By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - being gay a choice vs born that way.

 

being gay a choice vs born that way.

It's a lifestyle choice 120 25.53%
 
Your born that way 250 53.19%
 
no opinion 36 7.66%
 
other---for anything I missed 62 13.19%
 
Total:468
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:
sapphi_snake said:
Rath said:

An interesting aside that I feel is somewhat relevant to the topic at hand, it deals with free will and sexuality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2345971.stm

Quite interesting. It should be noted that he seemd to be interested in sex in general (he made advances at women, and even thought about raping some), and his attractions towards children goes along with his heterosexuality, as children of both sexes have feminine features.

I don't understand though why he was forced to finish that program. He was obviously not in control of his actions. He also shouldn't have a criminal record.

He wasn't insane as such and the justice system simply has to assume free will exists, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Also I wasn't implying that the article had anything directly to do with homosexuality - it didn't - but it can lead to some interesting thoughts on what is a 'choice' and what isn't.

But did he have free will in this case?

I don't think free will needs to be asserted for a legal system to work. If a person is a danger to people then they need to be separated from society, if its possible for reform through psychological treatment and/or psychiatric drugs, ethics classes, anger management clases etc then fine. Freewill doesn't really have to come into it. If the brain is only a combination of hardware and software then any attempts to reform the sofware and hardware should of course be taken, if a person cannot be reformed due to extreme natural causes or nurture causes then regardless of free will, they are a danger to other and need to be separated from society.

I don't see why asserting free will needs to come into it. A denial of freedom of movement seems punishment enough. If you have logical and emotional components of your brain that function within normal parameters then you can way up actions, put yourself in other peoples shoes, feel regret etc, this is not the same as a person that has uncontrollable urgers or lacks empathy regardless of free will.

We all know that treating criminals poorly in gaol just makes them worse on average. Sure, some people rise above it and improve their lives, but on the balance I don't think that happens most of the time. The move to limit the systems punishment factors and move towards more positive reformation is already underway. Of course complete denial of such a system may cause problems for the family of people that have been affected by the criminal so a balance will have to be found that takes into account the criminals and those that suffered unter their actions.

Furthermore there are significant psychological factors that show that law enforcement is essential to reducing crime, I think from what I've read its more to do with the consistent application of laws and not so much to do with the severity of said laws. But I read about it a long time ago, so I might be spouting nonsense.



Around the Network
S____M____C____C said:
TruckOSaurus said:
S____M____C____C said:

not really. across all psychology a lot of behaviour comes from our environment. homosexuality almost definitely has something to do with self-scheme and environment imo.

for example i would say that men who possess more of/stronger characteristics of: being protective, mature, serious etc are more likely to be straight

men who are more party animal, live in the moment, banterous, fashion conscious etc are more likely to be gay

yes it's stereotypical, but c'mon. we all know gay guys are more likely to be in designer clothes with their hair styled to the side and all. If someone says 'gay guy' to you, what do you think of? That schema comes from real life experience

I can tell you right now you're heavily influenced by stereotypes. Being gay myself and having lots of gay friends I can tell gay guys are just as diverse in character than str8 guys.

I'm curious, where does your real life experience come from?

most gays i have seen in this world (and i've travelled around Europe) have lived up to the stereotype, or lived up to my perception of a gay man. they have been lively, colourful, funny, outgoing, camp, stylish etc. i can usually tell if someone is gay by looking at them

this applies to the 3 gay guys i know; they are all hilarious, wear colourful clothes, like a drink, really kinky 

here in the UK the main gay representatives on TV are Alan Carr and Graham Norton - need i say more

yes, its stereotypical and there are millions of gays out there who are, at face-value, completely ordinary - you couldn't tell they were gay by looking at them

however i believe that there is a very strong correlation between the characteristics i mentioned, and gayness

edit: don't want to make this personal, but i would imagine you and seece (two gay guys) as being very colourful, lively, youthful etc. maybe im wrong, and no i don't know yous so i cant really comment, im just guessing

What about Ian McKellen?

I don't know Seece personally so I won't comment for him but I'm far from flamboyant or camp, my humor is sarcastic, witty remarks which doesn't fit with the usual bitchy queen style humor. I don't attach that much importance to designer labels but I don't mind paying $150 for a pair of jeans I really like.

The gay guys you describe are the ones attracting attention but they're only a part of a very diverse group.



Signature goes here!

I think in a majority of cases, it is simply a matter of genetics.  I find women attractive, but that's not the case with men, and there's nothing that could be done to change that outside of seriously messing with my head.  Same goes for most homosexuals, I'm sure.

However, there are some cases where there is some level of choice involved.  I've become pretty good friends with a gay couple over the past few years (we take a lot of music courses together at UNO), and based on discussions I've had with them about things like sexual attraction, I'm under the impression that one of the two has  little sexual attraction to anything.  He has little care for how things look from a visual perspective, and that extends far beyond people.  In the end who he chooses to be with falls solely on their personality and interests, and he's been with both women and men in the past, so I guess in that situation, it could be considered a choice.  But even then, the choice is based upon a genetic predisposition towards asexuality.

Edit:

I've always visualized a genetic spectrum of sorts that people fall across.  Something like this:

If you're born more to the left of the spectrum, you exhibit more traits of the stereotypical male.   Those more to the right exhibit more female traits.  Bisexuals, homosexuals, and transgendered individuals fall closer to the center, jumping the sex line in the latter case.  Asexuals could probably fall anywhere.



TruckOSaurus said:

What about Ian McKellen?


You mean the most badass man alive? 

Back in high school I assumed all gays exhibited somewhat feminine characteristics.  Then I discovered Ian McKellen is gay, and my mind was blown.

Though Christopher Lee is a worthy contender for his title.  He had to lecture Peter Jackson about the act of stabbing a man in the back for his role as Saruman in the Lord of the Rings, as he had actually stabbed a man in the back during World War I.



makingmusic476 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

What about Ian McKellen?


You mean the most badass man alive? 

Back in high school I assumed all gays exhibited somewhat feminine characteristics.  Then I discovered Ian McKellen is gay, and my mind was blown.

Though Christopher Lee is a worthy contender for his title.  He had to lecture Peter Jackson about the act of stabbing a man in the back for his role as Saruman in the Lord of the Rings, as he had actually stabbed a man in the back during World War I.

Was that when he was completely cut from Return of the King?



Signature goes here!

Around the Network
Rath said:

Physics essentially, as the universe appears to be largely deterministic it follows that you could predict what actions a person would take based on the state of all the particles in the brain at a point in time. Quantum is one of the few things that could plausibly save free will, as it is not deterministic.

But although this is a very interesting topic, it's also very off topic in this thread.

WOW, fascinating, and scary.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

FaRmLaNd said:

I don't think free will needs to be asserted for a legal system to work. If a person is a danger to people then they need to be separated from society, if its possible for reform through psychological treatment and/or psychiatric drugs, ethics classes, anger management clases etc then fine. Freewill doesn't really have to come into it. If the brain is only a combination of hardware and software then any attempts to reform the sofware and hardware should of course be taken, if a person cannot be reformed due to extreme natural causes or nurture causes then regardless of free will, they are a danger to other and need to be separated from society.

I don't see why asserting free will needs to come into it. A denial of freedom of movement seems punishment enough. If you have logical and emotional components of your brain that function within normal parameters then you can way up actions, put yourself in other peoples shoes, feel regret etc, this is not the same as a person that has uncontrollable urgers or lacks empathy regardless of free will.

We all know that treating criminals poorly in gaol just makes them worse on average. Sure, some people rise above it and improve their lives, but on the balance I don't think that happens most of the time. The move to limit the systems punishment factors and move towards more positive reformation is already underway. Of course complete denial of such a system may cause problems for the family of people that have been affected by the criminal so a balance will have to be found that takes into account the criminals and those that suffered unter their actions.

Furthermore there are significant psychological factors that show that law enforcement is essential to reducing crime, I think from what I've read its more to do with the consistent application of laws and not so much to do with the severity of said laws. But I read about it a long time ago, so I might be spouting nonsense.

While I agree with this, I think there's a huge difference between doing something intentionally, and not acting of your own free will. A crazy person (or someone like this guy) shouldn't be punished, he/she should be helped. This man shouldn't have to live as a registered sex offender, or have to go to a place like Sexoholics anonmous, when he's brain is malfunctioning due to a tumor. He wasn't a sex addict, or a paedophile.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

TruckOSaurus said:
makingmusic476 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

What about Ian McKellen?


You mean the most badass man alive? 

Back in high school I assumed all gays exhibited somewhat feminine characteristics.  Then I discovered Ian McKellen is gay, and my mind was blown.

Though Christopher Lee is a worthy contender for his title.  He had to lecture Peter Jackson about the act of stabbing a man in the back for his role as Saruman in the Lord of the Rings, as he had actually stabbed a man in the back during World War I.

Was that when he was completely cut from Return of the King?

He was stabbed in the extended edition, which is why he needed to tell Peter Jackson how it should be done lol.



It's a scientific fact one is born gay.

If someone 'becomes' gay after being 'hetro' for decades it could be one or a selecttion of the following-

1. Society at the time didn't approve of homosexuals whether it be on religious or cultural grounds so they went with what was expected of them at the time such as getting married to the opposite sex and having children etc.

2. They repressed their feelings due to their homophobic upbringing and society so convinced themselves homosexuality is wrong/sinful etc

3. They decided there is no such thing as being hetro, homo or bi and that humans are free to be with whom they choose and this is in fact the most natural and liberated mindset and that we choose our own path and that path may branch out to new pastures one day.

Whatever the reason I can't see how one could choose to be gay when clearly they have a strong emotional and sexual preferences towards their own gender. One doesn't decide to feel such feelings especially in this world, one that is still quite homophobic. Things have improved a lot over the last few decades for gay rights.

By the way if anyone is wondering I'm hetrosexual but pro gay equal rights.



makingmusic476 said:
TruckOSaurus said:
makingmusic476 said:
TruckOSaurus said:

What about Ian McKellen?


You mean the most badass man alive? 

Back in high school I assumed all gays exhibited somewhat feminine characteristics.  Then I discovered Ian McKellen is gay, and my mind was blown.

Though Christopher Lee is a worthy contender for his title.  He had to lecture Peter Jackson about the act of stabbing a man in the back for his role as Saruman in the Lord of the Rings, as he had actually stabbed a man in the back during World War I.

Was that when he was completely cut from Return of the King?

He was stabbed in the extended edition, which is why he needed to tell Peter Jackson how it should be done lol.

I guess Peter Jackson learned how to do it much too well :P



Signature goes here!