Saying that to be Gay is a Choice is Ignorant and Hateful
Most gay people, like most people, can take a joke and I at least have no problem laughing at gay related humour presented on television. I don't have particular problem with the colloquial use of the term gay or fag, even though it can be frustrating, it isn't what I would call prejudice or hate.
The worst thing you can say to a gay, asexual or trans person is that they chose to feel that way, that they chose to be gay or trans or whatever.
It is as offensive as saying a woman isn't as capable as a man, or a black person can never be as smart as a white person. It is suggesting gay people are somehow weird or crazy for choosing to be gay in a country that does not accept gay people for who they are. To choose to be gay in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, North Korea, the South of the USA or Uganda would make you crazy, you'd have to be insane to choose to be gay when you know you're life as it risk for doing so, the threat of torture and attack.
It illustrates not only the belief that gay people are somehow weird, strange or unnatural, but demonstrates a great ignorance. This claim that being gay is a choice is not substantiated with evidence, the religious right, the conservatives, the fanatics and bigots alike claim homosexuality or transsexualism is a choice and as usual this claim goes unsubstantiated. Well science as always is prepared to look into this and have researched specifically the XQ28 chromosome, whilst not the only gene related to homosexuality in men it has been a great milestone in research. Scientists may not be set that it is entirely genetic, though have clearly explained the role of genetics, even as research goes and homosexuality in women is researched too. To say it is a choose, without evidence, is hateful and ignorant of the science, even though the science isn't as rigorous as other research, I for one trust a scientist more than a religious quack or hateful bigot. Science a side just ask yourself when you chose to be straight, "you know what I've decided I really like vagina after much deliberation and argument." Don't remember ever saying that?
It is like racism, like sexism, like ableism. A view that they are somehow separate or lesser, because they are not like yourself and you allow your own misconceptions and ignorance to support your view of that group.
I for one happy to be on the side of science, the side of humanists, Quakers, good Christians and good Muslims, good people, people who use their reason.
EDIT 17/04/2015: After a discussion with RandZul'Zorander I have changed my mind and approach to this, Rand is right to point out that ""it doesn't matter if it was a choice, there still is no reason to treat homosexuals with prejudice or discrimination."" I agreed with this at the time, however my line of thinking an adamant and unscientific one, I was aggressively suggesting that the belief that being gay is a choice amongst gay people is wrong, which I had no evidence to support. Though I would like to note a correlation between level of education and a belief in the genetic explanation for homosexuality. Though I agree with Rand that the research into why homosexuality exists needs to continue and absolute statements and being overly adamant is not appropriate nor reasonable. I would like to thank Rand for being more reasonable than I, and taking the time to talk to me.
If you believe being gay is a choice full stop, you are simply wrong, and if you like me say that those who claim to 'choose to be gay' are wrong then you had better have the evidence to support your claim. In the end your opinion is irrelevant, the scientific, verifiable and peer-reviewed evidence does not suggest it is a choice, it points to genetic and environmental factors and the research carries on. A commentor suggested I am not a reliable source, this person quite frankly is a bit stupid on this, as I am not a source and never claimed to be, this is purely an opinion piece. I do however point to a peer-reviewed paper later on in this thread.
Any reasonable person would trust the scientists more so than the myself or the far-right religious.
The worst thing you can say to a gay, asexual or trans person is that they chose to feel that way, that they chose to be gay or trans or whatever.
It is as offensive as saying a woman isn't as capable as a man, or a black person can never be as smart as a white person. It is suggesting gay people are somehow weird or crazy for choosing to be gay in a country that does not accept gay people for who they are. To choose to be gay in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, North Korea, the South of the USA or Uganda would make you crazy, you'd have to be insane to choose to be gay when you know you're life as it risk for doing so, the threat of torture and attack.
It illustrates not only the belief that gay people are somehow weird, strange or unnatural, but demonstrates a great ignorance. This claim that being gay is a choice is not substantiated with evidence, the religious right, the conservatives, the fanatics and bigots alike claim homosexuality or transsexualism is a choice and as usual this claim goes unsubstantiated. Well science as always is prepared to look into this and have researched specifically the XQ28 chromosome, whilst not the only gene related to homosexuality in men it has been a great milestone in research. Scientists may not be set that it is entirely genetic, though have clearly explained the role of genetics, even as research goes and homosexuality in women is researched too. To say it is a choose, without evidence, is hateful and ignorant of the science, even though the science isn't as rigorous as other research, I for one trust a scientist more than a religious quack or hateful bigot. Science a side just ask yourself when you chose to be straight, "you know what I've decided I really like vagina after much deliberation and argument." Don't remember ever saying that?
It is like racism, like sexism, like ableism. A view that they are somehow separate or lesser, because they are not like yourself and you allow your own misconceptions and ignorance to support your view of that group.
I for one happy to be on the side of science, the side of humanists, Quakers, good Christians and good Muslims, good people, people who use their reason.
EDIT 17/04/2015: After a discussion with RandZul'Zorander I have changed my mind and approach to this, Rand is right to point out that ""it doesn't matter if it was a choice, there still is no reason to treat homosexuals with prejudice or discrimination."" I agreed with this at the time, however my line of thinking an adamant and unscientific one, I was aggressively suggesting that the belief that being gay is a choice amongst gay people is wrong, which I had no evidence to support. Though I would like to note a correlation between level of education and a belief in the genetic explanation for homosexuality. Though I agree with Rand that the research into why homosexuality exists needs to continue and absolute statements and being overly adamant is not appropriate nor reasonable. I would like to thank Rand for being more reasonable than I, and taking the time to talk to me.
If you believe being gay is a choice full stop, you are simply wrong, and if you like me say that those who claim to 'choose to be gay' are wrong then you had better have the evidence to support your claim. In the end your opinion is irrelevant, the scientific, verifiable and peer-reviewed evidence does not suggest it is a choice, it points to genetic and environmental factors and the research carries on. A commentor suggested I am not a reliable source, this person quite frankly is a bit stupid on this, as I am not a source and never claimed to be, this is purely an opinion piece. I do however point to a peer-reviewed paper later on in this thread.
Any reasonable person would trust the scientists more so than the myself or the far-right religious.
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ilem
I've been saying this for ages but it doesn't matter if it's innate or a completely conscious choice. It's still an equally valid sexuality either way.
I think it does matter, to be told that I have chosen to be persecuted because I chose to be gay is victim blaming. It is like blaming a rape victim for dressing 'provocatively' or for being so beautiful as to not be accompanied by a man, or that the woman should cover up to prevent tempting a man. Killing, torturing and general prejudice against gay people is not the fault of gay people and for anybody to suggest it is a choice is shifting the blame on the person themselves. Science matters and science rejects the claim that being gay is a choice.
this should be a Religion sticky (srs)
Original post by KrisCussans
I think it does matter, to be told that I have chosen to be persecuted because I chose to be gay is victim blaming. It is like blaming a rape victim for dressing 'provocatively' or for being so beautiful as to not be accompanied by a man, or that the woman should cover up to prevent tempting a man. Killing, torturing and general prejudice against gay people is not the fault of gay people and for anybody to suggest it is a choice is shifting the blame on the person themselves. Science matters and science rejects the claim that being gay is a choice.
I think his point was more along the lines of "it doesn't matter if it was a choice, there still is no reason to treat homosexuals with prejudice or discrimination."
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I think his point was more along the lines of "it doesn't matter if it was a choice, there still is no reason to treat homosexuals with prejudice or discrimination."
I understood his point. Though I would contend the importance of it being a choice, as I feel that aspect of the debate is the most contentious thing I hear.
Original post by KrisCussans
I understood his point. Though I would contend the importance of it being a choice, as I feel that aspect of the debate is the most contentious thing I hear.
That's more focusing on an inaccuracy of an argument rather than contending that somehow sexual orientation being a choice has moral significance. Otherwise you seem to be implying that if it were a choice that somehow homosexuals would therefore be deserving of lesser treatment.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
That's more focusing on an inaccuracy of an argument rather than contending that somehow sexual orientation being a choice has moral significance. Otherwise you seem to be implying that if it were a choice that somehow homosexuals would therefore be deserving of lesser treatment.
Why deal with hypotheticals? Why assume what the anti-science movement says to be true as true? I care for reality, for science, the research suggest it is not a choice, there is no evidence to support that it is, no faith that it is a choice or 'what if it were' is going to make the claim any less disgusting. I am contending the claim that it is a choice as prejudicial, even if you support LGBT rights, as many I have spoken to do, the very same who support those rights still have faith that it is a choice. They still hold on to some of that prejudice, despite recognising LGBT people as human, they are still choosing to be persecuted. Hopefully this clarifies my anger with the illiteracy amongst some.
Original post by KrisCussans
Why deal with hypotheticals? Why assume what the anti-science movement says to be true as true?
I care for reality, for science, the research suggest it is not a choice, there is no evidence to support that it is, no faith that it is a choice or 'what if it were' is going to make the claim any less disgusting. I am contending the claim that it is a choice as prejudicial, even if you support LGBT rights, as many I have spoken to do, the very same who support those rights still have faith that it is a choice. They still hold on to some of that prejudice, despite recognising LGBT people as human, they are still choosing to be persecuted. Hopefully this clarifies my anger with the illiteracy amongst some.
This is an interesting position... so LGBT people who do say they chose their sexuality are being prejudicial? And even if they are fighting or supporting LGBT rights they are 'choosing to be persecuted'?
With regards to illiteracy of research: Again it is different to argue an inaccurate claim (ie that homosexuality is a choice) vs argue against a logical inconsistency (ie that even if it were a choice it would still be deserving of equal status).
Original post by KrisCussans
I think it does matter, to be told that I have chosen to be persecuted because I chose to be gay is victim blaming. It is like blaming a rape victim for dressing 'provocatively' or for being so beautiful as to not be accompanied by a man, or that the woman should cover up to prevent tempting a man. Killing, torturing and general prejudice against gay people is not the fault of gay people and for anybody to suggest it is a choice is shifting the blame on the person themselves. Science matters and science rejects the claim that being gay is a choice.
It's not what I meant. The way I see it, justifying homosexuality with 'it's a choice' isn't all that good because it assumes people wouldn't/shouldn't be gay otherwise. There shouldn't be a need to justify anything here, being homosexual is fine and acceptable regardless of whether it's a choice or not.
Original post by ilem
It's not what I meant. The way I see it, justifying homosexuality with 'it's a choice' isn't all that good because it assumes people wouldn't/shouldn't be gay otherwise. There shouldn't be a need to justify anything here, being homosexual is fine and acceptable regardless of whether it's a choice or not.
..are you missing a "not" in the second sentence?
Original post by ilem
It's not what I meant. The way I see it, justifying homosexuality with 'it's a choice' isn't all that good because it assumes people wouldn't/shouldn't be gay otherwise. There shouldn't be a need to justify anything here, being homosexual is fine and acceptable regardless of whether it's a choice or not.
In that case I apologise for misunderstanding you here.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
When you're debating there a multiple ways to disprove a position. One of which is through hypotheticals. To take on their assumptions and prove that their conclusions do not follow or are inconsistent with their other values also discredits their argument.
This is an interesting position... so LGBT people who do say they chose their sexuality are being prejudicial? And even if they are fighting or supporting LGBT rights they are 'choosing to be persecuted'?
With regards to illiteracy of research: Again it is different to argue an inaccurate claim (ie that homosexuality is a choice) vs argue against a logical inconsistency (ie that even if it were a choice it would still be deserving of equal status).
This is an interesting position... so LGBT people who do say they chose their sexuality are being prejudicial? And even if they are fighting or supporting LGBT rights they are 'choosing to be persecuted'?
With regards to illiteracy of research: Again it is different to argue an inaccurate claim (ie that homosexuality is a choice) vs argue against a logical inconsistency (ie that even if it were a choice it would still be deserving of equal status).
I can see the value in arguing with their hypotheicals, trying to disprove them, but I feel that it is giving credit to people simply trying to shift the burden of proof for a claim that they have made.
I think it is a mixture of prejudice and ignorance, the LGBT people who think that they chose to be gay may have grown up in an environment where it is a popular belief that being gay is a choice.
"ie that even if it were a choice it would still be deserving of equal status" Well absolutely, though I wouldn't want to give credence to the notion it was a choice, without them providing any scientific evidence to support this claim.
There is a difference though between the feeling of being gay and gay actions. You can choose to have sex, but you don't choose the attraction. It would be awful to make someone suppress these feels, or give somebody the illusion that they can change their mind and therefore change these feelings, it would be like blaming them for having those feelings as the view is that those feelings are a choice.
What is ignorant and hateful is the combination of the beliefs that 1) being gay is a choice, and 2) being gay is evil.
That's the classic medieval view of "sin" as "a wilful, voluntary decision to do evil", with "evil" defined according to ignorant bigots as transgressing their dogmatic moral code.
I'd describe such attitudes as a form of malevolent stupidity, and they do indeed speak volumes about the character of a person if such attitudes then lead them to go on and persecute homosexuals.
That's the classic medieval view of "sin" as "a wilful, voluntary decision to do evil", with "evil" defined according to ignorant bigots as transgressing their dogmatic moral code.
I'd describe such attitudes as a form of malevolent stupidity, and they do indeed speak volumes about the character of a person if such attitudes then lead them to go on and persecute homosexuals.
Original post by KrisCussans
I think it does matter, to be told that I have chosen to be persecuted because I chose to be gay is victim blaming. It is like blaming a rape victim for dressing 'provocatively' or for being so beautiful as to not be accompanied by a man, or that the woman should cover up to prevent tempting a man. Killing, torturing and general prejudice against gay people is not the fault of gay people and for anybody to suggest it is a choice is shifting the blame on the person themselves. Science matters and science rejects the claim that being gay is a choice.
It's ignorant, but doesn't imply hate.
As others have said, if it was a choice(it's not) then it wouldn't change anything. Regardless of whether it is a choice, people who are gay shouldn't be discriminated against.
Original post by KrisCussans
I can see the value in arguing with their hypotheicals, trying to disprove them, but I feel that it is giving credit to people simply trying to shift the burden of proof for a claim that they have made.
General it is the LGBT advocates creating the hypothetical where someone has chosen to be gay. And it isn't giving credit to their position as it is explicitly hypothetical.
I think it is a mixture of prejudice and ignorance, the LGBT people who think that they chose to be gay may have grown up in an environment where it is a popular belief that being gay is a choice.
So you would assert that their belief that they chose their sexuality is them being prejudiced against themselves?
Sure they may be ignorant of the research or perhaps they are not and just genuinely feel that they have chosen. Note I am addressing people who believe that they have chosen for themselves and not those who are assuming for others.
"ie that even if it were a choice it would still be deserving of equal status" Well absolutely, though I wouldn't want to give credence to the notion it was a choice, without them providing any scientific evidence to support this claim.
That is why it is an 'even if' and is often done at the same time as providing evidence of it not being a choice.
There is a difference though between the feeling of being gay and gay actions. You can choose to have sex, but you don't choose the attraction. It would be awful to make someone suppress these feels, or give somebody the illusion that they can change their mind and therefore change these feelings, it would be like blaming them for having those feelings as the view is that those feelings are a choice.
I agree that there is a difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior but there are those who do strongly advocate and identify with sexual fluidity (not the same as bisexuality). Even the APA recognizes there are are some who do experience at least some feeling of choice.http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx
However recognizing this is not the same as saying that they are 'at fault' or that they can change their orientation.
EDIT: my point with the last bit being that we can still respect the few who do feel they have some choice in their orientation and argue against such discrimination, nor do I think that just because they think they had 'choice' does it mean they are self-prejudiced or being oppressive.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Mequa
What is ignorant and hateful is the combination of the beliefs that 1) being gay is a choice, and 2) being gay is evil.
That's the classic medieval view of "sin" as "a wilful, voluntary decision to do evil", with "evil" defined according to ignorant bigots as transgressing their dogmatic moral code.
I'd describe such attitudes as a form of malevolent stupidity, and they do indeed speak volumes about the character of a person if such attitudes then lead them to go on and persecute homosexuals.
That's the classic medieval view of "sin" as "a wilful, voluntary decision to do evil", with "evil" defined according to ignorant bigots as transgressing their dogmatic moral code.
I'd describe such attitudes as a form of malevolent stupidity, and they do indeed speak volumes about the character of a person if such attitudes then lead them to go on and persecute homosexuals.
Well that's broadly true for everyone, not just "ignorant bigots". Nobody practically isolates a moral code to themselves, if they did it wouldn't in any meaningful sense be a moral code.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2813
Last reply 15 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 17 minutes ago
SIP civil service 2024 threadLast reply 17 minutes ago
AQA GCSE French Speaking Higher (8658/SH) [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 1 week ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
