Why do people here present the issue of homosexuality as a polar dichotomy?

Question

People here seem to argue that it is either purely biology or purely choice.

Isn't it possible that it is more like the rest of reality and actually ranges between the extremes?

I makes more sense to me that the individuals involved most likely range clear across the spectrum from pure biology to pure choice.

What do you think?

Answer 1

Acting on an attraction is a choice, whether you were born with it or not.  God says adultery is a sin.  How many of us want to have s*x before marriage?  It's still a sin and acting on it is wrong even though a man is attracted to a woman.

Answer 2

If there are homosexual animals, and there are, how is argument a factor?

And a view of science as a dichotomy doesn't release the need for learning and understanding.

"You got a g*y hog there mister."

Answer 3

Homosexuality is not in itself as sin; it is acting on the temptations that is.

Like, having a pornography addiction isn't a sin in itself, it is acting on the temptations of that addiction that is a sin.

Just because someone is a Homosexual doesn't mean they have to act on it.

Answer 4

Isn't it a polar monochotomy?

Anyway, as long as we agree that it's polar, I guess we're basically on the same page.

Answer 5

Nobody chooses who they are biologically attracted to, therefore sexuality is not a choice.

Scientific research in a number of fields clearly shows that there are both genetic and environmental influences.

Answer 6

My personal belief is that one's sexuality is a preference tended toward from birth and ultimately determined by environmental factors. One does not choose to prefer blue to red; I believe the same logic follows with one's sexuality.

Answer 7

Yep, I believe it has more to do with the environment in which you grow up. Different environments produce different results regardless of the gene that supposedly "controls" your sexuality. People spouting off this "Oh, it isn't a choice" nonsense obviously haven't actually researched the topic. They go with the flow and say whatever the person they agree with most is saying. I have asked people of both sides if they feel they chose the team they're batting for. Guess what. I got mixed answers. Some people say they experimented with the other side and decided they didn't like it. Are they just confused? Then, you bring in bisexuals. If there is a gene that is the sole controller of a person's sexuality, why does it seem to be malfunctioning for these people?

Who is right? Who can know...

Answer 8

That only applies to bisexuals.

Answer 9

What's natural about a man being with another man?? Natural means the course of things to come. So it's natural for a woman to be with a man because the natural thing to happen is a child. A man and another man doesn't produce anything and is counter-productive to creation. God is the Creator of all things and humans so being homosexual is against God. Being g*y is a choice just like being heterosexual is a choice. Everything you do is a choice.  

Answer 10

I think sexuality is a spectrum

Answer 11

Dichotomies are easier for people to understand.  You're making feeble heads hurt.

As for me- I'm afraid I really don't understand homosexuality as well as I'd like to.  I do understand there are those that are not strictly attracted to one s*x.  It's entirely possible that sexual preference many be tied into the known variables of attraction (hair color, hair length,  etc.).  I think I just made my head hurt :-)

Answer 12

It's complicated and simultaneously disturbing.

I understand it to be without boundaries. To speak about that subject, to me it's like somebody asking, why isn't it ok to have intercourse with this or that?

Answer 13

i am heterosexually,

i chose to lose my virginity in 1980-79

when i became a believer, i submitted to the will of God about fornication, even against my own choice.

I have followed that choice my entire life. the only time i have failed in the choice is in my dreams.

the term choice applies to the will of spirit.

however biological lusts and craving can be manipulated. like Pavlovs dog drueling (?) for food at the anticpation of a sound of a  bell.

im sure the study of mind control increases beyond that.

there are other things too that genetics have or can be programmed and inherited. so it is not God that created them but the sins of parents , this kind of homosexual behaviour can be translated through the genes and dna even if a person is drugged and raped. like a bell sound prompting emotions in the subconscience.

then again,! the subconscience could be given post hypnotic suggestions.

if a person is born hermaphrodite. than there might be mutations to consider and not just genetic testing and tampering.

no matter what the theories! All men can choose to be obedient to Gods commandments. and all men that sin, choose to sin.

Answer 14

This is a GREAT question.  I have said many times here that the only reason people want to paint homosexuality as a choice is because the Bible says that choice is a sin.  I believe that when we stop giving so much credence to the Bible, many more homosexuals will admit to the fact that for them, it was a choice.  And there is nothing wrong with that.  

I myself know many people (all lesbians) who state point blank that it was a choice they made.  I do not know whether this is unique to females, since all of the g*y males I know believe that they were g*y from birth.  And I see no reason to doubt them.  I have known many young boys, before the age of puberty even, that I am quite certain are g*y.  So I do not doubt that there IS a biological element involved for many (if not most) homosexuals.  But the fact that I know some who HAVE made a choice make me believe that this also happens.

Again, the issue is not whether it is natural or whether it is a choice.  The issue is letting people make that choice for themselves.

Answer 15

Has anyone ever really discovered the gene for homosexuality, or is "born g*y" a myth?

Granted, people are far from perfection, and new birth defects seem to crop up every day.  Supposedly, men have been "trapped" in women's bodies, and vice versa.  But does this irrevocably lead to a g*y lifestyle?

I think for the moment that science has given as many questions as it has answers.

From a biblical standpoint, it is written that some early Christians "were" or "used to be" homosexual, but they were able to change or cease that activity, and were commended for doing so.

Of course, it is the activity that the Bible rejects, not the person.

I would think that social conditioning and expectations also play a part in this, especially today, when the g*y lifestyle is everywhere, and portrayed as just another slice of life.

P.S. As to free will, I think that goes to choice.  Regardless of biology or environment, a person has free will to *choose* to folllow a way of life that conforms to Biblical Christian standards...or not.

The same is true for heterosexual orientation, if the person is not in a position to marry, but wants to conform to Biblical Christian standards.  He or she has the free will to accept those standards...or not.

Answer 16

Yeah, it's nature and nurture, not one or the other.  I do think, however, that the strength of these two factors is relative to the individual.  Anways, for me, homosexuality is not even an "issue", homophobia is.

Answer 17

This is a place for simple answers. If certain communities acknowledged that homosexuality is not simply a choice but a more complex issue, it would be much more difficult to call it a sin.  Further problematic is the fact that many studies of homosexuality in animals and humans are sponsored by partisan groups, which has reduced popular confidence in studies on the subject broadly.

Besides, it build confidence when one can presume to comprehend an issue, so the least complex explanations often appeal to the least common denominator.

Answer 18

Yes I agree....  

Answer 19

Hmmm... if anything I'd put it between biological and external (uncontrollable) environmental factors, and this leaning much toward the biological end.  I certainly wouldn't bring a possibility of choice into it, actually.