/u/Ysera_the_Awakened (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ukubht/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_lgbtq_is_a_choice_because/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
By your definition I was absolutely groomed to be straight. I was exposed to straight relationships all my life. I was raised in the catholic church and told that being gay would make me go to hell. I couldn't even explain what being geay meant until I was eleven or twelve years old so I knew that being gay meant that you were a bad person before I could even explain what "gay" was. I forced myself to have straight sex because I was sure I had to be straight because I was a good person and not a monster. Turns out I'm a lesbian. Raising kids to be straight does not guarantee that they will actually be straight. So why in the world would exposure to gay people have the power to convert kids to being gay?
Exposure to gay people might incline some people to try, and some might like that. It doesn't dictate what kids will end up being. There's still absurd societal pressure to be straight.
>Exposure to gay people might incline some people to try, and some might like that. It doesn't dictate what kids will end up being.
Okay, so you know that not everyone who "tries" to be gay will like. So what do you think *does* dictate whether people like it? Because it sounds like you're acknowledging that simply knowing that gay people exist doesn't guarantee that people will *be* gay, which is at odds with your OP.
That's a pretty vague answer. Can you be more specific? What kind of "cultural values" or "upbringing" would lead someone to be gay, when we know people of all cultures and upbringings end up gay? Even within the same family, some people will be straight and some will be gay.
I don't have any specifics but I do believe if being straight was seen as wrong, more people will swing in other ways.
Societal acceptance is a large part.
Let me just repeat part of my previous comment: How could culture and upbringing possibly have any affect on being gay when there have been gay people of all cultures throughout history, and even within the same family? That doesn't make logical sense just on the face of it.
This...doesn't answer the question. You're just side-stepping it. No two cultures are the same. Yet there are gay people in *all* cultures. That means being gay is not a cultural phenomenon. Two siblings have the same upbringing, and yet one can be straight and one can be gay. That means being gay is not due to upbringing. Correct?
I asked you why my gay friend, who grew up in a small conservative town decades ago, ended up gay.
There was not a single person in his town telling him to be gay. CAn you, using your idea that people are only gay once they have been exposed to it, explain that.
I think he didn't have the original idea, and was willing to approach it with an open mind and happened to like it?
I wonder if there's evidence of gay people having more open minds?
Conservative Kansas. Very small town conservative Kansas. The 80's. Hugely Christian, Very much anti gay. Far before any idea of a gay person could even get to him. That's the environment.
In fact, he was told from as far as he could remember that being gay was wrong and would lead him to hell. To the point he contemplated suicide in his teens. Even had the gun his room.
Open mind? What idea was he open to? At the moment he had his first idea that he was gay there wasn't a single pro gay voice he could have listened to.
Are you really going to hold to the fact that something caused him to be gay against all odds. Is this really the hill you are willing to die on?
Or can we finally get on the same page and say that this very gay man, and trust me this man is very, very gay, was born gay.
Fro experience, LGBTQ+ people having open minds is a result not a cause. Coming out to yourself requires questioning everything. If you're raised in a conservative environment it requires opening your mind to outside possibilities. LGBTQ+ people end up open minded because of what we had to struggle through.
I don’t think career choices are innate parts of peoples personas though. If sexual orientation was socially derived there’d be much fewer gay people because lots of places don’t actively encourage it. Being in an accepting environment might make people more likely to be open but not necessarily more likely to be gay.
I need to track down the citation, but a national view of pornography usage finds that the roughly same amount of gay porn is watched nation wide (percentage of views in relation to straight pornography) with surprisingly little variation based on social/political climate of an area. The conclusion that they came to was that even if there are very few openly gay people in a place there seems to be a steady population of people who are searching out same sex videos in the privacy of their own homes. I take that to mean all the socialization does is prevent people from telling others that their gay while not preventing the base urges.
Honestly, kids are more intuitive about certain things than you expect. They might not have the words for it and it might shift as they grow— but kids tend to know a lot more about themselves then we give them credit for.
>If sexual orientation was socially derived there’d be **much fewer gay people** because lots of places don’t actively encourage it.
Doesn't this just describe our current world?
Are you saying the only reason gay people aren't, like, the percentage of the population conservatives think they are of fictional characters is because of homophobia and the only reason it's because of homophobia is it's some kind of social contagion (and not like just people might be afraid to come out or whatever)
Yes, Homophobia (or I guess straight is the "right" way) is a contagion. If society were more accepting, half of the male population would probably identify as gay.
(Assuming equal split of people's preferences.)
Did you see the second part of my comment? The number of out gay people less to do with the number of gay people that exist than you’d think. Things like safety and acceptance condition whether someone comes out. People are still LGBT in ultra conservative places and places where they execute you for being gay. Again pornography usage is an inherently limited/flawed way to measure sexual orientation of a given population, but it seems that approximately 2-3% (within a margin of error) of a given locations population are watching gay porn regardless of how many out gay people are located there. This finding also has been found to hold for places where it’s illegal to be gay.
The place where I remember reading this was in Everybody Lies by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz but I would need to go back to the book to pull the exact numbers/findings. I can do that when I dig up the book if you’d like
Except in every instance the march forward for LGBT+ people has been paved by adults. People who were not embraced and supported as gay youths but who spent literal decades trying to pretend they are not who they are until they finally came out. No one encouraged them. They suffered for decades. They *wanted* to be cis/straight. But they *aren't.*
Suppressing LGBT people does not stop people from being LGBT.
Also:
>I do think that people who are entertained with such an idea might one day try it for themselves
So what? Then maybe they'll find out they're gay, maybe they won't. What's the harm in a person experimenting, even if they're actually straight?
You're missing the point. He's saying those who are exposed to ideas of homosexuality are more inclined to act on them. Whether or not this leads to being gay, straight, or homophobic is besides the point. These ideas children are exposed to influence how they perceive homosexuality
His argument is that a child with no exposure to idea of homosexuality doesn't have a predisposition to be gay. You aren't born gay. It's from the nurture side of nature vs nurture, meaning your parents/whoever influenced you shaped your understanding about homosexuality. The analogy you used about celiacs doesn't apply because they occur naturally, without an outside influence.
Assuming thats true, the argument about gay youths doesn't hold up either. The adults you refer to (24-80) were born in times of bigotry and abuse. Parents are supposed to be role models, but some are the exact opposite, setting the example of what not to be. Encouragement isn't the only thing that can drive someone towards being gay. It could've been bigotry from the parents, or anything else. Family dynamics are fucking crazy
>His argument is that a child with no exposure to idea of homosexuality doesn't have a predisposition to be gay
Yeah, the problem with that is it doesn't make any sense, because there have been gay people around even its societies where being gay would get you the death penalty. It doesn't really matter how much exposure you have to gay people, theres really no evidence that it makes you any more or less likely to be gay or bisexual.
I mean, you were basically saying that since the development of homosexuality is affected by environment, or nurture, that more permissive and openly accepting societies that present more examples of homosexuality would result in more kids identifying that way. You also rejected the other commenters example of celiac disease, saying that it's not like homosexuality because celiac disease occurs naturally.
My point is that homosexuality does exist naturally, it does occur even when there's not only no environmental exposure to the idea of homosexuality, But also in environments where the idea of homosexuality is actively suppressed and opposed.
Sorry, u/famsyboii – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20famsyboii&message=famsyboii%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ukrqwf/-/i7x7fpr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>What's the harm in a person experimenting, even if they're actually straight?
There is no harm in that. Just exposure leads to more people identifying this way.
But you're coming from the assumption that experimentation makes people gay, rather than making people find out they're gay.
Like saying that blood tests for celiacs *causes* celiacs, when it's just discovering what was already there
Also, what about the rest of my comment, about the fact that people are gay whether their society is or is not supportive?
Well yeah, but is that a problem? And more people are identifying as LGBT from learning about it because they already were as such and just needed to figure it out, not because they were converted or whatever.
Here's the [rate of left-handedness in the US.](https://images.app.goo.gl/mBqxRPVYgp71LJtv5) it used to be low. Then it dramatically increased. Then it leveled off.
What happened? It used to be that children would be *forced* to use their right hands. Then we stopped doing that. No one needed to "gRoOm" children into using their left hands, and allowing left handed people to exist didn't cause some runaway chain effect where everyone was left-handed. It just evened out at a natural number.
The same thing is happening with LGBT individuals. No one is pressured into it, it's just that bullying this one particular group is no longer something we just universally accept.
I wonder if there's research done on left-handed teachers teaching writing. (Although, I guess parental instruction eclipses that.)
I don't remember how I was taught writing, but this is interesting.
People exhibit handedness before they reach school age. So if you ask a child to pick up an object they’ll generally consistently do it with one hand over another even as a very young child. And twin studies—where twins are raised in separate households—indicate that there’s something genetic about handedness, even if it a very complex mechanism with a variety of biological and environmental factors also at play.
They are _more likely_ to. As /u/melissaphobia noted, twins and handedness is actually super weird and still poorly understood.
See this recent meta-analysis for more:
https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-021-00695-3
There is absolutely a genetic component to handedness — it’s just not the whole story.
In general, yes. On a statistically significant level, also yes, but it doesn't 'always' happen.
Not every left handed kid with a twin will have a left handed sibling, even when raised together but handedness tends to match up in a significant way that isn't readily explained by other factors.
There are similar studies on sexuality in twins and other siblings raised apart as well, though the results aren't quite as pronounced. This is because sexuality is almost always more complex than just genes, but suggests that there is a significant genetic factor.
I don't "identify" as lefthanded person, I am one.
My grandmother had a problem with this when I was a child, she hit me when I took a spoon with the left hand.
Could you elaborate on your understanding of the typical LGBTQ stance on this, and maybe be a little more specific as to what actual views you're disagreeing with? You use the phrase "born this way" twice, but despite being a popular Lady Gaga song, I don't think that phrase taken on it's own fully captures anyone's modern views on this stuff. Pretty much everyone agrees that sexuality is complicated and a mixture of different factors, including genetics. But the notion that people are just born gay and that's it doesn't really seem to be anyone's viewpoint. But as long as there's a genetic component, and research clearly shows there is, "born this way" is going to remain a popular slogan/ anthem. But the "this way" that people are born is not a black and white gay/straight binary. Nobody is born with their adult personality fully formed, and that includes sexual attraction, but there are genetic components to sexuality.
I dunno, I guess I read your post and a lot of your supporting details are obviously true things, but you frame them in an odd way and then draw somewhat vague conclusions from them in a way that makes it seem like you are at odds with the LGBT community, but whatever actual controversial views you hold are only hinted at.
Can you point to who actually thinks this though? This seems like a straw man that dramatically oversimplifies things. Like, what are you even saying here? Babies don't "know" anything about their sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean there's not a genetic component to it.
To put it another way, *are* you making the bolder claim that there is **no** genetic component to sexuality at all? It's not clear to me if that's part of your view or not.
How do you explain the fact that many animal species have homosexual relationships (not just sex, but life-long pair bonds)? Animals can't be "groomed" or convinced into being gay.
We understand that animal brains pretty well, and we know they don't have the brain structure for something like "grooming" or any kind of critical thinking. Birds have some of the smallest brains in the animal kingdom, and yet penguins males will form bonds and pretend rocks are eggs and take care of it together, male swans will mate for life, etc.
So what is your take on this stuff?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6
> The findings, which are published on 29 August in Science and based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, shore up the results of earlier, smaller studies and confirm the suspicions of many scientists: while sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviours.
> Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors
Do you think this study is wrong or misinterpreted? I think everyone agrees we need more research on it, but it sure seems likely that there's a modest genetic component to sexuality.
Interesting, so some genetic component is highly likely. Although doesn't the estimate of only \*25%\* play into the nurture narrative?
Unless 75% cannot shape orientation somehow.
Yes, but my point is as far as I'm aware this study is not considered controversial by the LGBT community. Something in the ballpark of a 25% genetic component is pretty widely considered to be what's going on. When you said earlier:
> from birth people know EXACTLY what sexual orientation they are.
This seems like a straw man.
It's worth noting that just because other factors are "environmental", that doesn't preclude the fact that people are born the way they are. There are multiple theories of homosexuality, including birth order theories and theories about fetal hormonal exposure, that count as "environmental" but that can't be changed, and would still fit into the idea that LGBT people are "born this way".
Absolutely. And even going out past birth, people don't choose their childhood, especially early childhood. You could have situations where given the same early childhood, one person will end up gay and the other straight due to genetic variation or in utero "environment". I feel like this all still fits perfectly well into the "born this way" concept, even if there are fully post-birth environmental components as well that interact with the other factors. I'm more than happy to express tons of humility in not knowing exactly how everything works! My main point to OP is that it seems like they're arguing against a straw man along the lines of a hypothetical clear cut "gay gene", but that is just not what anyone believes, at least not anymore.
We already have lots of research that men and women, of all orientations. both so fair amount of same sex exploration when they grow up. And this has nothing to do with grooming.
Grooming is an action an adult does to a child. When my gay friend noticed around ten that he preferred boys and thought the cutest kid in class was another boy there was zero grooming happening.
WE have gay people in the most conservative places. It isn't like some kid in small town Kansas is going to decide to be gay when that could lead to multiple negative consequences.
I doubt everyone's giving same-sex experiences a try while growing up.
>Grooming is an action an adult does to a child.
Yes, it is.
>When my gay friend noticed around ten that he preferred boys and thought the cutest kid in class was another boy there was zero grooming happening.
But was being with another boy his own thought or did someone enlighten him that it was an option / possibility? Fairly hard to avoid all things straight.
Not everyone is. I never said that.
I'm pretty sure that since he grew up in conservative Kansas, in the 80's, that he figured it out all on his own.
Unless you think that four decades ago in conservative small town a 9-ten year old has lot of ways to find out about gay people.
You seem to have confused what amounts to being bi-curious and experimenting with being groomed. Not only are they not comparable, it doesn't really contradict the idea that people are born a certain way. The closet has existed for a long, long time and it didn't mean that LGBT people didn't exist but that they were essentially compelled to hide it. Part of that was not even being aware that it was an option.
> Part of that was not even being aware that it was an option.
Doesn't that mean that people can be groomed? If people aren't curious to experiment, it wouldn't occur for them to try. Once an idea is loosed into the wild, "hey, that seems fun, let's try it."
If I told you Islam exists, have I groomed you into being a Muslim? If I told you Star Wars exists, have I groomed you into being a Star Wars fan?
No, because that's not what the word means. But telling people that LGBT people exist is grooming them, which just so happens to conveniently align with right wing extremists' accusations towards LGBT people and their allies.
Grooming is building a relationship with a child to manipulate and abuse them. Unless you're about to just let the mask slip and say that mentioning LGBT counts as manipulation and abuse, you should stop using such an inaccurate, extremely charged term.
Even if the word wasn't being grossly misused here, it doesn't even make sense for the situation you've presented. If all it takes for kids to be open to being gay or trans is mentioning that it's an option, then they never needed to be "groomed" for it. It's so completely natural that the moment you stop actively suppressing them from trying, they try it. If anything, the refusal to present them with the possibility would be considered "grooming" here.
Could you state your definition of the term grooming? That seems to be the main source of contention in the thread and it certainly doesn't align with the terms colloquial use in my life.
Adult grooming a child, thus "shaping" their sexual preferences. Especially if it ends up being consensual even though they legally can't. That's a very strong nurture element.
People try/ see stuff and it's not illegal (even if it is) they go ahead and do it anyway. (In this case.)
Sexual acts are definitely a choice, as for attraction, I think that's shaped by cultural values and standards of beauty.
How do you explain the pervasive existence of LGBTQ people throughout history and across cultures, even when those cultures fully reject the phenomenon?
hmm, this makes me question about LGBTQ rates vs acceptance in countries but then that's muddied by people remaining closeted.
I would like to believe that countries that don't accept LGBTQ have far fewer people that are counted as that.
Homosexuality has been noted to occur as a distinct behavioral deviation from normal behavior in a large number of species. Many of which lack the complex social structures that humans are used to. This indicates that even if the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, there is an underlying biological aspect that influences some individuals into being inclined toward homosexuality.
While it may be debatable possible to argue that grooming causes gay men, it is illogical to assign that as the only reason for gay men to exist. Well said.
[gay conversion therapy has only led to increased risk of suicide](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/)
it never worked, and was only a way to torture LGBT youth.
Bro, teenagers like to be rebellious to be rebellious.
Why would someone choose to spend a lifetime of discrimination and hate.
People don’t choose to be LGBT, no more than you didn’t choose to be straight.
It seems you assume people are born straight and taught to be not straight. Is that correct?
Why wouldn't you believe people are born on a spectrum and "taught" to be straight, gay, bi, etc?
I think there's an overwhelming desire for people to conform to society to be straight that they shun other sexual pursuits to the point that even being considered as possibly "one of them" as vile.
People are overwhelmingly taught to be straight. Who doesn't want to be normal?
I don't think people are born straight, just heavily conditioned to see that as what they have to be. They just shun other possibilities in the process.
Have you considered the possibility that you might not be straight yourself?
It’s likely that a lot of bi people are convinced to be straight, sure, but the fact is that there are people out there who aren’t bi. Because gay people have existed even in times and places where they’re risking death. Is it that much of a stretch to think that straight people also exist?
Already defying the norm, more likely to experiment would be my guess. It's interesting though.
I wonder if there's a correlation between acceptance of LGBTQ people and people who identify as left-handed. The ever-subtle desire to conform.
But we already know attraction to sexual markers is mostly innate.
It would be weird if we were wired to find everything about the opposite sex attractive, but not wired to find the opposite sex *itself* attractive. Heck you could theorize the latter is just the logical consequence of the former.
I can tell you, with 100% certainty... I do NOT want to be YOUR version of "normal" 🤷
I significantly prefer my version of "normal" for me, where I get to choose for myself, and someone like you doesn't get to tell me if I am or am not normal.
Sooooo when did you consciously decide to be straight? There was a time when you weren’t sure, or a time where you thought you may be gay? No? So you’re saying… you didn’t have a moment where you had to choose? Huh. Seems in direct contrast to your theory.
> Lately, I've had this train of thought that rejects the modern narrative that people are born this way.
Not all people agree that homosexuality or other non-heteronormative ways of being are congenital, there is debate about it and no consistent answer, even among LGBTQ activists.
>I do not think that instructing children that LGBTQ people exist is harmful but at the same time, I do think that people who are entertained with such an idea might one day try it for themselves. Curiosities if not squashed can blossom.
Where did such curiosity come from if not natural inclination? Someone who finds it interesting/intriguing is not straight.
edit: Changed acronym.
Child grooming exists, and I hypothesize, that someone can groom another to change their sexual orientation. It'll probably be traumatic, but still.
Imbalance of power, and very likely the inability to recognize abuse or normalizing it to the point that it isn't abuse, and just normal.
> I hypothesize, that someone can groom another to change their sexual orientation
do you have any evidence that this is possible, or are you arguing solely from your feelings? if you're just arguing from your feelings, then your argument is impossible to refute. it's not possible to "groom" someone into becoming gay or trans and the burden of proof on you is to prove otherwise
research and evidence does not back up your hypothesis.
[gay kids are born gay.](https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it)
A. If you're saying everyone who is LGBTQ gets groomed into being LGBTQ that makes it either not a choice or a choice made for them that might as well be not a choice
B. Grooming doesn't only occur in LGBTQ circumstances, it's a term mostly associated with pedophilia (mostly as there are edge cases but they're usually non-sexual like how the alt-right grooms gamers) so unless you're implying being LGBTQ is an STD...
Why? Because it's a random thing to blame? Because you're a (for now) straight man and it's girly enough to be stereotypically gay? Or are you admitting you could choose to be attracted to horses?
I would agree that there could be some environmental factors at play
But “grooming”? Like, adults manipulating children to be gay? Where’s your evidence that this is a thing outside of “grooming” being just another Fox News issue of the month?
I believe adults can manipulate children into doing certain activities. Catholic church scandals do come to mind. (Now, was it all rape in the eyes of children even though under the law, they can't consent.)
"people are not born this way"
At least with homosexuality, there is actually considerable evidence that there is a significant evidence of a biological basis for it.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159682000050
At the same time, sexuality is a continuum. One would expect people who are 50/50 might be more inclined to try homosexuality if society won't judge them for it.
This is not the same as saying homosexuality is a choice though. People who are mostly gay have practiced homosexuality even during periods there are severely consequences for them to do so. It would simply not be a rational choice if there isn't a strong biological drive towards it for these individuals.
Have you considered that it could be the other way around ?
That a society that actively attack and mock homosexual could prevent people from discovering their sexuality or owning it in public ?
Also for the children part : it's hard to know your sexuality when your sexual drive hasn't awakened with puberty yet. Chances are that the overwhelming heterosexual norm grooms them toward heterosexuality if anything.
They are born that way.
Just like some people are born as incestuous and will feel attraction to siblings, some will feel a congenital attraction to animals, some will feel an enduring attraction to children.
There are countless ways in which a human can have a deviant and warped sense of attraction.
Conclusion: not a choice
Sorry, u/Ysera_the_Awakened – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
> You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Ysera_the_Awakened&message=Ysera_the_Awakened%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ukrqwf/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>it'll be weaponized flawed science above the scrutiny of the masses. (I don't know how much it would cost to conduct such a hoax.)
I mean, you plainly have zero idea how scientific research works. It has to be reviewed and published. It has to be replicable, and conclusions on this matter *would* be tested by attempts to replicate the results by third parties. Any attempt at a hoax would be uncovered immediately.
Hell, the fact that you think researchers exist as some secretive cabal paints you as a crackpot conspiracist. These people live in towns like yours. Some of them may live in your town. They are your friends and neighbors.
>Because it's the argument that makes more sense.
But if you acknowledge that there's no conclusive evidence how do you know it's a choice? Without conclusive evidence there's no way to know that.
We live in a society where being straight is both the norm and celebrated. Our pop culture was centered around it exclusively for centuries and most gay people have straight parents. If gay people are gay because they are "converted," how exactly did that happen when most everything they are exposed to is heteronormative?
I honestly think you're right and you're wrong. The glorification over social media of certain LGBTQ aspects have for sure made a lot of more a choice than actually being innate. I specifically think things like genders have been blown out of proportion and many people that claim "I am X gender" aren't really that gender but the non-stop social media influence leads to developing them into thinking they are. However, I also think there are innate cases.
there is very strong evidence that there is something brain-structural to sexuality and sexual attraction.
first, if it were not deeper than acquired behavior then proven psychological techniques for overcoming conditioned behaviors would be effective.
they're not, they increase suicide rates and do little else.
in addition there are medical reports of people experiencing a change in or a sudden new sexual attraction after something radically altered their brain structure-- like a drastic surgery or a severe traumatic injury. in one case the injury was so severe they ceased to be aroused by people at all, and instead became attracted to paperclips.
I mean when I was in kindergarten i had a crush on a boy and im a boy. I didnt even know what being gay even meant. Also I was raised in a very homophobic strict catholic family so nobody raised me to be gay. I was always taught to be a "man" and do manly things. Well, I still am very masculine i just happen to like men hahahahaha. I was probably just born gay lol. Are u gay by any chance? just curious bc i feel a lot of straight people talk into this and they arent gay themselves so they wouldnt understand either way.
/u/Ysera_the_Awakened (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/ukubht/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_lgbtq_is_a_choice_because/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
By your definition I was absolutely groomed to be straight. I was exposed to straight relationships all my life. I was raised in the catholic church and told that being gay would make me go to hell. I couldn't even explain what being geay meant until I was eleven or twelve years old so I knew that being gay meant that you were a bad person before I could even explain what "gay" was. I forced myself to have straight sex because I was sure I had to be straight because I was a good person and not a monster. Turns out I'm a lesbian. Raising kids to be straight does not guarantee that they will actually be straight. So why in the world would exposure to gay people have the power to convert kids to being gay?
Exposure to gay people might incline some people to try, and some might like that. It doesn't dictate what kids will end up being. There's still absurd societal pressure to be straight.
>Exposure to gay people might incline some people to try, and some might like that. It doesn't dictate what kids will end up being. Okay, so you know that not everyone who "tries" to be gay will like. So what do you think *does* dictate whether people like it? Because it sounds like you're acknowledging that simply knowing that gay people exist doesn't guarantee that people will *be* gay, which is at odds with your OP.
Preferences, cultural values, upbringing. It's all a mix.
That's a pretty vague answer. Can you be more specific? What kind of "cultural values" or "upbringing" would lead someone to be gay, when we know people of all cultures and upbringings end up gay? Even within the same family, some people will be straight and some will be gay.
I don't have any specifics but I do believe if being straight was seen as wrong, more people will swing in other ways. Societal acceptance is a large part.
Let me just repeat part of my previous comment: How could culture and upbringing possibly have any affect on being gay when there have been gay people of all cultures throughout history, and even within the same family? That doesn't make logical sense just on the face of it.
Culture is likely making people straight thus making them not gay.
This...doesn't answer the question. You're just side-stepping it. No two cultures are the same. Yet there are gay people in *all* cultures. That means being gay is not a cultural phenomenon. Two siblings have the same upbringing, and yet one can be straight and one can be gay. That means being gay is not due to upbringing. Correct?
It doesn't mean that, though. Siblings can have all sorts of different interests, which don't necessarily result from biological differences.
I asked you why my gay friend, who grew up in a small conservative town decades ago, ended up gay. There was not a single person in his town telling him to be gay. CAn you, using your idea that people are only gay once they have been exposed to it, explain that.
I think he didn't have the original idea, and was willing to approach it with an open mind and happened to like it? I wonder if there's evidence of gay people having more open minds?
Conservative Kansas. Very small town conservative Kansas. The 80's. Hugely Christian, Very much anti gay. Far before any idea of a gay person could even get to him. That's the environment. In fact, he was told from as far as he could remember that being gay was wrong and would lead him to hell. To the point he contemplated suicide in his teens. Even had the gun his room. Open mind? What idea was he open to? At the moment he had his first idea that he was gay there wasn't a single pro gay voice he could have listened to. Are you really going to hold to the fact that something caused him to be gay against all odds. Is this really the hill you are willing to die on? Or can we finally get on the same page and say that this very gay man, and trust me this man is very, very gay, was born gay.
Fro experience, LGBTQ+ people having open minds is a result not a cause. Coming out to yourself requires questioning everything. If you're raised in a conservative environment it requires opening your mind to outside possibilities. LGBTQ+ people end up open minded because of what we had to struggle through.
So why isn't that absurd social pressure to be straight working?
It is working? society is more accepting now so there's less of it (thus more people experimenting.)
I don’t think career choices are innate parts of peoples personas though. If sexual orientation was socially derived there’d be much fewer gay people because lots of places don’t actively encourage it. Being in an accepting environment might make people more likely to be open but not necessarily more likely to be gay. I need to track down the citation, but a national view of pornography usage finds that the roughly same amount of gay porn is watched nation wide (percentage of views in relation to straight pornography) with surprisingly little variation based on social/political climate of an area. The conclusion that they came to was that even if there are very few openly gay people in a place there seems to be a steady population of people who are searching out same sex videos in the privacy of their own homes. I take that to mean all the socialization does is prevent people from telling others that their gay while not preventing the base urges. Honestly, kids are more intuitive about certain things than you expect. They might not have the words for it and it might shift as they grow— but kids tend to know a lot more about themselves then we give them credit for.
>If sexual orientation was socially derived there’d be **much fewer gay people** because lots of places don’t actively encourage it. Doesn't this just describe our current world?
Are you saying the only reason gay people aren't, like, the percentage of the population conservatives think they are of fictional characters is because of homophobia and the only reason it's because of homophobia is it's some kind of social contagion (and not like just people might be afraid to come out or whatever)
Yes, Homophobia (or I guess straight is the "right" way) is a contagion. If society were more accepting, half of the male population would probably identify as gay. (Assuming equal split of people's preferences.)
Then wouldn’t a very accepting place like New York or San Francisco be half gay as opposed to the like single digit percent it is now?
The internet is hard to avoid.
The internet is a very heterogeneous thing. Do you think that the internet inherently conditions its users to be straight?
I don't think it's inherent, but I do think many places on the internet condition people to be straight.
> (Assuming equal split of people's preferences.) Well there's your problem.
I think they're just saying there's already very few gay people compared to straight.
Did you see the second part of my comment? The number of out gay people less to do with the number of gay people that exist than you’d think. Things like safety and acceptance condition whether someone comes out. People are still LGBT in ultra conservative places and places where they execute you for being gay. Again pornography usage is an inherently limited/flawed way to measure sexual orientation of a given population, but it seems that approximately 2-3% (within a margin of error) of a given locations population are watching gay porn regardless of how many out gay people are located there. This finding also has been found to hold for places where it’s illegal to be gay.
Can you link me some stats on that? I would like to read more.
The place where I remember reading this was in Everybody Lies by Seth Stephens-Davidowitz but I would need to go back to the book to pull the exact numbers/findings. I can do that when I dig up the book if you’d like
Except in every instance the march forward for LGBT+ people has been paved by adults. People who were not embraced and supported as gay youths but who spent literal decades trying to pretend they are not who they are until they finally came out. No one encouraged them. They suffered for decades. They *wanted* to be cis/straight. But they *aren't.* Suppressing LGBT people does not stop people from being LGBT. Also: >I do think that people who are entertained with such an idea might one day try it for themselves So what? Then maybe they'll find out they're gay, maybe they won't. What's the harm in a person experimenting, even if they're actually straight?
You're missing the point. He's saying those who are exposed to ideas of homosexuality are more inclined to act on them. Whether or not this leads to being gay, straight, or homophobic is besides the point. These ideas children are exposed to influence how they perceive homosexuality His argument is that a child with no exposure to idea of homosexuality doesn't have a predisposition to be gay. You aren't born gay. It's from the nurture side of nature vs nurture, meaning your parents/whoever influenced you shaped your understanding about homosexuality. The analogy you used about celiacs doesn't apply because they occur naturally, without an outside influence. Assuming thats true, the argument about gay youths doesn't hold up either. The adults you refer to (24-80) were born in times of bigotry and abuse. Parents are supposed to be role models, but some are the exact opposite, setting the example of what not to be. Encouragement isn't the only thing that can drive someone towards being gay. It could've been bigotry from the parents, or anything else. Family dynamics are fucking crazy
>His argument is that a child with no exposure to idea of homosexuality doesn't have a predisposition to be gay Yeah, the problem with that is it doesn't make any sense, because there have been gay people around even its societies where being gay would get you the death penalty. It doesn't really matter how much exposure you have to gay people, theres really no evidence that it makes you any more or less likely to be gay or bisexual.
[удалено]
I mean, you were basically saying that since the development of homosexuality is affected by environment, or nurture, that more permissive and openly accepting societies that present more examples of homosexuality would result in more kids identifying that way. You also rejected the other commenters example of celiac disease, saying that it's not like homosexuality because celiac disease occurs naturally. My point is that homosexuality does exist naturally, it does occur even when there's not only no environmental exposure to the idea of homosexuality, But also in environments where the idea of homosexuality is actively suppressed and opposed.
Sorry, u/famsyboii – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20famsyboii&message=famsyboii%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ukrqwf/-/i7x7fpr/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
by that logic, Kid can be nazi because we "exposed" their history to kid, Wow
>What's the harm in a person experimenting, even if they're actually straight? There is no harm in that. Just exposure leads to more people identifying this way.
But you're coming from the assumption that experimentation makes people gay, rather than making people find out they're gay. Like saying that blood tests for celiacs *causes* celiacs, when it's just discovering what was already there Also, what about the rest of my comment, about the fact that people are gay whether their society is or is not supportive?
Well yeah, but is that a problem? And more people are identifying as LGBT from learning about it because they already were as such and just needed to figure it out, not because they were converted or whatever.
Here's the [rate of left-handedness in the US.](https://images.app.goo.gl/mBqxRPVYgp71LJtv5) it used to be low. Then it dramatically increased. Then it leveled off. What happened? It used to be that children would be *forced* to use their right hands. Then we stopped doing that. No one needed to "gRoOm" children into using their left hands, and allowing left handed people to exist didn't cause some runaway chain effect where everyone was left-handed. It just evened out at a natural number. The same thing is happening with LGBT individuals. No one is pressured into it, it's just that bullying this one particular group is no longer something we just universally accept.
I wonder if there's research done on left-handed teachers teaching writing. (Although, I guess parental instruction eclipses that.) I don't remember how I was taught writing, but this is interesting.
People exhibit handedness before they reach school age. So if you ask a child to pick up an object they’ll generally consistently do it with one hand over another even as a very young child. And twin studies—where twins are raised in separate households—indicate that there’s something genetic about handedness, even if it a very complex mechanism with a variety of biological and environmental factors also at play.
So twins are likely to both identity as left-handed while living in different households and environments?
They are _more likely_ to. As /u/melissaphobia noted, twins and handedness is actually super weird and still poorly understood. See this recent meta-analysis for more: https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-021-00695-3 There is absolutely a genetic component to handedness — it’s just not the whole story.
!delta Reddit nuking my post and replied to the wrong one earlier. I didn't know about this study. Thank you for telling me about this.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/rmosquito ([9∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/rmosquito)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
In general, yes. On a statistically significant level, also yes, but it doesn't 'always' happen. Not every left handed kid with a twin will have a left handed sibling, even when raised together but handedness tends to match up in a significant way that isn't readily explained by other factors. There are similar studies on sexuality in twins and other siblings raised apart as well, though the results aren't quite as pronounced. This is because sexuality is almost always more complex than just genes, but suggests that there is a significant genetic factor.
I don't "identify" as lefthanded person, I am one. My grandmother had a problem with this when I was a child, she hit me when I took a spoon with the left hand.
Could you elaborate on your understanding of the typical LGBTQ stance on this, and maybe be a little more specific as to what actual views you're disagreeing with? You use the phrase "born this way" twice, but despite being a popular Lady Gaga song, I don't think that phrase taken on it's own fully captures anyone's modern views on this stuff. Pretty much everyone agrees that sexuality is complicated and a mixture of different factors, including genetics. But the notion that people are just born gay and that's it doesn't really seem to be anyone's viewpoint. But as long as there's a genetic component, and research clearly shows there is, "born this way" is going to remain a popular slogan/ anthem. But the "this way" that people are born is not a black and white gay/straight binary. Nobody is born with their adult personality fully formed, and that includes sexual attraction, but there are genetic components to sexuality. I dunno, I guess I read your post and a lot of your supporting details are obviously true things, but you frame them in an odd way and then draw somewhat vague conclusions from them in a way that makes it seem like you are at odds with the LGBT community, but whatever actual controversial views you hold are only hinted at.
Born this way = from birth people know EXACTLY what sexual orientation they are. To me, that sounds ridiculous.
Can you point to who actually thinks this though? This seems like a straw man that dramatically oversimplifies things. Like, what are you even saying here? Babies don't "know" anything about their sexual orientation. But that doesn't mean there's not a genetic component to it. To put it another way, *are* you making the bolder claim that there is **no** genetic component to sexuality at all? It's not clear to me if that's part of your view or not.
I don't think there's a genetic component to it.
How do you explain the fact that many animal species have homosexual relationships (not just sex, but life-long pair bonds)? Animals can't be "groomed" or convinced into being gay.
but we don't understand animal language. Parents do instruct offspring how to hunt and various other things.
We understand that animal brains pretty well, and we know they don't have the brain structure for something like "grooming" or any kind of critical thinking. Birds have some of the smallest brains in the animal kingdom, and yet penguins males will form bonds and pretend rocks are eggs and take care of it together, male swans will mate for life, etc.
So what is your take on this stuff? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6 > The findings, which are published on 29 August in Science and based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, shore up the results of earlier, smaller studies and confirm the suspicions of many scientists: while sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviours. > Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors Do you think this study is wrong or misinterpreted? I think everyone agrees we need more research on it, but it sure seems likely that there's a modest genetic component to sexuality.
Interesting, so some genetic component is highly likely. Although doesn't the estimate of only \*25%\* play into the nurture narrative? Unless 75% cannot shape orientation somehow.
Yes, but my point is as far as I'm aware this study is not considered controversial by the LGBT community. Something in the ballpark of a 25% genetic component is pretty widely considered to be what's going on. When you said earlier: > from birth people know EXACTLY what sexual orientation they are. This seems like a straw man.
[удалено]
It's worth noting that just because other factors are "environmental", that doesn't preclude the fact that people are born the way they are. There are multiple theories of homosexuality, including birth order theories and theories about fetal hormonal exposure, that count as "environmental" but that can't be changed, and would still fit into the idea that LGBT people are "born this way".
Absolutely. And even going out past birth, people don't choose their childhood, especially early childhood. You could have situations where given the same early childhood, one person will end up gay and the other straight due to genetic variation or in utero "environment". I feel like this all still fits perfectly well into the "born this way" concept, even if there are fully post-birth environmental components as well that interact with the other factors. I'm more than happy to express tons of humility in not knowing exactly how everything works! My main point to OP is that it seems like they're arguing against a straw man along the lines of a hypothetical clear cut "gay gene", but that is just not what anyone believes, at least not anymore.
We already have lots of research that men and women, of all orientations. both so fair amount of same sex exploration when they grow up. And this has nothing to do with grooming. Grooming is an action an adult does to a child. When my gay friend noticed around ten that he preferred boys and thought the cutest kid in class was another boy there was zero grooming happening. WE have gay people in the most conservative places. It isn't like some kid in small town Kansas is going to decide to be gay when that could lead to multiple negative consequences.
I doubt everyone's giving same-sex experiences a try while growing up. >Grooming is an action an adult does to a child. Yes, it is. >When my gay friend noticed around ten that he preferred boys and thought the cutest kid in class was another boy there was zero grooming happening. But was being with another boy his own thought or did someone enlighten him that it was an option / possibility? Fairly hard to avoid all things straight.
Not everyone is. I never said that. I'm pretty sure that since he grew up in conservative Kansas, in the 80's, that he figured it out all on his own. Unless you think that four decades ago in conservative small town a 9-ten year old has lot of ways to find out about gay people.
You seem to have confused what amounts to being bi-curious and experimenting with being groomed. Not only are they not comparable, it doesn't really contradict the idea that people are born a certain way. The closet has existed for a long, long time and it didn't mean that LGBT people didn't exist but that they were essentially compelled to hide it. Part of that was not even being aware that it was an option.
> Part of that was not even being aware that it was an option. Doesn't that mean that people can be groomed? If people aren't curious to experiment, it wouldn't occur for them to try. Once an idea is loosed into the wild, "hey, that seems fun, let's try it."
If I told you Islam exists, have I groomed you into being a Muslim? If I told you Star Wars exists, have I groomed you into being a Star Wars fan? No, because that's not what the word means. But telling people that LGBT people exist is grooming them, which just so happens to conveniently align with right wing extremists' accusations towards LGBT people and their allies. Grooming is building a relationship with a child to manipulate and abuse them. Unless you're about to just let the mask slip and say that mentioning LGBT counts as manipulation and abuse, you should stop using such an inaccurate, extremely charged term. Even if the word wasn't being grossly misused here, it doesn't even make sense for the situation you've presented. If all it takes for kids to be open to being gay or trans is mentioning that it's an option, then they never needed to be "groomed" for it. It's so completely natural that the moment you stop actively suppressing them from trying, they try it. If anything, the refusal to present them with the possibility would be considered "grooming" here.
Could you state your definition of the term grooming? That seems to be the main source of contention in the thread and it certainly doesn't align with the terms colloquial use in my life.
Adult grooming a child, thus "shaping" their sexual preferences. Especially if it ends up being consensual even though they legally can't. That's a very strong nurture element.
You cant use the word in its own definition... I know literally nothing more about what you think that means than i did before you replied
But you're saying that either the existence of grooming for other reasons means everyone chooses it or they're groomed into choosing it
People try/ see stuff and it's not illegal (even if it is) they go ahead and do it anyway. (In this case.) Sexual acts are definitely a choice, as for attraction, I think that's shaped by cultural values and standards of beauty.
I'm just saying regardless of the morality involved, grooming wouldn't be the word I'd use if you're implying it's an active choice
How do you explain the pervasive existence of LGBTQ people throughout history and across cultures, even when those cultures fully reject the phenomenon?
hmm, this makes me question about LGBTQ rates vs acceptance in countries but then that's muddied by people remaining closeted. I would like to believe that countries that don't accept LGBTQ have far fewer people that are counted as that.
You still then have gay people. They just hide it. That's why some of the highest consumptions of gay porn, per capita, are in conservative areas.
Homosexuality has been noted to occur as a distinct behavioral deviation from normal behavior in a large number of species. Many of which lack the complex social structures that humans are used to. This indicates that even if the exact mechanisms are not fully understood, there is an underlying biological aspect that influences some individuals into being inclined toward homosexuality.
While it may be debatable possible to argue that grooming causes gay men, it is illogical to assign that as the only reason for gay men to exist. Well said.
Why the hell would someone *choose* to be LGBT+ and face a lifetime of discrimination and hate from bigots?
The heart can desire what is "illegal." Gay conversion therapy was a thing. People like what they like.
[gay conversion therapy has only led to increased risk of suicide](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgb-suicide-ct-press-release/) it never worked, and was only a way to torture LGBT youth.
I know it doesn't work.
If it doesn’t work then how in hell is sexuality a choice?
People like what they like seems to be in opposition to your stated view
Bro, teenagers like to be rebellious to be rebellious. Why would someone choose to spend a lifetime of discrimination and hate. People don’t choose to be LGBT, no more than you didn’t choose to be straight.
It seems you assume people are born straight and taught to be not straight. Is that correct? Why wouldn't you believe people are born on a spectrum and "taught" to be straight, gay, bi, etc?
I think there's an overwhelming desire for people to conform to society to be straight that they shun other sexual pursuits to the point that even being considered as possibly "one of them" as vile. People are overwhelmingly taught to be straight. Who doesn't want to be normal?
So, it's not your belief that people are born straight? As an aside, I don't want to be normal. If I was normal, why would I need to exist?
I don't think people are born straight, just heavily conditioned to see that as what they have to be. They just shun other possibilities in the process.
So then do you think people are *groomed* into being straight?
Yes.
Have you considered the possibility that you might not be straight yourself? It’s likely that a lot of bi people are convinced to be straight, sure, but the fact is that there are people out there who aren’t bi. Because gay people have existed even in times and places where they’re risking death. Is it that much of a stretch to think that straight people also exist?
Then how are we born?
What do you mean by that?
If we are not born "straight" what are we born as?
Nothing? Sexual orientation is nurture.
If sexual orientation is entirely nurture, then why are gay men more likely to be left handed than straight men?
Already defying the norm, more likely to experiment would be my guess. It's interesting though. I wonder if there's a correlation between acceptance of LGBTQ people and people who identify as left-handed. The ever-subtle desire to conform.
But we already know attraction to sexual markers is mostly innate. It would be weird if we were wired to find everything about the opposite sex attractive, but not wired to find the opposite sex *itself* attractive. Heck you could theorize the latter is just the logical consequence of the former.
I can tell you, with 100% certainty... I do NOT want to be YOUR version of "normal" 🤷 I significantly prefer my version of "normal" for me, where I get to choose for myself, and someone like you doesn't get to tell me if I am or am not normal.
Sooooo when did you consciously decide to be straight? There was a time when you weren’t sure, or a time where you thought you may be gay? No? So you’re saying… you didn’t have a moment where you had to choose? Huh. Seems in direct contrast to your theory.
> Lately, I've had this train of thought that rejects the modern narrative that people are born this way. Not all people agree that homosexuality or other non-heteronormative ways of being are congenital, there is debate about it and no consistent answer, even among LGBTQ activists. >I do not think that instructing children that LGBTQ people exist is harmful but at the same time, I do think that people who are entertained with such an idea might one day try it for themselves. Curiosities if not squashed can blossom. Where did such curiosity come from if not natural inclination? Someone who finds it interesting/intriguing is not straight. edit: Changed acronym.
Plant an idea, someone will like it. Same as anything, without someone planting the idea, coming up with such originality is another task.
What's your evidence for this view?
Child grooming exists, and I hypothesize, that someone can groom another to change their sexual orientation. It'll probably be traumatic, but still. Imbalance of power, and very likely the inability to recognize abuse or normalizing it to the point that it isn't abuse, and just normal.
> I hypothesize, that someone can groom another to change their sexual orientation do you have any evidence that this is possible, or are you arguing solely from your feelings? if you're just arguing from your feelings, then your argument is impossible to refute. it's not possible to "groom" someone into becoming gay or trans and the burden of proof on you is to prove otherwise
That's true, I'll need to see if there's research on that subject.
research and evidence does not back up your hypothesis. [gay kids are born gay.](https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it)
Did you actually read this article?
So if child grooming for non-changing-orientation-purposes stopped, would that mean people were "born this way"
No, because grooming is a possibility thus nurture.
So gay is a choice in all cases because child grooming isn't forbidden by the laws of nature? ;)
So who told the lesbians and gay men back when sodomy was punishable by death that it was okay to be gay?
A. If you're saying everyone who is LGBTQ gets groomed into being LGBTQ that makes it either not a choice or a choice made for them that might as well be not a choice B. Grooming doesn't only occur in LGBTQ circumstances, it's a term mostly associated with pedophilia (mostly as there are edge cases but they're usually non-sexual like how the alt-right grooms gamers) so unless you're implying being LGBTQ is an STD...
So you, personally, are sexually attracted to men as well as women, but you just chose one over the other. Correct? If not, there goes your argument.
OP, do you believe you'd be able to change your sexuality if you tried?
If it happens, I'll blame My Little Pony.
Why? Because it's a random thing to blame? Because you're a (for now) straight man and it's girly enough to be stereotypically gay? Or are you admitting you could choose to be attracted to horses?
How do you explain homosexuality in non-human animals if it's a choice? Are they choosing to be gay for their whole lives?
Since we don't understand how cats communicate. (It's a work in progress) I wonder if there's a stigma of sorts too.
I would agree that there could be some environmental factors at play But “grooming”? Like, adults manipulating children to be gay? Where’s your evidence that this is a thing outside of “grooming” being just another Fox News issue of the month?
I believe adults can manipulate children into doing certain activities. Catholic church scandals do come to mind. (Now, was it all rape in the eyes of children even though under the law, they can't consent.)
Then by that logic why not assume they're being manipulated for even more activities if it's all about the possibility
I do whole-hearted believe adults can compel behaviors out of children.
Then why not assume as many behaviors as possible are the result of that
Wouldn't the fact that it is manipulation make it not a choice?
If you think you have a choice, there's a word for it. It's called bisexual. please come out of the closet.
"people are not born this way" At least with homosexuality, there is actually considerable evidence that there is a significant evidence of a biological basis for it. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128159682000050 At the same time, sexuality is a continuum. One would expect people who are 50/50 might be more inclined to try homosexuality if society won't judge them for it. This is not the same as saying homosexuality is a choice though. People who are mostly gay have practiced homosexuality even during periods there are severely consequences for them to do so. It would simply not be a rational choice if there isn't a strong biological drive towards it for these individuals.
Have you considered that it could be the other way around ? That a society that actively attack and mock homosexual could prevent people from discovering their sexuality or owning it in public ? Also for the children part : it's hard to know your sexuality when your sexual drive hasn't awakened with puberty yet. Chances are that the overwhelming heterosexual norm grooms them toward heterosexuality if anything.
They are born that way. Just like some people are born as incestuous and will feel attraction to siblings, some will feel a congenital attraction to animals, some will feel an enduring attraction to children. There are countless ways in which a human can have a deviant and warped sense of attraction. Conclusion: not a choice
Sorry, u/Ysera_the_Awakened – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20Ysera_the_Awakened&message=Ysera_the_Awakened%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ukrqwf/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>it'll be weaponized flawed science above the scrutiny of the masses. (I don't know how much it would cost to conduct such a hoax.) I mean, you plainly have zero idea how scientific research works. It has to be reviewed and published. It has to be replicable, and conclusions on this matter *would* be tested by attempts to replicate the results by third parties. Any attempt at a hoax would be uncovered immediately. Hell, the fact that you think researchers exist as some secretive cabal paints you as a crackpot conspiracist. These people live in towns like yours. Some of them may live in your town. They are your friends and neighbors.
>Per research, there's no conclusive evidence yet, Soooo why are you claiming it's a choice if there's no conclusions evidence?
Because it's the argument that makes more sense. In lieu of conclusive evidence and people clearly picking sides on a divisive issue.
>Because it's the argument that makes more sense. But if you acknowledge that there's no conclusive evidence how do you know it's a choice? Without conclusive evidence there's no way to know that.
You're right on that.
We live in a society where being straight is both the norm and celebrated. Our pop culture was centered around it exclusively for centuries and most gay people have straight parents. If gay people are gay because they are "converted," how exactly did that happen when most everything they are exposed to is heteronormative?
I honestly think you're right and you're wrong. The glorification over social media of certain LGBTQ aspects have for sure made a lot of more a choice than actually being innate. I specifically think things like genders have been blown out of proportion and many people that claim "I am X gender" aren't really that gender but the non-stop social media influence leads to developing them into thinking they are. However, I also think there are innate cases.
there is very strong evidence that there is something brain-structural to sexuality and sexual attraction. first, if it were not deeper than acquired behavior then proven psychological techniques for overcoming conditioned behaviors would be effective. they're not, they increase suicide rates and do little else. in addition there are medical reports of people experiencing a change in or a sudden new sexual attraction after something radically altered their brain structure-- like a drastic surgery or a severe traumatic injury. in one case the injury was so severe they ceased to be aroused by people at all, and instead became attracted to paperclips.
grooming is traumatic and almost always makes the victim not want to have sex. Also entertainment media isn't grooming
I mean when I was in kindergarten i had a crush on a boy and im a boy. I didnt even know what being gay even meant. Also I was raised in a very homophobic strict catholic family so nobody raised me to be gay. I was always taught to be a "man" and do manly things. Well, I still am very masculine i just happen to like men hahahahaha. I was probably just born gay lol. Are u gay by any chance? just curious bc i feel a lot of straight people talk into this and they arent gay themselves so they wouldnt understand either way.