Is being gay a choice

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Is the minority status not to do with the percentage of people who actually fall under the category in question rather than why or how they fall under it? Be it genetics, hormonal, psychological etc, are gay people not considered a "minority" because of their numbers, as opposed to their beliefs as to why they are gay in the first place?

Minority
1.the smaller part or number; a number, part, or amount forming less than half of the whole.
2. a smaller party or group opposed to a majority, as in voting or other action.
3. a group differing, especially in race, religion, or ethnic background, from the majority of a population: legislation aimed at providing equal rights for minorities.
4. a member of such a group.
5. the state or period of being under the legal age of full responsibility.

I had a conversation with a random stranger in a late bar recently about sexual persuasion. She was mid twenties and fairly regular kind of every day person. When the topic of orientation came up (she was with her male cousin) I said I recognised her as straight (which she was) but she stopped me mid sentence and said, so do you believe I could never fall in love with a woman? She said it with implication and I faltered a bit because I didn't see it coming. To me she was the straightest girl in the room but she is not stupid enough to discredit ever falling in love with a woman. That's got nothing to do with genetics.

Now for a couple of facts, biology and genetics are two very different things. For example a large perecentage of women with pcos (an endocrine disorder) identify as lesbian. Pcos may have a genetic marker but the biological influences (the result of an excess production of testosterone) may be a factor in some womens orientation.

However it is, I don't believe it is the same for everybody. I know more men aggressively believe they are genetically designed that way but as a female, I know a lot of women who don't have such harsh boundaries when it comes to love or identity. They appear to be more flexible with their ideals and are definitely more understanding of alternate sexual persuasions. This makes for a much more comfortable and integrated society to live in. I find the lgbt culture much more oppressive in it's stance on integration and often seem more determined to continue segregating based on their "beliefs".

whattotdo wrote: »

I would like to know for definite just simply to have a greater level of understanding and also I believe it would result in greater level of respect shown to LGBT community.So many people think gay men are gay because when they were a kid they were handed a barbie instead of a action man,were victims of sexual abuse etc etc absolute nonsense imo.Religious groups who condemn us yet their God(through genetics) created our sexuality as well as there own sexuality.

Side note:It's widely accepted 'straight' people are born straight,why not gay people are born gay?

Here's some things I know for sure. There are a lot of gay men and women out there who have been abused as children or adults. There are also a lot of straight men and women who have been too. Ultimately what you're trying to say is that your reasons for your sexuality are more valid because you haven't and tbh, that's just insulting to those who have. It's not a competition to see who has more genuine reason to be who they are, maybe you would do better to just accept yourself first and you'll find other people will start doing the same.

whattotdo wrote: »

That's not what I'm trying to say at all,your clearly mistaken.Im just saying from my own experience of coming out and some of my gay friends' experiences, my peers suggested certain things that caused my homosexuality,examples of what they said I gave in my previous post.

and the point I'm making is it shouldn't matter. Everyone I meet has a "reason" why they think I'm gay, sometimes it's fairly insulting stuff but if you think about it what difference does it make, basically in their mind being with someone of the same sex is ultimately wrong and I shouldn't have to justify why it's not to anybody. If they feel like they need a reason then they probably have underlying issues with your sexuality anyway and you would probably do better without them in your life.

Babybuff wrote: »

Here's some things I know for sure. There are a lot of gay men and women out there who have been abused as children or adults. There are also a lot of straight men and women who have been too. Ultimately what you're trying to say is that your reasons for your sexuality are more valid because you haven't and tbh, that's just insulting to those who have. It's not a competition to see who has more genuine reason to be who they are, maybe you would do better to just accept yourself first and you'll find other people will start doing the same.

You touched a nerve there with me. I was sexually abused by a male when I was a child and I remember when I came out (to a trusted female teacher when I was in my teens) she "suggested" that perhaps I wasn't gay and that I was just "confused" because of my experiences with this guy and that I was shunning all men through fear. I could see her rationale but I knew this was not and never was my reason. I have often thought that maybe I would have experimented more if this had not happened but I always veer away from the "blame" game. I would not say "I am gay because I was abused" as I think this is far too simplistic (and perhaps a little insulting aswell to suggest that this thing which is a huge part of my identity is somehow so transient and flappable that it can be determined one way or another by one traumatic experience. Rather, I consider my sexual identity to be a (positive) part of who I am, it's inherent, and not simply a "result" of some (negative) "cause", like a side effect of some disease or whatever...

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You touched a nerve there with me. I was sexually abused by a male when I was a child and I remember when I came out (to a trusted female teacher when I was in my teens) she "suggested" that perhaps I wasn't gay and that I was just "confused" because of my experiences with this guy and that I was shunning all men through fear. I could see her rationale but I knew this was not and never was my reason. I have often thought that maybe I would have experimented more if this had not happened but I always veer away from the "blame" game. I would not say "I am gay because I was abused" as I think this is far too simplistic (and perhaps a little insulting aswell to suggest that this thing which is a huge part of my identity is somehow so transient and flappable that it can be determined one way or another by one traumatic experience. Rather, I consider my sexual identity to be a (positive) part of who I am, it's inherent, and not simply a "result" of some (negative) "cause", like a side effect of some disease or whatever...

These are feelings of shame and shame is something that others make us feel for who we are because we do not live up to their standards or expectations. Guilt is the opposite, it's the product of blaming ourselves for our perceived faults. I imagine this is the sentiment at the core of the pride movement, ultimately it is all about learning to accept who you are rather than continuing to live under the umbrella of shame that society has placed on loving someone of the same sex. If two women who had been abused found happiness together through an affinity of shared experience, does that still make their love wrong or less valid than anyone elses? Does it really need to be "fixed"? Or is it less "pure" because they weren't "born that way". And ultimately, do you still think this was a choice.
Anyone who thinks for a minute that it is "not right" probably has issues with homosexuality end of. And I don't even mean that as something that comes from straight society, lgbt culture is filled with the same sentiments and often why it ends up so fking depressingly oppressive and full of fundementalists . And is probably why there are so many screaming queens and angry lesbians clutching on so tightly to their "identity" to begin with. I think it's time people started being really honest with themselves.

ViveLaVie wrote: »

Just a thought... are you suggesting that straight women who won't entertain the idea that they could fall in love with a woman are stupid?? To me, this seems quite intolerant of those who identify as straight, or even as gay, because you're saying anyone who doesn't realise their capacity to fall in love with both sexes is stupid. I realise that what you're suggesting is that sexuality is fluid etc but I find the phrasing you used a bit strong...

No the stupidity factor was directed at the gay community. This is just one of the responses I pulled from this thread.

Fire1985 wrote: »

It's not a choice dumbass. Gay people are born gay.

It seems if you don't tow the line and believe that gay means born that way then you're a dumbass. It's nice when you find people who have not bought into that mentality and understand that love is a chemical reaction and not a biological consequence exclusive to a particular brand of genetically diverse people. Apparently it requires some level of comprehension to recognise that.

also, I understand love and sex are two different things and wrt to sexual attraction, the brain is the largest erogenous zone in the body, not the penis or genitalia. Consequently, I'm attracted to smart people.

still_a_choice wrote: »

Eh, yes many people find out later in life but that does not mean they suddenly become "gay" or "bi" etc it just means they found the right person who they love and they happen to be of a different gender.

This is my point. Some suggested earlier in the thread that we are all born with the capacity to be "gay" or "bi" or "straight" and at some point along the way the die is cast. How we get to that destination is irrelevant but suggesting it is somehow exclusive to a tiny percentage of genetically diverse people is imo not only incorrect but continues to encourage segregation and isolation where there doesn't need to be any.

floggg wrote: »

I think it's a case that because sexuality is a spectrum everybody's experiences and understanding of their sexuality is different.

Some people might be more fluid in their sexualities or lean towards bisexuality, so they don't see sexuality as being rigid or immovable and can consider the possibility of finding love with either sex, even if they have a strong preference one way.

Others have a fairly fixed sexual orientation that is very firmly on one side or other of the spectrum. So I personally wouldn't believe I could fall in love with a female because I just don't think I'm wired that way. Believe me, I tried to be able to do it for years, but just never could feel the way love and lust should feel about women. It just comes naturally though with men.

Because its such a subjective issue people might have a hard time relating to others experiences of sexuality. That's understandable. It doesn't mean somebody is being closed minded because they can't relate to your experiences, just as long as they can respect them as genuine.

As for why people are gay, there are many plausible theories. It's likely that there is no single cause.

Thing is tho, I really don't care why. I know who I am, and I'm happy with that person. I don't ask anything of others than to just respect that and let me live my life.

Very good point. I too know in my heart that I am 100% lesbian and that I will never be attracted to a man. To me, it is just as insulting to tell me that I am more "fluid" than I think (in essence, telling me that I dont actually know what I want) as it is to tell someone who IS fluid/flexible that they are to be confined to one label. Nobody knows me better than I know myself and if I want to identify as 100% lesbian with no desire or intention to ever be attracted to males, then that is my choice and nobody is going to tell me that I am being closed-minded or that it is just coincidental that I have not fallen for a particular gender yet.

I also agree with their not being one single "cause", I think I touched on this in an earlier post, that being gay is a complex part of one's identity and not the same as having a certain eye colour/hair colour/height etc - to simplify such a complex issue and confine it to one specific "cause" may be incorrect.