A personal philosophy which has served very well is: before thinking about an answer/counterargument, think about the question/argument. Doing so often results in the realization that the question/argument is fallacious in the first place, is unfounded, etc. Thus, it often results in not having to bother offering an answer/counterargument because the original question/argument is invalid and defeats itself.
To the question, “Is homosexuality a choice?” let us explore two answers which are “No” and “Yes.”
No:
Proponents of homosexuality prefer this answer because it provides a desired effect to the effect of that it removes personal responsibility for one’s actions as it implies that one cannot be condemned for their actions.
This is why the “gay gene” is sought since if it is proven that homosexuality is genetically predestined the “No” answer would be established.
This is also why many people seek a gene for their particular and/or peculiar actions, desires, etc. Alcoholics seek the alcoholic gene. The obese seek the obesity gene. And on it goes. This raises an interesting and complex question: presumably finding the alcoholic and obesity genes would not only result in the alleviation of personal responsibility for alcoholism and obesity but would provide a solution namely, the genetic manipulation and those genes. In other words, those genes could be treated, removed, deactivated, etc.
Now, if a gay gene is found will it likewise follow that homosexuals will submit to treatment, to having the gene deactivated? Will pro-abortion/pro-choice proponents approve of abortion based on the finding of the gay gene within the unborn clump of cells?
And what if a homophobe gene is found? Or a pedophilia one? Or a violent murderer one? Keep in mind that the title of Woody Harrelson’s movie “Natural Born Killers” came from a statement made by Harrelson’s father who in real life was a convicted hit man who claimed to be a “natural born killer.” Even Atheists claim that we are all natural born Atheists—see article on that issue.
Applying the aforementioned personal philosophy we note that the premise behind the “No” answer is the “…born this way” premise which asserts just that, “I was born this way therefore, you cannot condemn me.” Is the premise valid? Why is being born a certain way license to carry out certain (allegedly inborn) actions, attitudes, etc.?
In order to get the idea behind this objection to the premise think of the various ways in which we are born: we are born bedwetters, we are born crying until we get what we want, we are born selfish, reluctant to share, greedy, etc. Are these and other naturally inborn things to be socially acceptable into adulthood, to be encouraged, celebrated and indorsed?
Another (troubling) aspect of the “No” answer is that if you are engaging in homosexual (or any) sexual activity and did not choose to do so then you are being raped. This simple logic is why, in a manner of speaking, those who appeal to the “No” answer prefer a genetic predestination which forces them towards certain forms of sexuality and against which resistance is, allegedly, futile.
Yes:
If homosexuality is a choice then a person can be asked to answer for themselves, their own chosen actions and can therefore, potentially, be asked to change their choice, be condemned for the choice they have made, etc. This is why it is not preferred.
But why not say “Yes” and follow with “…but you have no right to condemn me anyway”? This brings us to the worst possible pro-homosexuality argument one could possibly make. This argument is actually the most popular one as it is essentially the only one available.
The argument is that most of society and/or the world have now come to accept homosexuality as normal, natural, moral, etc. and so homosexuality can no longer be condemned.
Before responding, note the reason why this is the only argument available: the reason is the difference between morality and ethics. Yes, these terms are, unfortunately, used interchangeably but in reality the concepts behind them are not:
Morality refers to the mores which are mere descriptions of that which people do.
Ethics refers to the ethos which actually prescribes that which people ought to do.
But why is the “Yes homosexuality is a choice but is now socially acceptable” argument the worst possible argument. Because it is beholden to majority opinion, it is tentative as it dies the death of the zeitgeist which turns into a poltergeist when popular opinion changes. Thus, perhaps today it is true that most people do not condemn homosexuality but what about tomorrow, next week, next month, next year? They are premising their argument on what is actually no premise at all since premise implies foundation or stability and the whims of majority opinion is not premise, foundation nor stability.
We have considered the “No” and “Yes” answers and will now dig into whether or not homosexuality is a choice—in reality and aside from popular positions and their desired implications.
So, is homosexuality a choice? There is a way to get even the most militant pro-homosexual activist to admit that it is, indeed, a choice.
Here is one such method. First, you make an inflammatory statement which correlates homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality.
The militant pro-homosexual activist will point out your fallacy which is that there is a huge difference between homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality. That difference is that homosexuality denotes two consenting adults (side note: why just two and why adults—is this not restrictive?) whilst pedophilia and bestiality imply some form or level of authoritative manipulation as the child and animal do not—with informed forethought and knowledge—consciously consent.
This is perfectly logical. Now, did you see how they trapped themselves? Anyone? Anyone?
The claim was that the difference is that homosexuality denotes two consenting adults. What is consent? It is permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. Consent, by definition and necessity, implies choice. Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.
Now, let us back up one step and make a very important distinction: we must distinguish between impulse and action. You see, perhaps someone is born with impulses towards homosexuality (some would agree that this is/can be inborn and that it is called original sin). However, carrying out an impulse into an action is a whole other story. A homosexual may look at a same gendered person and feel an impulse of sexual attraction towards them. However, in order to engage in the act of sex a very large series of decisions is made: the decision to approach them, their decision to respond favorably, the decision to find somewhere to be amorous, the decision to travel there, the decision to remove articles of clothing, etc., etc., etc.
Lastly, let us simply note something which appears to be generally true. Take, for example, the a Fundamentalist Christian (since no one seems to care that Islam, Judaism, the Baha’i Faith, etc. also condemn homosexuality) and you are likely to find a person who is not so much concerned about two consenting homosexual adults. No, they are concerned about the militant homosexual activist worldview.
They may be concerned about, or rather for, individual homosexuals but they know that all they can do for them is love them, witness to them and pray for them.
Coming out of the close is one thing but kicking down your neighbor’s door and demanding acceptance, if not endorsement, is quite another.
For example, concocting some system of ensuring certain rights to committed same sex couples is one thing but redefining marriage is another.
Or, consider a previous article Are homosexuals accurately represented in the media? wherein it was noted that homosexuals are grossly overrepresented on TV. You can barely go a few minutes without encountering a homosexual character (and this is referring to good ol’ broadcast TV and not cable, satellite, etc.). Moreover, it is not exaggeration to note that all of these very many homosexual characters (or real life talk show hosts) are represented positively: they are funny, educated, clean cut, healthy, etc.
Conversely, in a majority Christian country how many Christian characters (or talk show hosts) are there? Well, first we must note that there are some pseudo-Christians such as Oprah Winfrey (meaning that she uses the term/word/label “Christian” but her beliefs are utterly non-, un- and anti-Christian).
What about those characters? The very, very few that there are, are exclusively portrayed negatively. Some, sadly, reflect a form of “social club” Christianity who “go to church” and then the rest of their lives are Jesus-free. Others are the vilest, nasty, hateful, ignorant, obnoxious, etc. Consider, for example the shoe The Office in which the openly Christian character is so disgustingly immoral that even her co-workers are shocked (see here and here for details). Many shows are simply and outright anti-Christian or contain recurring anti-Christian themes. For example, The Simpsons only besmirch one religion: Christianity. Such was the case when Maggie, the baby, took an IQ test and got a good score. The tester said, “Not bad for a Christian.”
What happens to some homosexuals is that they move from loving a same gendered person and actually turn homosexuality into a worldview. How so?
Ask a homosexual activist which political party to support of for which politician to vote and they will answer to the effect of: the one that supports/accepts/endorses homosexuality.
Ask them what is right and wrong, what is good and evil, what is ethical and unethical and they will answer to the effect of: whatever supports/accepts/endorses homosexuality.
Ask them which is the true theology, which holy book is the actual word of God and they will answer to the effect of: the one that supports/accepts/endorses homosexuality.
Or consider “Gay Pride”: imagine basing your self worth, your identity, etc. on the gender of personage with whom you have sex.
You see how homosexuality becomes the lens via which they view and discern the whole world and its every issue (for more on this Do Target stores support homosexual agendas?).
Thus, homosexuality is a choice, homosexuals can and do admit this or can be made to admit it, appealing to majority opinion can turn around and bite you and most people have a problem with militant homosexual activism and not two same gendered people who love each other and a in a committed relationship.
For more see: