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.

[Tom Gater]

I have yet to see a reason why sterile incestuous relationships shouldn't be allowed. Just because I personally find the idea repugnant doesn't mean I think other people should be denied the ability to marry if they both consent. 

[Nelson]

Very rarely will a law state why it is there. More often, it will just be there.

Then surely there will be documentation about the laws coming into being, or there will be other kinds of documentation that deal with how the law ought to be used or what the purpose is of a law. And surely this documentation surpasses columns in on-line periodicals. You have provided neither so your claim remains unsupported, a hypothetheory so to speak.

Because the state is supporting the inate capacity of the people to produce children.

To reply in your style: Proof?

Also see above paragraph.

You havn't answered my question. If you accept that consentual romantic relationships are the only basis upon which marriage rests, then on what basis do you make polygamy/sterile incest etc prohibited. I don't know why you brought up dogs.

I brought up dogs partially to ridicule, and to emphasize the slippery slope, also since its a frequent flyer from the anti same-sex marriage camp. I answered your question under point 2 since point 1 dealt with remarking your slippery slope. Then again I did not provide the kind of answer you wished me to provide, that is because I don't care to do so with my my personal viewpoint, especially since I don't make anything prohibited.

Yet marriage is about romantic rather than fraternal relations.

Apparently its a bit of both, since it creates kinship between two people. Of course legal marriage does more than that.

Non-starter. You can't use culture as a reason why polygamy is allowed in some places but not others. If you claim that recognition of a romantic relationship by the government is a right, answer this question:

Why is it only romantic relationships between monogamous pairs that should be legally accepted?

If you accept that it is just romantic relationships that marriage is about, then logically you have no case to deny it to larger groups.

I did use culture and I don't see you stopping me. Of course when discussing culture as a reason, mainly a 'how-come' reason, one has to look at multiple factors and take a more in-depth look, I do realise that. However, I have never mentioned that it is only romantic monogamous relationships that should be accepted.

I speak of couples of two people and marriage since that is our western cultural context and because the discussion is about marriage rights for homosexual couples. Of course my previous post could suggest something about my viewpoint on incestuous relationships, this is not the case.

The arguments from the anti same-sex marriage side about polygamy and incestuous relationships are distracting from the topic that is actually being discussed, which is marriage for same-sex couples. Then again in western culture it used to be normal for someone to marry the brother or sister of their late spouse, while technically the previous marriage had made that person kin to the late spouses brothers or sisters.

[CD]

Very rarely will a law state why it is there. More often, it will just be there.

You might be able to look at era-specific publications, to get a feel for it. If the law was even discussed publicly.  However,  if you don't know why the law is there, you're actually putting your own POV onto the law by assuming that their reasoning was the same as yours.....reasons such as...

Because the state is supporting the inate capacity of the people to produce children.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I speak of couples of two people and marriage since that is our western cultural context

You can't do that. You can't use culture to defend your views while not allowing it to factor into your opponents argument. If you say that Christians cannot impose their religious idea of marriage on others, you in turn, cannot use the "Western" idea of marriage to defend the fact that you will not support marriage for polygamous groups. I repeat my question.

If marriage is only the recognition of romantic love, upon what basis do you deny marriage to romantic partners in groups of larger than two.

Then surely there will be documentation about the laws coming into being, or there will be other kinds of documentation that deal with how the law ought to be used or what the purpose is of a law.

Yes, but these will be opinions, not law. No more valuable than other opinions etc.

To reply in your style: Proof?

I've done so repeated providing economic opinion as to this logic. If you do not accept them, that's your prerogative.

I brought up dogs partially to ridicule, and to emphasize the slippery slope, also since its a frequent flyer from the anti same-sex marriage camp. I answered your question under point 2 since point 1 dealt with remarking your slippery slope.

It is a slipery slope argument. You claim that marriage is only about romantic relations. Then how do you propose to limit it to monogomus contexts.

The arguments from the anti same-sex marriage side about polygamy and incestuous relationships are distracting from the topic that is actually being discussed, which is marriage for same-sex couples.

No, they're not. If you say "Marriage is only a recognition of romantic love" then I am entitled to ask "What about situations where romantic love exists between groups of larger than 2". Please actually answer that, without refering to culture, because it is unfair for you to be able to use culture to limit marriage to people you find acceptable, and yet you then deny Christians the right to represent their cultural wishes to limit marriage to people they find acceptable.

So I ask again, how do you defend gay marriage and then attack polygamous marriage.

[Nelson]

You can't do that. You can't use culture to defend your views while not allowing it to factor into your opponents argument. If you say that Christians cannot impose their religious idea of marriage on others, you in turn, cannot use the "Western" idea of marriage to defend the fact that you will not support marriage for polygamous groups.

Please don't be so patronising as to tell me what I can and can't do. If you have read my previous post carefully then you would have seen that I merely made an observation regarding "how-come polygamy is prohibited in the western world". I also elaborated on the context in which I speak of couples of two people getting married as opposed to groups of more than two people. So please show me where I have defended the prohibition thereof, for by my knowledge I have never done such a thing.

I've done so repeated providing economic opinion as to this logic. If you do not accept them, that's your prerogative.

You have posted economic speculation which I have refuted with data about the economic effects of allowing same sex marriage pointing at an economic benefit. If you have evidence pointing in the other direction to back your speculation, please share it with us.

So I ask again, how do you defend gay marriage and then attack polygamous marriage.

If I had done so you would have a valid question. However as I pointed out in my previous post I have only mentioned a how come reason that polygamous marriage is prohibited in western society. This was an observation rather than a statement of opinions or an attack on polygamous marriage.

No, they're not. If you say "Marriage is only a recognition of romantic love" then I am entitled to ask "What about situations where romantic love exists between groups of larger than 2". [...] So I ask again, how do you defend gay marriage and then attack polygamous marriage.

You are entitled to that question but its a slippery slope as I pointed out and you subsequently acknowledged. And it's an irrelevant issue because since same-sex marriage has been allowed in the Netherlands 11 years ago there has been no talk about polygamous marriage whatsoever and nothing has changed here. And polygamous marriage is not what I'm defending, and in my posts I am not opposing this issue, and I'm not supporting it either. And as I'll say for the third and final time, the cultural mention was an OBSERVATION of the current situation and how this might have came to be. If you think that I'm attacking polygamous marriage in any way then I'm very sorry to inform you that you sir, are wrong.

[David N]

Massive oversimplifications are not becoming of serious debate.

This is just an example of the logical extrapolation of your claim. Homosexual actions are wrong, hence if you identify as homosexual and choose to act upon who you are attracted to sexually, you are committing a sin and will go to Hell unless you repent. Logical extrapolation. It may not be pretty, but it doesn't help to avoid it.

If that was what the case was based on entirely, I would agree. But it isn't.

We can agree the current marriage laws discriminate against homosexuals. The debate is over whether this is right or wrong.

People who recognise that the debate that is not about rights (since state recognition of marriage is not, and has never been, a right), but is about the fundamental perception about what marriage is.

Semantics again. Whether marriage is a "privilege" or "right" the question is, "Should gays have a right/privilege to marry?" Marriage can be a right, and that right can be expanded, but rights can remained regulated. And it is not just about what marriage is, but what it can and should be.

At the end of the day, the people in the camp that believe that gay marriage is acceptable, are people who believe that marriage is state recognition and support of a romantic relationship.

Not just a romantic relationship, but arguably, a family unit, once that relationship achieves permanence of some sort.

Conversely, the opponents of gay marriage believe that it is about more than romantic love. Rather, it is about procreation, and the state supports such an institution because it is in its best interest to do so.

Then, once again, by this logic the infertile should not be allowed to marry. If marriage is truly discriminated on the basis of fertility, this is the logical extension.

Moreover, the people who oppose gay marriage also point out that if romantic love is the only criteria upon which a marriage should be permitted, then why can we not support things like polygamy?

The current definition of marriage is a union of two people. Currently, it is limited to a man and woman. Ongoing efforts seek to amend this. A re-definition of which genders can participate in marriage does not equate to a re-definition of its most basic principle. In short, gay marriage activists are not pressing for polygamous marriage: that is an entirely different issue.

Or consensual incestuous relations (assuming that one party is sterile) etc.

Mainly due to societal objections to this type of marriage, and the dangers posed to the children. But this sterility needs medical verification which you have voiced opposition to. Again, this is not the issue at hand.

If the only critera for state support of a relationship is that it is consensual and romantic/sexual, why is it limited to monogamous relationships with two people only?

That is the family unit our state and society deems contributory and wants to invest in. The current system discriminates on the basis of the genders involved, which I believe is wrong. The number of people involved is another issue entirely, and a different debate. Legalizing gay marriage would eliminate a single criterion of discrimination, not redefine the basic structure. While I am not against this in principle, it is a different debate. That is all

[Holly Nirvana Kirk]

Being gay is not a choice, in my opinon.

In the same way people who are straight do not choose to be straight, and nobody questions this, being gay is not a choice either. Attraction is based on chemical reactions, we know this as it has been proven, and therefore being attracted to either sex is not a choice, it is just something that is a part of you. I have had this discussion many a time with my R.E class and stand by what i say, they did not suddenly wake up one day , or even after days of questioning, and decide, 'Hey, i'm going to be gay from now on', that's not how it works, and its the same for people who are gay, we are all humans and it all works the same way, we should not assume that just because of peoples preferences they are any different from anyone else.

Now, who we fall in love with is a completely, way more complex, issue. It involves so many different factors: compatibility, emotions, enviroment, etc.

and i believe you can be in love with someone without being attracted to them, someone could be the exact sort of person that you fall in love with but just aren't the gender that attracts them, turns them on. Its sort of a higher version of loving your family, in most families, you love each other but are not attracted to each other even if they are of your sexual orientation. 

Why would someone choose to be gay? because society needs to get over the way of thinking that being gay is abnormal and immoral, it isn't, it's completely normal and there's nothing wrong about being gay, we could live in a world where its looked down upon to be straight, it works both ways. If people could choose who they are attracted to, and i don't believe they can, than that is there choice and it really isn't anyone else's right to change that or be offended by it, take Christianity for example, they are many people that don't believe in God or what Christianity stands for but we do not stop them from practicing their beliefs and they should not stop others from practicing their beliefs/ sexuality. It doesn't affect them in a negative way so why should they be able to tell compete strangers how to live their lives, if you're anything like me you won't even particularly enjoy it when your family tries to run your life, even it is for the better, so its even more invasive and upsetting when its somebody you don't know that hates you for no reason and wants to change your life in a negative way.

So to sumarise: I don't believe being Gay is a choice, I don't think you can choose who you fall in love with but there is more leeway and if someone wants to choose to be gay, who are we to stop them.

[Dylan Sandefur]

I can't say if it's a choice- I'm not gay. An awful answer, but let's face it, if you aren't gay, how can you know which feelings drive you to be a homosexual? They could be different feelings sexually, or it could be the need to stand against the majority, or to fight formal religion, or for honest love. I dunno.

[Lori S.]

I'm straight, and I know I didn't choose to be straight.  In fact, I think I would have been a pretty awesome lesbian: I like the Indigo Girls, I love comfortable shoes, and, honestly, I think the male genitalia is kinda gross.

But, alas, I'm not a lesbian.  I'm a straight woman.  I think some women are very, very pretty, but I'm just not sexually attracted to them.  I'm sexually attracted to men, even though I do often think women are nicer and smell better.  It's just how it is.

I assume the same is true for gay people, and most gay people I know would say the same thing.  They didn't choose their sexual orientation any more than I did.

Is sexual orientation more fixed in some people than others?  Probably.  Do some people make a conscious choice to act in opposition to their natural orientation?  Sure, although IME it rarely lasts.  (I knew a woman in grad school who decided to be a lesbian for political/ideological reasons.  She was with her female partner for about eight years, and had twins in that relationship, before she left the relationship to be with a man.  And the stories of gay people who attempt to live straight lives often go the same way.)  But most of us are innately attracted to one gender or the other--most to the opposite gender, a smaller number to the same gender, and some equally attracted to both--and it's just not something we have control over.

I think those of us who are straight can extrapolate from our experiences as straight people how sexual orientation is formed, and I'd say for very few of us was it a conscious choice.

[CD]

@Vertigo_One [the reply button isn't there for some reason]

So I ask again, how do you defend gay marriage and then attack polygamous marriage.

I can't speak for NactElf  but I'll just go on the record as saying I have never attacked polygamous or polyandrous marriage.   If 10 women 10 men decide they want to be committed as a family type unit with romantic overtones,  and hold a big ceremony with fluffy unicorns hanging from the ceiling, singing kumbyah and eating cheese twisties for the main course I DON'T CARE.   Same is true if this was 1 muslim man and 7 muslim women.  Or 2 gay men.  Or a bi transgender man, a gay man and an female identifying intersex dominatrix.  So what????  Consenting adults = not our place to stop them.

So what I do care about is that people aren't allowed to do things because of their plumbing, and this is somehow being excused because of the narrow, religious perspective of others.  Even at expense of the narrow, religious perspective of yet more others.  Sometimes shrouded in selective reporting that sounds secular.   Fact is, no one but the bigots think there is anything to the marriage equality issue other than actual equality.  Or anything other to being gay, then just being a person who happens to be gay.   The sky won't fall, the world won't end, and stupid people will still be stupid people, and nice people, will still be nice.  The only difference will be, we won't be discriminating as much which decreases world suck and that is of course, awesome.

Peace out, and now, I will finish my part in this debate right here.

[Holly Chart]

I have a question for Vertigo One as you have succeeded in divulging from the original question. I'd like YOU to answer a simple question...did you choose to be straight? (if in fact you are)

Regardless of all your arguments against gay marriage all your convictions are based on an unproven fact, that being gay is a choice, that the action of having sex with someone of the same sex is a sin but it is not fundamentally a part of who you are. If you didn't choose to be straight which im sure you didn't then how is it that I chose to be gay. Your logic is flawed and you are obviously viewing the argument from a biased and heterocentric perspective where reproduction is meaning and purpose.

I don't think that your judgements from the bible have anything to do with the argument. Christianity is not the only institution of which marriage derives and marriage cannot simply be defined as a monogamous and heterosexual and consensual union before God. That is why in anthropology and other sciences which test human variability we do not have a solid definition of marriage as it is so different in so many cultures. Marriage is not particular to Christianity so why does the Bible and what Jesus said have anything to do with how people live their lives particularly as not everyone in the world is christian. I am sorry to be bold but you VERTIGO ONE are being narrow-minded try putting yourself in somebody else shoes and see why your words and beliefs are so damming. In Nazi Germany' 'Between 1933–45, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals, of whom some 50,000 were officially sentenced.^[1]Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of those sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps. Gay people just like black people have been lynched in the south, In many countries around the world being gay is illegal under punishment of death, there are also many suicides because of the self-hatred that can grow due to not living up to societies unrealistic ideals and bullying. I am not saying that you agree that gay people should be persecuted in such ways but discrimination and beliefs like 'gay people are sinners' 'i just don't think they should get married thats all' do encourage persecution. When you and other people say that gay people should not get married for all your myriad of reasons you are also giving others excuses to do much more terrible things to gay people other than just judge them.  

You choose to be christian, I don't. I don't go around trying to stop you from being a christian even though I see the terrible things which religions have advocated now and in the past because I view you as an individual. ( i believe you chose to be christian maybe you think you were born one i dunno). Gay people didn't start the crusades christianity did, Gay peolpe didn't use religious superiority to colonize and conquer distant lands christianity did, (In many colonialized countries there exists problematic friction between the religious ideals imposed by colonialisation and the traditional cultures already exisiting) Gay people didn;t use the bible to justify slavery Christians did,  So seriously who has the moral authority here cause Christianity's past is a bit sketchy to be honest. I AM in no way saying that you agree with some of christianity's speckled past but historically christianity has changed a great deal the bible isn't fact or complete truth it can be inferred so I would warn you to use the conscience God gave you rather than a book written by emotional, opinionated and imperfect humans. Morality is in the eye of the beholder my friend. Sexuality is a spectrum.

ALSO have you actually read the parts of the bible in which homosexuality is condemned because it is hardly mentioned at all in the bible  and when homosexuality is mentioned often the word sodomy is used which IS NOT the act of gay sex but the act of raping someone in the anus (two very different things-one is consensual the other not). Lesbians are actually only mentioned once by Paul but to be honest Paul was a bit of a dick. He lists ten things that will keep you out of heaven, including homosexuality and being "effeminate." 6:9-10. Watch out slightly feminine but heterosexual guys you ain't going to heaven either. Also Paul is neither Jesus or God he is human and therefore fallible.

Netherlands, Belgium, Canada,Spain,South Africa, Norway,Sweden, Portugal,Iceland and Argentina are all countries in which gay marriage is legal. These are all countries with great economies and many of these countries are exemplar in their protection of human rights. How has gay marriage negatively affected these countries? 

 The right to marriage may not seem like a right to you but how would you feel if you couldn't get married?

ALSO I find it very insulting that homosexual marriage has been compared to incestuous marriage. There are many reasons as to why incest is wrong biologically, socially ect. and actually all over the world incest is an important taboo there is no culture without the incest taboo (although the degree changes). It is important for people to marry outside the family as marriage can often be used as a social tool to create community, forge alliances with people outside the family ect. 

In your argument against gay marriage you have pinpointed a particular people based on a sexual act because you see it as an act intended merely for pleasure without purpose unlike heterosexual sex which is intended for sexual reproduction only? I don't know whether your married or not but im sure if you ever do get married sex is not just going to be for reproduction??? 

SERIOUSLY if i got married to someone of the same sex how in the world would it affect you? 

PS. CD you make some excellent points

[CD]

PS. CD you make some excellent points

Why thank you very much. I just finished your excellent, stirring treatise that I practically jumped for joy reading and just had to reply to even though I said I was done, and then right at the end I get a compliment too.  

*Hey sister go sister hey sister go sister*