Polls

Beltway Bubble Alert: Americans Split on Whether Being Gay Is a Choice

Equal numbers say it is and isn't. Whether that will help Ben Carson remains to be seen.

|

Ben Carson, the apparent 2016 hopeful, thinks being gay is "absolutely" a choice. He made that clear in an appearance on CNN last week. That may or may not be enough to disqualify him from being president, as some commentators have suggested. It certainly led to a lot of facepalming from election watchers inside the Beltway, myself included. But it's always worth being reminded that things sometimes look different outside the confines of Washington, D.C.

A report from Pew, released on Friday, shows that Americans as a whole are as likely to think that being gay or lesbian "is just the way some people choose to live" (42 percent) as they are to think that "people are born gay or lesbian" (41 percent). Admittedly, the percent agreeing with Lady Gaga that gay people were born that way has doubled over the last three decades—but it's still nowhere near a majority.

The even divide among all Americans masks a noteworthy trend, however: The more educated a person, the less likely she is to think homosexuality is a choice. Individuals with postgraduate degrees are twice as likely to say gay people are born that way than to say it's simply how they choose to live. Meanwhile, those with a high school diploma or less see homosexuality as a choice by a 13 percentage point margin.

Yet even among the most educated cohort, more than a quarter say being gay is a choice—and among the least educated cohort, more than a third say people are born gay. This indicates that the so-called widespread consensus on this issue is not as widespread as many are implying.

Pew Research Center

NEXT: VIDEO: Why Conservatives Should Fight for Death Penalty Drug Transparency

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Attraction probably isn’t a choice, but who you have sex with is.

  2. I’m Dr. Ben Carson, and I approve this mes….

    Wait – never mind

  3. Why does it even matter?

    If there is nothing morally wrong with fucking whatever/whoever consents to be fucked, then whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant.

    1. And, if it is morally wrong, then whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant.

      1. and since you have to opt-in (self-identify) to be recognized as gay, politically speaking it’s always a choice.

      2. What are you implying by morally wrong? What naturally follows from that statement? Governmental interference? Shunning?

        1. I’ll let robc speak for himself, but I took it rather generically. If something is morally wrong, e.g. murder, choosing to be a murderer or being born that way is irrelevant.

          1. That’s how I read it also.

            1. That’s also how I wrote it.

    2. Why does it even matter?

      Because, in many minds, the question itself is immaterial, but it’s ties to a greater network of social questions is more important;

      Is a tax dodger(smoker, lefty, philanderer, gambler…) born that way or do they choose to be that way and can (presumably) be reformed? Obviously, dodging taxes (smoking, writing left-handed, sleeping around, gambling…) is intrinsically an act, but not necessarily an amoral one (especially if you don’t benefit from said taxes) but if it’s all tied to some inborn disrespect for tax authority… resolving the situation is more out of reach and complicated than just criminal reform.

      If a tax dodger (etc.) is born that way and is beyond reform, can I (e.g.)legally kill the taxman (after a warning shot, of course) for setting foot on my property with intent to do me harm and suffer no consequences?

      I make no bones about it not being rational; the question isn’t about clarifying one rational mindset from another, it’s about distinguishing/rectifying an understood rationale from a general misunderstanding.

  4. So… if every american had a masters degree, they would doubleplus think?

    The human labido is a little more complicated than some genetic or biochemical hardwiring.

    And what is so wrong with chosing to go a little queer?

    1. The human labido is a little more complicated than some genetic or biochemical hardwiring.

      Blasphemy. Everyone knows that genetic determination lies at the heart of sexual preference in the most simplistic manner possible. The idea that an individual’s environment or cogitations could influence his sexual behavior violates the first rule of goodthink, which is that individual traits are entirely predetermined and beyond environmental or individual influence except in cases where that would be unpalatable (see Summers, Larry).

      1. Actually, the current thinking is that it’s gestational hormones, ie controlled (albeit unconsciously) but the mother’s body.

        1. Pretty sure I’ve read that elsewhere (maybe here). In the black/white game of nature/nurture, that would be an environmental factor, though it seems incredibly naive to believe that it would be entirely one or the other. And that model has nothing whatsoever to say about the role of intentionality in behavior, as that’s well beyond the scope of science in the reductive sense of the word.

          I’m just irritated by all the squawking heads who insist that everyone knows that Simplistic Answer A is the ultimate cause of some extraordinarily complex behavioral process, whether A is science or God.

  5. Such a dumb conversation. Who the fuck cares.

    1. oh wait I do because I just posted on this thread.

  6. It is both an innate trait and a choice.

    Which gender(s) you find yourself emotionally and physically attracted to is something that is created by a combination if your genetics and your life experiences and while it can be somewhat fluid through your life it is not something you have any active control over.

    However that merely sets the boundaries on who you would want to have sex with who you actually do have sex with is completely a choice. It is likely a reality that the majority of people are biologically bisexual but then choose to focus their attention on just 1 gender for social reasons

    1. While I agree with you on some of that, bisexuality is probably not a monolithic category like gay or straight. Let’s posit that gay/straight mean that you’re effectively attracted to only one sex. Bisexuality runs the gamut from strongly-prefer to don’t care.

  7. It is no more a “choice” than the fact that I like vanilla ice cream and my wife loathes it is a choice. We have no choice about our preferences and desires. If a person finds the same sex sexually arousing, then they do. I don’t think you could make yourself feel that way if you didn’t or train yourself to stop feeling that way if you did. At most you would train yourself to ignore the preference but it would still be there.

    That being said, preferences are not actions. Your decision to act on that preference is always a choice. So if someone says “if find the same sex attractive”, no one has a right to judge or condemn them for it because we don’t control what appeals to us. If you are of a mind to consider homosexual acts to be immoral or objectionable for whatever reason, you are and should be free to someone who engages in them immoral or objectionable for doing so. Sure, they desired it. So what? Everyone who ever did anything immoral desired it or they wouldn’t have done it. People should always be free to judge people by their actions.

    1. So you’re saying that your lust for chubbies isn’t a choice?

      1. Not his fault, he likes ice cream, they like ice cream…

        1. Good point.

      2. No I am saying I like to give you easy things to talk about. And your like of women who resemble teenage boys as much as possible is not a choice and therefore not something we should hold against you.

        1. I’m lactose intolerant, so no ice cream. No ice cream, no fatties.

    2. And those people should be seen as ridiculous. How would you like it if busybody assholes went around telling you that your having sex is immoral (but their having sex is just fine)?

      1. And you are free to do that Tony. the problem is you are a fascist and a fundamentally evil person such that you want the government to punish those people and prevent them from thinking as they choose. You are so morally and intellectually bankrupt, you cannot see the difference between “I object to you” and “there needs to be law to deal with people like you”. You are so morally and intellectually hideous Tony, that if your intellect took physical form, you would be a side show freak somewhere.

        1. Which law have I proposed to “deal with” homophobes?

          1. We all know you’re gleefully support a Final Solution to the homophobe problem.

            1. *you’de*

            2. If the time ever comes when the gays have all the power and the Christians are threatened with extermination, I guarantee we’ll be far more generous than they ever were.

  8. Can 3 gay males marry?

    May 3 straight males marry?

    Can a mother marry her two daughters?

    May 2 females and 3 males, of undeclared sexual preference, create a marriage unit?

    If not, why not?

    1. Sure.

      Those combinations just aren’t eligible for state licensing, though.

    2. Are they picking my pocket or breaking my legs? If not, than I don’t give a shit.

      However, I think state sanctioned marriage does at least one of those, and therefore am against it for any group.

    3. This asshole keeps asking the same ignorant questions as if libertarians are going to violate their principles because of the ends?

      Fuck off AH!

      1. No shit. I think this is the the third thread he/she has posted this on. And, predictably, dips hit doesn’t respond to any other posts.

  9. I always thought the nature vs nurture debates in my psychology classes were very amusing. Because the professor was always quick to point out(and demonstrate) that almost all characteristics are a combination of the two, and that it varies wildly from person to person. Except for one trait, sexual preference. For some reason it seems academia and the media are completely invested in sexual preference being completely outside of human control.

    Also, there are things which are neither nature nor choice. Things that happen to people after they’re born that shape their personalities. Also, it is technically possible for people to make a series of choices leading to an outcome which they didn’t understand or intend. For instance, when did you decide to be your current height? Part of your height is genetic, but part of it depends on what you do. The food you ate as a child( some of it by choice, some not) has an affect. As does your decision not to cut off your own legs.

    1. Of course choice plays a part in sexual preference. There probably isn’t a gene that makes people want to fuck sheep, but they do anyway.

      The issue is that choice of sexual partners is an irrelevant question as long as there is consent.

      1. “There probably isn’t a gene that makes people want to fuck sheep, but they do anyway.”

        I wonder if an attorney, given their high level of education, would want to fuck a sheep, but are able to exercise their self-restrant and not fuck that sheep?

    2. Part of it too is that we simplify what is going on when we choose. Sometimes, it is in response to a physical desire. This is when we choose chocolate over vanilla. That is, however, not the only kind of decisions we make. Sometimes, our decisions are the result of our rational mind overriding our base desires. I like chocolate better than vanilla but I am on a date who likes vanilla so I choose vanilla instead to try and fit in with her. Or at a higher level, a beautiful woman makes a pass at me and despite my intense desire to be with her, I choose to say no because I am married and it goes against my ethics.

      Some of our preferences and desires are the result of nature. We never make any kind of conscience choice about what kinds of foods or experiences appeal to us. Other choices, the higher ones, are the result of nurture, experience and conscious decision making. I am not born with the desire to be faithful to my wife. I choose to do so because I have decided that being ethical is more important to me than the pleasure of not being. How much of that decision is nurture and how much of it is just me deciding to do it is probably not a question we can ever answer.

      Unless you want to deny all free will, I don’t see how you can see our actions as anything but our own. I don’t choose what I desire, but I always choose how those desires affect my actions.

      1. Well said.

      2. With high school and college age kids I definitely see an element of choice, in the sense that many of them seem to deliberately date someone who will make Daddy apoplectic. I suppose there’s a certain innate rebelliousness to youth that predisposes some kids that way, but sometimes it really seems like they’re just pushing buttons.

      3. I think a lot of progs do want to deny all free will. But I also think the academics cling to the “born that way” explanation for practical reasons. If being homosexual is a combination of choice, past experience, and genetics. Then it opens up questions about what makes people have the preferences they do and what, if anything could change those preferences. They don’t wanna touch that subject with a 10′ pole.

        1. Couldn’t we like…ASK…a gay person?

          I mean, when I was 5, I thought about naked girls and my pee pee got hard. The same did not happen when I thought (or saw) naked boys. I’m assuming I’m not the only one this happened to. One might ask a gay person what their experience was and perhaps draw a conclusion from that?

          Oh, but, they’d lie. Because politics. /derp

          1. You had a hard on when you were 5?

            1. Ever changed a baby boy’s diaper? If that happens, stand back or be drenched.

              1. Yes I have, but that’s a little bit different. My son got the nurse right in the face literally seconds after being born.

          2. Wow, congrats on your 5 YO self! At that age I had to either masturbate or need to micturate for that to happen, except sometimes when it just happened for no reason I could figure. But if you were asked, what explanation could you have given that wasn’t circular?

          3. What is there to ask? They find the same sex sexually attractive. There is nothing special about sex. It is a preference just like any other preference.

            In some ways, the conservatives are just as sex crazed as the rest of society. Our entire society, conservative and libertine alike seems obsessed with sex such that they think it defines our entire existence. Libertines think ones sexual predilections are so important that anything short of universal acceptance of them makes life untenable. Conservatives in contrast seem to think that they define a person’s character such that it is no longer possible to distinguish the person from the actions making it no longer possible to look past their objections to the sexual preferences the way they can look past any other preferences or actions they find objectionable.

            Both sides are in their own way barking mad. There is nothing special about sex and your preferences in it don’t define the rest of you anymore than your other preferences do.

            1. As long as you strongly imply that sexuality is a choice rather than stating it directly, you think you won’t fall victim to the liberal thought police?

              It’s easy for someone who doesn’t belong to any minority identity to say things like “I’m not my race/sex/sexuality.” Those of us who are treated as outsiders in our own society have a different experience. And you’re conflating sex with sexual orientation. People can be gay and never have sex. That’s what monasteries are for. If sexual orientation were remotely a choice people wouldn’t endure such angst about it. I live in the South. The only choice most of the gays I know had to make was whether to accept their sexuality or stay on good terms with their families. Nobody ever chooses the latter for very long, because not only is it essential to one’s identity, it’s inescapable.

              1. you think you won’t fall victim to the liberal thought police?

                Tony, I am always afoul with the liberal thought police. The day I am not, is the day I have become as evil as they are. Why would you think I would give a fuck about the acceptance of obviously evil and irrational people?

                It’s easy for someone who doesn’t belong to any minority identity to say things like “I’m not my race/sex/sexuality.” Those of us who are treated as outsiders in our own society have a different experience.

                Tony that is what you don’t get. If people don’t accept you, that is your problem. You have no right to demand people accept you. If you can’t deal with unacceptance, you have a lot more problems than people not accepting you for being gay. Moreover, my guess is people don’t accept you for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with your being gay. You just assume it is because that because it allows you to avoid your own failings. Regardless, your lack of societal acceptance of your own choices is your problems and not something that should concern the government.

                1. I do not personally feel excluded from anything except groups of people I have no interest being part of. The subject was whether one’s sexuality defines a person’s character. It does for heterosexuals and homosexuals alike–heterosexuals often don’t realize it since they are perceived and perceive themselves as the norm.

        2. Don’t wanna touch that subject?! It’s a fucking gold mine, & I mean “fucking” both literally & as an intensifier!

        3. Most of us know before we even know what sex is, and certainly before we’ve ever heard about homosexuality. No matter the cause, absolutely no choice is involved.

          1. And this is what every other homosexual I’ve ever asked has said. I seen no reason to doubt them. (Well, maybe Tony, as he has no credibility).

            I got a boner for girls LONG before I had any idea what sex was. It certainly wasn’t something I learned or chose. Not sure why it would be different for gays or why they would subject themselves to all the discrimination they get if it were a choice.

      4. We never make any kind of conscience choice about what kinds of foods or experiences appeal to us.

        I chose to enjoy eating snails, organ meat, and other foods that were at first revolting. I’ve worked to expand my palate for men as well. I’ve never been able to stomach a bell pepper or sex with a woman.

        1. Yes, you can choose to ignore your initial preferences. That doesn’t, however, mean you choose them to begin with. You didn’t choose to find snails revolting. You just choose to convince yourself they were not.

    3. The food you ate as a child( some of it by choice, some not) has an affect.

      The parallel I’ve often drawn was killing animals. I grew up killing animals for population control purposes as well as for food purposes. It was a fact of life, as well as part and parcel to the lifestyle. This sort of rationality that gets ingrained often permeates well beyond any conception and effects decisions not yet conceived.

      There are plenty of people around today who don’t even have to know or have witnessed anything relating to these acts. The idea is morally repugnant to them. Often, when they encounter someone who they previously didn’t know had this sort of history, there is a psychological disconnect. They ask similarly stupid questions like, have you shot someone’s pet? Would you shoot a person? If you had to have food and the only solution was your pet?

      The sort of rational disconnect that crops up when you think nothing has to die ever. Let alone to put chicken or pork on your local supermarket shelves.

      I killed a mortally wounded squirrel with my car once and the person who was riding with me nearly leapt out of the car and (presumably) ended our relationship right then and there. Over a squirrel, that was going to die slower and more painfully otherwise.

  10. I suspect we’re split on it because we keep getting mixed messages.

    OTOH, its innate, inborn, inherent, etc. just like race, so that being “anti-gay” is bigotry.

    OTOH, its a fabulous lifestyle choice, and how dare you question how I choose to live my life.

    IOW, it seems to be whatever is politically convenient at the time. Welcome to the wacky world of SJW identity politics!

    1. On the one hand, it’s not a choice; on the same hand, why is minding your own business out of the question?

      1. Good question. Why can’t you mind your own business?

    1. Because tolerance. If it’s not a choice, then we must celebrate it.

      1. This is the shitty part of it. It’s not enough that you tolerate the behavior, you must also support and sometimes advocate it.

        1. Sometimes shutting your face hole is the most appropriate action.

          1. Good point. Why don’t you try it sometime?

      2. And if it is a choice, we must regulate it.

        Why republicans pick the stupidest hills to die on is beyond me.

    2. It matters because it could be worth a ton of $ to somebody who could develop a truly effective aphrodisiac!! Seriously, if we knew what it was that caused an individual to be sexually attracted to a type as general as a particular sex, imagine what could be done if that factor could be controlled & refined to where it could be narrowed down to attraction to a particular individual. People already go to great lengths just to very marginally increase their sexual attractiveness; imagine if they could buy something that would be truly effective in that regard.

      1. Or if there were a matchmaking service that effective! Imagine people not wasting so much of their lives on something a business could quickly settle for them.

  11. I don’t know if it’s a choice or not. I also don’t care, and I don’t see how it’s remotely relevant to a person’s qualifications for President. The fact that it constitutes a make-or-break for a nominee is another sign of how far into collapse our political process has fallen. Feelings uber alles!

    1. Don’t stomp on my feelzzzzz!

    2. It’s relevant to a person’s qualifications to be President if it’s clear (or even probable) that they’re going to let their beliefs negatively guide policy. With Carson, for example, nobody really has any illusions about how his stupid beliefs will almost certainly drive stupid policy.

  12. And it matters, why? It’s always been unclear to me whether or not people are bothered by mere “gayness” or the acts of gay sex. Bad sentence, but I’m sick and you get the idea. I wonder, would anti-gays be offended by non-gays having gay sex? Is it bad to be gay or is it merely bad to act gay?

    1. For the majority of them it is the gay sex. Partially because of some book written by iron age tribesmen and partially because they are deathly afraid that some other dude might be checking them out or even worse might make them gay

      1. they are deathly afraid that some other dude might be checking them out

        So, they’d have to endure what women have since the dawn of time?

        THE

        HORROR!

        1. I’ve been approached by gay men a couple times when I was younger. All it took was “sorry, I’m not gay.” and that was it. I’m guessing what the homophobes really worry about is if they couldn’t say “No thanks.”

        2. no because they’d be perfectly cool with a woman checking them out and while a woman may object to a specific individual checking her out or object to it being done at a specific moment in time as a general rule with most of them being attracted to men they actively want men to be sexually interested in them.

          Further while the general level of fear is not as strong among women there are women who get quite offended if another woman shows sexual interest in her.

    2. It is wrong of you to even think that there might be something wrong with gayness. Being anti-gay is being anti-science.

      Or something.

      1. It is wrong of you to even think that there might be something wrong with gayness.

        This is the hilarious part, IMO. Holding anything that could be construed to parallel with these beliefs, while not acting on them or necessarily advocating them, is inconsistent with decent society.

        But believing everyone should surrender their guns to the gov’t, pay their taxes, give up on their fucking Church already, and shut up about gov’t healthcare is, somehow, the modern paragon of self-control and social grace.

    3. The great part is…they don’t have to watch.

  13. Americans as a whole are as likely to think that being gay or lesbian “is just the way some people choose to live” (42 percent) as they are to think that “people are born gay or lesbian” (41 percent).

    Another aspect to this debate is semantic. How does the poll respondent interpret “being gay”? If it’s “living the gay life style”, they’ll go with “choice”. If it’s “feeling attraction to the same sex”, they’ll go with “born that way”.

    As Beavis/Butt-head so wisely put it: “I don’t like things that suck [no pun intended]. I like things that are cool!”

  14. I just find it hilarious that “born” + “choose” adds up to so much in these polls, when evidence isn’t there for either. It’s even funnier if “upbringing” is interpreted as a designed action by parents or others!

    What if people were polled about just about any other preference persons have? For example blondes vs. brunettes, or Coke vs. Pepsi.

    1. Redheads, RC

      Screw you and your false dichotomy

      1. Type “Shaun Tia” into google images. OMG ginger perfection. Probably not be safe for work though.

        1. I remember her fondly from the other day but alas have not yet had time to google her

          1. When you do, make sure your bunk is nearby.

        2. Gotta admit I didn’t know who she was and I took the bait.

          Wow. Imagine her with bigger tits….

  15. That may or may not be enough to disqualify him from being president…

    If the sentiment itself isn’t enough, being tone deaf enough to unnecessarily state it is.

    1. Oops. I guess that counts out Uncle Joe, too.

  16. How the Hell isn’t “don’t know” 95% of responses?

    1. “Know” has little to do with *opinion polling*.

    2. Could say that about a lot of polls, although this one more than most. There’s something about being presented w choices, or even being asked a Q, that impels respondents to give an A, even where they’d never even approach the Q in their lives generally.

  17. I have no idea why anyone would find the idea that genetic factors determine personal traits to be problematic.

    1. Problematic?? It’d be Nobel material!

    2. Perhaps it’s genetic?

    3. In the grand American tradition of blithering idiocy, personal characteristics must be entirely determined by genes or entirely a matter of atomic free will. And if a crazy Uncle Tom Democrat-turned-Republican says that being gay is a choice, it therefore must be entirely predetermined from the moment that sperm collides with egg.

      Odd that the tabula rasa progressives who believe that every personality trait can be altered via conditioning (pardon me, education) aren’t weighing in against the genetic predetermination argument. It’s almost as though there isn’t a good faith argument to be had on either side, but just pandering to political biases.

      1. It’s almost as though there isn’t a good faith argument to be had on either side, but just pandering to political biases.

        And there we have it.

        If we didn’t impugn Ben Carson with a loaded question about homosexuality, we’d have to give serious time and thought to any ideas he has bout handling the budget, expanding/limiting gov’t, spying on everyone, etc.

        1. Yes the question was fully loaded with an obviously correct answer he refused to give. There’s nobody to blame but him.

  18. Hard liquor tastes terrible; but it seems like it could be really fun, so I mix it with stuff that tastes good to be able to drink it. After having really fun experiences drinking, I begin to associate the flavor of hard liquor with the positive emotions of the experience and it becomes more palatable. I still have difficultly drinking it straight; so whenever I drink it, I hold it in my mouth for a few seconds before swallowing. Over time I begin to enjoy it’s taste and regularly drink it straight even without drinking enough to feel the effects.

    Did I choose to like the taste of alcohol?

    I think it possible for humans to choose to have certain preferences. In fact, I’d argue it’s damn easy to create positives preferences for things that tend to release certain substances in the body. What is hard is trying to remove an already established positive preference.

  19. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ??????????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  20. I don’t think homosexuality is genetic, but more likely biological due to the hormones present in the mother’s womb at specific stages in gestation. If it were genetic, then the children of homosexuals would be more predisposed to being gay, but there is no evidence that that is more likely than the child of two heterosexuals.

    With that said, sexuality is not binary. It isn’t even an array, with one side being straight and the other side being gay. It’s more like a 3 dimensional matrix where all kinds of sexual proclivities are represented.

    As stated before, I think that most people are probably more straight than not, but it isn’t 100% for most people, and that while most men and women could never see themselves being in an intimate/emotional relationship with someone of the same sex, they can imagine (fantasize?) having a tryst with someone of the same sex. Culture tells us this is wrong – though that of course is slowly changing – but a quick study of ancient history would show that having liaisons with people of the same sex was the norm instead of an aberration.

    1. then the children of homosexuals would be more predisposed to being gay

      Maybe. Unless it’s recessive, or skips a generation, or is transmitted by only x or y. But I agree that gestational hormones seems more likely.

  21. I don’t think homosexuality is genetic, but more likely biological due to the hormones present in the mother’s womb at specific stages in gestation. If it were genetic, then the children of homosexuals would be more predisposed to being gay, but there is no evidence that that is more likely than the child of two heterosexuals.

    With that said, sexuality is not binary. It isn’t even an array, with one side being straight and the other side being gay. It’s more like a 3 dimensional matrix where all kinds of sexual proclivities are represented.

    As stated before, I think that most people are probably more straight than not, but it isn’t 100% for most people, and that while most men and women could never see themselves being in an intimate/emotional relationship with someone of the same sex, they can imagine (fantasize?) having a tryst with someone of the same sex. Culture tells us this is wrong – though that of course is slowly changing – but a quick study of ancient history would show that having liaisons with people of the same sex was the norm instead of an aberration.

    1. You can say that, again. 😛

  22. Either it’s a choice, or it’s a medical condition.

    If the former, queers are entitled to no more consideration and accommodation than someone who chooses to be a Demoncrap or a Nazi.

    But if it’s a medical condition, it may be susceptible to treatment. One who is queer, but avoids treatment (if any is available) isn’t any different from someone who has any other medical condition that they refuse to treat. Bad breath? Body Odor? Leprosy (assuming it could be cured)? If someone chooses to have the disease, they aren’t entitled to any deference either.

    So, bottom line, no special treatment for queers… once a cure is discovered OR it’s determined that being queer is a person choice.

    1. “Either it’s a choice, or it’s a medical condition.”

      False dichotomy. Being left-handed or having brown skin are not “choices,” but they are also not medical conditions in any sense of the word. Perhaps ‘genetic variation’ is a better label.

      It is true that it’s a choice, then I would agree that is no reason for any special accomodations for homosexuals.

    2. “Either it’s a choice, or it’s a medical condition.”

      False dichotomy. Being left-handed or having brown skin are not “choices,” but they are also not medical conditions in any sense of the word. Perhaps ‘genetic variation’ is a better label.

      It is true that it’s a choice, then I would agree that is no reason for any special accomodations for homosexuals.

  23. This argument is full of garbage. Why does it matter how educated you are when it comes to an opinion piece? There is absolutely no plausible science yet proving that people are or are not “born this way”. Until the science comes out (pun completely intended) there is nothing more to discuss except that people make choices

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.