Turn on thread page Beta

Is homosexuality a choice? watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Eleven_)
    That's not what I mean. But I know girls that have struggled getting boyfriends and have become lesbians. Not that I'm saying homosexuality is purely a choice but how would you explain this?
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    some people are attracted to cars, how do you explain that? is that a choice? I think it is mate. signing out bilbo baggins.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    (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".
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bio 7)
    Or perhaps they are Bisexual and have given up with men.
    Also a reasonable possibility.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Peer Support Volunteers
    PS Reviewer
    (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?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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
    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?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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/ny...t-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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Nope, social scientist is me
    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...
    Ok, then I think the problem is your misconception of how evolution happens and what it is (or is not) doing at a deeper level. Strictly speaking evolution has no reason for our being, it generally leads to effective reproduction in life forms but is not intentionally doing so. Pour a glass of water on a hill of hard earth and it will make its way down the slope, but the water has no intention to find its way down even though it might be perceived as having such; unthinking natural forces are at work (most obviously gravity in this case). For those unfamiliar with evolutionary theory this revelation can be difficult to understand because it appears to contradict the seemingly very purposeful nature of what living things do, I would advise you to read Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker or something similar, it would actually help inform your social science work.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Napp)
    Nope, social scientist is me
    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.

    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?
    But humans are not just normal animals are we? We do a lot of things that aren't natural.Lots of animals make tools but none of them quite to the extent that we do.And humans are perfectly adapted to live in hot countries yet you find them in Russia and Siberia.By your logic we should have stayed in Africa because that's what we were evolutionarily designed for.It doesn't matter what other animals do we are not them.Natural doesn't equal good either.Some animals commit incest and rape so whether it's natural has no bearing on whether it's good or not.And yes there are animals that have been known to be exclusive heterosexual.Of the top of my head there was a case of penguins being exclusively homosexual.But other animals also display it dolphins and bonobos being notable examples.10 percent of rams exclusively mate with other rams it's actually a significant problem for sheep farmers.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    If homosexuality was a choice, why would people choose to be gay? A lot of gay/bi teenagers fear coming out as they believe their family would disown them, be disappointed in them etc. Plus, you're a lot less likely to find a partner if you are gay compared to it you are straight what with there being less gay people. So who would want to be gay if they had the option to choose?
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.