Gay and straight

[Cambo]

What makes someone gay? What makes them straight? Where are the boundaries? What are the criteria for being one or the other? Where do bisexuals fit in? Is everyone, deep down, just a little bit gay? What does "gay pride" entail? Can you have "straight pride?" Would that even make sense?

Answers please!

[Orlion]

I think there a variable causes that shape sexuality. A lot of people focus on the Nature v. Nurture argument, I say it's Nature AND Nurture (or, more accurately, Nature and Experience). I believe that there can be and are biological reasons that would favor one sexuality over another, but I also think that these aren't the only controlling factors. Guess that kinda puts me in the "people choose their sexuality" camp, and I'm bracing myself for the comments sent my way. However, I'm not only convinced of this, I kinda need that explanation.

First, I'm convinced of it because... well... choice is a fact of life. Factors can influence but don't determine your character. For example, I have a very competitive personality. This ought to favor sports activity or the like. However, I chose that I don't really give a damn about sports. Once that choice was made, I became in part what I am today (and on a side note, it'd be very hard to reverse this choice that has been in force for so long).

Why do I need this explanation? Because I don't think (for example) that homosexuality is evil or is worse/ inferior to heterosexuality. You like men? Women? Whatever, I don't care, both have value only on an individual basis. When one tries to justify homosexuality by saying it's the result of an irresistible natural force and not personal choice, that implies (in my mind) that being homosexual can than only be acceptable if you don't have a choice in the matter. I deny that, it sickens me, and though I understand I may be somewhat unique in this matter, that's how I choose to think.

Now, I know the double-edged part of this is that if someone could choose to be gay, then couldn't they choose to be straight? Theoretically, sure. But why the hell would they? I could choose to take up sports, but I don't want to. The fact that I choose not to play sports doesn't lead to the fact that I ought to choose to play sports. That's no one's choice but my own.

*sigh* I hope that makes some sense.

[Cambo]

I see where your coming from Orlion, I conditionally agree.

I only agree in the sense that I think there's a lot of grey area sexually that no-one acknowledges, and that many more people have thoughts or feelings about the same sex (or opposite sex, in those who identify as gay) than are willing to admit it. That's where I think choice comes into it. You can choose to act on these feelings, or not.

However, I think the driving or predominant sexuality of a person is something we don't choose, and is biologically determined. For example, I could choose to engage in sexual activity with another man. The thought isn't as disturbing to me as it is with some straight people. But I don't think I could ever choose to prefer men over women, and if I ever chose to present myself as gay I would be lying. No more, I think, could a gay person choose to prefer members of the opposite sex. I've never heard a gay person talk about when they "chose" to be gay. They talk about "realising" they were gay, as in becoming aware of a pre-existing fact, and "coming out," when they choose to make other people aware of that fact.

It's interesting what you say about making homosexuality out to be only acceptable because they didn't choose it, like a disease of some kind. Certainly many of the more tolerant religions see it this way, such as the Ba'hai. The less tolerant religions do see it as a choice, which for them makes it worse as the person is deliberately walking in sin. But the scientific facts all indicate that homosexuality cannot be removed or (gag) cured by any act of will.

If you decided to choose to be gay, right now, do you think you could?

[Orlion]

Once again, choices shape who we are... and what we become as a result is pretty damn hard to change, to the point of near impracticality in some cases. So, I chose to be heterosexual (I'd have to to be consistent with what I've presented;)), and my character, personality, has built on that choice for years and years. So, theoretically, I could choose at this moment to be gay, but to become homosexual would be a process, one that would be impractical at this stage of my life (in other words, really... really hard...).

Does that make sense? I guess what I'm trying to say is once we choose aspects of ourselves, those aspects become pretty permanent... but that's not to say that they weren't chosen to begin with, or that they can not change or that we choose our "sexual aspect" at the same time.

Now, in light of all this, I guess the question I should ask myself is when and under what circumstances can/does one change their "sexual aspect"?

*sigh* I hate that my viewpoint on sexual development sounds dangerously similar to those held by people that would consider anything besides heterosexuality wrong... not too surprising, though, since that is what I grew up in... this model is just taking previous indoctrination and adapting it for present views... but that's also why I talk about them. If a viewpoint of mine gets constantly bloodied because of its incorrectness, it makes it easier to discard

[Fist and Faith]

You think you've chosen to not play sports, but you haven't. You can't choose to play them. That choice just isn't in you. You don't play them because you can't. I mean, yeah, you can go play a game of basketball, or whatever. But you can't do it with whatever regularity you need to say "I play sports."

Now, of course, you'll say, "I can make that choice, and I am choosing to not play." But the only thing we know is that you don't play. If that supports either of us, it's me.

[Orlion]

You think you've chosen to not play sports, but you haven't. You can't choose to play them. That choice just isn't in you. You don't play them because you can't. I mean, yeah, you can go play a game of basketball, or whatever. But you can't do it with whatever regularity you need to say "I play sports."

Now, of course, you'll say, "I can make that choice, and I am choosing to not play." But the only thing we know is that you don't play. If that supports either of us, it's me.

Not at all, because the choice that matters is I chose not to play sports with any regularity when I was younger... as a result, making that choice now would be...difficult, to say the least...maybe theoretically possible, but improbable.

Which, I think, supports me
But you are right in saying that I can't say, "I can make that choice, and I am choosing to not play." It's more like, "I made that choice, and I chose not to play." It's not a continual affirmation, as it were. Once again, I could theoretically work towards and become a "player of sports", but it's difficult... to the point that I can say it ain't going to happen

[Cambo]

Sorry, Orlion, while I appreciate that choices can become ingrained to the point you're almost powerless to change them, I don't think sexuality is one of those choices. And the science would seem to support me.

It's now believed that sexual orientation is likely determined by hormone levels in the mother's womb, the effects of which emerge during puberty. Like I say, there's a lot of gray area we all move in, but I find it pretty hard to imagine making choice against something that happened while you were in the womb. It would be like trying to choose not to grow pubic hair.

[Fist and Faith]

No. You were never able to make the choice to play. That's why you didn't choose to. You know how I know? Because you don't play. Not playing certainly doesn't prove that you could have chosen to, eh?

[Avatar]

Does it matter? In most things, I come down on the side of both "nurture" and "freedom of choice." It may well be that free will is an illusion, but that doesn't really matter either.

Is this particular issue one or the other? I have no idea. And I'm pretty sure nobody else really does. At worst (or best), it's either of them. I'm not sure there is any way to tell. We can speculate, but that's as far as it goes.

Proof, of one kind or another, is a long way away I suspect.

And like I said, I'm not convinced it matters. What matters is the fact that it exists. The reason that it exists is surely secondary?

--A

[Orlion]

Sorry, Orlion, while I appreciate that choices can become ingrained to the point you're almost powerless to change them, I don't think sexuality is one of those choices. And the science would seem to support me.

It's now believed that sexual orientation is likely determined by hormone levels in the mother's womb, the effects of which emerge during puberty. Like I say, there's a lot of gray area we all move in, but I find it pretty hard to imagine making choice against something that happened while you were in the womb. It would be like trying to choose not to grow pubic hair.

The only thing about that is that many gay people I know seem to imply that they knew they were gay before puberty...

Now, that's not to say that I don't appreciate that certain biological factors would tend to favor one sexuality over another... but that doesn't trump choice, nor does choice minimize the influence of the biological factors. Like an "alcoholic gene". Just because you have it, doesn't mean that you'll become an alcoholic... even if it does favor it biologically. If you make a choice, "I ain't going to drink alcohol" the gene can't take effect.

As far as an example for sexuality, we don't know the sexuality for Isaac Newton. He probably was predisposed to one form (or not), but he made the choice to have nothing to do with it. Of course, this assumes he wasn't predisposed to not have anything to do with sexuality.

[Fist and Faith]

Someone's sig used to say: If you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make?

[Avatar]

Hahaha, aTOMic's. I liked it.

--A

[Orlion]

No. You were never able to make the choice to play. That's why you didn't choose to. You know how I know? Because you don't play. Not playing certainly doesn't prove that you could have chosen to, eh?

There are two possibilities (to simplify it) to play, or not to play. What determined the outcome? If it's choice, I'd have to have the opportunity and the means, correct? I had both. I chose otherwise.

Now, that brings up another point to consider: there are circumstances where the options are limited. So, it may turn out that in some cases, a person can choose to be celibate, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but another case where they can choose to be homosexual or bisexual.

Once again, just because there's a choice doesn't mean that one is better than the other. I just have to make that clear each and every single time

[Cambo]

Sure. I could have said at ten with fair certainty that I liked girls. Pre-pubescents get crushes and have little pseudo-romaces all the time. It would be interesting, however, to see how many got it wrong before puberty. If someone during pre-pubescence ran after girls, but then after puberty realised they were gay, or vice versa.

I don't think the alcoholic gene really fits as an example. Alcoholism, as you point out, is brought out by an action, the act of drinking alcohol. Sexuality exists whether or not you engage in sexual acts, and hopefully quite a while before you do. Sexuality runs on desire. At twelve, I'd never kissed a girl. But I desired to. And I had no desire to kiss boys. Would you say I wasn't officially straight until I actually kissed a girl?

[Fist and Faith]

No. You were never able to make the choice to play. That's why you didn't choose to. You know how I know? Because you don't play. Not playing certainly doesn't prove that you could have chosen to, eh?

There are two possibilities (to simplify it) to play, or not to play. What determined the outcome? If it's choice, I'd have to have the opportunity and the means, correct? I had both. I chose otherwise.

Now, that brings up another point to consider: there are circumstances where the options are limited. So, it may turn out that in some cases, a person can choose to be celibate, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but another case where they can choose to be homosexual or bisexual.

Once again, just because there's a choice doesn't mean that one is better than the other. I just have to make that clear each and every single time

You may have had both opportunity and means, but that doesn't mean you had the choice. You did not have the drive, the ambition, to play sports. It's not part of your makeup. That's why you didn't play, and why you still don't.

(Going to bed now. Catch you in the morning. )

[Orlion]

Sure. I could have said at ten with fair certainty that I liked girls. Pre-pubescents get crushes and have little pseudo-romaces all the time. It would be interesting, however, to see how many got it wrong before puberty. If someone during pre-pubescence ran after girls, but then after puberty realised they were gay, or vice versa.

I don't think the alcoholic gene really fits as an example. Alcoholism, as you point out, is brought out by an action, the act of drinking alcohol. Sexuality exists whether or not you engage in sexual acts, and hopefully quite a while before you do. Sexuality runs on desire. At twelve, I'd never kissed a girl. But I desired to. And I had no desire to kiss boys. Would you say I wasn't officially straight until I actually kissed a girl?

I think it'd be interesting to see how many "got it wrong" before puberty as well. Not sure what it'd add to the debate, but hey, what's wrong with learning for learning's sake?

Both things are precipitated by an action, specifically a mental one. We are surrounded by a market of ideas, and if there's a competition, there are options for more choices.

As far as the desire to kiss girls, that is easily one of the many ideas that get pounded into the heads of developing children via familial relationships via Disney via etc. I suppose what would be interesting is to know how many current homosexuals knew about the option of homosexuality when they were young. To tell you the truth, the issue never came up with me until my early late teens.

Of course, for the sake of fair argument, that would mean that from my perspective, I was choosing between heterosexuality or no-sexuality and not between heterosexuality and homosexuality... interesting...

[Cambo]

Yes indeed, if we're going to see it as a kind of marketplace, with the straight market, the gay market, the bi market, the...black market...

...then surely at points in history when homosexuality was far less acceptable, even less visible, than it is now, there'd be less gay people in those times?

[Orlion]

No. You were never able to make the choice to play. That's why you didn't choose to. You know how I know? Because you don't play. Not playing certainly doesn't prove that you could have chosen to, eh?

There are two possibilities (to simplify it) to play, or not to play. What determined the outcome? If it's choice, I'd have to have the opportunity and the means, correct? I had both. I chose otherwise.

Now, that brings up another point to consider: there are circumstances where the options are limited. So, it may turn out that in some cases, a person can choose to be celibate, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, but another case where they can choose to be homosexual or bisexual.

Once again, just because there's a choice doesn't mean that one is better than the other. I just have to make that clear each and every single time

You may have had both opportunity and means, but that doesn't mean you had the choice. You did not have the drive, the ambition, to play sports. It's not part of your makeup. That's why you didn't play, and why you still don't.

(Going to bed now. Catch you in the morning. )

Yeah, I tend to leave desire out, since it's presently unquantifiable Nah, it's just really complex, and is part of the "choice" for me, there is no choice without desire...otherwise, it isn't a choice.

Sleep well... if you so choose

[Orlion]

Yes indeed, if we're going to see it as a kind of marketplace, with the straight market, the gay market, the bi market, the...black market...

...then surely at points in history when homosexuality was far less acceptable, even less visible, than it is now, there'd be less gay people in those times?

What is more important, I think, in this case is the presence of the ideas, not any approval from third-parties (though that would have a certain influence).

If someone doesn't know homosexuality, bisexuality, black marketing as existing options, than they are not there to choose.

This, of course, is oversimplifying everything, but I guess we're just looking at the parts to examine the whole, huh?

[Cambo]

I think if it was truly a choice, surely you'd make a choice based on all kinds of factors, and social acceptability would be pretty high on the list. Particularly around puberty and early adolescence, fitting in is incredibly important. Yet, this is when sexuality- including gay sexuality- emerges. It'd be a pretty brave choice to make when you knew it'd automatically set you apart from your peers.