- Image via Wikipedia
When people debate about topics such as same sex marriage and “don’t ask, don’t tell” the discussion inevitably turns to whether being a homosexual is a matter of choice or not.
When discussing the matter of choice, it is important to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. Laying aside the broader metaphysical question of choice, sexual behavior seems to be primarily a matter of choice. That is, the sort of sexual activities a person actually engages in are (with notable exceptions such as being the victim of rape) are consciously selected by that person.
Interestingly enough, a distinction can be drawn between those who chose to engage in homosexual behavior and those who are homosexuals. As one example, it has been claimed that some men in prison who have sex with other men still regard themselves as heterosexual. To use an analogy, perhaps this is comparable to someone who sees herself as a vegetarian, but eats meat when that is the only food available. As another example, apparently some allegedly straight men participate in gay pornography because of the better pay. To use an analogy, this would be somewhat like a painter who decides to take a job as a graphic designer because he can make more money that way (yet who still remains a painter in his heart).
It must be said, however, that it might seem a bit odd for a man who has sex with men to claim that he is still straight. After all, one might argue, that would seem to be what it means for a man to be a homosexual. To use an analogy, if someone claims to be a baseball player, yet plays football rather than baseball, it would be rather odd for that person to make that claim. But, the analogy might not hold in this case.
While there is some debate about this, there are also hom0sexuals who chose to not engage in homosexual behavior, yet still think of themselves as homosexual. For example, a person might see himself as gay yet also decide to practice abstinence. This does seem to make sense. After all, if a person can be a heterosexual and practice abstinence, then the same should be true of homosexuals.
A person might also decide to engage in heterosexual behavior to meet social expectations or to avoid being persecuted for being a homosexual. In such cases, the person would still be gay but would be acting straight. While it might be argued that to act straight is to be straight, people can behave in a certain way while actually not being that way. The obvious short term example is acting: an actor playing the role of a scientist might have no interest in or knowledge of science. A more long term example would be a spy or an undercover police officer. As such, a person could behavior one way sexually and yet not actually be that way. Of course, the question remains as to what it means to be that way.
One easy and obvious way to look at sexual orientation is in terms of preferences. A person who is a heterosexual would prefer to have sex with someone of the opposite sex. A person who is a homosexual prefers those of the same sex. Naturally, preference can be a complicated and nuanced matter. For example, a person might think of himself as heterosexual in that he would prefer sex with attractive woman, but he might prefer an extremely handsome man over a very ugly woman. Of course, some might be inclined to say that if there is any scenario in which a person would prefer sex with someone of the same sex over someone of the opposite sex, then this would make them homosexual. If this is the case, then I suspect that many people would be classified as homosexuals.
Fortunately, I do not need a precise definition of homosexuality for this essay. This is because the issue being addressed is the matter of choice rather than an attempt to sort out what it is to be gay or straight. All that is really needed at this point is that orientation is primarily a matter of preference. As such, the question at hand is whether this preference is a matter of choice or not.
One possibility is that it is not a matter of choice. On the face of it, this seems to be a plausible view. As one stock intuition argument goes, most people do not seem to recall ever making such a choice. While this does not prove that it is not a choice, the fact that people seem unable to point to making such a choice does provide support for the claim that it is not a matter of choice.
In my own case, I have no awareness that I chose to be straight. I also have no awareness of selecting my preferences in regards to the type of women I prefer. For example, I have a general preference towards woman with dark hair. However, that does not seem to be something I selected-I cannot think of consciously deciding that I would find dark hair somewhat more appealing than lighter hair. As such, this preference seems to be similar to that of food preferences: I did not decide that I would like pie, I just do.
A second argument is based on the fact that if preference is a choice, then people should be able to change their preference (although this might involve some effort). So, a straight person should be able to chose to be gay and vice versa. A person can, obviously enough, test this by trying to switch his orientation. This, as was argued above, is different from changing behavior. This would require not merely behaving a different way but actually changing one’s preference in the matter. As such, if you think it is a matter of choice, give it a try and see how that works out.
A third argument builds on the second. If sexual preference is a matter of choice, it seems odd that people would not decide to be heterosexual when people were (and are) persecuted and even killed for being homosexuals. It would make no sense to endure such treatment when a person could simply decide to not be that way. Of course, this argument is not decisive. After all, people do make choices that they know will result in harm or even death. For example, people will use drugs even though they put their health at risk and risk being arrested.
Another possibility is that it is a matter of choice. Clearly, it is not a simple choice like deciding between having a Coke or a Pepsi. Nor is it easy, like setting a preference in a computer program (“click the straight button to stop being gay”). However, it could still be a matter of choice. To steal a bit from Aristotle, we become what we do. So, if a person makes choices that leads to a preference for the same sex, than that person can be said to have chosen to be a homosexual. Naturally, there might be factors that incline a person one way or another (experiences, genetics, etc.) but this is true of anything involving choice. Provided that these factors are not overwhelming, then it would seem that orientation could be a matter of choice.
If this is the case, then people could change their orientation through such means. Consider an analogy to food. When I was a kid, I hated green peppers. Or so I thought. When I actually decided to try them and made a conscious effort, I found that I liked them.
Of course, there have been foods that I did try to like and failed (like plantains), So perhaps orientation is more like that. Or perhaps food analogies are a poor choice.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ad4be559-a15a-423e-af46-cbc225640fc0)
Personally I do not think one has a choice concerning sexual orientation. It is innate but latent emerging as the animal develops.
However it is not so cut and dried as that. There are intermediate stages between the two conditions and in this connection I am surprised no referenced has been made to Bisexuality. There is what appears to be a very good entry on Wikipedia concerning this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality
Sexual orientation varies considerably. Some conditions are socially harmful like Paedophilia and it is necessary to restrain those who are of that disposition. Such is not generally the case with Heterosexual Bisexual and Homosexual behaviour.
Isn’t it possible that for some people being gay or straight is a matter of choice and for others it is not?
Again, we seem to be attempting to separate something inborn from something learned. But, in this case, I wonder if the points being considered are being properly applied.
While I would agree that there are some significant implications to inborn traits, I don’t see this as contributing anything conclusive or substantial to the question of whether or not a behavior is good or ethical.
Of course, it’s easy to find fault when variations of this involve something forced on an unwilling participant, such as that of prison rape (which is really more an act of violent dominance then some manner of sexual pleasure). But, the problem is much less obvious for a claim that gay marriage would damage society or the moral fiber thereof. And, when this weak claim is challenged, the examples of bad behavior cited are almost always those that involve something forced upon an unwilling participant. But, there is nothing to differentiate that bad behavior from heterosexual bad behavior, such as the heterosexual versions of rape or child molestation. So, little if anything is proven on a logical level; which is where debate descends into questions of choice versus inborn traits, thus avoiding the problem.
If we are really going to have separation of church and state, we really need to get back to leaving people alone when the actions they choose do not result in a distinct and measurable harm to others. (And, I’m really getting tired of all the laws that regulate behavior because of some perceived threat to cultural stability.)
Re Tesserid 21st June
Maybe I have missed something here but I am under the impression that this question is not about good or bad behaviour. Does it not concern, simply, whether or not, one could have the choice to change, what appears to be, one’s natural sexual orientation?
Don,
Well, there is the question of what happens if a behavior that can’t be changed were judged to be bad.
And, there is the question of what happens to freedom when a behavior that is a matter of choice is judged to be bad.
Yes, the article is concerned with the nature of choice and what can be changed, which admittedly is interesting. I just don’t want to ignore the assumptions and judgment that lurk in the background.
Whether or not one has the option to change, some sexual preferences are already considered bad and provisions are made to restrain those who exhibit the relevant behaviour. Homosexuality was once illegal in UK and efforts were made to restrain it. This is no longer the case as it became apparent that whilst the condition was distasteful to some, it it not pose a threat to the nation as a whole. Outside of sexuality much of our behaviour is classed as bad for example stealing, homicide, breaking the speed limit, etc etc. Again Restraints and punishments and medical treatment where necessary, exist for application in respect of these offences.
I still cannot see how a discussion concerning choice or no choice can validly attract moral or ethical issues. Yes these certainly do arise but would form part of a somewhat different discussion. First things first, let us see if there really is an option to change sexual orientation. My own opinion is that we very likely cannot. To justify this would take more time than I am currently prepared to give to the question.
I think the point about preferring dark hair is interesting, and not just because I have a similar preference.
I too have no memory of ever having made a choice to prefer dark hair; but having put much thought into why I have that preference, I can say that it likely has much to do with tastes acquired from my environment. Specifically, my Mother has dark hair.
If it is a learned preference, then perhaps it is one that could be unlearned. There is at least the evidence that I have acquired a taste for other hair colors, though the preference for dark hair still dominates. Still, it seems that it would not be a happy experience to develop a distaste for dark hair, and I can’t imagine what might motivate me to pursue such a thing.
The thing is: if I were to develop a distaste, that would seem to be a new preference built on top of an existing preference. That is, I don’t know that the deep-seated preference of my upbringing is something that can be erased or forgotten.
That inborn developmental process that bonds us to our mother, family, and culture results in deeply ingrained preferences. Those learned preferences may be so deeply ingrained that they may be as strong or nearly as strong as an inborn preference.
Are we forgetting an alternative? There’s something skewed about the logic on offer here.
Concerning choice, there are more than the two scenario’s “choice” and “no choice”.
Choice needn’t arise at all. That’s not the same as “no choice”.
This crucial point can be put another way: “Choice” is only a choice in the face of changed external circumstance.
The fact that we have no choice, or have choice, DOES NOT bear upon the agent in the form of some inherent determining property.
TesserID,
Although I did not raise the question of ethics as it relates to choice, that is an important concern. After all, it can be argued that if people cannot chose their orientation, then it makes no sense to claim that the orientation is good or bad. Of course, the actions people take could be judged good or bad.
TesserID,
Good points. As you point out, our preferences might be built (layer by layer) through our experiences. As such, we might never seem to make a conscious choice about them.
John Jones,
On one hand, there is actually a real dilemma here: you either no choice or at least some (more than none). On the other hand, the degrees of choice could be well worth considering.
Mike said
“On one hand, there is actually a real dilemma here: you either no choice or at least some (more than none). On the other hand, the degrees of choice could be well worth considering.”
But that isn’t true, for the reasons I gave. Nothing boils down to choice or no choice. There is an alternative, as I pointed out. The alternative is NOT degrees of choice.
John Jones,
Many things seem to boil down to choice or no choice. After all, when it comes to any X, there is either some (more than 0) X or no X. As such, this applies to choice as well.
Re: John Jones June 24th.
Choice needn’t arise at all. That’s not the same as “no choice”.
In a situation where choice needn’t or does not arise at all how would we ever get to do anything? Would we not be in a perpetual stasis? Can you give an example where choice need not arise at all.
Given any X, if X need not arise; how is that not the same as no X?
Science is closing in on the reasons some of us are homosexual. It appears that they are exactly what most of them have been saying all alone, persons with the body of one sex and the mind of another. Yes, male and female minds work differently. It also appears that it is something caused by hormones of the mother and takes place just before birth.
When an individual since he/she was a child,you can identify well if he she is gay or lesbian,bisexual or whatever,in growing up some are being influenced in society where he she is living and i agree that it is a matter of choice being homosexual.Some wouldnt be strong enough to come up to open they might scared of rejection to society or family.