(Im)mutability of cross-gender attraction?
 

Guys, I've been thinking and thinking, and it occurs to me maybe a sub-issue in this whole gay marriage debate is whether heterosexuality is immutable. Does anybody have any studies about whether dudes choose to like chicks or vice versa? Can we keep this discussion civil and avoid the usual bickering? Thanks in advance. I'm glad there's a place like CG where I can come and share such deep thoughts and debate such murky and fascinating questions.

This is rather petty, isn't it?

I don't think I chose to be attracted to women. I feel pretty certain of that. You?

You know what I meant.

True story. I think I've been reading too many briefs and cases tonight because the first three times I saw your post I thought you said, "This is rather pretty." I thought, WTF? So not until just now did I know what you meant.

I do, however, think I make a rather self-evident point. Aren't we, heterosexuals, as well witnesses concerning whether sexual preference is a choice? If not for us, why for gays? Of course, as I've said all along, I don't really think this is a close question that deserves much discussion, partly for this reason. The whole of humans knows the answer.

How galling to hate fellow humans for an immutable characteristic.

http://www.logcabin.org/lef/choice_white_paper.html
http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.html#whatis
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...by-choice.html

I completely agree. That's pretty much what I said here: http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...932#post252932

That said, there are clearly some switch hitters out there, but they are even more rare than switch hitters in baseball these days.

*Click* Yes you have crossed into Douche status from just being a Prick.

Chalk up another case in point of why the Word of Wisdom is a good thing.

I think you're still trying to set up the wrong test, or at least an incomplete one. I don't think anyone ever chooses to feel an emotion, urge or desire. They chose what they do in response to that emotion,urge or desire, unless you don't believe in the concept of free will. I think those who say that it is "mutable" are only really saying that one can learn not to act on those desires anyway.

So I still say that the only question is whether, in the case of gay marriage, there are the reasons, moral or otherwise, to allow it or not allow it. Maybe you can persuade me I am wrong, however. Can you think of some other action which is the result immutable emotion, urge or desire (because it is feelings that define homosexuality and heterosexuality) that we protect or at least do not prohibit solely on that basis? I can't think of anything but there could certainly be something obvious I have overlooked.

I don't see any reason to capitalize douche or prick. I don't think they apply to him more than you in any case, but don't get distracted: it is a grammatical point I'm making here.

Wrong messenger.

Actually, I think he brings up a valid point. If gender orientation is natural and immutable, either in the case of heterosexuality or homosexuality, it has serious repercussions in the discussion over same sex marriage.

SU may not think it deserves close attention, but the American Psychological Association apparently disagrees, as do those hateful Evangelical hacks in the Log Cabin Republicans and the right wing fringe fanatics at Mother Jones.

And by the way . . . still waiting on your explanation as to why hundreds of gays insist that their orientation was their own choice.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=143

Logical fallacies are running amok here.

That some gays choose their orientation does not mean that others do not. It proves nothing except that some gays choose their orientation.

SU's point has the most logical coherence b/c he raises the discussion to the general level of sexuality, instead of going down one layer to hetero- and homo-. And so from that level, if heterosexuals do not choose their orientation, why is it not likely that homosexuals do not choose theirs either?

At an estimated world population of 6,602,224,175, if we estimate (conservatively) that 3% of them are gay, then there are 198,066,725 gays.

Let's use your figure of "hundreds" and call that 999 persons.

The proportion of gay persons whose orientation would be their own choice, in this scenario is 0.00000504 which is 0.000504%.

So let's get this straight, you are demanding an explanation about the 0.000504% of gays that chose their own orientation?

If you don't like these numbers, present your own, and we can discuss the differences.

I'm surprised that women can be attracted to men, let alone men. I'm positive that if I was a girl I would be gay.

Your stats teacher is somewhere crying right now.

Thank you.

You're painting a false analogy here. You're using as the basis of comparison the number of gays in the world (though, to your credit, you're using a conservative estimate). You then compare against that figure the number of gays associated with one particular website that claims that their orientation was their choice. For the percentage you give to hold, you would have to be certain that no gay not associated with that group believes that their orientation was a choice.

I will agree that many or most homosexuals do not choose their orientation-- but some do. And that has important implications, as it suggests that the argument of hard and fast 100% immutability has serious flaws. From the third article I referenced above:

What's your mission here, AA. To convince us that sexual preference is hopeless? To convince us that it's a real live issue? On either count, forget it. Go to an evangelical site.

He's trying to shake you out of your binary world, you nitwit.

Binary. The favorite word of the Sunstone set. I don't buy it. I tried to find that usage on the Internet and couldn't find it. I regard it as just more Mormon newspeak. How's that for irony?

My mission is to understand the phenomenon, what causes it, what factors contribute to its expression, and what all of the above means as it pertains to the issue at hand of Proposition 8 and other similar laws sure to come.

To be perfectly honest, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, except that the convictions that many of us on BOTH sides of the fence hold may not square away with what scientists, psychologists, and research are suggesting. I am asking people here to reference what they can of that body of information, to address it, and make whatever reconciliations of their world view might be necessary as a result.

Perhaps not. I'm just as willing to be shaken out of mine, if that's where the road leads.

SU, I'm just wondering what the total dollar amount is that you plan to bill your clients for the time spent creating this thread, and reading and adding additional responses, while concurrently "working on their cases."

I don't see your position as an either/or proposition. You are taking an open minded approach to sexual preference; willing to formulate a position based on all the information available. Am I mistaken?

SU, however, is as intransigent as they come.

I think the question is far more complicated than an either/or proposition would allow. And I am on no proselyting crusade. That's one of the reasons I had hoped to avoid the back and forth that goes on over this stuff. Once lines are drawn, it becomes an issue of who can win the argument over what is actually going on; "who's right," not "what's right."

So I'm dropping the sword on this one and asking, in all sincerity, what's going on?

I agree with Dan, here, and have noticed that his post has been conveniently overlooked. Why does it matters what desires or urges or whatever you want to call it people are born with? Are we not taught to put off the natural man or in otherwords control those natural desires? Just because I want to have sex with a man or a woman doesn't make it right because I was born with that desire. The argument that homosexuality is immutable or not has never made sense to me because it doesn't matter.

It matters inasmuch as determining how to treat or cope with same-sex attraction.

Sure and I guess my comment was a little broad but it was made in the context of the other posts which it appeared were arguing over whether homo or hetero sex was right or wrong based on their immutability. Perhaps I have simplified their arguments.

That line of reasoning works if giving in to those desires or urges are detrimental to the well being of society. The urge for me to punch somebody in the nose if they bug me is natural, but allowing and protecting such behavior would have a demonstrable negative effect upon society. Opponents of homosexual marriage argue that allowing for that definition of marriage would have dramatic political, social, and economical effects, but I'm not so sure such has been demonstrated to be the case.

At any rate, mutability is important to the issue because it addresses the point of what becomes of gays if homosexual activity is deemed detrimental to society (whether such a determination is correct or not). What recourse is left to those who are denied full expression of what they feel is a significant part of who they are? Does it mean that some who would have been gay if society had allowed it would not be? For how many would such be impossible? Are they then to live out an ascetic existence? And what is the cost to society of any of the above?

This formulation is convenient for a heterosexual because it is a cop out. We are talking about fairly high stakes here. We are talking about not only the chance to be fulfilled in romantic love, but formaion of families or not. You are acting like this is a comparable issue to whether a city should add lanes for bcycles and provide financial incentives for people to bike to work. It's not the same.

Do you honestly think you could live a life of celibacy, live as a bachelor and have no children? How would you respond to coersion from authorities that you had to take a gay lover?

Good post. It's too bad these quesitions need still be put to some people, but apparently they do.

But we should not forget that in California, where the prop 8 debate is taking place, the issue is NOT whether gays can live together, adopt children, have sex, enter civil unions, be romantically connected, receive insurance beneifts, etc., as those are all allowed whether or not prop 8 passes or fails. The only issue is whether their union is deemed a marriage.

is it?

if the issue is purely semantics, why is everyone freaking out about the end of the world, indoctrination of our youth, and the weakening of democracy? changing the definition of one word will result in all the things being alleged?

maybe I am misunderstanding your statement.

I was responding to hoopster's and Dan's specious reasoning, which could be used to ban gay unions, per the LDS Church's position. Adding the official title of marriage to the unions has a different purpose we've discussed ad nauseum here.

as mentioned above, church is against civil unions. so that's a specious argument.

You tell me, as that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

What is a specious argument?