Who cares if being gay is a choice or not?

[Joey]

I don't understand why the LGBT community is so insistent on defending the idea that being gay is not a choice. Why should it matter? Isn't freedom of choice as worthy of a cause to stand up for?

I think saying "this is my choice, live with it" is more admirable than saying "I can't help it." The first statement commands respect, the second just sounds whiny to me. Plus, the argument that the entire human genome has been decoded without any 'gay gene' being found would be rendered irrelevant.

Discuss / Flame / Enlighten...

[Morgenleoht]

This is a damn good video explaining what science knows.
#Invalid YouTube Link#

[ThunderWulf]

This is a damn good video explaining what science knows.
#Invalid YouTube Link#

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBOGXFkC8c" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfBOGXFkC8c</a>

Fixed it for you.

This is a great video, but every time I see it get put up, it seems to get taken down and has to be re-uploaded.

[Morgenleoht]

Probably fundies being dicks and reporting it.

And thanks TGRWulf.

[Sleepy]

I think arguing against sexuality being a choice is a natural reaction to the assholes who claim it is. I mean, they're painful to listen to. They're stupid enough to think homosexuality is a choice, many of them not even stopping to consider whether they chose their heterosexuality. Plus I think saying "Yeah, it's my choice -- deal with it" is almost like giving in, admitting that homosexuality is wrong in some way, which it isn't.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't understand why the LGBT community is so insistent on defending the idea that being gay is not a choice. Why should it matter? Isn't freedom of choice as worthy of a cause to stand up for?

Of course. The thing is though that it's not as though it's still up for debate. It's a proven fact that sexuality is not a choice, so the people arguing otherwise are simply wrong. What would be gained by letting that particular point fly and trying to argue that the choice isn't a bad thing? Do you honestly think that that would be any easier? That religious loons would be more willing to listen to more subjective appeals to freedom than biological fact? You know that's just silly.

[RinellaWasHere]

Yeah, they're arguing against it because it isn't. It's a misconception they dislike.

[Sylvana]

The concept of being gay being a choice is important to the anti-gay rights movements.

If being gay is a choice, then their crusade can be justified, at least to themselves. It gives them the ability to see gay people as deviant sinners and as a result makes them feel superior to them, and gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they discriminate against gays. They see it as helping people make the right choice and save them from themselves, while holding onto a supposed moral religious high ground.

If being gay is not a choice, all of that crumbles. It makes them instead be vindictive assholes harassing and discriminating against people who cannot help be who they are. Much like how segregation is viewed as reprehensible because blacks cannot choose their skin colour and so discriminating against them because of it is unfair and wrong.

In order for them to feel as though they actually have a leg to stand on, they need to perpetuate the belief that being gay is a choice. Their entire argument falls apart if it is not. If the gay community concedes that being gay is a choice, then the anti-gay group will use that concession as a reason to push for more discrimination.

Yes, it shouldn't matter, and this whole topic is pointless because it is not a choice, but as long as the anti-gay groups are fighting for discrimination, on the premise of it being a choice, the truth must be stated more than ever.

[Joey]

What would be gained by letting that particular point fly and trying to argue that the choice isn't a bad thing? Do you honestly thing that that would be any easier? That religious loons would be more willing to listen to more subjective appeals to freedom than biological fact?

I guess the anti-authoritarian in me just finds it more appealing. Fundies will ignore science til the cows come home anyway.

[Joey]

The concept of being gay being a choice is important to the anti-gay rights movements.

If being gay is a choice, then their crusade can be justified, at least to themselves. It gives them the ability to see gay people as deviant sinners and as a result makes them feel superior to them, and gives them a warm fuzzy feeling when they discriminate against gays. They see it as helping people make the right choice and save them from themselves, while holding onto a supposed moral religious high ground.

If being gay is not a choice, all of that crumbles. It makes them instead be vindictive assholes harassing and discriminating against people who cannot help be who they are. Much like how segregation is viewed as reprehensible because blacks cannot choose their skin colour and so discriminating against them because of it is unfair and wrong.

In order for them to feel as though they actually have a leg to stand on, they need to perpetuate the belief that being gay is a choice. Their entire argument falls apart if it is not. If the gay community concedes that being gay is a choice, then the anti-gay group will use that concession as a reason to push for more discrimination.

Yes, it shouldn't matter, and this whole topic is pointless because it is not a choice, but as long as the anti-gay groups are fighting for discrimination, on the premise of it being a choice, the truth must be stated more than ever.

You make some excellent points.

But then I have to wonder. If being convinced that it's not a choice is the only thing that would make them stop discriminating, is that really ideal? Wouldn't it be more ideal to convince them to stop discriminating whether they think it's a choice or not?

I mean, what if suddenly a new technological advancement made it so you could choose your race. Blacks could instantly become whites, and vice versa. Would that bring back segregation? If so, I would argue there's still a problem; if the only reason for ending segregation was because we accepted that you don't choose your race, then we don't really hold the ideals that we should.

[MiriamM]

Thank you for this thread; the debate over "is it a choice" is actually one of my pet peeves, as a non-LGBT-person who follows the discussion. I understand that "it's a choice" is an erraneous argument, but it seems to get a disproportionate amount of focus.

If homosexual behavior is acceptable (which it is in all our minds), like being left-handed, what does it matter if the tendency is a choice or not? Either way, it's none of anyone else's business.

If homosexual behavior was unacceptable (which it is in the minds of anti-gay-advocates), like psychopaths abusing other people, what does it matter if the tendency is a choice or not? Either way, we should do everything in our power to discourage it.

There are also people at the non-extremes of the heterosexual-homosexual-spectrum, whose orientation is more fluid and who may actually make a choice to limit their options. Granted, it's probably always a choice to "be" heterosexual, but a choice nonetheless.

I'd just prefer more a focus on "ok to be gay" and less on "not a choice".

Edit: I did mention it was a pet peeve... so I draw this Venn diagram, and only after I was done with it realized that it would be better as a Fourfold. Doh. At least it's sort of pretty and colourful.

[Sylvana]

If homosexual behavior is acceptable (which it is in all our minds), like being left-handed, what does it matter if the tendency is a choice or not? Either way, it's none of anyone else's business.

If homosexual behavior was unacceptable (which it is in the minds of anti-gay-advocates), like psychopaths abusing other people, what does it matter if the tendency is a choice or not? Either way, we should do everything in our power to discourage it.

Here you reach one of the more important cruxes of the whole issue. For the anti-gay crowd, homosexual behavior is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because their religious book says so. For homosexual behavior to be acceptable it must be directly contrary t their religious teachings. Unfortunately people do not give up their religious upbringing / leanings easily even when they directly contradict reality because religion is a comforting crutch for many. Further, for most people who are straight, homosexual behavior is personally disgusting to them. They do not, and can not understand that two people of the same sex can be attracted to each other in exactly the same way that people of opposite sexes are. This natural revulsion of theirs, reinforces their religious beliefs. It makes the behavior all the more reprehensible to them.

Further because they can not understand that the attraction they feel towards people of the opposite sex is identical to what homosexuals feel towards people of the same sex. They do not have those kind of feelings and thus to them they see it as it being a consciously chosen reprehensible behavior. They are trying to superimpose themselves onto a gay person emphatically and assuming that everything is the same.

The aspect of being gay being a choice, and being reprehensible to them is important because it keeps their world simple. They do not have to deal with things being wrong in their religion, they do not have to try and understand that people really are different either. It is also why stereotypes exist, to help simplify the world for some people. Those stereotypes are wrong, but people still cling to them because complexity scares them.

[Distind]

The fun part is when you make both sides twitch by mentioning bisexuals. Someone who can make the choice between apparent hetero or homo sexuality. You'll get some gay rights activists who positively lose their minds over this, and I'm reasonably sure this debate over 'choice' is exactly why. Nevermind that they likely have attraction to both sexes, some people need to nail these thing down into binary answers.

But the one angle I haven't seen pointed out is, well, Christianity generally regards sin as a choice, an active choice to turn away from god. So if homosexuality is a sin, they assume it's a choice because otherwise god's making things in a way he opposes.

[Jack Mann]

Unless you're a Calvinist, in which case God makes people for the express purpose of sending them to Hell.

[rookie]

The whole argument of whether it's a choice is starting to slowly starting to fall by the wayside. Now, instead of whether being gay is an evil choice, you're starting to see acting upon those evil gay urges as the choice worthy of condemnation.