"Homosexuality is a choice" and its paradox

[MindForgedManacle]

And here I thought Godschild couldn't be any more absurd.

Silly me...

---

Anyhow, is anyone going to actually try to argue that homosexuality is a choice? I think an earlier post of mine in the thread nixed that.

[Zen Badger]

What I can't get my head around is the Christians desperate need to deny everyone else a chance at a happy life.

What is it? Are you not happy unless others are miserable?

Did the big bully take your dummy away when you were little?

You and your religion have no right to take away the rights of others.

If god is going to judge against homosexuals then he will in his own time.

Under your own religion you have no right to pass judgement.

So shut the fuck up and let people be fucking happy for once.

[rant over]

[downbeatplumb]

I personally view sex between a man and a woman as yucky.

Not the way i do it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...

If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.

If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change. Like the OP suggests, an otherwise heterosexual person could cultivate homosexual desires. And likewise a homosexual could cultivate hetro- desires.

It seems to me that the vast range of sexual habits suggests it is more plastic and less fixed. Maybe 70-30%, respectively. Now as I've been writing this it occurs to me that perhaps a distinction should be made between biological sex, gender identity and sexual habits.

Biological sex is pretty much fixed. Even radial surgery cannot eliminate the Y chromosome. Gender identity may or may not be voluntary depending on the extent to which it is a cultural artifact. And sexual habits seem very plastic, especially considering people can have sexual responses to unnatural artifacts like gas masks.

[Zen Badger]

Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...

If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.

If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change. Like the OP suggests, an otherwise heterosexual person could cultivate homosexual desires. And likewise a homosexual could cultivate hetro- desires.

It seems to me that the vast range of sexual habits suggests it is more plastic and less fixed. Maybe 70-30%, respectively. Now as I've been writing this it occurs to me that perhaps a distinction should be made between biological sex, gender identity and sexual habits.

Biological sex is pretty much fixed. Even radial surgery cannot eliminate the Y chromosome. Gender identity may or may not be voluntary depending on the extent to which it is a cultural artifact. And sexual habits seem very plastic, especially considering people can have sexual responses to unnatural artifacts like gas masks.

Hmm, another concept Christians seem to have trouble understanding.

"Consent", The very simple idea that what two consenting adults do together is their own damn business and no one else's.

All the rest, paedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality etc do not have consent from one of the parties involved.

So they qualify as rape.

Do you understand now?

(Though I don't see how foot fetishism got in there)

[genkaus]

Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...

If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.

If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change. Like the OP suggests, an otherwise heterosexual person could cultivate homosexual desires. And likewise a homosexual could cultivate hetro- desires.

It seems to me that the vast range of sexual habits suggests it is more plastic and less fixed. Maybe 70-30%, respectively. Now as I've been writing this it occurs to me that perhaps a distinction should be made between biological sex, gender identity and sexual habits.

Biological sex is pretty much fixed. Even radial surgery cannot eliminate the Y chromosome. Gender identity may or may not be voluntary depending on the extent to which it is a cultural artifact. And sexual habits seem very plastic, especially considering people can have sexual responses to unnatural artifacts like gas masks.

The error here is regarding the nature of choice.

Assume, for example, that one's sexual attraction towards an entity X is a choice. What would that mean? Does it mean that the person decided one day "I want to be attracted to X" and then went on to cultivate that attraction? Because if that were the case, the most fitting candidate for X would be run-of-the-mill, age-appropriate heterosexuality.

I think that the development of any form of sexual attraction would, as a matter of course, be involuntary. It may be as a result of genetics or biological environment or subconscious processes. The "choice" in the matter can only come in after one becomes aware of the existence of that particular sexual attraction. All other things being equal, a person may then have the choice as to whether continue having those sexual urges or eliminate them from their psyche.

(N.B. Absence of choice in development of sexual attraction is not always the case. The corollary to the given scenario would be that once a person becomes aware of absence of a particular sexual attraction, he'd have the choice of whether or not to cultivate it. With reference to the current discussion, the phrase "X-sexuality is not a choice" refers to the fact that the particular sexual attraction developed involuntarily and without conscious input.)

However, all other things are not equal. The various causes and their relative significance to different forms of sexual attraction - form mundane to exotic - are not very well known. Therefore, we do not know whether or not the choice to change the particular attraction is available to us.

For example, I might say "You choose to remain a homosexual. If you wanted to change, you could've negated your urges for same-sex intercourse by chemically castrating yourself. There's your 'cure' for homosexuality. It won't make you straight, but you won't be gay any longer either and therefore, your homosexuality is your choice".

Whenever people throw around the word "choice" in the context of human sexuality, all parties involved in the debate consider only one aspect of it - whether or not a person chose to be a homosexual as compared to whether he chose to be tall or blond-haired or myopic. One group says that it is an exact analogy - you didn't choose your height, hair or eyesight, while the other regards it as the opposite. What everyone ignores is that even those features are subject to change as well which means the 'choice' of changing your sexual attraction could be available anytime.

[MindForgedManacle]

Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...

If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.

I would tend to say that sexual attraction is innate. However, both individuals and society have an invested interest in condemning actions that cause harm and/or violate one's consent in most cases. Among your examples, foot fetishes seem rather harmless. However, necrophilia will likely cause harm to the individual and emotionally harms the deceased's family, who have already had to go through the pain of loosing their loved one. Pedophilia takes advantage of the ignorance of the child and/or ignores consent, as does beastiality.

If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change. Like the OP suggests, an otherwise heterosexual person could cultivate homosexual desires. And likewise a homosexual could cultivate hetro- desires.

Aside from the absense of anyone establishing that it is in fact a choice, it is irrelevant because then you're merely implying that there is something intrinsic to homosexuality that makes it abhorrent that has nothing to do with the way people usually (if not always) class immoral actions.

It seems to me that the vast range of sexual habits suggests it is more plastic and less fixed. Maybe 70-30%, respectively. Now as I've been writing this it occurs to me that perhaps a distinction should be made between biological sex, gender identity and sexual habits.

Biological sex is pretty much fixed. Even radial surgery cannot eliminate the Y chromosome. Gender identity may or may not be voluntary depending on the extent to which it is a cultural artifact. And sexual habits seem very plastic, especially considering people can have sexual responses to unnatural artifacts like gas masks.

Assuming it is the case that sexual habits are malleable, so what? That says nothing about the individual 'choosing' those preferences, i.e my taste for different kinds of foods has changed throughout my life, but I certainly did not choose for that to be the case.

[Ryantology]

Just posing a question for which I have no answer,...

If homosexuality is NOT a choice, then to what extent should we consider other types of sexual attraction involuntary? For example, foot fetishes, beatiality, necrophilia, pedophilia, i.e. the whole range of human sexual expression, both mundane and extreme.

If you keep on going, you'll understand why 'choice' has no place in this discussion whatsoever.

It is unfortunate for, say, pedophiles, that children are incapable of exercising legal consent and/or physically incapable of engaging in sexual activities without suffering harm, but that's the way it is. That's why the act is abhorred, and rightly so. But, nobody would choose to be like this.

[LostLocke]

If homosexuality is a choice, then the implication is that human sexuality is largely plastic and gender identity open to change

Gender identity is open to change.
People have done so physically, and even without an out right sex change, the concept of what is 'masculine' and what is 'feminine' has changed, and IMHO for the better.

As for plastic, it can definitely have some "interesting" uses in sexual....
...oh, that's not what you meant.
Never mind then....

[Whateverist]

What I can't get my head around is the Christians desperate need to deny everyone else a chance at a happy life.

Exactly. You'd think any consistency in following the teachings of the character of Jesus in the bible would lead them to be more charitable. How many times does the bible caution them against judging? How many examples are there of the Jesus character befriending or supporting those who the 'mob' would condemn?

I suppose we shouldn't judge the whole barrel by the worst of the rotten apples, but damn! Some Christians really suck at Christianity.