<p>this was a debate with my family after easter dinner and i wanted some other opinions. i heard some interesting things about what my family thinks and why. i think you are born that way but i would like an explanation as to why you think what you think.</p>
<p>Yeah, how many people would really choose to be a member of a poorly treated minority?</p>
<p>Heterosexuality - born straight or choose to be straight?</p>
<p>well i actually know a few people who have this idea that it is “cool” to be gay and a lot of people might be straight because they know that is what is expected of them and they don’t really know there are other options.</p>
<p>The “strictly-a-choice” argument is not supported by what we know, scientifically, about the human body. And as one of my (gay) friends pointed out, it wouldn’t matter if it was: people should be free to choose how they want to live their lives if it doesn’t hurt anybody else.</p>
<p>Anyway, there is no consensus on it (probably because it’s most likely a combination of diverse factors) but there is a boatload of evidence that it’s biological in origin. Start [url="<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation"]here.[/url">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation"]here.[/url</a>]</p>
<p>I don’t understand why religious people argue that it <em>must</em> be a choice, just because in their view it’s a sin (and if somebody wants to explain this to me, I would appreciate it). People are born with all sorts of natural defects and problems, from infertility to clinical depression, and their coping with the problem is often said to be a “challenge” that brings them closer to God - so why can’t homosexuality just be another biological “challenge,” in this mindset?</p>
<p>To me the more interesting question is whether someone is born bi-sexual or can one choose to be bi-sexual.</p>
<p>i have conflicting views on bisexuals</p>
<p>I have conflicting views on bisexuality as well. A famed Northwestern professor, Michael Bailey, claims it exists in women but not men. </p>
<p>From his book:
<a href=“http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-bisexual.html[/url]”>http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-bisexual.html</a></p>
<p>So his conclusion is based on the fact that no men who identified as bisexual in their studies were aroused by both men AND women, only either one. However, we don’t know if this is merely because men have been conditioned by society to suppress sexual attractions to both for some reason (though I don’t think this is a likely explanation for those who’ve already come into terms with their bisexuality).</p>
<p>My Close Relationships professor, Eli Finkel, however, asserts that two males of any orientation could form a “pair bond.” It’s an evolutionary strategy for raising offspring successfully.</p>
<p>As for being born gay or choosing to be gay, I believe that there’s a genetic predisposition for homosexuality, but it’s up to the environment to determine that kid’s sexual orientation. What we know though is that it is NOT a conscious voluntary choice (this is according to the medical establishment: the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, AMA, et. al.).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html#choice[/url]”>Object moved;
<p>My guess, based on limited observation and even less science, is that the great majority of people are born with one sexual orientation or the other, but that there are some people are born without a clear orientation, and they can end up “choosing” one route or another for various reasons, or being bisexual, or alternating from one to another. I think the latter group causes a lot of confusion for the rest of us.</p>
<p>I think that people are born one way or another, but there are those who ‘fake it’ one way or another, people who are afraid of the social reprecussions(sp?) of admitting they are gay, and people who are/claim to be gay on the basis of attention/different-ness associated.</p>
<p>Basing this on a kid I know who came out after having many girlfriends and ‘playing along’, and another kid who was straight and into it, came out as gay, then bi, but except during the gay period only slept with women. And during the gay period abstained from having sex.</p>
<p>The [Kinsey</a> Scale](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale"]Kinsey”>Kinsey scale - Wikipedia) represents the hypothesis that sexuality/libido is more fluid than fixed. I.e., most people actually lean one way or the other, while not residing in either extreme. </p>
<p>I don’t know how well-supported that theory is today.</p>
<p>
Your missing the “nurture” option, which is an often-argued position.</p>
<p>I don’t think it matters all that much either way, but I’d guess that it’s a combination of nature and nurture, probably. Choice has to do with your actions, not your feelings or attractions. If you define homosexuality or heterosexuality by action (i.e., engaging in straight or homosexual sex) then it’s a choice; if you define it by attraction, which most people do, the choice side becomes much more difficult to argue. The label one uses is also a choice, of course. I agree with Kluge that there are people who do not fit neatly into the homosexual or heterosexual categories, or even the more inclusive bisexual label; these people are often pushed to choose a label by society. In that sense, they are choosing whether to identify as gay, straight, bi, or something else, but they are still not choosing their feelings.</p>
<p>I like what alwaysamom says in post #3 above. How many straight people reading this thread “chose” to be straight? I suspect not many (if any). So why should it be any different for gay people?</p>
<p>There are homosexuals in every known animal species in which there are two distinct sexes. It’s hard to argue that a mouse “chooses” to be homosexual; rather, it’s much more likely that the mouse is born that way.</p>
<p>Since there are “born” homosexuals in the animal kingdom, it’s a kind of hubris to argue that Homo sapiens are, by definition, different. Of course, those who believe in Divine origin can, and do, make that argument, but for the rest of us, it’s a tougher call.</p>
<p>The “gay, straight, or lying” argument seems to ignore the fact that there are men who can become sufficiently aroused to have sexual intercourse successfully with partners of either sex, even though they may prefer one over the other. The many men who have sex with men who have also fathered children are proof that such individuals exist. What’s observed in a laboratory situation does not necessarily correlate directly with real life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>EVERY species?? Wow!</p>
<hr>
<p>Also, I don’t think that just because random animals engage in “sexual activity” with same-sex partners they can be classifies as “homosexual”. Animals can be aroused for many reasons (a dog will try to h**p your leg sometimes!). Just because “same sex” makes you aroused, that doesn’t mean you’re “gay” necessarily. </p>
<p>The question has more to do with adopting the “lifestyle” (I hate to use that word in this context - sorry) of homosexuality and fully expressing those desires in a continued day-to-day existence. This is where the question of “choice” vs. “born that way” comes in. If you absolutely must live as a gay person & can’t find peace any other way, then I would opine that you were probably “born that way”; conversely, I think there are probably some people who do “choose” it because of various reasons. </p>
<p>Therefore, it probably isn’t an “either/or” situation. Some people are probably “born that way” and some others “choose”.</p>
<p>I suspect there is a whole spectrum ranging from totally gay to totally straight, with varying proportions of genetics and environment in each person’s orientation. </p>
<p>Most of us are probably somewhere in between, but feel compelled to think in terms of one or the other.</p>
<p>
You’re right; I overstated it. I believe that it is for every species studied so far.</p>
<p>And in many of those species in which they’ve followed individual animals, they have found animals who have sexual relations only with same sex animals.</p>
<p>I agree that sexuality is more fluid than simply gay vs straight. I also believe that there are different aspects of attractiveness: emotional, physical, and sexual. I know many people who consider themselves straight who can find people of their sex physically attractive, and I know many people who consider themselves straight but would be willing to engage in some sort of sexual activity with someone of their sex, either for the experience, to “check” that they are indeed straight, or just because they like sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it makes them sound bigoted and feel insecure about their position. They know if they admit that it’s not a choice, their position will no longer supported by as many. So they resort to lying (which I thought it’s a sin itself? I guess lying for “moral reason” is okay for them) and misleading the public by saying it “must be a lifestyle-choice”.</p>