Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

I don't know if it's something genetic or incidental or what, but it's very obviously not a consious choice. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would think it is.

Originally Posted by JeffLV

I don't really care for the argument to begin with. Let's say someone really loves broccoli, it's their favorite food... were they born predisposed to love broccoli? Did they consciously choose to love broccoli? Perhaps was it something subconscious or life experience that made them come to love it, but with intense therapy the broccoli haters might be able to convert you into a broccoli hating carrot lover. Do the broccoli hating carrot lovers have a right to ostracize the broccoli lovers and create special rights and institutions for the carrot lovers, all in the name broccoli eaters being gross and abnormal to them? Since a broccoli lover obviously does not fit the "definition" of a broccoli hater, is it therefore a legitimate argument to say broccoli lovers shouldn’t get equal rights and institutions as the broccoli hating carrot lovers?

In the lifetimes of many people still alive, there was a day when a black person marrying a white person didn't fit the "definition" of marriage and was considered gross, deviant and unnatural. Yet the same argument existed that they had an equal right as everyone else to "choose" to marry someone else of the same race. Who we marry is a choice and I'm tired of people saying they can restrict who other people can marry just because it is a "choice". As with interracial marriage, we've been down this road before.

Originally Posted by Okamifujutsu

I don't know if it's something genetic or incidental or what, but it's very obviously not a consious choice. I can't for the life of me understand why someone would think it is.

Originally Posted by Colombine

I notice that many arguments in support of restricting rights from gay people are fundamentally based on the notion that being gay is a choice.

If this is true there may be some logical basis for those arguments. I personally can't see that being gay is a choice and I base that assumption on the following:

Several years ago my wife and I were invited to go to a gay bar by a gay couple we happened to know. I was at first reluctant but eventually agreed to go.

When we got there, the first thing I noticed was how much my thinking had been skewed by bad stereotypes. True there were a few "flamers" who seemed to be the only people truly enjoying themselves but, as for the rest, all I saw were uber musceled uber handsome adoni that looked liked they'd just stepped off of the cover of a fashion magazine (it was a very trendy bar).

My wife went off to dance (for a change!) and I was left with the task of ordering the next round of drinks.

Sitting at the bar was one of the most attractive and glamorous women I had ever seen. She didn't look very happy though. We started to chat and it transpired that the guy she had come with (whom she knew to be gay) was somewhat ignoring her. I got the impression she was trying to do a "conversion job" but wasn't being that successful as the guy was more interested in talking to a bus driver called Dave.

At this point I reasoned that in no way could homosexuality be a matter of choice. I personaly know that I (were I not hitched) or any number of my straight mates would have SAWN OFF OUR RIGHT LEGS if we thought it would better our chances of getting within a mile of this goddess.

Not our gay guy though. Dave was definitely his flavour of the month.

I'd like to hear your views on this specific point. Please try to avoid political issues or religious arguments as they have been examined numerously in other posts.

Originally Posted by Lackluster

Of course, if they really wanted to PROVE sexuality is a matter of choice, all they would have to do is go out and change their orientation momentarily. I'd sure be wiling to believe it was a choice if all those who bash gay people at every turn would just go for a few tosses in the hay with a member of their own gender. That would sure prove it, eh?