Sexuality-Choice or Innate?

[Russ]

Just because one case indicated one thing, you can't extrapolate that outwards to everything else. Additionally, a lot of the factors aren't as clear cut as "bring your child up this way and they will be this sexuality".

The 45% of identical twins with different sexual orientations indicates that there are social and environmental etc factors that you can't dismiss as minor or insignificant

Edit, yeah I saw your edit, sex and sexuality are different things yeah

[Neuron]

Just because one case indicated one thing, you can't extrapolate that outwards to everything else. Additionally, a lot of the factors aren't as clear cut as "bring your child up this way and they will be this sexuality".

The 45% of identical twins with different sexual orientations indicates that there are social and environmental etc factors that you can't dismiss as minor or insignificant

Look at my edit. I thought we were discussing sex (gender)not sexuality . It was my mistaken, sorry for the misunderstanding. I whole heartedly agree that in determining one's sexuality both genetic and environmental factors play a massive role, however in determining one's sex it is mainly genetic factors.

[mark_alec]

I don't believe it makes a difference whether it is a choice or innate.

[Tomw2]

Couldn't agree more mark.

Clearly it's no more choice than whether you like the colour red over blue, but personally I find the the whole 'choice' debate a bit silly when it comes to discussions about sexuality. Whether it's a choice or not should have no bearing on policy, behaviour or conceptualisation. For instance, it would seem weird to say "it's wrong to discriminate against females, because they didnt choose to be that way".

It falsely (and borderline offensively) implies it's acceptable and tolerable purely because it's not a choice.

[ktrah]

i think we can (hopefully) agree that the idea of a gay gene by itself is ludicrous, just like the idea of a christian gene, muslum gene  a terriost gene or a 'i like KFC' gene is. changes in biochemistry/ brain development (that may be caused by genes) however id say can predispose people to behaving in certain ways, and can allow people to be be drawn towards deviant sexual behavior.

Innate. Who would choose to be gay? Just makes things more difficult. I mean, people can decide who they get together with, but not which way they swing psychologically/genetically. If a guy who was gay decided they would just sort of ignore their sexual orientation and get with a girl, they wouldn't get as much pleasure out of it as straight guys would. It's not like they want to be gay.

a retorical question, i hear it alot. i defiantly understand the point its trying to bring but as far it is in itself it doesn't actually provide an argument, sorta like 'why couldn't there have been alian abductions of my cows?' i dono, there might have been, but so few people chose to elaborate on this that it really is just a pointless question in my eyes.

Actually, I'm pretty sure there is evidence that there are some differences between the biochemistry of homosexual brains and heterosexual people. It's obviously not just one 'gay gene' but like you said, the differences make someone predisposed to being gay. I agree that environmental factors do play a part (e.g. prisons) but I think that you're born with a certain inclination towards one sex (or both).

LOL what? Alien abduction of cows, I don't get how that's similar to my question. What I mean is, why would people choose to be gay when there is so much discrimination against it and less choice of partners? It's not a decision they make, it's preprogrammed to a certain extent.

also, look at the people who are in a heterosexual relationship till theyre like 40. then they divorce,and say the woman becomes a lesbian. Not bisexual - because in this case the woman doesnt sexually involve herself with a male anymore.
thats nothing new right? im  sure we've all heard of such a case?
there'd be some sort of influence which triggered preference of sexuality, because like.... if youre married to a man for20 years and then suddenly have a thing for a woman, there ought to be some non genetic influence!!
unless you got it wrong 20 years ago,

I think that means they're either bi or they did get it wrong lol (some people automatically assume they're straight because that's the norm in society and there have been a few cases where people have realised after they've gotten married and had kids). But anyway, if the woman has been attracted to guys previously and is now attracted to a girl, doesn't that mean she's bi?

[Neuron]

Couldn't agree more mark.

Clearly it's no more choice than whether you like the colour red over blue, but personally I find the the whole 'choice' debate a bit silly when it comes to discussions about sexuality. Whether it's a choice or not should have no bearing on policy, behaviour or conceptualisation. For instance, it would seem weird to say "it's wrong to discriminate against females, because they didnt choose to be that way".

It falsely (and borderline offensively) implies it's acceptable and tolerable purely because it's not a choice.

+1
But if sexuality is indeed something which is genetic rather then a mere choice then it does make their bigotry much more extreme and inhumane.

[Tomw2]

But if sexuality is indeed something which is genetic rather then a mere choice then it does make their bigotry much more extreme and inhumane.

Practically speaking I totally agree and yes it's particularly heinous given that the vast, overwhelming majority of homosexual individuals go through a period where they wish they were anything but homosexual. All the while receiving messages of varying degrees of directness that judge the 'choices' they are supposedly making. It's atrocious.

That said, I feel (in idealistic terms mind you) that the 'choice' argument in any form from either side subtly facilitates and strengthens an underlying discourse where homosexuality = bad/wrong/peverse/pathological.

IMO, the 'it's not a choice' argument implies, intentionally or not, that making such a choice would be pathological or wrong. It like saying "they can't help it that they're so f***ed up".

[ktrah]

Totally agree, Tom (even though I'm a participant in the argument )

[Tomw2]

(even though I'm a participant in the argument )

You and me both It's a strawman argument I'm regularly tricked into.

It's not to say it's something that shouldn't be discussed, after all the notion of preference and volition in sexuality and attraction are scientifically interesting! But in terms of how society, government and law treats and regards homosexuals morally, ethically and socially, it has no business being invoked IMO.

[EvangelionZeta]

But if sexuality is indeed something which is genetic rather then a mere choice then it does make their bigotry much more extreme and inhumane.

Practically speaking I totally agree and yes it's particularly heinous given that the vast, overwhelming majority of homosexual individuals go through a period where they wish they were anything but homosexual. All the while receiving messages of varying degrees of directness that judge the 'choices' they are supposedly making. It's atrocious.

That said, I feel (in idealistic terms mind you) that the 'choice' argument in any form from either side subtly facilitates and strengthens an underlying discourse where homosexuality = bad/wrong/peverse/pathological.

IMO, the 'it's not a choice' argument implies, intentionally or not, that making such a choice would be pathological or wrong. It like saying "they can't help it that they're so f***ed up".

So much of this.

Anyway, I think (as has been alluded to) that simplifying it to choice vs innate is a bit of an oversimplification - I'm sure we've seen that good arguments exist on both sides, and I'm not sure why people think these arguments' validity must be mutually exclusive.

In other news, something worth considering - why do we automatically assume being heterosexual is the default sexuality?  Why not bisexual?  After all, in some cultures, such as Ancient Greece, it was normal to have lovers of both sex.  Indeed, in Ancient Greece, sexuality simply did not exist as a concept; why do we assume that heterosexual and homosexual and everything else are the best way to classify people?  questions questions

[Tomw2]

why do we automatically assume being heterosexual is the default sexuality?

Well there's a good statistical argument for starters

IMO heteronormativity is mostly at play here. That is, heterosexuality is "ideal" and most common. And I think the Ancient Greeks were no different to be honest - sure they were less rigid in their conceptualisations regarding permissible sexual activity, but they still held 'man + woman' as the highest ideal in sex, sexuality and relationships. Lovers were tolerated, but if a nobleman professed his undying love for another male in a public arena, this was diverging from the ideal, high status position of heterosexuality.

Furthermore, at various times, certain sex acts - particularly between people of the same sex - had certain status attached to them. i.e. it was "ok" for a nobleman to have sex with another man so long as he only performed particular sex acts and the person was of a lower class to them (a slave would be ideal...).

sexuality simply did not exist as a concept

True, but relatively strict normative ideas about what was appropriate and what wasn't were still around.

why do we assume that heterosexual and homosexual and everything else are the best way to classify people?

You could ask the same question about gender and the answer would be very similar - it's easier because most people are either one or the other.

[EvangelionZeta]

^you're good at this. :p fair points all round, I'll have to think a bit before responding.

Generally speaking though, I'm assuming both of us can accept that even though there are correlations between and reasonable explanations for the existence of these concepts, the fact that their manifestation differs between circumstances opens a whole can of even more complex conceptual worms, right? :p

[Tomw2]

Generally speaking though, I'm assuming both of us can accept that even though there are correlations between and reasonable explanations for the existence of these concepts, the fact that their manifestation differs between circumstances opens a whole can of even more complex conceptual worms, right? :p

Oh yes, conceptually it's a total head f***. Totally screws with the natural, useful but somewhat arbitrary tendency and need of humans to categorise things.

It's also the reason why the DSM is forever troubled in psychiatry, psychology & law.

[CaiTheHuman]

I believe sexuality is fluid, you can like men and woman at the same time depending on what you prefer.

[Lolly]

Hey, I just thought I would pipe in and say that I really appreciate the insight and intelligence within this discussion. It's truly refreshing to read this, especially since the sexuality debate is often ridiculously generalised. Keep it up guys!