Why do lots of people think that people choose to be gay?

  • Thread starter Jupiter60
  • Start date
In summary: It's not like you can just look at someone and know they're gay. There's no way. And even if there were, it's not like that would change anything. Gayness is not a visible thing.
  • #1
Jupiter60
79
22
It's obvious to people that people don't choose to be black, white, asian or have blond hair. Why is it not so obvious to people that people don't choose to be gay? It's it because gayness is not a visible thing? You can't look at someone and immediately know that they are gay.
 
  • Like
Likes fireflies
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Jupiter60 said:
It's obvious to people that people don't choose to be black, white, asian or have blond hair. Why is it not so obvious to people that people don't choose to be gay? It's it because gayness is not a visible thing? You can't look at someone and immediately know that they are gay.

Choose to be gay? I believe it was most clearly explained by the cultural anthropologist Todd Goldman[1] in his two seminal works regarding phase II of the transitional phases from sexual ambiguity(I), to a misogyny/misandry phase(II), and finally to gender selective period(III).

It is the transition from phase II to phase III which confuses most people into believing that a choice was made.

These are of course generalizations, as I've met people who defy all manner of attempted classification.



[1] Actually, he was an accountant. But... meh...
 
  • #3
Jupiter60 said:
It's obvious to people that people don't choose to be black, white, asian or have blond hair. Why is it not so obvious to people that people don't choose to be gay? It's it because gayness is not a visible thing? You can't look at someone and immediately know that they are gay.

1) Because it fits their ideology?
2) Something inside mind - not visible in a way that would immediately prove otherwise
3) Actually, sexual orientation that's not 0 or 1, but a wide spectrum. A bisexual can be even used to prove that they are "right". (Anyway, I was personally shocked, after seeing stats how big fluctuation there is between homo- and bi- if you study the same sample after a few years. There must be plenty of evidence if you cherry pick it properly :D )
 
  • Like
Likes Simon Bridge and billy_joule
  • #4
Religious people believe all kinds of nonsense with absolutely no evidence of any kind. Believing that homosexuality is a conscious choice is just one of many such things.
 
  • Like
Likes Amrator, Simon Bridge, billy_joule and 1 other person
  • #5
Not a big mystery

Most people can't stand people who are different from them.
This goes double for those who haven't got much schooling, like conservatives/evangelicals.
Narrow-mindedness is cured with education, on average, the more educated you are, the less bigoted you will be. Exceptions do occur, both kinds: highly educated people can be very bigoted, and non-educated people can be very broadminded.

So, these people cling bitterly to the notion that gayness is a choice to avoid having to deal with the reality and fact that gays are a natural occurring phenomenon, far more frequent that lefthandedness or red hair.
 
  • Like
Likes Kerrie
  • #6
phinds said:
Religious people believe all kinds of nonsense with absolutely no evidence of any kind. Believing that homosexuality is a conscious choice is just one of many such things.

I'd be careful with that "religious". In my country during communism, all such people who were openly homesexual, were being shown as evidence of decadence and moral corruption of capitalist West.
 
  • #7
Czcibor said:
I'd be careful with that "religious". In my country during communism, all such people who were openly homesexual, were being shown as evidence of decadence and moral corruption of capitalist West.

If you replace the word "religious people" with "religious and/or extremely ideological people" (and communism is an ideology) then phinds' comments are still valid.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #8
There's a lot of speculation going on about theology and people’s attitudes, but very little evidence based discussion. In fact the whole question could be re-asked as "What makes anyone do anything?" We don't know why people think other people choose to be gay. I'm sure there are a myriad of reasons.

How about we just talk about what makes people gay: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167

So after thinking about this some, is there any evidence that proves homosexuality is not a choice in some instances? There are plenty of examples of homosexualality that seem to arise for convenience or gain rather than a locked in sexual orientation at birth: Gay for pay, prison populations, ship populations, ect. Are these groups homosexuals? It would seem to me that we need to lay some actual ground work for this discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Jupiter60 said:
It's obvious to people that people don't choose to be black, white, asian or have blond hair. Why is it not so obvious to people that people don't choose to be gay? It's it because gayness is not a visible thing? You can't look at someone and immediately know that they are gay.

The number of people who think homosexuality is a choice shrinks every day. I think it's because the topic is being discussed openly. When something is kept hidden or is forbidden to be discussed, it takes on a sinister quality.

Reasonable people, who are thankfully the majority, can see that very few people would choose a lifestyle that invites persecution and danger. Being social animals, we want friendship and camaraderie, especially from our families.
 
  • #10
Czcibor said:
I'd be careful with that "religious". In my country during communism, all such people who were openly homesexual, were being shown as evidence of decadence and moral corruption of capitalist West.

I did not LIMIT such inanity to religious people. As StatGuy2000 correctly pointed out, any group that substitutes belief for fact is subject to this kind of nonsense.
 
  • #11
Student100 said:
So after thinking about this some, is there any evidence that proves homosexuality is not a choice in some instances? There are plenty of examples of homosexualality that seem to arise for convenience or gain rather than a locked in sexual orientation at birth: Gay for pay, prison populations, ship populations, ect. Are these groups homosexuals? It would seem to me that we need to lay some actual ground work for this discussion.

You are confusing homosexual behaviour with homosexuality. One is a sexual orientation and identity, the other is not. In sociology and epidemiology people who engage in homosexual behaviour but are not themselves homosexual are referred to as men who have sex with men.
 
  • Like
Likes gkam44 and Pythagorean
  • #12
Ryan_m_b said:
You are confusing homosexual behaviour with homosexuality. One is a sexual orientation and identity, the other is not. In sociology and epidemiology people who engage in homosexual behaviour but are not themselves homosexual are referred to as men who have sex with men.

Thanks Ryan, I didn't know there was distinction.

Anyway, another question:

Here is the huffpost piece on this: Here

If sexual preference can be altered, then people who support gay rights can’t rely on the argument that gay people should be protected from discrimination because gay people have no choice but to be gay – an argument that seems like an apology for homosexuality, as if homosexuality is a disease for which there is no cure.

There is an element of homophobia in that argument– the implication that gay people would become straight, if only they could. Supporting gay marriage becomes equivalent to supporting the construction of wheelchair ramps. The “gays can’t help being that way” approach is reminiscent of the old view of homosexuality as a psychiatric illness.

In a blog post for Slate, J. Bryan Lowder comments on Cynthia Nixon’s claim that her lesbianism is a choice. Lowder agrees with Nixon that blaming biology “cedes a great deal of control to bigoted people.”

You don’t have to defend a controversial action by arguing that you have no control over your behavior. In fact, when we you do so, you reinforce the belief that your behavior is undesirable.

Nobody has to prove that biology forces them to vote for a particular political party, practice a certain religion or follow a particular diet.

Just as gay people who are happy as they are should not be forced to change their sexual orientation, gay people who want to be straight should have the right to change if they can – and the correct word is “change” – not “cure”.

In his blog post, Lowder states, “Many critics will argue that appealing to biology is the only way to protect against the attacks of the religious right.”

So does the "we don't choose to be gay" line really help or hinder gay rights?
 
  • #13
Ryan_m_b said:
In sociology and epidemiology people who engage in homosexual behaviour but are not themselves homosexual are referred to as men who have sex with men.
I think you read that wrong. According to that article, the MSM term is meant to cover any man who has sex with other men, for whatever reason. This would include any gay men who are sexually active with other men. It would not include gay men who are not sexually active with other men. It's a label for the behavior as opposed to the emotional/psychological predisposition.
 
  • #14
zoobyshoe said:
I think you read that wrong. According to that article, the MSM term is meant to cover any man who has sex with other men, for whatever reason. This would include any gay men who are sexually active with other men. It would not include gay men who are not sexually active with other men. It's a label for the behavior as opposed to the emotional/psychological predisposition.

I worded it poorly, gay men can also be referred to as MSM if sexually active. My main point was that there is a difference between behaviour and orientation.
 
  • #15
Student100 said:
Thanks Ryan, I didn't know there was distinction.

Anyway, another question:

Here is the huffpost piece on this: Here



So does the "we don't choose to be gay" line really help or hinder gay rights?

I disagree with a lot of this article. Sexuality isn't a choice and the recognition of that has helped the gay rights movement. You can choose to try and live differently sure, and for some people that might work (potentially because sexuality isn't trinary [hetero/bi/homo] like is usually thought but a spectrum) but that doesn't change the fact you develop with the sexuality you have without conscious effort.

As for posing some hypothetical where science can alter sexuality, that impacts in no way on LGBT rights and culture now.
 
  • #16
Ryan_m_b said:
I worded it poorly, gay men can also be referred to as MSM if sexually active. My main point was that there is a difference between behaviour and orientation.
The distinction is important, but my expectation would be that the majority of MSM would self identify as gay.
 
  • #17
To say that people think others choose to be gay, would imply that everyone makes that choice and some choose gay and others do not.
I am not gay, but I did not choose to be not gay, So I would assume people who are gay did not make any 'choice' either.
If it does not matter to you, and you want to address it, you have to ask yourself why you want to make that division?
It is like I simply cannot understand race discrimination, there is only one race of humans, the human race.

It is simply beyond me (and I don't think I am that stupid) that people want to use physical attributes to promote their own agendas and ideals.
its like gay marriage, are they forcing you to marry into the same sex? I don't think so, so what really does it have to do with you, or your morals or ethics,
 
  • #18
My only "proof" that homosexuality is not a conscious choice is knowing a two people from a very young age (one male, one female) both expressed to me when we were all under the age of 15 they were not attracted to the opposite gender. I had never been raised to believe it was ever wrong morally, so it never mattered. And why should it? It's really none of anyone's business who we are attracted to and love.
 
  • #19
I've asked people why they think that and I never got a clear answer. Just got "it just is". And I'd say "could you choose to be attracted to a man if you wanted?" And they just say something like "that's disgusting"... It's kind of an impossible argument, they wouldn't "choose" it because they find the thought unpleasant.. but I argue they find the thought unpleasant and therefore they can't choose it. Even if some day we could show people brain scans of new born babies and say "look, there it is, that bit there, this is a gay baby" some people would still believe it's a choice.

I think the real issue, and here is where i say something from actual psychology so the thread doesn't get closed, is that the belief that being gay is wrong is very important to some people.
These same people, because we live in 2014, also believe that it is wrong to hate someone for something they can't control.
These two conflicting cognitions cause cognitive dissonance.
Therefore they create a new cognition to resolve this dissonance, i.e. that being gay is a choice.

Motivated reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
There is a much more fitting term for exactly what I am talking about it but I forget.. argh.. The triangle.. kung fu panda.. argh.. damn you brain!
 
  • #20
I think people tend to choose to be LGBT because of the pressure put on them by religion to have more and more and more children that the person really doesn't want to have to begin with. The person then becomes LGBT to get back at the religion hoping that the thought of the nastiness of someone being LGBT will drive the religious person trying to make them conceive children for said religion mad and crazy. LGBT is basically life's way of telling religion that you don't force humans to conceive for your self centered and greedy maligned desires.
 
  • #21
Dryson said:
I think people tend to choose to be LGBT because of the pressure put on them by religion to have more and more and more children that the person really doesn't want to have to begin with. The person then becomes LGBT to get back at the religion hoping that the thought of the nastiness of someone being LGBT will drive the religious person trying to make them conceive children for said religion mad and crazy. LGBT is basically life's way of telling religion that you don't force humans to conceive for your self centered and greedy maligned desires.

No one chooses to be gay simply to get back at the religious. Given how traumatic it can sometimes be to come out in a family which is particularly religious it isn't exactly an easy rebellious streak. Besides it's clearly not this as homosexuality is prevalent in all sections of society and cultures, whether they be religious or not.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #22
Dryson how do you explain highly religious gay people, gay people who desperately want children, and highly religious gay people who desperately want children?
 
  • #23
Darryl said:
To say that people think others choose to be gay, would imply that everyone makes that choice and some choose gay and others do not.
Not necessarily - it could be that heterosexuality is the "default", as it were, and that homosexuality is the choice to diverge from said default.
 
  • #24
DaveS said:
Darryl said:
To say that people think others choose to be gay, would imply that everyone makes that choice and some choose gay and others do not.

Not necessarily - it could be that heterosexuality is the "default", as it were, and that homosexuality is the choice to diverge from said default.

So just to clarify: You think people don't choose to be heterosexual but do choose to not be heterosexual?

I'm heterosexual, surely if I have the choice to "diverge from the default" I have the choice to remain with the "default"? Or did I choose not to make that choice?
 
  • #25
Prejudice aside there is a common confusion between acts and orientation ... it is possible to be homosexual and exclusively have sex with women for example. The act is a choice, the orientation is, pretty much by definition, not.

One can choose all kinds of acts.

Similarly it is possible to act as a man or a woman (or anything else for that matter) regardless of biological gender. It is possible to act as what you are not: theater depends on this (and causes problems for some people that way too.)

Religions and other ideologies commonly prohibit acts rather than orientations, but tend to label people by their acts too. The thinking is "you are what you do"... or, more, your act has revealed your inner nature.
i.e. stealing may be prohibited - and a person who has chosen to steal (for whatever reason) is "a thief" ... always has been and always will be but has shown their nature by their act: goes the thinking - once a thief always a thief. We've heard this before.

But some choices are not always choices - if we focus on the immorality of choosing to steal, and label the offender, we may be able to convince ourselves we are not complicit in the crime (say by perpetrating a system where there is a starving mass of people who must steal to survive)... we become the good people and there are also bad people.

It is very convenient also if the underclass cannot escape - so the 2nd class status of women through big chunks of history. You cannot choose to be male of female - and some people are naturally inferior (or so superior and pure that they should be repressed for their own protection...)

These days, if something is not a choice there is a social and moral pressure, in those societies we are pleased to think of as "free", that it should be accepted in some way... for people who have some interest in repressing homosexual acts (usually among other acts) it is convenient, therefore, if homosexuality is a choice. They can claim to be moral, and continue their way of life.
For those people, there not many responses available to the mounting evidence:
1. maintain the "you are what you do" and call homosexuality a choice - therefore we can oppress/help/cure them
2. accept a split between acts and nature - and suppress the act
3. give up - focus on things that are actually harmful

The #1 groups get a lot of press...
The #2 groups tend to treat homosexual acts as a kind of addiction and try all kinds of "therapies" to "cure" gayness. It seems to be a crackpot industry now, like homeopathy.

There are a lot of social structures set up around a simple picture of sexual orientation - for instance: if you dress in a revealing way, then you want to have sexual approaches. We also have established social structures pertaining to sexuality - and ideas about them are seldom discussed. They make people uncomfortable.

i.e. If you are being cavity searched you may be able to request a same-sex officer to perform the search ... why? Well, there is a suspicion that an opposite sex officer may be getting a sexual thrill from the process - that may even encourage some groups to perform cavity searches more than strictly needed. But what if the same sex officer is homosexual - could a homosexual get a thrill off a cavity search? Should officers be made to disclose their sexuality? Perhaps we should allow homosexuals to request an opposite sex searcher? Which leads to the possibility that someone may claim to be gay in order to get cavity searched by someone they find attractive. Maybe someone is best advised to request a same-sex but heterosexual officer to avoid giving someone a thrill? Why not give someone a thrill - maybe they'll be too excited to notice the contraband? Or perhaps it shouldn't matter? Clearly there is a lot to talk about - and the discussion has barely started.


It's more complicated by the situation with children - feelings run higher there. We segregate childrens changing areas at school. Why?
Somewhere in the back of the collective mind is a worry that the boys may rape the girls - perhaps being too young to exercise adult moral restraint. A lack of restraint in growing teens manifests in many other ways and it seems prudent to keep the sexes apart to avoid other forms of harm while they are becoming better socialized. But what about homosexual teenagers? Should there be 4 kinds of changing rooms and bathrooms? Should everyone end up with a private cubicle to change etc?

This sort of example speaks to fears - seldom articulated - and people are not good at thinking where fear is involved.
Thinking is hard anyway - most people seem to prefer some form of ignorance that resembles knowledge.
People like to stay comfortable.

This is all very general - the reason is because the question is very general.
People do stuff because they think they are, ultimately, doing the right thing. They believe stuff because they think they are correct to do so.
Why any particular person or group believes of does a particular thing can be quite specific to the group.

A lot of the answers above have concentrated on specific, if large, groups - religious people, people with strong dogmatic ideas etc.
There has also been a tendency to think of homosexuals as men for some reason.

Most of the time nonsense becomes mainstream, primarily, because nobody questions it.
It used to be, in NZ, that pregnant girls were no permitted to attend school. When the subject went up for discussion, it turned out that the main objection was mostly that some people were worried that (these girls were sluts and would corrupt the other girls, so that) pregnancy was catching. The nonsense of this was so self-apparent, once it was stated out loud, that the ban was, tentatively, lifted. iirc it was discovered that allowing pregnant girls into school reduced the teenage pregnancy rate - which everyone was so concerned about.

This is what we try to encourage here isn't it? The main threat science has to established dogmas is that questioning and disbelief is built-in.
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK and billy_joule
  • #26
I think ignorance can go a long way in people having strong opinions, even if they are wrong.
When one has obviously strong heterosexual feelings, and your religion glorifies heterosexual marriage and the subsequent procreation ... its easy to move on to ascribing motives to people who don't have the same heterosexual inclinations.

I think there is enough evidence now that it is genetic. Identical twins are more likely to have the same sexual orientation than non-identical ones.

I remember a BBC program which Dawkins was in. There was this very religious Catholic lady who turned and told a gay activist that "I know you had a mother." and everyone applauded. Dawkins got quite upset with that. But that's the thought process in most people. They think people choose to be this way, and that it is somehow a disrespect and threat to the concept of family and the propagation of our species.
One big ignorant jumble of fears and contradictions :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #27
President Obama calls for an end to "Gay Conversion Therapy" for youth.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/obama-calls-for-end-to-gay-conversion-therapy-for-youth/ar-AAaCquO

So even so called enlightened educated medical professionals are still hoping to find a way to "change teams", amazing! Without a doubt genetics is the prime influence for sexual preference and is as natural as being a "happy go lucky " person or "grump bucket". Sure happiness is influenced by circumstance for most people. But I have know those that even when circumstances were overwhelming for most these people kept on smiling. You couldn't tell them that they shouldn't be happy. There must be an acceptance gene. I'm sure there is a gene or genes responsible for predisposition to all traits or dispositions favorable or not. We are all different from one another. Our environment may moderate or subdue some of these traits if they are not dominant but for some as my happy go lucky person you just couldn't change it.
 
  • #28
I don't know how many are there who choose to be gay. But I've met people who are homophobic. Their background is doing the farm works and are Christians. Their education background is not really good (only around master degrees in some average universities). And true, they are terrible, wicked and ill-mannered.
 
  • #29
Sure people do in fact choose to be gay. they are merely choosing to do what they feel is right for them. We can choose not to eat but that is not natural. A person can choose to be celibate and some do but I could point out that they may not normal hormone levels either. Religious bias ( does not necessarily correlate with inferior education IMO) is an extremely strong block for accepting things that conflict with their beliefs and some are willing to die or kill for it.
 
  • #30
I find it ridiculous that there is such a divide between religion and homosexuality. Especially when it comes down to the fact that i am gay and christian. What i find on so many occasions is that christians will tell me they will "tolerate" my being gay but tell me i can't be a christian and gay. What it really boils down to is if i claim to be gay and christian i am NOT the "right kind"of christian. It is their way or the hoghway. Disgustingly judgemental and nothing christian in their message.
 
  • #31
Well, the Bible certainly does have a lot of very negative things to say about homosexuality.
 
  • Like
Likes billy_joule
  • #32
guylar said:
What it really boils down to is if i claim to be gay and christian i am NOT the "right kind"of christian. It is their way or the hoghway. Disgustingly judgemental and nothing christian in their message.
If one is to follow the bible literally, then I suppose being gay and being Christian is indeed incompatible. But the bible also says Christians cannot eat shellfish! Ask your friends if they abstain from eating shellfish! Hah!

I'm not sure what my point is, here. But don't ever feel bad about being the way you are. If you are around people who make you feel bad about yourself, or that try to make you feel inferior, I would suggest finding new people to be around.
 
  • #33
Siv said:
Well, the Bible certainly does have a lot of very negative things to say about homosexuality.

Indeed it would seem, I am no biblical scholar but how can one believe or necessarily accept the modern day interpretation of any Biblical text when it conflicts with current knowledge and understanding of our world in view of the fact that it has been re-translated for so many times over the thousands of years with connotations and usage of words and phrases constantly changing. The bible is full of texts that are hard to interpret. Even though the bible is believed to be the inspired word of God, so would all of the translations. See the reference for issues in translations about Sodom and Gomorrah http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibg193.htm . I believe that the gay lifestyle as we currently understand it is not addressed in the Bible. God may originate the laws but man issues the regulations to be followed and just like human laws some of the regulations were not intended.
 
  • #34
How exactly can a regular man not be attracted to women? Was there some kind of mutation thousands of years ago that suddenly changed a man's basic brain chemistry so now visual stimuli of another male causes the man to release the attraction chemicals? To be born gay would mean that the basic human brain chemistry would be tremendously different, would it not? Being gay seems like more of a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one.
 
  • #35
ecoo said:
How exactly can a regular man not be attracted to women? Was there some kind of mutation thousands of years ago that suddenly changed a man's basic brain chemistry so now visual stimuli of another male causes the man to release the attraction chemicals? To be born gay would mean that the basic human brain chemistry would be tremendously different, would it not? Being gay seems like more of a cultural phenomenon rather than a biological one.
1] The chemistry involved in attraction is a continuum, not a one/zero switch. In any population, you will find men who are dominant, and men who are submissive, and everything in between. You will find preferences for highly feminine body forms, and preferences for less feminine forms. Some men are demure and are attracted to strength, physique, and masculine traits. Women to feminine traits etc.

By the way, there is a distinction between gender self-identification and sexual orientation. Some people are attracted to women, yet they self-identify as female. All combinations are represented.

A close friend of mine was born as a male, yet from a very young age self-identified as a female trapped in a male's body. She completed her gender reassignment and is now perfectly fulfilled as a women. This has never changed her sexual attraction to women though.2] It has been observed in rat populations that, when population reaches a certain density, homosexual behaviors begin to arise. There is some speculation that it is an adaptation that allows sexual outlet without the warring that might arise from over-competition for females, as well as keep population growth down.

I'm not suggesting this applies to humans; I am simply pointing out that homosexuality as a phenomenon occurs in animal populations, suggesting it is not simply a cultural thing.

Also means it's not a sudden change, in humans ,just a few thousand years ago, as you were speculating.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes AlephNumbers and Evo
<h2>1. Why do people think that being gay is a choice?</h2><p>Many people believe that being gay is a choice because they do not understand the complex nature of human sexuality. This belief is often rooted in societal norms and cultural beliefs that promote heterosexuality as the only acceptable sexual orientation.</p><h2>2. Is there any scientific evidence to support the idea that being gay is a choice?</h2><p>No, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that being gay is a choice. In fact, research has consistently shown that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a natural and innate aspect of a person's identity.</p><h2>3. Can environmental factors influence a person's sexual orientation?</h2><p>There is no evidence to suggest that environmental factors, such as upbringing or life experiences, can influence a person's sexual orientation. While these factors may shape a person's attitudes and behaviors, they do not determine their sexual orientation.</p><h2>4. Why do some people still believe that being gay is a choice?</h2><p>Some people may still believe that being gay is a choice due to societal stigma and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. This belief can also be influenced by religious or cultural beliefs that view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural.</p><h2>5. What are the potential harms of believing that being gay is a choice?</h2><p>Believing that being gay is a choice can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and lead to discrimination and violence against the LGBTQ+ community. It can also create feelings of shame and self-hatred for individuals who are struggling to accept their own sexual orientation.</p>

1. Why do people think that being gay is a choice?

Many people believe that being gay is a choice because they do not understand the complex nature of human sexuality. This belief is often rooted in societal norms and cultural beliefs that promote heterosexuality as the only acceptable sexual orientation.

2. Is there any scientific evidence to support the idea that being gay is a choice?

No, there is no scientific evidence to support the idea that being gay is a choice. In fact, research has consistently shown that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a natural and innate aspect of a person's identity.

3. Can environmental factors influence a person's sexual orientation?

There is no evidence to suggest that environmental factors, such as upbringing or life experiences, can influence a person's sexual orientation. While these factors may shape a person's attitudes and behaviors, they do not determine their sexual orientation.

4. Why do some people still believe that being gay is a choice?

Some people may still believe that being gay is a choice due to societal stigma and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. This belief can also be influenced by religious or cultural beliefs that view homosexuality as immoral or unnatural.

5. What are the potential harms of believing that being gay is a choice?

Believing that being gay is a choice can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and lead to discrimination and violence against the LGBTQ+ community. It can also create feelings of shame and self-hatred for individuals who are struggling to accept their own sexual orientation.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
575
Replies
14
Views
810
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
26
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
981
Back
Top