...the weller they fall.

News that makes me doubly happy: the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by some blowhard alleging infringement of his trademarked name by a website opposed to some of his bad ideas, and that particular blowhard was anti-gay Jerry Falwell.

I've never been too sympathetic to the argument that people can choose to be homosexual (and hence, can choose not to). I know I couldn't choose to be gay. Think about it. Could you choose to be gay? If you already are, I find it perfectly believable that you couldn't choose to be straight.

Maybe, on the margins, there are some people who are a little of each and could be persuaded to identify with the other side. Maybe some people really can get enough therapy to make them switch. But I couldn't, and this leads me to believe that the average homosexual couldn't either.

And anyway, why would you want to? Being interested in women has been just fine for me, so if some strange religion told me it was wrong I would dismiss it, no further investigation needed.

Share this

There's well-documented

There's well-documented evidence of brain structure differences between gays and straights. Specifically, Simon LeVay found that the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is more than twice as large in straight men than in gay men, on average. This is roughly the same dimorphism you see between straight men and women. (Notably though, the second nucleus which is also smaller in women was normal-sized in gays.) The INAH plays a crucial role in sexual behaviour, so that's as big a smoking gun as you can hope to find.

Then again these are largely the same people who deny Darwinian evolution, so I don't expect silly facts to get in the way of their prejudices...

For me the irony is that for

For me the irony is that for many folk, people are completely socially constructed *except* for sexual orientation, which is the *only* thing that is biologically determined with no social/choice/construction aspect at all...

I believe there's probably more wiggle room than you think, but overall you're correct. Most of us are not the marginal case and have fairly strong sexual identities.

Isn't the argument about

Isn't the argument about choice a moot point? If someone wants to be with someone else who is the same-sex, why should they be prevented from doing so? I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but my point is just that there's no reason to play the game of "No one chooses to be gay" because it just doesn't matter. To the extent that people are fighting same-sex marriage due to resultant legal privileges to married individuals, their argument is really about the entitlement that the law currently provides (or about some definition of marriage being between a man a woman). Point is: this should be about rights and not biology.

Neal, I suppose it matters


I suppose it matters if you believe that homosexuality (nay, merely the orientation) is a grave error/sin; if it is something you can control (a choice) then that choice can be influenced by social conditioning and should be. But if it is something ala skin color that you just have and regardless of conscious will you're that way, you're in a tougher bind, at least from a Christian POV. Its harder (though not impossible) to say that you're biologically stricken from being saved (unless you're Calvinist) because that denies free will, choice, redemption (coming to the lord), etc.

Which is why I think those that acknowledge some bio-orientation (Catholics) approach it as "the act is the sin, the orientation is a disorder that can/should be resisted." I.E. orientation is not destiny, even if you never have heterosexual desire. Whether or not one should resist and/or how seriously one should try is a whole 'nother question entirely.

Brian, I should have


I should have qualified my argument as one from a rights/property perspective as I wasn't considering religious affiliations. My bad :dizzy: