Do you believe being gay is a choice

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Having grown up in our culture, I'm not sure I (or most on this board) can really address this, but I'm guessing there are plenty of people who, if left to their own preferences, without any social pressures or taboos, would exhibit no real consistent preference with regards to gender, i.e. sex with a partner depends more on the partner than the actual gender or manner of sex.

Just guessing.

This point would suggest that sexuality, i.e., confining it to one sex or the other, is a learned trait. It would not surprise if this were true for a lot of persons.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This point would suggest that sexuality, i.e., confining it to one sex or the other, is a learned trait. It would not surprise if this were true for a lot of persons.

what percent of persons? "a lot" meaning nothing.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what percent of persons? "a lot" meaning nothing.

ANd yet before you were begging for an anecdote, as though that might be persuasive.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

ANd yet before you were begging for an anecdote, as though that might be persuasive.

One anecdote would not persuade me. Since I have personally listened to many, many gay people tell me the opposite.

But the lack of even one anecdote, whether related personally, or even in media, is pretty interesting, don't you think?

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

This point would suggest that sexuality, i.e., confining it to one sex or the other, is a learned trait. It would not surprise if this were true for a lot of persons.

Um...no it doesn't.

It does, however, suggest that innate sexuality is complex and not binary, probably representing much more of a spectrum than two endpoints (an argument I think you're making other places in this discussion).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Um...no it doesn't.

It does, however, suggest that innate sexuality is complex and not binary, probably representing much more of a spectrum than two endpoints (an argument I think you're making other places in this discussion).

I'm not arguing that there isn't a spectrum either. I'm just saying that idea that the vast majority of gays made a conscious decision to be gay belies all empiric evidence that I am aware of.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One anecdote would not persuade me. Since I have personally listened to many, many gay people tell me the opposite.

But the lack of even one anecdote, whether related personally, or even in media, is pretty interesting, don't you think?

Maybe. But I think it is a straw man here, for many of the reasons SU points out, it would be unlikely that a person choosing to be gay would admit it to himself or others. OTOH, there are anecdotes put forth in other threads but apparently you don't find those to be good enough as you attempt to impeach them.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not arguing that there isn't a spectrum either. I'm just saying that idea that the vast majority of gays made a conscious decision to be gay belies all empiric evidence that I am aware of.

Completely agree.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm not arguing that there isn't a spectrum either. I'm just saying that idea that the vast majority of gays made a conscious decision to be gay belies all empiric evidence that I am aware of.

THen quit trolling for anger. The whole problem I had with the poll to begin with was that it was too simple to account for the complexity of the issue and that it was formulated to make a point rather than to seek information.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what percent of persons? "a lot" meaning nothing.

How would one design a study for that?

You'd have to take a statistically relevant sample size, take them from parents before they learned any aspects of sexuality, and place them into a new society where uncontrolled sexuality were practice to discover the postulate.

However, I've lived in a much more liberal culture and with persons who don't confine themselves to our limits, and it would seem to me, that people could be trained to have sex without almost anyone or anything.

For example, in Daytona Beach, we had this gal, who was such a party hound, she'd hump a guy, a gal, and then a dog. Large numbers of persons in significant segments of society only something to rub the landing strip, something to fill the hole or a hole.

If you strip away inhibitions, sexuality is about gratification. Investigate the segments which push the limits and you'll see that's true.

Perhaps almost anybody could drive themselves to those limits. It would need to be gradual. OTOH, what "natural" inclinations does a person have, those seem to be mostly inate.

And what is sexuality? Is it solely what gets you wet or what turns you on?

Is it your identity?

Is it the people for whom you feel agape or storge?

What exactly is it?

How can you ask an inane question when the subject matter is framed in terms of an object, when in fact it might be a process?