So... Sexuality is a Choice...

[Tck13]

For the sake of simplicity, let's say that one can only be homosexual or heterosexual (we all know that there's more to it than that, but...)

If sexuality is a choice, then that would mean that we all made a choice at some point between hetero and **** sexuality.

Then, that would also mean we all have equal sexual feelings towards the same and opposite sex and we chose between the two...

So, those advocating that we have a choice would really be bisexual, no?

This whole argument is silly but is advocated by those who say that "sexuality is a choice". Yes, we all have a choice as to who we want to ******** with but not what sex we are truly attracted to.

 

[Douglas]

I choose you, Pikachu!

 

[TyCooN]

Nope I lust after *****. The only time I think about cock is when ******* is feeling uncomfortable cuzz it's behind all that raw denim, and I get a hard on in the jeans.

 

[bach]

Originally Posted by Tck13

If sexuality is a choice, then that would mean that we all made a choice at some point between hetero and **** sexuality. Then, that would also mean we all have equal sexual feelings towards the same and opposite sex and we chose between the two... So, those advocating that we have a choice would really be bisexual, no?
I wholeheartedly agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, but for the sake of arguing... Your logic is spurious

In order to choose between being hetero or ****, you don't necessarily need to be attracted to both sexes equally, or be attracted to any particular sex at all (tabula rasa); therefore you wouldn't be bisexual. Once you choose, you would be attracted solely to that sex. In other words, we are capable of being attracted to either sex, but we are not attracted to either sex until we make a choice.

 

[Tck13]

Originally Posted by bach

I wholeheartedly agree that sexual orientation is not a choice, but for the sake of arguing... Your logic is spurious

In order to choose between being hetero or ****, you don't necessarily need to be attracted to both sexes equally, or be attracted to any particular sex at all (tabula rasa); therefore you wouldn't be bisexual. Once you choose, you would be attracted solely to that sex. In other words, we are capable of being attracted to either sex, but we are not attracted to either sex until we make a choice.
I thought it was sound?? To make a choice, one would need to know the choices, no? If one has to choose, there must be choices. How could someone "choose" to be hetero when they don't know what **** is? Plus, a choice is always a choice. One could always choose to be attracted to the same sex if it's a choice. I could change my choice everyday if I wanted to. Edit: And, yeah, I know there's more choices but I'm trying to make it as simple as possible (hetero / ****).

 

[ysc]

Well if you are following the whole tabula rasa idea, no, you don't have to have any preference at all to start of with, you are a blank slate to start of with with no preferences, your experiences shape everything about you. So I guess you would less characterise it as a concious choice you have made, and more a 'decision' shaped by all sorts of experiences/your environment.

IMO the whole tabula rasa is crap, almost all human attributes and behaviours have a genetic factor, including sexuality.

 

[Squall.Leonhart]

Well, I think that the "lifestyle" (as in walking around flamboyantly in ass-less chaps or something) is a choice, but what you are attracted to, you cannot choose. It's also interesting to note that homosexuality is present in other species, not only humans.

 

[PolePosition]

Darwinism argues against homosexuality. Survival of the fittest is not relegated to just staying alive. Survival in a biological sense is being able to pass on your genetic information, having those offspring pass on their genetic information, and so on and so forth.

Homosexuality defies the survival mechanism. Technology aside, homosexual species do not pass on their genetic information and those are considered "unfit" in a Darwinian sense. So you can look at it in one of two ways. Either homosexuals a born as anomalies of nature or born as unfit members of a species... or homosexuals choose to be unfit. No matter how you look at it, it is not evolutionarily sound to be a homosexual.

So which would you want to be? Born unfit or choose to be unfit? That being said there are homosexuals that have become heterosexuals. That implies that at one point they chose to become unfit. Its not like their genes suddenly turned them from gay to straight. It was a choice. Just like the opposite happens. Straight people have made a decision to become homosexuals. Since those choices have been made, it would surely indicate that it is not a genetic factor but rather a decision. Therefore homosexuals are not genetically predispositioned to be unfit, they chose to be that way.

 

[blackplatano]

Originally Posted by Squall.Leonhart

Well, I think that the "lifestyle" (as in walking around flamboyantly in ass-less chaps or something) is a choice, but what you are attracted to, you cannot choose. It's also interesting to note that homosexuality is present in other species, not only humans.

Depends what you characterize as gay. Dogs, for example, might hump each other as a way to show dominance, not necessarily for pleasure. In that case is the dog gay? I would say no.

 

[longskate88]

Originally Posted by PolePosition

Darwinism argues against homosexuality. Survival of the fittest is not relegated to just staying alive. Survival in a biological sense is being able to pass on your genetic information, having those offspring pass on their genetic information, and so on and so forth.

Homosexuality defies the survival mechanism. Technology aside, homosexual species do not pass on their genetic information and those are considered "unfit" in a Darwinian sense. So you can look at it in one of two ways. Either homosexuals a born as anomalies of nature or born as unfit members of a species... or homosexuals choose to be unfit. No matter how you look at it, it is not evolutionarily sound to be a homosexual.

So which would you want to be? Born unfit or choose to be unfit? That being said there are homosexuals that have become heterosexuals. That implies that at one point they chose to become unfit. Its not like their genes suddenly turned them from gay to straight. It was a choice. Just like the opposite happens. Straight people have made a decision to become homosexuals. Since those choices have been made, it would surely indicate that it is not a genetic factor but rather a decision. Therefore homosexuals are not genetically predispositioned to be unfit, they chose to be that way.

At what age did you choose to be straight?

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by longskate88

At what age did you choose to be straight?

It'll come, he needs acne treatment first because as of now the choice is scarce.

 

[Squall.Leonhart]

I going to point it out until you mentioned it, but it makes sense that homosexuality is indeed an anomaly.

Originally Posted by PolePosition

Homosexuality defies the survival mechanism. Technology aside, homosexual species do not pass on their genetic information and those are considered "unfit" in a Darwinian sense. So you can look at it in one of two ways. Either homosexuals a born as anomalies of nature or born as unfit members of a species... or homosexuals choose to be unfit. No matter how you look at it, it is not evolutionarily sound to be a homosexual.

Also, let's not make it seem as though this "choice" (if it is such) is somehow altogether conscious. If we go by the theory that sexual orientation is determined at a relatively young age in children (or even earlier periods of brain development), then it IS partly due to genetic make-up. I understand the pragmatism, but then why would animals (ants, canines, etc.) exhibit homosexuality if it they knew it would be a problem from an evolutionary standpoint?

 

[Squall.Leonhart]

Originally Posted by blackplatano

Depends what you characterize as gay. Dogs, for example, might hump each other as a way to show dominance, not necessarily for pleasure. In that case is the dog gay? I would say no.

As in certain species having a male partner filling in for practically all the roles of a female (nesting, affection, sex, etc.)

 

[ysc]

Originally Posted by PolePosition

Darwinism argues against homosexuality. Survival of the fittest is not relegated to just staying alive. Survival in a biological sense is being able to pass on your genetic information, having those offspring pass on their genetic information, and so on and so forth.

Homosexuality defies the survival mechanism. Technology aside, homosexual species do not pass on their genetic information and those are considered "unfit" in a Darwinian sense. So you can look at it in one of two ways. Either homosexuals a born as anomalies of nature or born as unfit members of a species... or homosexuals choose to be unfit. No matter how you look at it, it is not evolutionarily sound to be a homosexual.

So which would you want to be? Born unfit or choose to be unfit? That being said there are homosexuals that have become heterosexuals. That implies that at one point they chose to become unfit. Its not like their genes suddenly turned them from gay to straight. It was a choice. Just like the opposite happens. Straight people have made a decision to become homosexuals. Since those choices have been made, it would surely indicate that it is not a genetic factor but rather a decision. Therefore homosexuals are not genetically predispositioned to be unfit, they chose to be that way.

You a biologist? I am.
I assume by Darwinism you mean Darwinian evolutionary theory? skipping over the fact that modern evolutionary theory is not really Darwinism I will show you a couple of reasons why the idea that homosexuality has a genetic component and survival of the fittest are not mutually exclusive.

Firstly, I admit this one is pretty silly but gay guys can ******** with women. I know right, not only are they banging guys but sometimes they steal chicks us straight guys could be banging, the cheek of it. I am sure some gay SFites can attest to having a sexual experience with a member of the opposite sex at some stage. Sure, not being attracted to women would lower ones fecundity, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of having children entirely.

Second, A popular theory back in the sociobiology days was that homosexuals (males, mostly talking about males here) were born in the middle of large family and performed a secondary care role for their younger siblings, clearly this would not increase their personal fecundity but it would enable more of their family to grow to sexual maturity, they would pass their genes, including the complex of genes that inclines one to homosexuality on by proxy through their brothers and sisters. This would confer advantages in intra specific competition. I'm not sure how much I dig this argument, but I am am just laying out the possibilities

Third, recent research has shown that a gene that seems to be very common in homosexual males increases the fecundity of females. The gene does not make one gay, but seems to increase an individuals attraction to males, so for a male carrier of the gene this would increase chances of being gay, and for a female carrier it would increase the chance of being a ho and having loads more children thus passing on the "gay genes"

Fourth, actually no, I can't be arsed I'm going to the pub, go on web of knowledge or google scholar and look something up before you come out with some ill founded pseudo scientific.

No one is saying homosexuality is purely caused by genetics, but research increasingly shows there is a strong genetic cause, the research has mostly focused on male homosexuals up to now, but I am sure there will turn out to be genetic factors in lesbianism as well.

 

[PolePosition]

Originally Posted by youngscientist

I assume by Darwinism you mean Darwinian evolutionary theory?

Yes I'm just referring to Darwinian evolutionary theory

Originally Posted by youngscientist

Second, A popular theory back in the sociobiology days was that homosexuals (males, mostly talking about males here) were born in the middle of large family and performed a secondary care role for their younger siblings, clearly this would not increase their personal fecundity but it would enable more of their family to grow to sexual maturity, they would pass their genes, including the complex of genes that inclines one to homosexuality on by proxy through their brothers and sisters. This would confer advantages in intra specific competition. I'm not sure how much I dig this argument, but I am am just laying out the possibilities

Interesting to say the least. In some cases it might even be true.

Originally Posted by youngscientist

Third, recent research has shown that a gene that seems to be very common in homosexual males increases the fecundity of females. The gene does not make one gay, but seems to increase an individuals attraction to males, so for a male carrier of the gene this would increase chances of being gay, and for a female carrier it would increase the chance of being a ho and having loads more children thus passing on the "gay genes"

Plausible

Originally Posted by youngscientist

Fourth, actually no, I can't be arsed I'm going to the pub, go on web of knowledge or google scholar and look something up before you come out with some ill founded pseudo scientific.

I'm about to complete a biology degree with a minor in psychology (this is not the only degree I have either) and am pursuing medicine after that. Granted if you are a biologist you have much more knowledge than I do but I am by no means a stranger to science. You don't have to agree with what I say but to insult me (if that was not your intent then disregard) by saying what I wrote was ill founded pseudo scientific is asinine.

Originally Posted by youngscientist

No one is saying homosexuality is purely caused by genetics, but research increasingly shows there is a strong genetic cause, the research has mostly focused on male homosexuals up to now, but I am sure there will turn out to be genetic factors in lesbianism as well.

Research to my knowledge has shown a correlation but nothing has convinced me that there is genetic causation. Correlation and causation are two different things.