Why do people commonly cite the unchosen nature of homosexuality in its defence?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Birkenhead
The problem is it doesn't really engage with it at all. Always make sure you read the OP before posting 
It engages with the title perfectly, and I have nothing to add to what you have said in the OP.
Original post by ilem
Definitely not. I find it utterly irrelevant whether sexual orientation stems from choice or genetics; people should have the liberty to have consensual relationships with whatever adults they want to.
Agreed, this is why this comment often included by liberal minded people has always stumped me.
Original post by anarchism101
Personally I view it as a preference, in the same way you have a favourite colour or like particular foods; these are by no means genetic or inherent, but it would seem odd to refer to this as a 'choice'.
I appreciate that I'm speaking as a straight guy, and fair enough, it made a lot of sense for gay people to promote the 'born this way' defence when they were struggling for some form of acceptance, but I feel in the long run it has created the view that being gay is something bad, rather than an equally valid orientation.
I appreciate that I'm speaking as a straight guy, and fair enough, it made a lot of sense for gay people to promote the 'born this way' defence when they were struggling for some form of acceptance, but I feel in the long run it has created the view that being gay is something bad, rather than an equally valid orientation.
Yes, I get a sense of that too. It's like they were saying they had no choice in the matter so they aren't to blame.
Original post by Birkenhead
And yet we've probably all at some point said or nodded in agreement with someone saying 'It's not as if it's a choice'...why?
I've always kind of cringed at the choice argument, but it's the best way to argue with people who think homosexuality is an immoral decision - they probably won't care that it doesn't effect them, so saying it's not a choice calls their idea of morality into question.
Yes.
I mean why would you choose to be gay in the first place?
Its like choosing to be poor or choosing to be disadvantaged
Bisexuality is another issue that puzzles me
I mean why would you choose to be gay in the first place?
Its like choosing to be poor or choosing to be disadvantaged
Bisexuality is another issue that puzzles me
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Birkenhead
Surely the point is that if homosexuals are born with these desires, whatever you might think of them, it is unfair to call them immoral for satisfying them when they never chose to have them. This is why the 'they never chose it' argument always seems to me to be catering to homophobes who think the acts are wrong.
Surely the point is that if homosexuals are born with these desires, whatever you might think of them, it is unfair to call them immoral for satisfying them when they never chose to have them. This is why the 'they never chose it' argument always seems to me to be catering to homophobes who think the acts are wrong.
Didn't not reply in agreement straightaway as wanted to think about it. In any case feel like that's the homophobes problem NOT the homosexuals
Original post by cambio wechsel
If it were a choice, I'd choose it. Honestly I feel cheated out of it - slim, fashion conscious, fastidious in my habits - and have throughout my adult life been given reason to suppose that I'd be quite the popular boy.
I don't understand how you link those traits with your sexuality, besides in some kind of adherence to the gay stereotype which has no remotely inherent link to homosexuality itself.
I find the question strange because, assuming one could pick their sexuality, then they could presumably pick whom they were attracted to as well, which, to me, is a totally nonsensical concept. That said, to answer the question, no - it wouldn't change my views. People should have the right to be with whomever they like. I just find the idea of being able to pick sexuality kind of ridiculous.
Original post by Birkenhead
Whenever homosexuality is included in debate it is invariably raised that it isn't a 'choice', as if that should act as a defence for it and a reason to be accepting of it. It's as if people are suggesting that if people had a choice of sexuality and chose to be gay they would somehow be more deserving of rebuke than if it were an unchosen and unchangeable part of their nature. I find it strange that the unchosen nature of homosexuality should always be included as a supporting reason to tolerate it.
I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this.
I would be interested to hear what others have to say about this.
As soon as I read the thread title I decided was going to reply with exactly this commentary. It's nice to know that I don't have to.
My view of homosexuality will stay the same as it is now.
Being a choice wouldn't change my views on it. Two consenting adults, no harm to anyone else, etc. Homophobia would be just as stupid and irrational as it is now, as it would be opposing freedom of choice to do something which affects no one outside the people directly involved in it.
Of course, it is not a choice.
Of course, it is not a choice.
I think it's used so often because sometimes it's hard to argue anything else unless you get really deep into a debate. There used to be quite often debates about homosexuality on TSR where we would get really into the nitty-gritty of arguments to do with harm, and consent, and psychology and biology and reproduction etc. rather than the two age-old arguments of choice and if it's natural or not.
As you rightly point out, neither of those things matters. The naturalistic fallacy shoots the latter out of the water anyway and the former doesn't actually make a difference to any of the other arguments (except maybe if you were having a brain chemistry type one).
I think it's brought up sometimes by some members of the opposition to homosexuals, they think that homosexuals should change because they chose to be like that, as if that's a justification. It is never backed up as a reason, but often I find the debate gets stuck on whether or not it is, with no mention as to whether or not it actually makes a difference.
Unless a discussion is specifically about if it is a choice or not, I always do my best to steer it away from that, because it just isn't productive.
As you rightly point out, neither of those things matters. The naturalistic fallacy shoots the latter out of the water anyway and the former doesn't actually make a difference to any of the other arguments (except maybe if you were having a brain chemistry type one).
I think it's brought up sometimes by some members of the opposition to homosexuals, they think that homosexuals should change because they chose to be like that, as if that's a justification. It is never backed up as a reason, but often I find the debate gets stuck on whether or not it is, with no mention as to whether or not it actually makes a difference.
Unless a discussion is specifically about if it is a choice or not, I always do my best to steer it away from that, because it just isn't productive.
Original post by Birkenhead
And yet we've probably all at some point said or nodded in agreement with someone saying 'It's not as if it's a choice'...why?
I think King Stannis summed it up pretty well:
Original post by KingStannis
No because i don't think what people do in their own homes is anyone else's business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. If two people of the same sex chose to find each other attractive, and acted on their artificial attraction in a way that doesn't harm anybody, I fail to see an issue.
However, My view on religious nonacceptance of homosexuality would change dramatically. If homosexuality is a choice, then it is reasonable for religions to find that choice immoral, just as they find they choice of not accepting their God immoral. So long as their beliefs aren't forced on others.
However, My view on religious nonacceptance of homosexuality would change dramatically. If homosexuality is a choice, then it is reasonable for religions to find that choice immoral, just as they find they choice of not accepting their God immoral. So long as their beliefs aren't forced on others.
it might not effect our opinions, but the fact it isn't a choice discredits most of the reasons religious people are against it and they are generally the ones we are arguing when we bring out the "it isn't a choice" line
Who somebody happens to **** or marry isn't of any interest to me. Even if homosexuality was 100% choice, I'd still be indifferent to whatever romantic relationships other people pursue -- heterosexual or homosexual. Why would I care? As long as all parties are consenting, and nobody's getting more or fewer rights than everyone else, I say live and let live.
No, because even if it were a choice, there is nothing inherently wrong about it.
Original post by RFowler
...
Of course, it is not a choice.
...
Of course, it is not a choice.
While homosexual feelings and urges aren't exactly choices, I would argue homosexual activities and relationships technically are (as are heterosexual activities and relationships). 'Homosexuality' in that sense is a choice, and is nurtured through actions.
Original post by Lady Comstock
No, because even if it were a choice, there is nothing inherently wrong about it.
Original post by Dandaman1
Who somebody happens to **** or marry isn't of any interest to me. Even if homosexuality was 100% choice, I'd still be indifferent to whatever romantic relationships other people pursue -- heterosexual or homosexual. Why would I care? As long as all parties are consenting, and nobody's getting more or fewer rights than everyone else, I say live and let live.
Most people think like this, which is why I find it strange that so many of these same people clarify that it isn't a choice when defending it.
Original post by Birkenhead
Most people think like this, which is why I find it strange that so many of these same people clarify that it isn't a choice when defending it.
Well, when defending something you use all the ammunition in your artillery. Especially when you're up against the usual irrational, blind faith types who argue against homosexuality.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Well, when defending something you use all the ammunition in your artillery. Especially when you're up against the usual irrational, blind faith types who argue against homosexuality.
It seems to me that adding that it isn't a choice weakens the argument though. It would be stronger to simply argue that what someone does in their private sexual life is no one's business but their own. Adding that it isn't a choice seems to allow room for it being wrong but not the fault of homosexuals, while those who would argue that it is a choice would be given room to oppose it on these grounds.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by KingStannis
No because i don't think what people do in their own homes is anyone else's business as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
Do you think incest should be legal?
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
