What if sexual preference is a choice?

[ray245]

I believe that there is no reason to deny Gays of their right to marry as it is their right to enjoy their life as who they are.

However, Alyeska has raised this question a while ago, in another topic here. So what if Homosexuality and bisexuality is not a choice? I have pondered over this issue for quite a while and I do have some doubt over this entire issue myself.

I believe as as long as a choice or personal preference meet certain criteria, we should legalise it. That choice must not harm the community as a whole, and if there is harm, the benefit must have a greater value as compared to the harm.

So what if sexual preference is a choice, and it could be influenced or indoctrinated?

My initial thought is, given the population size of bisexual and homosexuals and compare it to heterosexuality, legalising marriage for them is no big deal.

However, I do have some doubts on this issue and I do hope that people can either clarify or correct me if I am wrong on this issue.

If sexual preference is a choice, and you can choose to be a heterosexual, homosexual or a bisexual on your own, is it right to 'influence' a person's choice.

Is it right to influence a person to be heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual?

And if we support the idea that more people should be homosexual, doesn't such action cause some damage to society? It is human nature and desire as a whole to have off-springs. When people are discouraged of getting attracted to the opposite sex in any form, and cause the decrease of off-spring to an unsustainable level for the community as a whole, doesn't this harm society in some sense?

That is if homosexuals seeks to discourage people from their choice to have an off-spring, or influenced their adopted children against developing a relationship with a person of the opposite gender.




On one hand, I find my some of viewpoints on this issue is wrong, yet on the other hand, I feel this can be justified to some extend.

I'm very very confused on this issue, so feel free to tear my viewpoint apart if I am wrong.

[mr friendly guy]

However, Alyeska has raised this question a while ago, in another topic here. So what if Homosexuality and bisexuality is not a choice? I have pondered over this issue for quite a while and I do have some doubt over this entire issue myself.

I believe as as long as a choice or personal preference meet certain criteria, we should legalise it. That choice must not harm the community as a whole, and if there is harm, the benefit must have a greater value as compared to the harm.

There is a bit of a disconnect here. Your first paragraph talks about homosexuality as it its not a choice (true as numerous threads here have pointed out) and your second paragraph just talks about what choices should be allowed or not. Thus your second paragraph seems strange given that you haven't even finish addressing the first point about "so what is homosexuality is not a choice".

So what if sexual preference is a choice, and it could be influenced or indoctrinated?

As long as the idea is not forced, it shouldn't be a problem. However given that homosexuality doesn't appear to be a choice, its kind of a moot point.

In fact, every time some religious guy points out its a choice, point out that as a straight guy you have never been tempted by the homosexual "propaganda" but you can see that they are clearly affected, which is very interesting. The insinuation is of course, that they themselves are closet gays, or else why would they be tempted by it.

My initial thought is, given the population size of bisexual and homosexuals and compare it to heterosexuality, legalising marriage for them is no big deal.

Again, this would only be an issue if homosexuality was simply a matter of choice and can be sway people like any other idea, as opposed to being born that way.

However, I do have some doubts on this issue and I do hope that people can either clarify or correct me if I am wrong on this issue.

If sexual preference is a choice, and you can choose to be a heterosexual, homosexual or a bisexual on your own, is it right to 'influence' a person's choice.

Is it right to influence a person to be heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual?

Lets just assume for a minute that this is just a thought experiment, and you realise that the evidence so far seems that sexual orientation is not a simple matter of choice.

In your thought experiment, it is right to only influence in so far as how other ideas are spread. For example you shouldn't be able to force people, but you could try and convince them with arguments.

And if we support the idea that more people should be homosexual, doesn't such action cause some damage to society? It is human nature and desire as a whole to have off-springs. When people are discouraged of getting attracted to the opposite sex in any form, and cause the decrease of off-spring to an unsustainable level for the community as a whole, doesn't this harm society in some sense?

Hang on a minute, if you assume sexual preference is a choice, it seems almost contradictory then to assign the urge to have off spring a natural desire and thus NOT a choice. Do you see where I am coming from? You assume homosexuality is a choice yet at the same time by stealth assume heterosexuality is not a choice.

Even here the problem is not insurmountable as with our level of technology, one could satisfy both the condition of having a partner of the same gender, but still have off spring via things like in vitro fertilisation and surrogate mothers. The problem with this would be cost.

Getting to the thrust of your argument ie homosexuality will lead to a population decrease which in turn is undesirable, it depends on the situation really. Hypothetically if the specific society's population was much smaller (say we nearly were made extinct from a natural disaster) then it might be undesirable. However given the world's current population and the industrialisation of countries to higher standards of living, having a smaller population isn't necessary a bad thing.

That is if homosexuals seeks to discourage people from their choice to have an off-spring, or influenced their adopted children against developing a relationship with a person of the opposite gender.

There was a thread a few years ago about homosexuals abusing heterosexuals. However generally its the other way round mostly.

On one hand, I find my some of viewpoints on this issue is wrong, yet on the other hand, I feel this can be justified to some extend.

The evidence seems to suggest homosexuality is not a choice. Since its not a choice, their numbers cannot increase by the spread of ideas. Therefore its pointless thinking along those lines in the first place.

[ray245]

Well , I am well aware that Homosexuality and bisexuality is not a choice in this real world. Moreover, I am not the one who thought of this 'what if' scenario in the first place.



In another topic, I was simply saying prop 8 supporters should not have the right to take away people's right to happiness, given that homosexuality is never a choice in the first place. Alyeska came in and say, we should allow Gay marriage even if the homosexuality is a choice as there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, even if such a scenario is true.

The analogy that Alyeska was saying is flawed I think, given that it is extremely illogical to say loving or getting attracted someone is a choice in the first place. How the hell is getting attrated to someone a choice, be it a guy or a girl.

And even if it is a choice? So what? What scares these people is their religious indoctrination. It is EVIL and a THREAT to society. They cannot prove this threat without resorting to religious dogma, but we already knew that.

[mr friendly guy]

OK, now I see where you are coming from.

A system of morality should be one which works to maximise human happiness. For example something that says do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. Given that line of thinking, even if homosexuality is a choice it follows that gay marriage should be allowed, since if they want to get married it a) increases their happiness and b) does not harm others and if religious nutjobs claim that, I challenge them to show it.

[Surlethe]

The "non-heterosexuality is not a choice" argument is usually only applicable to people who want to criminalize homo- and bisexuality. It is similar to the insanity defense: X had no input in Y; therefore, X is not responsible for Y and so X should not be punished for Y.

[ray245]

The "non-heterosexuality is not a choice" argument is usually only applicable to people who want to criminalize homo- and bisexuality. It is similar to the insanity defense: X had no input in Y; therefore, X is not responsible for Y and so X should not be punished for Y.

Surlethe, I am not talking about it as an argument. This is simply asking what if the world is different as we know it, and how would we apply our morals in such a scenario.

A system of morality should be one which works to maximise human happiness. For example something that says do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. Given that line of thinking, even if homosexuality is a choice it follows that gay marriage should be allowed, since if they want to get married it a) increases their happiness and b) does not harm others and if religious nutjobs claim that, I challenge them to show it.

If such a world is true, doesn't this mean it would be in constant conflict, with people from different side arguing what kind of sexual preference is the 'best'?

People from all camps might end up in a ugly struggle to dominate over others, heterosexuals forcing their child to 'convert' to heterosexuality, homosexuals distrusting heterosexuals and so on, just like how religion fought with each other on which version of god is the correct one.

Sexual mistrust will turn society against itself.

[Aaron]

If such a world is true, doesn't this mean it would be in constant conflict, with people from different side arguing what kind of sexual preference is the 'best'?

People from all camps might end up in a ugly struggle to dominate over others, heterosexuals forcing their child to 'convert' to heterosexuality, homosexuals distrusting heterosexuals and so on, just like how religion fought with each other on which version of god is the correct one.

Sexual mistrust will turn society against itself.

No offense Ray but where have you been for the last few years? That is happening in the US right now, there are camps designed to convert homosexual kids to heterosexuality. Several states have attempted to or have banned gay marriage. There is an uproar in California right now over a proposition to define marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitution.

We don't have to make up your world, it's already here. Unless your talking about widespread violence but there was a fair bit of that against gays when I was a child.

[ray245]

If such a world is true, doesn't this mean it would be in constant conflict, with people from different side arguing what kind of sexual preference is the 'best'?

People from all camps might end up in a ugly struggle to dominate over others, heterosexuals forcing their child to 'convert' to heterosexuality, homosexuals distrusting heterosexuals and so on, just like how religion fought with each other on which version of god is the correct one.

Sexual mistrust will turn society against itself.

No offense Ray but where have you been for the last few years? That is happening in the US right now, there are camps designed to convert homosexual kids to heterosexuality. Several states have attempted to or have banned gay marriage. There is an uproar in California right now over a proposition to define marriage as one man and one woman in their state constitution.

We don't have to make up your world, it's already here. Unless your talking about widespread violence but there was a fair bit of that against gays when I was a child.

The difference in such a scenario is those people would have facts to back up their claim so to speak.

[Turin]

It took me a sec to find, but I knew I'd been involved in this discussion before, and lo and behold, it was a thread I started here: Gay as a Choice/Innate: Why does it matter? The basic concern I had there could be summed up as:

Or, it could just lead to the bigots saying "it's a disorder, let's give them 'therapy' to fix it!"

Thank you DPDP, I think you hit upon exactly what I was trying (but maybe not succeeding) at getting at.

It was only somewhat recently that homosexuality was de-classified as a mental disorder. But by saying, "well, the research shows that's its not a choice but innate," don't we really end up in the same position? Obviously, there's a scientific difference between "this is aberrant psychology" and "this is the result of genetics", but that's an awfully subtle difference for the average Joe.

I think the discussion comes down to using the question of choice vs innate as a leverage against the people who aren't raving bigots but are simply ignorant and on the fence. It's not that it's an especially logical argument, but it's a weapon.

[Aaron]

The difference in such a scenario is those people would have facts to back up their claim so to speak.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent with this thread but the people that engage in this sort of behaviour already believe the facts back them up because the only fact they care about is that the bible or their church tells them so. I'm afraid I don't see how that changes anything.

[ray245]

The difference in such a scenario is those people would have facts to back up their claim so to speak.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding your intent with this thread but the people that engage in this sort of behaviour already believe the facts back them up because the only fact they care about is that the bible or their church tells them so. I'm afraid I don't see how that changes anything.

What about people who are not Christians? Will those people be herded into the homophobic crowd? Also, what about the chance of a a direct clash of ideas between people who believe that homosexuality is better than bisexual or heterosexuality as well?

How will people who are not indoctrinated respond in such a world?

[Darth Wong]

How will people who are not indoctrinated respond in such a world?

Everyone is indoctrinated, in varying degrees. We are all products of our environment. The question is not whether you've been programmed and conditioned at all (we all have), but whether you have acquired the critical thinking skills you need in order to think for yourself.

Fundie indoctrination is effective not so much because they try to program you, but because they make such an effort to isolate you from everything else.

[Aaron]

What about people who are not Christians? Will those people be herded into the homophobic crowd?

Such as, muslims, jews and whatever other religious groups engage in the gay hate? Why would their behaviour be any different that it is now?

Also, what about the chance of a a direct clash of ideas between people who believe that homosexuality is better than bisexual or heterosexuality as well?

Look are you talking about violence or something else, like screaming at each other via protests and the media?

How will people who are not indoctrinated respond in such a world?

If their not indoctrinated (and I assume by indoctrinated that you mean people against gays) than why would they react any other way than they do now?

[ray245]

Such as, muslims, jews and whatever other religious groups engage in the gay hate? Why would their behaviour be any different that it is now?

I should have clarify this earlier.

I am talking about people who simply don't follow a religion to begin with.

Look are you talking about violence or something else, like screaming at each other via protests and the media?

Both. It is not a leap of faith for someone to believe that his group or ideas is the best and cannot be disputed in any form on both sides of the camp.

Instead of having a campaign battle over prop 8 issues, it might be possible for people to try and convince others to join his or her sexual orientation.

If their not indoctrinated (and I assume by indoctrinated that you mean people against gays) than why would they react any other way than they do now?

Well, you don't need to be indoctrinated to be against homosexuality. There are tons of people I know, that simply have no clue about the homosexual rights issues, and yet they are homophobic.

There are many people that I know, that already view homosexuals as people who are trying to arouse other guys ( meaning heterosexual guys or girls) for fun, joy and laughter. Imagine if scientist and thier lecturers told them that homosexuality for once is a choice.

What will they think of homosexuals? They will view them just like how they view Christian preachers who are actively trying to convert people down here.

Many of the people that I know of, isn't influenced by religion to a heavy extend.

[Aaron]

Ray, I'm going to have to bow out. I seem to be having issues wrapping my head around what your saying and I have no doubt that problem is at my end. Sorry to waste your time.

[Mayabird]

Ray, I can't stand your stupid questions and inability to articulate a single thought anymore, so I'm going to make this very simple:

If it was a choice, nobody would be gay, because that would bring down ostracism and discrimination upon their heads. Why would people want to make themselves suffer? Thus, it would be no issue in the first place.

[mr friendly guy]

A system of morality should be one which works to maximise human happiness. For example something that says do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others. Given that line of thinking, even if homosexuality is a choice it follows that gay marriage should be allowed, since if they want to get married it a) increases their happiness and b) does not harm others and if religious nutjobs claim that, I challenge them to show it.

If such a world is true, doesn't this mean it would be in constant conflict, with people from different side arguing what kind of sexual preference is the 'best'? .

I am going to assume you mean by "such a world is true" is "if every one followed such a philosophy". Following such a philosophy also requires one to be able to think and justify things objectively. Hence if homophobic bigots are going to argue that it causes harm, they have to show it. Which was kind of my challenge in the previous post.

People from all camps might end up in a ugly struggle to dominate over others, heterosexuals forcing their child to 'convert' to heterosexuality, homosexuals distrusting heterosexuals and so on, just like how religion fought with each other on which version of god is the correct one.

Already happening. If people actually followed my "do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others" and can objectively decide what constitutes harm, I would argue this kind of thing would happen less. The reason being stated previously, but I will repeat for you. That is people following this philosophy will not reject gay marriage if a) the people want to get married and b) it does not harm others.

Your whole objection Ray seems based on people who even if they follow my philosophy would still argue about sexual preferences because of some harm one particular preference has. Which is why I challenge any one who postulates it to demonstate the harm. No evidence of harm = no case.

[Samuel]

If it was a choice, we wouldn't have the ads for "is your spouse gay? Take this quiz?"

More to the point, people would all count as bisexual in this case. Given that we have too many people now, I can see a zero pop movement urging gay sex, on the grounds it is immoral to keep on bringing in countless individuals.

[Junghalli]

I don't see why it matters. Whether it's a choice or not if it's between consenting adults it harms nobody, wanting to prohibit it is just Dark Age irrationality.

[Kanastrous]

In Joe Haldeman's The Forever War - which I can't recommend highly enough, to anyone who has not yet read it - 'Homosex' is basically the norm for all human beings; actual reproduction is handled artificially, mostly as a method for desperately-needed population control (this is many centuries into a story that begins in the 1990s and ends millenia later). The main character, who decides against the minor neurological adjustment required to conform, winds up staying hetero and being labeled the Old Queer by the younger soldiers under his command.