]

1. your answers are incomplete

It is inborn, but not necessarily genetic.

[Behind the Aegis]

3. I thought about that as a choice

I just figured I would combine "inborn" and "genetic." Not very accurate, but it is an internetS poll! :)

[Dookus]

5. ah, but it's an important distinction

there are many inborn conditions that aren't genetic.

[loveable liberal]

23. preferences: i like males/females, butterscotch v. chocolate chip

when you talk about preferences and senses, do we know when we're born whether we like green or red, black licorice or red licorice, or any other choice. It must come from some sensory input. the point is, it doesnt matter even if it is a choice. I chose to be hetero, i choose to be homo, who gives a crap either way so the argument is essentially moot. no ones choices or biology is any better or worse than anyone elses... just my opinion...

[expatriot]

10. 3rd choice: "environmental/developmental"

I have often thought that it is developmental.... like some early Freudian redirection of sex roles, etc.

[Dookus]

13. no, I don't think that

I think it's truly inborn. But whether the cause is genes or intra-uterine hormones or something else is unknown.

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Debated putting that one too.

I didn't put that choice because I felt I would be "splitting hairs." I have done much research on homosexuality and its implications in societies. I do presentations on it as well. Since I am gay, I feel sometimes my 'conclusions' are dismissed as biased. Personally, I feel it is probably a genetic coding. However, I can see how developmental/environmental and other non-genetic sources, could develop one's sexual orientation. Perhaps another choice should have been, "Some choose, others are born that way, and some develop it." I really just posted this question because I thought it was one of the most STUPID questions candidates could have been asked in a debate! Well, I guess asking them if they wear boxers or briefs could have been more stupid.

Brightest Blessings!

[Lexingtonian]

26. the word you're all looking for is 'congenital'

i.e. present as a condition at birth.

[serryjw]

44. As a middle age straight woman...I think

1) ORIENTATION is not a choice
2)There is not 2 choices...I think sexuality (Know as brain sex) is like the color spectrum.....white to black and many shades of gray
3) the THUGS don't discriminate against YOUR orientation...just your actions!

The thugs would be very happy is your were gay and went thur life with no sex life, no partner, no romantic love.

[AntiFascist]

2. Only if you're bisexual and you can't make up your mind.....

like *

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. in defense of those of us who are bi.

we can make up our minds about the people we love and desire...we are just not restricted by genitalia

[loveable liberal]

4. its a choice just like being heterosexual is a choice.

though i cant remember when i decided to be heterosexual....i may have been born heterosexshul....

(please read with sarcasm, and thank you :)

[Emops]

6. If homosexuality is a choice...

...Why on Earth would you choose to be gay if Dick Cheney's your dad?

[donheld]

22. Emops welcome to DU

:hi:

i don't know if i'd chose to stay alive if Cheney was my Father. I'd have to disown him

[Mojambo]

7. I have no idea

My opinion is that it shouldn't matter.

[UdoKier]

8. Totally lame question.

The only reason this STUPID question is asked is because of RELIGION. Take religion out of the equation and it doesn't matter. Religious people want to say that "god made them that way, so it's not a sin"

Well, it's not a sin, because there is no such thing as sin. If you're gay and your religion tells you that it's bad, find one that doesn't, or even better, learn to live without superstition altogether.

Do I think it's a choice? Sort of. You have little choice about what arouses you most. YOu certainly have a choice on how to act on those feelings.

I think it's important that the choice element be there. If there were ever a genetic marker for homosexuality, it wouldn't be 100% reliable, as organisms usually don't work that way, and people could be discriminated against or even aborted due to the marker.

Let's say it's just a matter of choice. It's consensual, between 2 adults. It's happy, healthy, safe and fun if done correctly, so I like to think that it's a choice, and a perfectly good one, even if some people have a lot of dumb religion-based hang-ups about it.

Oh, and I guess that would make heterosexual behavior a choice, just like celibacy is a choice.

Strange how these questions never separate the feelings and the behaviors.


A better question would be: "Does anybody have the right to tell what two consenting adults can do sexually in the privacy of their own home?"

Then the answer is a resounding NO!

Should same-sex couples have the right to marriage like hetero couples? YES!

[blackcat77]

12. You have to put it in the context of religion

If it's a choice, then it can be a sin. Since they define it as a sin, it must be a choice. Round and round and round...

[UdoKier]

17. Sin is as relevant to me as the tooth fairy.

They have no right to impose their silly superstitions on me.

Is homosexual behavior ethical? Yes. Moral? According to my idea of what's moral, yes, but others feel differently. Morality is a lot more subjective than ethics...

But laws and politics should stay away from moral questons and stick with the ethical ones.

[expatriot]

9. I've always wondered why it matters so much whether its a choice or not

Why does it matter if it is a choice or not?

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality whether you choose to be or if you are genetically programmed to be. That is what we need to start saying. Being so adament that it is the way people are and not a choice I think makes us sound like apologists and on the defense. Why can't we say, "Why the hell does it matter?"

[justjones]

19. I agree completely. There's underlying motivations whenever people claim..

it's a choice or it's genetic and both come with their own set of problems.

If it's genetic, aren't we giving credence to the underlying belief that homosexuality is bad? After all, no one would choose such a horrible, terrible fate. Therefore, it just has to be genetic. That's being apologetic.

If it's a choice, we are still giving credence to the underlying belief that homosexuality is wrong by giving the religious right reason to discriminate against them. Because if it's a choice, it's a sin. If they allow it into the "mainstream", others might be influenced to make the same choice and, oh my, homosexuality will just run rampant! Think of the impressionable children! Worse, we might start to question our own sexuality!

And let's not forget Satan, who seduces us to commit sin. Those homos are just possessed by demons!

So I'm with you. Why can't we just say, "Why the hell does it matter?!"

[Terran]

35. It matters because

voluntary behavior is not seen as deserving of legal protection under discrimination statutes. Fundies and right wingers make it central to their arguments against protecting gays from discrimination--"why should they have special protections when they *choose* to be homosexual?"

That is why it matters, and that is why it's NOT a stupid question.

[blackcat77]

11. I don't know what the source of the orientation is but...

...it's certainly not a choice.

I always ask the people who say this about gays if THEY made a choice to be straight. Oddly enough, none of them say they did.

[sonicx]

14. doesn't matter

It's not a choice, but if it was, who cares? no excuse to dicriminate.

[Hello_Kitty]

16. Doesn't matter to me

Preference or genetic orientation, consenting adults have the right to be in whatever relationship makes them happy. I've always thought it a bit naive to assume that discrimination against gays would be lessened if homophobes were made to realize that homosexuality is innate. Being black or female is something you are born with but that has never affected the hatred of racists and misogynists.

[JackDragna]

18. It's both.

Like any other human behavior, sexual orientation is a combination of genetics and environment.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. It may be to some extent genetic.

Although I think genetics has probably about as much to do with it as the effect of hormones on neurological development. Either way, it's a little like being right-handed. Sure, you can work at writing left-handed. You may even reach a point where you can write reasonably well that way, and fool people into thinking you actually ARE left-handed...but it's still never going to feel right.

[DeadHead67]

21. 'Environmental' and 'Developmental' are, if not the same factors. . .

. . .VERY similar in outcome. Start with a genetic predisposition in VARYING degrees, and add evironmental/developmental influences, and. . . . This is all pretty much determined at a very early age, incidently.

[tom_paine]

24. No option for other: It is both genetic and PSYCHOLOGICAL

Your option genetic and choice is an incorrect way to put it, IMHO.

No one really chooses their sexuality, it is probably some combination of factors that are predisposition (genetic) and a combination of psychological factors in a person's environment, how they are perceived, and imprinting (Google it....it's a psych term).

Given the inifinte variety of people in this nation and world, these factors likely combine in every proportion and variant possible

Just as I or any other heterosexual cannot "choose" to start finding our same sex attractive (not counting bisexuals), it is likely a mirror opposite for homosexuals.

(although again, the variety of people makes generalizations truly impossible)

But 'choice' does come into it, probably for a very high percentage if not all homosexuals, too.

genetics and psychological (environment)

[AntiFascist]

25. I agree with this up to a point (possible pun?)

On the so called Kinsey scale there is a spectrum of homosexuality. There is a relative majority at the extreme heterosexual end and a small minority at the homosexual end. Everything else is some shade in between. There are homosexuals who could never have sex with the opposite sex and there are many who can, but who still prefer the same sex. It is this "preference" which is in question. I do not doubt that there are many like Gov. McGreevey who prefer men, but who can still tolerate sex with a woman. Those at the extreme ends would claim that they have no choice whatsoever in the matter.

[Silverhair]

27. Doubtful Genetic. Probably birth abnormality.

I am treating this PURELY as a scientific question. Unfortunately many people on both the left & the right try to push science into supporting their politics. True science has no politics - it just is.

Evolution would work to eliminate a homosexual gene. Homosexuals have fewer children, (If gays have .01% fewer offspring, that is more than enough for evolution to work on.)so that over time such a gene would be removed from the gene pool. And evolution has had many millions of year to work at removing such a gene.

There some work on the theory that homosexuality may be due to stress causing a hormone imbalance during a critical time in the pregnancy, thereby changing fetal brain development. That appears most likely.

Whether it is due to genes or prenatal development doesn't really matter. Either way the person is born that way.

[DemWitch]

28. I dunno if it's genetic, enviornmental, or whatever, but NOT a choice

Ever since I can remember, I was attracted to a certain type of guy. From my earliest memories I would be drawn for some reason to them. When I went through puberty I found out what the attraction was. So before I was even a "sexual" being I had a draw. Is it genetic? I dunno. My real Father was "bi", or so he said, but I was raised by my Aunt and Uncle, who never said anything bad about gay folk, but never said it was OK either. It just was...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Don't know. Doesn't matter.

It's about civil rights, not biology. If people love, desire, lust after, members of the same or opposite sex, it should be nobody's business but their own.

I'm straight and grateful that I am. I sure as hell wouldn't "choose" to be gay in America today.

My sister in law is a lesbian, has been with the same woman for over 30 years, and has been discrimated against for most of her life. Though we've never talked about it, I can't imagine that she woke up one morning and "chose" to be gay so she could lose her job, be denied civil rights, and forbidden to marry the person she loves.

[libhill]

30. Voted for the last one -

As in, homosexuality is nobody's damn business. Sexual preferences are up to the individual. They cannot, or at least should not, be legislated.

[SarahB]

31. I doubt it.

I'm strait and never did I say to myself, "Gee, should I like men or women?" It just was what it was without thinking about it. I think it's only a "choice" perhaps if one is bisexual (and feels a need to choose one way or another) or in the closet and attempting to suppress how he or she feels about what they already know. :shrug:

[noonwitch]

32. I don't care if it's genetic or not, people should have equal rights

And anyone who mistreats someone because of their sexuality is an idiot.

[Chovexani]

33. You know what I hate about this f'ing question?

Once again, bisexuals are totally ignored. We don't exist until it's time to discriminate, and then we're conveniently included. :eyes:

Anyway I think it's a complex issue and there isn't a black and white answer to it. Sexuality is fluid in some people and very rigid in others. Besides, if you look at the research there is a very big gap between people's actual behavior and how they choose to self-identify. I think that gets lost in the sauce sometimes.

Bottom line, the question is asinine to begin with. Even if sexuality WAS something a person could choose, it doesn't make GLBT people any less deserving of rights. Fuck, religion is a choice and last time I checked that was plenty protected under civil rights laws and the Constitution (well if you're Pagan or something you might have to fight tooth and nail for the rights, but they ARE technically there).

[Terran]

34. It wasn't a dumb question, politically speaking

The issue of choice is central to arguments over whether gays and Lesbians should be protected from discrimination. If homosexuality is viewed as a choice, there's little reason to give it protected status in anti-discrimination statutes. Neith Bush nor Kerry got into or close to that aspect of the issue, and I assume Schieffer was hoping they would.

As a gay man myself, I acknowledge the obvious fact that some people who spend much of their early lives as "straight" do voluntarily decide to "become" gay later on. Such a situation doesn't get at the complex issues of social pressure to conform and bisexuality. I have known several "gay" men who have been or are married to women, and some have kids of their own; they all decided at some point that they liked homosexual sex; some of them also like heterosexual sex as well. There's a temptation by straight people to confuse actual sexuality with lifestyle.

But for those of us who have known we were homosexual from an early age and never had any confusion about it, no, there is no choice. We were born this way; just as bisexuals are born bisexual. Freud said we're ALL bisexual, potentially, and I believe he was right, but culturally we're centuries away from acknowledging that.

[Behind the Aegis]

38. Now CNN is playing along

CNN now has a poll on its main page asking if "sexual preference" is a choice. Kind of redundant as preference implies choice.

[AntiFascist]

39. I totally disagree....

Preference ONLY implies choice if one can make a choice to begin with. Bisexuals often can, solid gays and heterosexuals can't.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. I disagree

"Choice" is a synonym for "preference." So the poll could be read as, "Is sexual choice a choice." I also don't think bisexuals have anymore choice than "solid" gays or straights. Rather than be attracted to one or the other, they are attracted to both sexes. Their sexual orientation is no more a choice than mine is.

[AntiFascist]

41. I see your point...

and I suppose you are right according to the dictionary definition. Unfortunately, preference does tend to imply that individuals could consciously, or otherwise through therapy, make the other choice. I've known many gay people who have been with the opposite sex at some time in their lives, but there are also gay people who would sooner become celibate. Of course, this is what the Religious Right would prefer.

[DinahMoeHum]

37. Methinks the only choice involved is whether or not to

"come out of the closet".


:smoke:

[porphyrian]

42. I fucking hate Aristotelean binaries.

Sexuality is not one of two choices, it is a broad spectrum ranging from absolute heterosexuality to absolute homosexuality along which most fall somewhere in the middle. And, it is even more complicated than that, as the things that determine one's sexuality may change over time, thus it is also a continuum. This is true of many things which make up human identity. Genetics can be likened to the cards we are dealt, and the way they are played depend on our choices and our environment. Most who identify themselves as homosexual do not choose to do so, though there was a small trend in the 1990's where it was cool to be lesbian, which may have encouraged some confused women to choose lesbianism against their genetic predisposition. However, this is almost never the case, as society does not accept homosexuality, mostly due to the influence of religion on society. Until we can wrest the reigns of power from those who seek to control the populace with ignorance and belief in oversimplified binary systems, we will continue to endure horseshit questions like these at Presidential debates.

[FlemingsGhost]

43. Well-stated ... for the most part.

"Sexuality is not one of two choices, it is a broad spectrum ranging from absolute heterosexuality to absolute homosexuality along which most fall somewhere in the middle. And, it is even more complicated than that, as the things that determine one's sexuality may change over time, thus it is also a continuum. This is true of many things which make up human identity. Genetics can be likened to the cards we are dealt, and the way they are played depend on our choices and our environment."

===========================

Nicely done. After that paragraph, you lost me ...

[AntiFascist]

47. The "black and white" thinking of the Bush administration....

is starting to bring down the Republican party.

[booley]

45. ultimatly it doesn't matter

When it comes to things like rights and freedoms.

We all are supposed to have the same rights as everybody else. The only time the government can interfere with that is when they can prove a legitimate government interest in doing so. As the myths about gay people get shot down one by one, the case that such a legitimate reason exists becomes shaker and shakier. ( in my opinion, it has now completely collapsed)

Tying the cause of homosexuality in with the legal and political questions regarding gay rights has two main flaws:

First, we already protect the righs of groups who's defining traits are NOT genetic. religion isn't genetic. It is a choice and people change thier religion all the time. Political beleifs are a choice. As are numerouse other charectoristics. But they are still protected and we know today the importance of protecting freedom of CHOICE (no matter what that choice is)
So even if Homosexuality was a choice, that' s not a good reason to make gay people have less rights then straight people.

Secondly, if it is genetic and so unchangable, that makes a rather disturbing situation f you say that THAT is the basis for gay rights. I mean, let me put it this way... what if somebody invented a pill that could make black people white? Would that mean race would no longer be a protected class, that one could discriminate against race becuase being black had become a choice?

I fidn the root causes of homosexuality a fascinating intellectual topic. But when it comes ot my rights, it's a non-issue.

[belle]

46. Any combination of the above, *and* it was a stupid question...

Certainly in the context of the debates. If it weren't so loaded, it might be a worthwhile question someday: who knows what makes people work the way they do? Particularly in the area of sexuality; it's really understudied. But as long as you're using the question as a determining factor as to whether people should have basic rights--well, fuck yeah, it's a stupid question, if you understand the Constitution. What part of "freedom of expression" do people not understand? And anyway, it's not as though the "choice" business made much difference back in the Jim Crow era and earlier, though a lot of people would seem to like to conveniently forget that. I especially hate when conservatives try to splinter people (sadly including some African Americans) by using this argument: being black isn't a choice, being gay *is.*

Well, it seems to me, the proper comeback isn't "it is NOT a choice," as has been the main argument from mainstream gay rights organizations these past x years. Rather, it should be: "What the hell difference does it make? Are you saying that the only reason minorities are 'allowed' civil rights is because they can't *help* not being like the people who are discriminating against them? That would tend to suggest that, say, if it were to be discovered that black people could turn themselves white through some kind of invasive 'therapy,' then they should do so. For example."