The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 260
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Yes there is. The APA acknowledges that one does not choose their sexual orientation. Why? Because they have done the research. Research shows that sexual orientation is observable and done developing at around age 6. Even considering social factors it has been concluded that there is no choosing.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


Your link highlights a case for the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. I can just as easily produce a link with research showing it is a choice.

So I ask again, how is this conclusive?
Original post by konvictz0007
Your link highlights a case for the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. I can just as easily produce a link with research showing it is a choice.

So I ask again, how is this conclusive?


Show me a link from a credible source that homosexuality is a choice. The APA's finding are scientifically backed by tons of research thereby making their position reasonable and can be considered fact as there is no counter evidence.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Yes there is. The APA acknowledges that one does not choose their sexual orientation. Why? Because they have done the research. Research shows that sexual orientation is observable and done developing at around age 6. Even considering social factors it has been concluded that there is no choosing *.

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx


* in most cases

Original post by konvictz0007
Your link highlights a case for the notion that homosexuality is not a choice. I can just as easily produce a link with research showing it is a choice.

So I ask again, how is this conclusive?

It isn't conclusive. But neither can you say it is a choice - the real answer is that it's complicated and that any wild assertions either way have no completely solid basis to go on (saying it is 100% a choice is particularly idiotic though).

If you're genuinely interested in learning about this, you might find this discussion on reddit interesting - http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s299l/a_question_about_sexuality/?sort=top

Specifically:
The current consensus is that on a biological level homosexuality is like having the genes for height, having requirements in the environment for the gene to be expressed (nutrition etc. in the case of height).
You can be biologically susceptible to being homosexual in the same way you can be susceptible to being tall, it may not necessarily manifest itself, though the environmental cues for it's manifestation are unknown.

There's definitely something more complicated happening than a specific gene being active in homosexual individuals.
There are many theories on why someone develops a homosexual orientation. Popular theories include non-gender conforming activities during childhood, societal and familial pressures, and fraternal birth order.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 263
Original post by konvictz0007
No I am sorry, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest it is not a choice. Please try again, and please cite some sources. Of course I am not suggesting it is a choice or it is not which is why I have done the rational thing and have examined both cases.

You are saying you do not know nor can explain the cause of homosexuality but you think you can conclusively say it is not choice?


So, heterosexuality is a choice too following your logic - can you personally really stand behind that statement?
And what is the cause of heterosexuality then? The constant display of it in our society? The "easier" choice?
Admittedly, nobody will be able to tell you what the root of sexuality is as it is highly complex, but it may be different for everyone. There's a interesting work on sexual fluidity by Lisa Diamond if you're really interested.
I think you fogot beastiality, necrophilia etc.

I love a "progressive society".
Reply 265
No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.
Original post by konvictz0007
No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.


Can you really? You can make yourself exclusively attractive to males? Somehow I don't believe you. :rolleyes: The APA has also stated that one cannot change their sexual orientation. :colonhash: Please do your research.
Original post by konvictz0007
No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.

You almost got me to laugh at this. You are presenting a hypothetical anecdote as some kind of 'proof'? I mean, you couldn't even find a real story to tell here?

Man, this is gold. Hypothetical anecdotes - a new low in logical reasoning.

Your hypothetical anecdote (*snicker*) states that there exists one person for whom homosexuality is a choice.
Fine. There probably does exist some person somewhere with a completely malleable sexuality. This does not change that it is accepted that the majority of people have no conscious choice over their sexuality.

Original post by RandZul'Zorander
The APA has also stated that one cannot change their sexual orientation. :colonhash: Please do your research.

No they did not. Please be more careful with reading your sources, your universal quantifiers are what is giving 'konvictz0007' a false sense of 'scoring some points'. If he actually had a real counter example (as opposed to the pathetic facsimile presented) he would have successfully negated your point. As it is, his argument has no bearing on the actual quote from the linked site:

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."

Edit:

My response to RandZul also applies to you.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 268
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Can you really? You can make yourself exclusively attractive to males? Somehow I don't believe you. :rolleyes: The APA has also stated that one cannot change their sexual orientation. :colonhash: Please do your research.


I don't agree with the OP and certainly do not want to nor believe that he could put a switch on his orientation, but I do think that sometimes you can change your sexual orientation in the sense that you fall in love with a person that might just be male/female. Maybe I'm expressing myself poorly, but we are so quick to label sexual orientation. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of sexual fluidity, but then I can see how others wouldn't. I think the Kinsey scale kind of covers that though.
To those who are saying it is a choice - when exactly did you choose to be straight?
Point proven.
if your saying homosexuality is a choice... did you sit down one day and choose to be straight?

Its ridiculous as a grown bisexual i dont sit there and decide one day im going to like men and the next women, if i find someone i like i like them it doesn't matter on the gender.
Original post by Chrosson

No they did not. Please be more careful with reading your sources, your universal quantifiers are what is giving 'konvictz0007' a false sense of 'scoring some points'. If he actually had a real counter example (as opposed to the pathetic facsimile presented) he would have successfully negated your point. As it is, his argument has no bearing on the actual quote from the linked site:

"Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation."


The problem is that there is no counter-example that I have ever found. The APA has made it clear that there is really no choice about sexual orientation. They need to be somewhat conservative but so far no research has shown any choice in the matter. The choice that some people have maybe would be bisexuals, and for some reason many people believe that a bisexual individual who enters a relationship with someone of the same sex makes them homosexual....if you subscribe to that then they are in fact 'choosing' their sexuality. However that wouldn't make sense. So I see little to no point in acknowledging any form of choice on the subject. There has been no credible evidence to suggest that it even could be, whereas there is overwhelming evidence saying that it is not.

Also the APA did say that trying to change one's sexual orientation has no evidence to show it works. Please don't tell me to read a source that I have read many many times. I know exactly what it says.

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.


Not shown to be effective. Meaning there is no evidence to say that one can change their sexual orientation.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by perlsh
I don't agree with the OP and certainly do not want to nor believe that he could put a switch on his orientation, but I do think that sometimes you can change your sexual orientation in the sense that you fall in love with a person that might just be male/female. Maybe I'm expressing myself poorly, but we are so quick to label sexual orientation. I'm much more comfortable with the idea of sexual fluidity, but then I can see how others wouldn't. I think the Kinsey scale kind of covers that though.


I think the idea of sexual fluidity is a wonderful one. I just have yet to see any evidence for such a theory. I am merely going by what the evidence shows us so far. As far as the Kinsey scale goes....it doesn't show anything about fluidity unfortunately. The Kinsey scale measures one's past sexual endeavors. So it is more a measure of sexuality than sexual orientation. All it shows it that most people (if not all) don't seem to fit the binary of homosexual and heterosexual. Like most binaries these are extremes and misleading. Rather it suggests that people can have relatively neutral preferences, mildly homosexual/heterosexual, mostly homosexual/heterosexual, or purely homosexual/heterosexual. I greatly admire the Kinsey study because of how well constructed and what it shows about the binaries society imposes. But like I said it does not support sexual fluidity unfortunately.
Reply 273
Original post by konvictz0007
No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.


Then you are unique, and I encourage you to submit yourself to a good neuropsychologist for the purposes of research.

Bisexuals can choose to pursue relationships with either, or both, sexes because they are attracted to both sexes.
Reply 274
Original post by konvictz0007

then why punish and criminalise paedophiles as they also have no choice?

Two siblings


Personally, I agree with you that if a person in their mind has an attraction in one of these categories, that attraction itself is not wrong if they can't help it. However, acting on these attractions is the thing which should not be allowed because a) a child cannot consent to a sexual act b) a child of siblings could suffer due to genetic problems. Of course, the idea of the attractions seems awful to me because of how my mind works, but logically I can't say that it's wrong unless the person acts on them. Gay sex between two consenting adults doesn't impinge on either of the person's rights so doesn't meet these criteria.

Original post by konvictz0007
we must investigate that claim and examine what it means for humanity


Scientists are constantly examining possible 'causes' of different types of sexual attraction. They just haven't found anything conclusive yet.

Original post by konvictz0007
So because we want to control the population does that mean we should abandon research and development in preventing cancer and other forms of life threatening illnesses? By that logic we can say we should have more illegal wars as it will bring down the mortality levels and help control population?


Life threatening illnesses and war cause a lot of pain and suffering for many people. That is why I personally feel they should be researched/prevented where possible. The continuation of the human race however is not about pain and suffering (particularly not in this case... if humans simply died out from not reproducing it would be much less painful than the sun engulfing the earth or everyone starving or something). Personally I'm not that worried about continuation of humans, we are just another species to me, we will eventually be gone and that's that. But anyway I can't see homosexuality ever causing that issue... if we somehow reached a point where everyone was gay, which again I can't see happening, people would either engage in the unpleasant act of heterosexual sex every now and then purely to reproduce or people would use IVF etc.

xxx
You had a good argument until you quoted from Wikipedia... that is not a reliable source what so ever and destroys your argument as quite often when Wikipedia is researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated, if not simply wrong.
Original post by konvictz0007
No I argued we cannot conclusively establish weather it is a choice or not and the previous poster agrees with this. Since you believe homosexuality is strictly not a choice I can provide a counter example. I am currently heterosexual but I can at this very moment choose to be homosexual such that I am only sexually attracted to other males. Hence the reason you see many people 'changing' their sexual orientation, some go from bisexual to homosexual.


I'm just going to point out 2 things.

1. I am still waiting for your link to a credible counter example.

2. It is completely irrelevant whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not. That is not grounds to discriminate. Unless you can show that homosexuality inherently is 'bad' or 'harms' someone, or something, then you have no logical justification for discriminating that class of individuals.
Reply 277
I don't think you got my point.

I didn't say it was a "choice" and "change" is probably the wrong term, but what happens if you fall in love/are attracted to someone that contradicts your sexual orientation, that you've labeled yourself with? Obviously it's not a conscious decision, so it's not a choice, but to some degree it is a change in the sense that it opposes your self-claimed sexual orientation. So it kind of is a change, but one that you and society inflicted because most of the time use binary sexuality to describe themselves and when they don't it's still frowned upon.

Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I think the idea of sexual fluidity is a wonderful one. I just have yet to see any evidence for such a theory. I am merely going by what the evidence shows us so far. As far as the Kinsey scale goes....it doesn't show anything about fluidity unfortunately. The Kinsey scale measures one's past sexual endeavors. So it is more a measure of sexuality than sexual orientation. All it shows it that most people (if not all) don't seem to fit the binary of homosexual and heterosexual. Like most binaries these are extremes and misleading. Rather it suggests that people can have relatively neutral preferences, mildly homosexual/heterosexual, mostly homosexual/heterosexual, or purely homosexual/heterosexual. I greatly admire the Kinsey study because of how well constructed and what it shows about the binaries society imposes. But like I said it does not support sexual fluidity unfortunately.


Lisa Diamond conducted a study following 100 women over a period of 10 years in an attempt to research sexual fluidity, while she admits that it's not fully representative I still find it interesting. She does concentrate on women though and it seems that she thinks that sexual fluidity is something that is mostly found in women for whatever reason that may be.
Original post by perlsh
I don't think you got my point.

I didn't say it was a "choice" and "change" is probably the wrong term, but what happens if you fall in love/are attracted to someone that contradicts your sexual orientation, that you've labeled yourself with? Obviously it's not a conscious decision, so it's not a choice, but to some degree it is a change in the sense that it opposes your self-claimed sexual orientation. So it kind of is a change, but one that you and society inflicted because most of the time use binary sexuality to describe themselves and when they don't it's still frowned upon.


I know someone in a situation pretty similar to what you have said...but I'm not sure that (and I think they would agree) that it....changes their sexual orientation...I would say that people are capable of forming romantic relations outside their sexual orientation...I mean whom you engage in relationships with is entirely a choice. Being sexually attracted to the person doesn't have to be a factor, nor does an innate desire to want that particular sex...it could just be that the person likes the person enough to try being romantic...I'm not sure how that has any bearing on sexual orientation however...it is an interesting thing though...



Lisa Diamond conducted a study following 100 women over a period of 10 years in an attempt to research sexual fluidity, while she admits that it's not fully representative I still find it interesting. She does concentrate on women though and it seems that she thinks that sexual fluidity is something that is mostly found in women for whatever reason that may be.


Sounds like an interesting study...do you have a link or anything that I could read up on it? The concentration on women could be for any number of reasons....it could be because most studies in the past have focused on gay males, it could be because there seems to be more of an open mindedness about exploring sexuality among females...but it definitely sounds interesting...
Reply 279
I think it is probably a meaningless question to argue whether 'it' is a choice or 'natural'.

It's a bit like free will vs determinism.

It's probably a matter of perspective.

I say 'it' because I do not believe that homosexuality is a 'thing' beyond the fact that we call it a 'thing'.

Latest