The matter of choice vs. predisposition isn't black and white. Genes set the table, but environment also influences brain development and hormone cues. We're trying to find a scientific rationale to a cultural and moral dilemma. Screwing around for fun is a Christian no-no. It's choice driven, but different people have different levels of drive to do it. I don't think there's a case where a person without any sexual drive at all is committed against his/her own will. Psychological studies broke a thousands year old grip on punishing homosexuality, but the heavy lifting for acceptance can't be done with science. Stereotypes and other culturally oppressive remnants and perceptions can't be attacked and dispelled in the abstract. Every person's mind doesn't work like that.
Why is everyone so hung up about sex? Who cares what people do so long as they harm no one else? I'll add that anyone who seriously believes that being gay is some sort of a "choice" either knows no one that is gay, has an incomplete knowledge of sexuality (which could be no fault of their own), or is beset with a deep-seated paranoia about the validity of their own sexuality. Put that in your pipe and take a hit.
I still can't believe that some people are still under the notion that NO ONE chooses to be gay. The proof that homosexuality is a choice (for some, at least) is that some say so. For example, Sheryl Swoopes: http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=2204322 And I know Sheryl Swoopes isn't the only person ever to say he/she chose to be gay. The question has always been if people were born gay, a question that obviously has not been answered for certain.
I'm more inclined to agree with this, there has been too much of an emphasis on morality as a concept of rules that govern what kinds of sex are socially acceptable and this dates back to Puritanical ideals and feudal lords obsessed with power who craved the virginity of the women. Sex will always be about power. Traditional American views on sex are mostly male-dominated misguided attempts at maintaining power over a woman's body and gross ignorance manifested over many years of their own sexual repression. In other cultures a woman's body is like a sin from the get-go, they are not heirs, they have little societal value outside of the home as they must not be allowed to learn at the same institutions as men. In some areas of the world, the woman's body must be covered at all times and for a woman to be raped is for shame to be brought upon the family. In such cases rape is deemed as the woman's fault and therefore she must be disposed of (i.e. murdered) to save the family any further disgrace. In other countries a women is not considered attractive unless she is overweight. Cultural Differences Argument ftw. We still have some stigmas attached when it comes to keeping a woman's body clothed. I think women should be allowed to go topless. There is nothing sexual about breasts in the sense that they serve as a universal tool for sexual arousal, because they shouldn't. Some are more attracted to feet than breasts. American men are more breast-crazy than most any others and it has to do with the taboos involved with seeing a bare-breasted woman which has long been a no-no in American culture. In Europe or South America this is nothing out of the ordinary, women and men are free to pursue their own sexuality as they deem fit. Topless beaches? Yes please. The more exposure to breasts the better. Breasts are beautiful human forms, not shame. I feel that even these so-called family-values conservatives who dabble in gay sex do not always do so because they identify themselves as homosexual, but I believe it to be about taboos, taboos have always been an incredible aphrodisiac for those who have been repressed and deprived of their own basic instincts to **** but have gained the necessary power to govern sexual morality. So in short, whatever sex you're having is probably your own business and anyone who tells you otherwise is obviously just a product of ignorance and their own repression.
I did not say it wasn't possible that no one chooses their sexuality, be they homosexual or hetero. (double negative ftw) Read: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5211863&postcount=23 But, even with the testimony that some people say it is their choice, in the end, that isn't really evidence that can override scientific findings that show otherwise. And it also isn't evidence that really proves anything, either. People are wrong or misunderstand the biological and psychological functions of their own person all the time. Like if I told you I chose to be fat, but I had a naturally endomorphic body and genetic framework that gave me all the tools to be fat (slow metabolism that prevents me from efficiently using calories, joint/bone problems that prevent me from working out, etc) then my declaration that I "chose to be fat" wouldn't really carry much weight. P.S. I think a lot of people also might be confused by the concept of "free will" in that yes, you can decide to stop acting heterosexual and act homosexual. But just because you made that choice, doesn't mean that it wasn't actually the correct fit for you all along, or that the makeup of your brain hasn't changed as you aged and you are now attracted to people of the same sex more than the opposite sex, etc. Example: I may drink Pepsi all my life and be lukewarm about it, but then again, it's all I've ever known, so how would I know I wasn't enjoying it as much as I should?... til one day, I conciously decide to stop drinking Pepsi and drink Coke instead... and it turns out I like that a lot more... yes, I made a choice, but it doesn't mean that I wasn't *predisposed* to liking Coke more than Pepsi. P.P.S. I couldn't find anything in that article that spoke to Sheryl "choosing" to be attracted to women. The only thing I find on that subject was this quote. Which speaks nothing to her innate attraction to people of the same sex. All this states is that she doesn't think she was born being attracted to women. This has no bearing on whether her attraction is a "choice" or not. I did find these other quotes interesting, however.
I don't think it should matter one way or the other, either. But, when it comes to the lives of homosexuals, and their rights in this country, and how they are percieved by the general public, a scientific discover of predisposition would be pretty monumental.
transgender is the one that makes the most sense to me as NOT a choice. It is easy to understand someone assigned a sex at birth might not have chosen that.
Disagree. Hypothetically, if you were to prove a "gay gene", homophones would would still hate gays (after all, no one chooses their race, yet racism still exists), and those who seek to marginalize the GLBT populace would find new reasons to do so. In fact, you would probably see a big push to find a "cure" for gayness.
But you have to ask yourself, since blacks have been given equal standing in society (and women, etc) has their quality of life, public perception, etc improved? I think the proof that homosexuality is not an elective thing would go a long way towards equality for gays. Are more people racist and misogynistic now than 100 years ago? I kinda doubt it.
I blame cultural values and appearances for making sexual "choice" aberrant or dirty behavior. By removing choice out of the equation with scientific proofs, the idea would be that most rational people can't deny it's "unnaturalness". But it isn't science that's calling homosexuality unnatural. This is a backdoor argument towards legitimizing homosexuality. It was made out of necessity, but I think times have changed. Perhaps religious views on this can change. It changed in Europe because people stopped using religion as justification for their own bigoted views.
It really is confusing. My best friend is bi and sometimes she dates women that dress and act like men, sometimes they're even more manipulative and controlling than most men. She's usually miserable during those relationships. It's the contrary when she is dating women that are more like her. I just don't see the point of being gay and having your partner overly representing the other gender you say you're not attracted to. Another example, same friend has a gay guy friend who wears heels and a purse everywhere he goes, while his boyfriend, well.. you wouldn't even know he was gay. It shouldn't matter but it does make a great topic for a 12 page thread.
Agreed. Genetic Predestination is becoming the justification for actions. Whether someone is FAIR to someone or not should not hinge on a genetic test. It is the right thing to do . . .period. That is kind of the problem . . Proving it is a genetic disposition is tool in order to leverage rights? OK. Let's put it like this. DonnyMost - from what I know of you are into physical fitness. If you see a fat person. Someone will look at them and think Lazy Bum. Then they find out . . he is genetically predisposed to be fat. They think . . Wow! Poor guy. IMO - being harsh with a person is wrong. Seeking a scientific reason to be human to other people is a cop out. QUESTION: What is other moral questions are answered this way? Does finding out Tiger Woods is genetically predisposed to be a superfreak make what he did a little more acceptable? Sorry babe . . I got the w**** GENE!! Do you think finding out a Genetic Link between people who smoke weed and those that don't . . would make its legalization and social acceptence easier? If so . .then IMO . .that is kind of sad. Science is now politicized enough. The future is .. If your Genetics says it is ok . . it is ok? Rocket River
I think determining whether something is involuntary or not goes a long way into how we perceive it and how we react to it/treat it in society. It's not really about politics, it's about the truth. How politics chooses to handle those truths is a different argument. P.S. I agree that in most cases, people shouldn't *need* scientific proof to get them to treat people fairly. But sadly, that's the world we live in.
The problem DM is . .this thread is not about giving Homosexuals equal standing in society. That is a seperate issue. Determaning Genetic predisposition toward homosexuality becomes about justifying Homosexuality. I have to ask . . .does it have to be Justified? If it is proven without a doubt to NOT BE GENETIC . . . then what? Will it be ok to treat them badly then? Rocket River
I think it is kind of foolish to say that whether something is innate or voluntary has no bearing on how it is perceived in our society. To me, no, it doesn't have to be justified. I don't give a damn whether it is voluntary or not. And proof showing either conclusion wouldn't change how I feel gays should be treated in society. But I'm not a Congressman, now am I?
Evolution isn't that simple and given the persistence of homosexual behaviors among many animals there may be an evolutionary advantage to homosexuality particularly among social animals. http://www.newscientist.com/article...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html
I second this point. Whether homosexuality is a choice or not as long as it doesn't harm anyone why discriminate against it? I've been hearing a lot of talk about Liberty lately and if as a society we truly respect the ideal of liberty that should extend to the freedom to engage in romantic relationships with who we choose and to set up families the way we choose.
