I'm interested, for those who think that sexual orientation is 100% non-"choice", here is a thought experiment:
Could, hypothetically, a person be conditioned to be sexually aroused to the sight/context of something they were not previously?
if yes, could that context be a person of the same gender?
and if yes, does that constitute a shift in sexual orientation or can you be aroused by something you arent sexually oriented toward?
also, I've just been to a couple of conferences, where I got to read some upcoming research that talks about very low level visual/perceptual differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals. I don't have it off hand, but could probably get the abstract, however, if these differences do exist, it is almost 100% proof positive that sexual orientation is based more on lower level (genetic, developmental, etc) things than things like "choice"
I don't think Bardock is arguing that homosexuality works in this way, just that there are norms people don't necessary "choose" to follow, however there are choices that can be made that do not follow that norm. And that, just because something is choice does not mean it could be undone.
I don't believe he was specifically stating that one chooses to be homosexual in the way they choose to get a tattoo
no, if I understand he is speaking abstractly about choice, period. That, were something a choice, it doesn't mean you can choose to go back or that for some things people choose to do, there are people who do not, though because their actions are not different from normal, are not specifically choosing not to.
I think XYZ asked him something more abstract about choice and he just used homosexuality as a context
If the point in any of it was that a descision was made to be a homosexual, abstract or not, I invite him to make that descision and trry it out. If, however, he does not find it to his liking, he can choose to go back to finding women attractive. I mean, it's just a matter of a few mouse clicks on xtube.
However, if none of that was his point, then he is thinking and speaking on a level that confuses me.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
Registered: Jul 2005
Location: Captain's Chair, CA
There's a catch, the people (usually religious) who are steadfast in believing it is a choice, will almost always argue that heterosexuality is normal and ingrained, but homosexuals choose to go against this normalcy, be it concious or subconcious.
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
I was more arguing on the general possible set ups of "normal" and of "choices". I realize that staying on the topic of "homosexuality" to illuminate the point was confusing.
I don't believe sexuality is a choice. Certainly not to 100%
Jun 23rd, 2008 12:54 AM
