Is homosexuality a choice?

Original post by _Eleven_

some just choose to be homosexual because they may feel heterosexual isn't working out for them.

You have to be trolling, you always play devil's advocate in threads like this. You can't help who or what you find attractive and most certainly people don't choose to be attracted to the same sex just because they're tired of being single or if they hate being straight.

Nobody wakes up and decides "oh I like penis/vagina today".

Reply 23

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

I've genuinely never understood why people think it's a choice - whilst things have certainly improved a lot in recent years, there's enough homophobia around that it's not exactly a beneficial option on face value, unless you particularly enjoy discrimination.

Reply 24

Bio 7

Original post by Axiomasher

Assuming your story is true (and I don't) could it not be that these are girls who are in fact lesbian that have tried to conform to heterosexual sexual behaviour but found it impossible or unsatisfactory because of their actual sexuality?

Or perhaps they are Bisexual and have given up with men.

Reply 25

Original post by Bio 7

Or perhaps they are Bisexual and have given up with men.

Also a reasonable possibility.

Reply 26

Napp

22

Original post by Axiomasher

Do people choose to be straight?

Being straight is a biological imperative, homosexuality would seem to go against our raison detre.

Reply 27

Original post by Napp

Being straight is a biological imperative, homosexuality would seem to go against our raison detre.

Gay people are a product of nature just as straight people are. Unless you are a religious person evolutionary processes in nature do not actually occur with 'intention' (even if superficially it looks like that) hence Dawkin's deliberate decision to entitle one of his books 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Blind because nature isn't 'looking at' what it is doing

Reply 28

shadowdweller

Volunteer Section Leader

Original post by Napp

Being straight is a biological imperative, homosexuality would seem to go against our raison detre.

That's not the same as either being a choice though, surely?

Reply 29

Napp

22

Original post by Axiomasher

Gay people are a product of nature just as straight people are. Unless you are a religious person evolutionary processes in nature do not actually occur with 'intention' (even if superficially it looks like that) hence Dawkin's deliberate decision to entitle one of his books 'The Blind Watchmaker'. Blind because nature isn't 'looking at' what it is doing

That still doesnt address the problem that biologically speaking it makes no particular sense.
I am not a religious person, now. I just recognise that it is in all species interest to pass on their genetics and if you're gay that is simply impossible.

Reply 30

_Fergo

19

Original post by Napp

That still doesnt address the problem that biologically speaking it makes no particular sense.
I am not a religious person, now. I just recognise that it is in all species interest to pass on their genetics and if you're gay that is simply impossible.

The fact that it exists in animals easily refutes this theory.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

Original post by Napp

That still doesnt address the problem that biologically speaking it makes no particular sense.
I am not a religious person, now. I just recognise that it is in all species interest to pass on their genetics and if you're gay that is simply impossible.

I don't mean to ask this unkindly but have you done any reading in evolutionary theory? The idea of 'species interest' is not generally accepted in the scholarly community and it is genes themselves which are regarded as the essential fulcrum of selective pressure (not even the individual). Moreover, as I have indicated in my previous post, nature just does what nature does, it is not acting intentionally, it just superficially appears to be doing so. Genes aren't possessed of little minds hatching plans, Evolution is a 'blind' mechanical process. Finally, nature's processes are complex, subject to all kinds of environmental forces and not entirely consistent in their outcomes. This inconsistency of outcome can only be interpreted as 'success' or 'failure' if you think nature is trying to do a thing, which at bottom, it just isn't. Gay people are just as legitimate as heterosexual people. Nature is not 'upset' as creating a person that can't easily reproduce due to their sexual orientation, nor should we be.

Reply 32

Napp

22

Original post by Axiomasher

I don't mean to ask this unkindly but have you done any reading in evolutionary theory? The idea of 'species interest' is not generally accepted in the scholarly community and it is genes themselves which are regarded as the essential fulcrum of selective pressure (not even the individual). Moreover, as I have indicated in my previous post, nature just does what nature does, it is not acting intentionally, it just superficially appears to be doing so. Genes aren't possessed of little minds hatching plans, Evolution is a 'blind' mechanical process. Finally, nature's processes are complex, subject to all kinds of environmental forces and not entirely consistent in their outcomes. This inconsistency of outcome can only be interpreted as 'success' or 'failure' if you think nature is trying to do a thing, which at bottom, it just isn't. Gay people are just as legitimate as heterosexual people. Nature is not 'upset' as creating a person that can't easily reproduce due to their sexual orientation, nor should we be.

Nope, social scientist is me :biggrin:

I should point out i didnt mean to infer anything untoward towards gays or that they are somehow illegitimate - i was simply saying in a basic sense it does,in ones view, seem to buck the general reason for being.

Original post by _Fergo

The fact that it exists in animals easily refutes this theory.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What theory? All i was saying is that it goes against the base need to pass on your genetics.
Out of interest are there actually any instances of homosexuality on animals as opposed to opportunistic bisexual instances?

Reply 33

Anon7654

10

I am not gay but I know for a fact that I never chose to be straight. Wouldn't the same be true for gay people?

Reply 34

_Fergo

19

Original post by Napp

What theory? All i was saying is that it goes against the base need to pass on your genetics.
Out of interest are there actually any instances of homosexuality on animals as opposed to opportunistic bisexual instances?

Theory = theorising, doesn't have to be a scientific theory. The very 'base' of passing ones genetics is not proven in itself, as otherwise infertile couples would be 'unnatural' too.

The dictum is that they engage in homosexual acts but it's not always clear if that is exclusive. There have been some instances but not sure it qualifies as evidence;

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/24/nyregion/new-love-breaks-up-a-6year-relationship-at-the-zoo.html

They rejected females, but still took care of off-spring. Several explanations have been given as to the need of homosexuality - to take better care of existing off-spring [Prof. Marelen Zuk], which also contributes to the gene pool, as well as to to make stronger alliance between otherwise hostile animals (i.e too male lions) [Prof. Janet Mann]

Still, the point is that homosexuality is not a mere choice within human capacity, otherwise it wouldn't exist in animals. Indeed, it wouldn't have existed for as long as mankind either.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 35