Is being gay a choice?

[Cunt]

I have a different view than most on this. It starts with realizing that 'gay' means two (and more!) different things.
1. Gay - a feeling in your self that you are attracted sexually to members of the same sex.
2. Gay - acting gay, such as having sex with someone of the same sex

They both sound very similar, but if you can't tell the difference, please try to before flaming me.

I think people are certainly born with one or the other preference. I am equally certain that people choose to indulge their desire, or do not.

It is tragic to think that a gay man, born in the last few decades, might deny his true desire and live as a straight man his whole life. He might marry, lovingly care for a wife, raise a family, be a good neighour and get to the grave without ever having acted on his desire for same-sex snogging.

Is he 'gay'? Would you label someone who had worked so hard to avoid a label like that? I understand that it is a terrible choice to have to make, but I would respect someone enough to not label them gay if they chose to live as a straight.

When someone says that being gay is out of their control, it makes it sound weak. I have had gay friends who were GAY! - meaning both same-sex and happy. They would NEVER back off and say they couldn't help themselves, they gave up too much in being 'out' and gay.

Anyway, I thought this might make an interesting discussion.

[cronus]

It's a spectrum. Some are in the closet, some out of the closet and some somewhere inbetween. Everyone is somewhere between straight and gay also. And things are proceeding at their own pace for most. I don't believe in deliberate outing of folks, even if they are high profile. It is something of a sensitive issue and people have and do commit suicide over where the door happens to find them with regards that closet, so let things be. If he wants to come out he will and staying in also.

[devogue]

Fundamentally I think sexuality is hard wired. However, effeminate gay men who claim gender fluidity I'm not so sure about.

[Svartalf]

Since I did not consciously choose to be straight, nor could I decide to change it just because gayness is fashionable in my neighbourhood, I guess that being gay is not a choice.

[Animavore]

No. FFS.

[Rum]

As per Ani. I tried a couple of gay experiences in the hyper sexual 70s. Everyone was having sex with everyone back then - in my circle anyway. I found the homosexual experiences actually unpleasant. Both happened when drunk/high with friends. A bristly face rubbing up against yours? No thanks!

I'm pretty sure it is hard wired too, though what voltage you happen to be is another matter.

[Seth]

Cunt is exactly correct. There is homosexual attraction and there are homosexual acts. The former may (or may not) be genetically driven (the science is not yet conclusive on this claim) but the latter is absolutely and totally voluntary.

And that is why the common plaint that anti-homosexual-conduct laws are "sexual discrimination based on gender orientation" are factually false. It is (no longer) a crime to have homosexual urges, though for a long time it was exactly that, but it may be unlawful to engage in same-sex sexual activity...or, as was the case as well, opposite-sex sexual activity of a proscribed nature, such as sodomy or oral sex, even with one's spouse.

Fortunately the Supreme Court has driven the sexually repressive anti-sodomy laws from the books so any consenting adult can bugger or be buggered by any other consenting adult, at least in the US, for reasons of personal privacy.

That being said, however, laws controlling personal conduct are generally upheld where there is at least a rational basis for such laws, like the ones that prohibit spitting on the sidewalk (to prevent the spread of diseases like TB), prohibiting public drunkenness or intoxication or exposing one's genitals in public.

For this reason it is always advisable that gay advocates couch their equal-rights arguments in terms of individual liberty interests and not try to misuse the "genetic urges" card, because it's a weak argument. It's just as weak as a woman saying that she needs full-time male protection simply because she's a woman.

If, as has been suggested, "gayness" is a genetic, and therefore fundamental aspect of one's physiology then gay people need not apologize for what nature has dealt them, and should not argue for protection because they are gay, but rather because they have a personal liberty interest in the privacy of their sexual activities that is exactly equal to any other person's privacy interest, heterosexual, pan sexual or otherwise.

"It's none of your business whom I fuck with, or how, or when" is a much stronger and more persuasive argument than "I need government protection because I can't help being gay."

The former is a strong and positive declaration of fundamental and universal civil rights, the latter is making oneself a victim and demeaning the very thing that gives one equal rights to sexual activity, which isn't one's "gayness," it's one's humanity.

[Cunt]

Since I did not consciously choose to be straight, nor could I decide to change it just because gayness is fashionable in my neighbourhood, I guess that being gay is not a choice.

You are speaking about the gayness (or lack of) between your ears. Your actions, what you do, is within your choice.

I think Seth summs up my thoughts on it fairly well with:

The former is a strong and positive declaration of fundamental and universal civil rights, the latter is making oneself a victim and demeaning the very thing that gives one equal rights to sexual activity, which isn't one's "gayness," it's one's humanity.

Emphasis mine.

It is nothing to make excuses, or apologize for.

[pErvinalia]

Are you still heterosexual if you haven't had sex for 5 years?

[Cunt]

If a member of the forum follows me from thread to thread, is it harassment? Love? Stalking?

[pErvinalia]

WTF?!? Posting a relevant comment is now harassment is it?

[pErvinalia]

Let me rephrase so your victimisation gland doesn't go off:

Is one still heterosexual if one hasn't had sex for 5 years?

[Cunt]

"It's none of your business whom I fuck with, or how, or when" is a much stronger and more persuasive argument than "I need government protection because I can't help being gay."

I think this places it in clearer terms. I have always been in favour of gay rights, except for the 'g' word. Any rights invented and offered to anyone should be gender-neutral, race-blind and not mention what kind of humans deserve those human rights.

Come to think of it, Human Rights tribunals, at least here in Canada, are disgusting and reeking with bigotry.

Here is a true liberal (though he ran for the Conservative Party, then bowed out like a coward to make room for Stephen Harper) speaking to a Human Rights kangaroo court about their bigotry.

He is a bit clumsy, but I think makes his point fairly well.

[pErvinalia]

When people talk about rights for gays, they aren't talking about rights for gays that other people don't already have. They are talking about equalising rights.

[devogue]

If a member of the forum follows me from thread to thread, is it harassment? Love? Stalking?

In my case it's love