I don't believe homosexuality is set in stone (genetic); I don't believe it's a simple choice like picking out a tie; and I don't believe it is a psychological disorder that needs a 'cure'. What I do believe is that it results from the brain's plasticity and the brain fixating on the 'wrong' thing in a critical stage of development (in adolescence when hormones are in overdrive). Whether any conscious choice is involved in that process I do not know - that might differ between individuals - but what I do know is that if there was a choice it was an uninformed choice - like most childhood choices are.
Strictly speaking I'm bisexual but I identify as gay so I can perhaps understand these 'choice' arguments more than someone who is 100% gay. I don't believe I ever sat down and consciously decided, in a single decision, to focus on one more than the other, but at the same time I can understand how it might have been a gradual choice; one that was influenced by environmental factors in my life at the time, with gay coming out on top.
But just so there are no misunderstandings, I am referring to two different potential choices in this post; one is the bisexual choice which may only apply to those with pre-existing attraction to both sexes, and the other is the initial fixation phase that I believe occurs in adolescence or thereabouts and from which the resulting attractions may be the basis for the bisexual choice, or not as the case may be. But in both cases if there was any conscious choice involved, it was uninformed, and therefore something that should not be attacked as if it were an informed choice.
I can understand Heywood's palate argument, and even agree with it to some degree, but only to the extent that it develops from at most uninformed choices as I've explained. Also, sexuality differs from the palate, or any other mundane preference you could develop, in the strength and power of its influence. It is, after all, a fundamental part of human or animal life. And once it is set, erroneously or otherwise, it becomes your very nature.
This is just my opinion, to which I am entitled just as much as everyone else is to theirs.
Strictly speaking I'm bisexual but I identify as gay so I can perhaps understand these 'choice' arguments more than someone who is 100% gay. I don't believe I ever sat down and consciously decided, in a single decision, to focus on one more than the other, but at the same time I can understand how it might have been a gradual choice; one that was influenced by environmental factors in my life at the time, with gay coming out on top.
But just so there are no misunderstandings, I am referring to two different potential choices in this post; one is the bisexual choice which may only apply to those with pre-existing attraction to both sexes, and the other is the initial fixation phase that I believe occurs in adolescence or thereabouts and from which the resulting attractions may be the basis for the bisexual choice, or not as the case may be. But in both cases if there was any conscious choice involved, it was uninformed, and therefore something that should not be attacked as if it were an informed choice.
I can understand Heywood's palate argument, and even agree with it to some degree, but only to the extent that it develops from at most uninformed choices as I've explained. Also, sexuality differs from the palate, or any other mundane preference you could develop, in the strength and power of its influence. It is, after all, a fundamental part of human or animal life. And once it is set, erroneously or otherwise, it becomes your very nature.
This is just my opinion, to which I am entitled just as much as everyone else is to theirs.
