2011-05-13 22:22:52 UTC
2 arguments used to prove homosexuality not a choice that are ridiculous:
1. Why would anyone choose to be a social outcast?
So joining unpopular political or religious sects, or various hated-on subcultures is not a choice either I take it?
2. Do you remember when you chose?
Not every choice is made directly. Some are made by making smaller, gradual choices over time. I doubt any men into brunettes remember making that choice either, but it's possible it came out of other choices like reading a magazine with hot brunettes in it, being good friends with a brunette girl early in life. Hypothetically, there's a number of scenarios where he would've been only a little away from going the other direction and developing an attraction for blondes. Say early in puberty he likes 2 girls, 1 blonde, 1 brunette. Say in this scenario which ever he chooses to go to the prom, the opposite will hatch a devious plot, fail, and at the end leave feelings of disgust towards her and subconsciously her hair color while the other gets preferred. Putting my shoes in this scenario as the guy I could easily see myself being effected that way.
If that can happen with hair why not gender? What makes gender unique from hair? Or for that matter other factors? I'm not arguing homosexuality is wrong, just that
One good argument for homosexuality not being a choice is the number of scientific studies. However, NONE of them found 100% correlation in twin studies. This shows genetic factors, but that no gene or set of genes is purely responsible for sexual orientation.
Think about the number of things in life that would increase the odds of relating "positive" things with a person's gender. Maybe what's genetic is not the sexual orientation itself but things like whether a person tends to socialize more with one sex or another or with certain personality types and then this in turn impacts what "media" and what type of real life people the person runs into and so influences which traits they will come to identify as "desireable" during puberty.
But based on that homosexuality is essentially no different a difference than attraction to a different hair color, eye color, color of clothing a person wears, etc. since anything we are attracted to has to come from somewhere and genetics would influence the scenarios we bump into growing up that leads to this attraction.
So why are we even making a big deal out of homosexuality, bisexuality, heterosexuality, asexuality in our society when you could just as correctly make a categorization of human sexuality based on anything else including hair color and even run scientific studies and probably find genetic correlations and environmental correlations for them too? Why do we have the label "homosexuality" but not "blondesexuality"?