Sexual Orientation is not a Choice

[PureX]

The whole nurture vs nature debate will go on long after this, but you are waaaaay overstated on the nature portion.

I'd debate both of the above, who debate each other, because both have the individuals in question as passive rather than active in decision making: one acts that way because they were 'trained' and the other because it is in their genes.

Both are high-brow impractical because *we still put people in jail for their own actions regardless of either nature or nurture (*it isn't just me that believes we are accountable whether nature and/or nurture is blamed).

We put them in jail because their actions pose a threat to the rest of us, not because they deliberately chose to act antisocially. I agree.

But this doesn't really have anything to do with this discussion. My point is that many of our "choices" are not being made consciously or deliberately. In fact, I wouldn't consider many of them choices at all, because they are determinations we are making unconsciously, and automatically. In any given day we determine the course of our action many, many times. And we are rarely ever consciously aware of ourselves doing so. Upon what basis, then, are these many determinations being made? Are we "reasoning" them subconsciously? Perhaps. But I believe we are for more often acting out of habit, and intuition, and instinct, (all relative to our genetic and social nature) than we are of reason.

 

[glassjester]

Are we "reasoning" subconsciously? Perhaps. But I believe we are for more often acting out of habit, and intuition, and instinct, than we are of reason.

This is absolutely true.

But just because people often do act out of instinct, doesn't mean we couldn't do otherwise.

Aristotle wrote at great length about this very idea in The Nicomachean Ethics.

Very much worth reading for his definitions of moral choice, culpability, deliberation, habit, and virtue.

 

[glassjester]

But I believe we are for more often acting out of habit, and intuition, and instinct, (all relative to our genetic and social nature) than we are of reason.

To Socrates - these are the people leading an unexamined life.

To Plato - these are the people in the cave.

To Paul - these are the slaves to sin.

 

[PureX]

Why do you believe you can't choose what thoughts to persist in, and what behaviors to enact?

We can. But to do so we have to be aware of ourselves thinking, of what we are thinking, and of what we could be thinking, instead. And we humans are almost never in that kind of hyper-self-realized state of mind. Most of the time, we aren't even aware of what we're 'thinking'. Just as most of our decisions are made unaware of why we've made them. Or often even that we have made them.

In this view, does free will exist at all?

Yes, but only to a limited degree. We are free to choose from among those options that we are aware of, and that are actually possible.

Sometimes we choose what urges to encourage or discourage? How can that be a 'sometimes' thing?

Actually, it's a rarity. Most of the time our 'urges' go unnoticed, whether we act on them or not.

Maybe you do. But that's your choice.

It's not a choice if I am unaware of it being a choice.

I think this is where you're getting hung up.

My choices are defined by me, not by you. Because I have to recognize an option before it becomes an option, for me. You recognizing an option that I am unaware of is a moot issue.

Isn't that our duty as humans?

"Duty"?

The only person that can determine a human being's 'duty' is the human being doing the determining. So your question has no answer but the one we each give to it.

I personally believe that we do have a degree of 'duty' to raise our own state of self-awareness so that we can become more accurate about our motives and choices; and hopefully, then, make better, more positive choices. But as a human being, I believe I have other important duties, as well. A duty to love and be loved, to support life and existence, to be creative, etc.,. (Though I realize they are all interrelated.)

So it's possible to not live (enslaved to our own habits), yes? In that case, what's a better way to live? To consciously shape your habits based on what kind of person you want to be, or to allow habits to form based on whatever happens when you're not paying attention to yourself?

The real choice is not either/or, as no human will ever be totally self-aware, and self-actualized. And as I believe there are some great advantages to allowing ourselves to act intuitively, and subconsciously, in terms of creativity and spontaneity. I am a philosophical taoist. I believe honesty and humility are more important than truth and wisdom because honesty and humility are the foundation of truth and wisdom. I believe it's more important that I be who and what I am, than that I be who and what I think I should be, or who and what I think I want to be.

Self-awareness is very often over-rated by people who covet self-control.

 

[bybee]

To Socrates - these are the people leading an unexamined life.

To Plato - these are the people in the cave.

To Paul - these are the slaves to sin.

Well said! And sadly, I believe a majority of the world's peoples prefer the unexamined life, in the cave, free to sin.
We slaughter our heroes and our avatars even our God in our minds.
I remember sobbing when I read "Billy Budd" and same with "Lord of the Flies".
Every year "Good Friday" is a gash in my heart.

 

[bybee]

We can. But to do so we have to be aware of ourselves thinking, of what we are thinking, and of what we could be thinking, instead. And we humans are almost never in that kind of hyper-self-realized state of mind. Most of the time, we aren't even aware of what we're 'thinking'. Just as most of our decisions are made unaware of why we've made them. Or often even that we have made them.
Yes, but only to a limited degree. We are free to choose from among those options that we are aware of, and that are actually possible.
Actually, it's a rarity. Most of the time our 'urges' go unnoticed, whether we act on them or not.
It's not a choice if I am unaware of it being a choice.

I think this is where you're getting hung up.

My choices are defined by me, not by you. Because I have to recognize an option before it becomes and option, for me. You recognizing an option that I am unaware of is moot.
"Duty"?

The only person that can determine a human being's 'duty' is the human being doing the determining. So your question has no answer but the one we each give to it.

I personally believe that we do have a degree of 'duty' to raise our own state of self-consciousness so that we can become more aware of our own choices, and hopefully, then, make better ones. But as a human being, I believe I have other important duties, as well. (Though I realize they are all interrelated.)
The real choice is not either/or, as no human will ever be totally self-aware, and self-actualized.

I also believe there are some great advantages to allowing ourselves to act intuitively, and subconsciously, in terms of creativity and spontaneity. I am a philosophical taoist. I believe honesty and humility are more important than truth and wisdom because honesty and humility are the foundation of truth and wisdom. I believe it's more important that I be who and what I am, than that I be who and what I think I should be, or who and what I think I want to be.

Self-awareness is very often over-rated by people who covet control.

Wonderful, well thought out post. Thanks

 

[glassjester]

Well said! And sadly, I believe a majority of the world's peoples prefer the unexamined life, in the cave, free to sin.
We slaughter our heroes and our avatars even our God in our minds.
I remember sobbing when I read "Billy Budd" and same with "Lord of the Flies".
Every year "Good Friday" is a gash in my heart.

All people. It's what happened in Eden.

 

[CabinetMaker]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17195103

Interesting study but it still doesn't address my question regarding a persons orientation when they first begin to become sexually aware..

 

[CabinetMaker]

I do too. What age would that be?

13ish

No. I didn't want to marry any little girls. I decided I would have a wife some day. Like I said, it wasn't sexual.

Thus proving that your initial orientation was heterosexual.

First you said orientation is fixed at birth; then you said it could change. Next you said it is set at puberty, now you say the sexual desires of puberty should not necessarily follow one into adulthood. Which is it?

I still think that a person fundamental orientation is established at birth. I think that most people never change. They may experiment but I don't think that they ever really change as a rule. Some few do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

You hit puberty at 11? Wow. I was probably like 13 or 14 before that happened - voice change, growth spurt, you know.

You do understand that puberty is a process, not a single event, right? You understand that people start that change at different ages, right?

And should we do that? Make choices based on desire?

There is what people should do and there is what people actually do. We should strive to live by Godly morals.

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you stick around TOL, you will see many arguments that are even shallower.
I seem to remember you choosing the losing side in the thread about whether older men find younger women sexually attractive.
That thread had many shallow arguments

You and I have VERY different recollections regarding that thread.

No, there is no moral difference between coveting your neighbor's wife and coveting your neighbor.

This comment has nothing to do with the question I asked. We are not dealing with morals, we are dealing with orientations.

I believe I already addressed that, but you seem to have ignored it.

What you think is a normal sexual attraction created at the time of conception is in reality the result of many years of conditioning to create an individual's sexual preferences by the time that person reaches puberty.

Your assertion ignores facts. If, as you claim, sexual orientation is the result of years of conditioning, how do you explain people who were raised in devout Christian households that teach the homosexuality is wrong and evil before God coming out as homosexual?

 

[glassjester]

Self-awareness is very often over-rated by people who covet self-control.

This is true for people that ignore this part of the equation:

Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

And Saint Augustine, "Men do absolutely nothing good without grace, whether by thought, will, love, or deed."


And Aquinas, "man's nature may be considered in two ways, either in its purity, as it was in our first parent before sin, or as corrupt, as it is in ourselves after the sin of our first parent. In either state, human nature needs divine help in order to do or to will any good"


It's surrender to God's will that ultimately makes us free to choose. I do not think there is any danger of covetousness in this view of freedom.


As the Catechism states: 1733 - The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."

 

[CabinetMaker]

Yes, and if they take pride in their sin and claim that God loves them even if they are practicing sexual sin, they will end up in the lake of fire.



You seem to be missing the big picture because of your narrow-mindedness.

What is the real difference between men and women?
Body parts.

That is all you see? I see differences in problem solving and nurturing and discipline and emotions and child rearing. All you see are physical differences and you call me narrow minded?

What is the real difference between homosexuals and normal people?

The homosexual has an abnormal sexual desire for a specific body part not found on a woman.

I worked with a gay man for several years. We had opportunity to discuss things and I learned that his desire was not for a specific body part, it was for male company. He hated women. He worked okay with them but he did not like their company. I would conclude that your analysis here is based o what you think is true and nothing else.

 

[CabinetMaker]

This really gets at the heart of the issue.

Believing that you have an innate "orientation" makes people think that there's a type of person (rather than one person) that they should always covet.


If I say I am "heterosexual," that means I desire sexual intimacy with women in general. That's a lot of people to harbor attractions to! Here, it's worth considering the blurry line between "having sexual desire toward" and "coveting."

Is there any real difference?

Yes, there is a real difference. If you are heterosexual then you will direct your energies towards cultivating relationships with the opposite sex.

My dismissal of the very idea of sexual orientation stems from two principles:
1. Choosing to marry should not be motivated by bodily desire.
2. We ought not encourage in ourselves sexual desires outside of marriage.

Neither of which have anything to do with orientation.

Whereas proclaiming allegiance to any of the recently-invented "orientations" implies (and necessitates) sexual desire for a large group of people that you're not married to.

I have never said nor implied that an orientation is a justification for anything. You are tilting at your own straw men again.

 

[glassjester]

I worked with a gay man for several years. We had opportunity to discuss things and I learned that his desire was not for a specific body part, it was for male company. He hated women. He worked okay with them but he did not like their company.

So he sexualized his misogyny?

 

[CabinetMaker]

So he sexualized his misogyny?

No, he was gay and always had been. I was merely pointing out that GO's assertion that Homosexuals desire a body part is wrong.

 

[PureX]

This is true for people that ignore this part of the equation:

Galatians 2:20 - I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

I am aware of this Christian concept, and believe it refers to the difference between the "me" that I conceive of myself, and the "me" that I am as a creative expression of God's divine spirit. By letting go of my idea of myself (ego) I am free to become the "me" that I was created and intended to be as an expression of God's divine spirit.

But I do not see this as being an example of my gaining self-awareness or self-control. Rather, I see it as an act of surrender: to humility, and honesty, and spontaneity. As something spiritually instinctual (not religious or intellectual). It is very often my ego that poses as wisdom and 'self-awareness' and then leads me astray: astray from who I really am (as a manifestation of God's spirit) when my ego is set aside.

And Saint Augustine, "Men do absolutely nothing good without grace, whether by thought, will, love, or deed."

That's mostly pointless sophistry, to me. I understand 'grace' well enough to know better than to try and define or explain it.

And Aquinas, "man's nature may be considered in two ways, either in its purity, as it was in our first parent before sin, or as corrupt, as it is in ourselves after the sin of our first parent. In either state, human nature needs divine help in order to do or to will any good"

It's statements like that that make me appreciate taoism. Men are not either/or, good/evil, sacred/profane, or whatever other opposites the binary philosophers come up with. We are a complex phenomena that encompasses both the yin and the yang of being. There is no truth divided. It's all of a singular whole.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

The Tao is nowhere to be found.
Yet it nourishes and completes all things.​

It's surrender to God's will that ultimately makes us free to choose. I do not think there is any danger of covetousness in this view of freedom.

It's a mystery that I can't own, or unravel. Nor do I have any need to.

 

[glassjester]

No, he was gay and always had been. I was merely pointing out that GO's assertion that Homosexuals desire a body part is wrong.

Ah, so he was gay before he hated women.

So it couldn't have been his hatred of women that motivated his homosexuality.


So what was it?

 

[glassjester]

There is no truth divided. It's all of a singular whole.

Monism. Have you read Parmenides? Or the "Third Man Argument" against the theory of the forms?

It's beautiful how trinitarianism resolves the conflict.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

This theory is used as a basis of one of the four arguments for the immortality of the soul in The Phaedo.

It's a mystery that I can't own, or unravel. Nor do I have any need to.

Indeed.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Ah, so he was gay before he hated women.

So it couldn't have been his hatred of women that motivated his homosexuality.


So what was it?

You will have to ask him. At the time I knew him, the issue of homosexuality was nothing like it is today. He was gay, he was in a long term relationship and he was a computer geek. The conversations I had with him allow me say only that GO's assertions regarding homosexuality being based on the lust for a certain body part were wrong.

 

[Sancocho]

Homosexuality isn't initially about a person wanting to desire people of their own sex but unwanted desires brought on by other factors. There is plenty of evidence that shows people can have sexual desires brought on by all types of stimuli, from children, animals, objects, violence, power, dead persons or even one's own self, etc. The base sexual drive is there for the opposite sex of course but at some point desires can depart from the norm for many reasons.

In the case of children psychology has well established their susceptibility to embracing suggestions and as for adults I think we can defer to Scripture for the cause - arrogance. The latter certainly accounts for the resistant percentage of homosexuals who embrace their identity as opposed to resisting it. In my many years of apologetics I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue with many homosexual Christians, practicing or otherwise. What I have found in the majority of cases is why they all say the desires are initially unwanted, they are not interested in rejecting the desires at a later part in their life nor much less repenting of lustful homosexual desires but rather have embraced their condition, in fact with a great deal of "pride".

In fact "pride" is the dominating theme of every resistant homosexual that I have discussed this issue with. This is of course the exact opposite of what the Gospel asks of us. On the other hand of the thousands of testimonies of ex homosexuals those who humbly submit to God without reservation are the ones who are rid of SSA.