Is Being Gay a Choice?

[E_Lewis]

You already know what most people will say.

Far right: Yes. It is a difficult choice, but can be overcome. There are bad things to being gay, but some people live with it the way geeks live with ridicule because of their strangeness that they could change.

 

Far left: No. You can't choose who you fall in love with. You're just born that way. Why would someone choose to be teased, rejected and alienated by society and their loved ones?

 

Well, to be fair to the right, some people, like geeks or weirdos, don't care about being teased or bullied or rejected because of the things they like. Even straight couples are willing to be teased or rejected because of their choice of a partner, but it's for love, right? Then again, is there really such a thing as true love at all?

Maybe it's just physical. Let's be honest, being gay or straight depends mostly on sex. If you fall in love with someone online then find out their not th gender you like, you probably wouldn't want to be with them the same way you did before.

For all we know, we do choose who we fall in love with. We make decisions about how to interperet our feelings, how to react to a person's actions or thoughts, when judging something they do or believe in, those are all little choices. Bu are they really what make us fall in love with people?

 

But it's true, if you want to love someone, why make it someone you're family or friends would reject you for? Why pick someone you can't have kids with or marry?(If that's what you want)

 

In Chrsitianity, the Bible says at least three times that being gay is wrong. But the only reason it would be wrong is if it's a choice, because sin is about disobeying God's will and rejecting the truth of his law and words. You can really only go against God's law by choosing to reject or go against it, like choosing to steal or choosing to ignore Jesus once you've heard the truth, or choosing not to even try to be a better person. So how can something be a sin if you don't choose to do it? (please no religious bashing from any sides in this discussion) Many christians who don't support being gay say that it's a hard thing to overcome but can be done, but how many gay people do they know that have actually stayed celibate or gone straight?

 

Main questions wiht this issue: Is it a choice? Can you choose who you fall in love with? Why or why not?  If it is a choice, why would you choose to be gay at all?

EDIT: If you have anything directed specifically at me, the one posting this, I'm not going to read it. The discussion is mainly for other people who wanted to discuss it, and I lost track of the comments months ago anyway.

[Nelson]

It's a part of our brains that we don't fully understand, so how can we draw conclusions on it?

Because we don't have to understand all the numbers to be able to work with them. The research on sexuality does come with conclusions, but they are relatively minor, or so to say inconclusive, when looking at the grand scope of a conclusion such as "we totally understand sexuality". And to be clear, I acknowledge that there is a lot about it that we don't understand. But if you say that all the research is either inconclusive or faked, then you could as well say that all of psychology / cognitive neurobiology, with emphasis on research dealing with subjective topics, is inconclusive or faked because we literally know jack shit about how the brain functions. Well, we know a damn lot about the brain but that's only scratching the surface. Then again a lot of subjective measures can be controlled for by behavioural or physiological measures, for instance self-reported stress level can be referenced via measurements of stress hormones in the blood, similarly sexual arousal can be controlled for using physiological data.

Research shows that sexuality has to do with genetics as well as environmental factors and we can say stuff about that, even though we don't necessarily know exactly how those factors exert their influence. We know it has to do with exposure to sex hormones, and that for male homosexuality there's a birth order effect (more older brothers, higher chance of homosexuality), etc. We might not know the exact mechanisms behind that but we can draw certain conclusions from this data.

We don't know the exact mechanisms behind so many things involving the brain but we can say sensible things about them. We don't know exactly how anti-psychotic drugs work, but we don't necessarily have to know this in order to conclude that they work. Of course it would be fantastic to know how and that could (and would) open up so many new realms for research to focus on and conclusions to be drawn.

TL;DR We know jack shit about our brains, even though we know quite a lot, yet we can draw conclusions from the things we do (think we) know.

[Audrey]

This is a good question, I really believe that much of the social tensions that exist today between straight people and anyone who falls into the LGBTQ category are large due to simple misunderstandings, and that people are simply too afraid to ask a question at risk of offending people, which is silly as long as the questions are asked with sincerity.  

All of that being said, I think for many people it's not a choice.  It can be confusing for people who are homosexual or bisexual or pansexual or whatever because many people are not raised even knowing what the word gay means until they hit middle school, and even then it's probably being used as an attempt at insulting someone.  Some people might insist that they could still choose to be with a person of the opposite gender, but one could argue that straight people could do the same thing.  The fact remains that if someone has an inherent want to be with someone then they will be with them because all humans have a desire to be happy.

On the other hand for some people it is not a choice.  I'm sure some of you have heard of Cynthia Nixon, she's an actress, and she is also homosexual by choice.  A quote from her:

“I gave a speech recently, an empowerment speech to a gay audience, and it included the line ‘I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.’ And they tried to get me to change it, because they said it implies that homosexuality can be a choice. And for me, it is a choice. I understand that for many people it’s not, but for me it’s a choice, and you don’t get to define my gayness for me. A certain section of our community is very concerned that it not be seen as a choice, because if it’s a choice, then we could opt out. I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not.”   - Cynthia Nixon

She sums it up pretty well.  I think for those who admit it's their choice are in the definite minority, but I really don't think it should matter, and I'm sure many here agree, if someone wants to be gay then they can.

On whether or not sexuality is determined by physical attributes: it varies I think, it is physical for some and for others it's not.  It seems harsh to say relationships are solely based on the physical benefits, but I think for the most part there has to be at least a little bit of chemistry there.  However, using your example of falling in love with someone you met online, if you really love them and have awesome chemistry, would it matter?  Does it really come down to a person's genitals?  I think not, when two people like each other it's probably because they have the same sense of humor, or both really like Dr. Who, or both think roller coasters are terrifying.  Love defies labels! #likeaboss

As for religious stuff, while Leviticus 18:22 says being gay is wrong, according Lev. 19:19, planting two different crops in the same field will earn you a special place in hell too. I am no theologian, but I know that the Bible was written years and years after Jesus died, so it's not like he proofread it or anything.  Chances are Jesus was illiterate anyway.  Nevertheless there were people who were writing down stuff on who's authority? God's? God is supposed be all about love and stuff so I don't know how he'd think about all that.  On top of all of that, the Bible has been translated from Hebrew to German to English and back again, I feel like that leaves rooms for less than 100% accuracy.  Not that everything in the Bible is wrong, it's got tons of good stuff in there, but it was written in a different time when you were allowed to stone women in public for not being faithful to one guy.  If we still did that then there would be a noticeable difference in my school's population.  Jesus never said anything against gay people so, I think he's cool with them.  

I realize this is an obscenely long post and I apologize.    

[David N]

^Wholly agree

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

As for religious stuff, while Leviticus 18:22 says being gay is wrong, according Lev. 19:19, planting two different crops in the same field will earn you a special place in hell too.

But Jesus does specificity reference Sexual Immorality in the New Testament, which is referring that section of Leviticus 18 (along with other sections dealing with adultery, bestiality etc)

I am no theologian, but I know that the Bible was written years and years after Jesus died, so it's not like he proofread it or anything.

Two points. One, the maximum the gospels would have been written is 20 years after Jesus's death, and even then, that's exceptionally unlikly. Its much more likly that it's much closer, since Paul makes reference to the resurection, using the Greek word for "tradition" which describes something significently older. And since he was refering to this when writing to the other churches of the Med Basin, the Gospels must have reached out to them by this time. Therefore, the Gospels are very likly to have been around for a long time. Two, Jesus himself may not have read it, but we know the Holy Spirit came upon the people (see Pentecost.)

Chances are Jesus was illiterate anyway.

Unlikly. He was refered to as "Rabbi" by many, and he miraculously knew the law at a very young age.

On top of all of that, the Bible has been translated from Hebrew to German to English and back again, I feel like that leaves rooms for less than 100% accuracy.

Actually, these days its pretty much straight from the Hebrew or Greek (depending on if its the Old or New testement) into English, since we have anchient copies.

it was written in a different time when you were allowed to stone women in public for not being faithful to one guy.  If we still did that then there would be a noticeable difference in my school's population. 

Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". IE abolishing capital punishment.

Jesus never said anything against gay people so, I think he's cool with them. 

Not specificly, but he did reference Homosexuality as part of the more broad context of reference to sexual immorality, and we have no example of him liberalising sexuality, in fact he gets much stricter (talking about lust being equal to adultury etc)

[Audrey]

Ha, I'm sorry if you're offended by my lack of theological knowledge, I was making some rather large assumptions.  Like I said, I lack experience in this area, I only went to Catholic school for 11 years or so, but it wasn't what you would call theological training.  I'm fascinated to know that Jesus could indeed read, I figured since he was said to be born into a poor family and trained as a carpenter.  

And I know about the story of casting the first stone, and that Jesus was against it, but there are places in the Bible that do condone throwing stones.

The point of sexual immorality, as you say, is true.  The ten commandments themselves are pretty explicit, but you have to understand that a person's sexuality isn't a fetish.  This is why labels are so detrimental to society, they lead to believe that a boy likes a girl because she's a girl or a boy likes a boy because he's a boy, etcetera.  I think a person's sexuality is not a defining trait, but also not something small enough to be dismissed as mere lust.  Some people might be 'looser', regardless of orientation, but that's their business I guess.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

And I know about the story of casting the first stone, and that Jesus was against it, but there are places in the Bible that do condone throwing stones.

Yes, and that is what Jesus was referencing, and stopping.

The point of sexual immorality, as you say, is true.  The ten commandments themselves are pretty explicit, but you have to understand that a person's sexuality isn't a fetish.  This is why labels are so detrimental to society, they lead to believe that a boy likes a girl because she's a girl or a boy likes a boy because he's a boy, etcetera.  I think a person's sexuality is not a defining trait, but also not something small enough to be dismissed as mere lust.  Some people might be 'looser', regardless of orientation, but that's their business I guess.

It's not a question of it being a "fetish" or a "lust". The Bible is very clear. The physical act is wrong, labelled as a sin in Leviticus, reinforced by Jesus and Paul. Does this mean we are called to be unpleasnt to homosexual individuals? Of course not! But it does not mean we can legitimately say it is right, and say we believe in the Bible.

[Nelson]

Does this mean we are called to be unpleasnt to homosexual individuals? Of course not! But it does not mean we can legitimately say it is right, and say we believe in the Bible.

Hypothesis 1.0 There are no True Christians.

Definition 1.1 (True Christians). An individual is a True Christian if and only if this individual believes in the bible.

Theorem 1.2 (True Christianity test). Let x be any individual person. (a) x is a True Christian <=> 1. x believes in the bible, (b) 1. x believes in the bible <=> 2. x is not unpleasant to homosexuals, and (c) 1. x believes in the bible <=> 3. x does not legitimately say homosexuality is right.

Proof.

(a) => Assume that x is a True Christian. Thus 1. x believes in the bible. Therefore x believes that homosexuality is sin and acts accordingly (for one is not a Christian in word only). This is true given Definition 1.1 and given the contents of the bible. (true)

(b) => Assume that 1. x believes in the bible and acts accordingly (see proof of (a) =>). This does cause 2. for the individuals who do believe in the bible and act accordingly can not withhold the statement that homosexuality is sin. This can be proven to be unpleasant to homosexuals and this is logical since stating that something is morally wrong according to personal standards can be hurtful. (false)

(c) => Assume that 1. x believes in the bible and acts accordingly (see proof of (a) =>). This causes 3. for anyone believing in the bible can not legitimately say that homosexuality is right, this is in accordance with proof of (a) =>). (true)

(c) <= Assume that 3. x does not legitimately say homosexuality is right. This does not cause 1. since one can not legitimately say homosexuality is right and not believe in the bible. (false)

(b) <= Assume that 2. x is not unpleasant to homosexuals. This does not cause 1. since one can be not be unpleasant to homosexuals and not believe in the bible. This is logical since a great deal of people who act pleasant to homosexuals are atheists (and do not believe in the bible). (false)

(a) <= Assume that 1. x believes in the bible. Thus x is a True Christian. This is true given Definition 1.1. (true)

Given that proposition (a) holds true for both <= and => we could say that there are True Christians. However, this proposition rests on (b), which can not be proven true for <= and for =>; as well as on (c) which can only be proven true for => and not for <=. Given that propositions (b) and (c) don't hold we can conclude that x is not a True Christian.

[Nelson]

Addendum:

Typo in (b) =>: "This does cause 2." should be "This does not cause 2.".

Given that propositions (b) and (c) don't hold we can conclude that x is not a True Christian.

This is because proposition (a) rests on (b) and (c), and (a) can only be true given that (b) and (c) are true which is not the case. To show this the system of propositions can be written as;

x is a True Christian <=> 1. x believes in the bible <=> 2. x is not unpleasant to homosexuals,

and

x is a True Christian <=> 1. x believes in the bible <=> 3. x does not legitimately say homosexuality is right.

1. is true if and only if 2. is true, and if and only if 3. is true. In the proof above it has been shown that this does not hold (see proofs for (b) and (c)).

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Was it absolutely nessecary to phrase it in this rather unhelpful manner. Basicly what you are saying is that, if I understand you correctly, that a true Christian believes in the Bible and is not unpleasnt to homosexuals, yet as far as you see, that is contradictory since believing homosexuality to not be right is being unpleasnt to homosexuals.

[Nelson]

Was it absolutely nessecary to phrase it in this rather unhelpful manner.

I thought it could be helpful to provide logical proof given that people, for instance you, value logic very highly. It could be, however, that I was wrong.

Basicly what you are saying is that, if I understand you correctly, that a true Christian believes in the Bible and is not unpleasnt to homosexuals, yet as far as you see, that is contradictory since believing homosexuality to not be right is being unpleasnt to homosexuals.

Yes, given that one cannot be a Christian in faith alone and therefore one cannot withhold the comment that homosexuality is sin. This can be hurtful to homosexual individuals and therefore it negates the not being unpleasant to homosexuals.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I thought it could be helpful to provide logical proof given that people, for instance you, value logic very highly. It could be, however, that I was wrong.

Logical proofs do not have to be formatted that way.

Yes, given that one cannot be a Christian in faith alone and therefore one cannot withhold the comment that homosexuality is sin. This can be hurtful to homosexual individuals and therefore it negates the not being unpleasant to homosexuals.

That's different. There, the negative is much more subjective. If a Christian acts nothing but kindly, friendlily, openly and reasonably to a homosexual, yet still holds this belief, it is the homosexual choosing to find this offensive, rather than the Christian doing something wrong. To put it in the context of Jesus, the adulterous woman may indeed have felt negative that her actions were considered sinful, but Jesus did nothing negaitve to her.

[Nelson]

Logical proofs do not have to be formatted that way.

Indeed they don't have to be and please quote me where I've said that logical proofs have to be formatted this way. However, since my argument contained several "if and only if" premises (denoted by the double headed arrows <=>) I felt that it was easiest to phrase my proof this way.

That's different. There, the negative is much more subjective. If a Christian acts nothing but kindly, friendlily, openly and reasonably to a homosexual, yet still holds this belief, it is the homosexual choosing to find this offensive, rather than the Christian doing something wrong. To put it in the context of Jesus, the adulterous woman may indeed have felt negative that her actions were considered sinful, but Jesus did nothing negaitve to her.

I wouldn't say that it's the homosexual's choosing to be offended, for in general it is unpleasant to have something that is very dear and personal to you being cast off as morally wrong (sin). This expression also carries the implication of burning in an eternal fire (unless forgiveness is sought, yada-yada) and can possibly carry an implication of homosexuality being something that should be condemned. Remember how homosexuals have been persecuted, killed, imprisoned in the name of religion and sin? Now your most likely counterargument is that the people persecuting homosexuals weren't true Christians or that they had an alterior motive for persecuting them. This does not negate the fact that the sinful argument has been used as a means to be objectively negative to homosexuals and that it's still common practice. And yes, it's not an objective measure of being negative, I'll grant you that.

Would you not be offended if I'd utter a deeply held belief that being a Christian is morally wrong and that the best thing would be to abstain from being a Christian through immense self control and that unless forgiveness was sought the implication of being a Christian would be a punishment of burning in an eternal fire? (Please note that  I do not believe that Christianity is morally wrong.)

Jesus does seem to be very perfect doesn't he? I highly doubt that there are people on this earth who are Christian, and who believe that homosexuality is sin, and yet do nothing objectively negative to homosexuals. I haven't seen them yet, for what I've seen thus far are 1) Christians who accept homosexuals and act nice to them or 2) Christians who think it's sin and through acting accordingly are being objectively negative to homosexuals. Of course it would be hard for me to know Christians who think homosexuality is a sin and keep it to themselves (who do not say that it's sin), and act nice to homosexuals.