choice or nature? that is not the question.

i find it personally enriching to dabble in the controversial, and this early morning i discover myself entrenched in a particularly amusing one.

homosexuality: is it a choice, or is it natural?

the amazing essence of this question lies in the very true observation that before one man can even formulate his own thoughts and opinions to derive a strong answer to (i hope) represent his character and moral, he is first flooded with the already heard-of voices of the many who have spoken before. what pains a polemicist like me is not the substance of those opinions, but the blatant illogicity upon which they were designed--the substance behind the substance.

therein lies the stunning enjoyment i derive from this terrible question--it bears no value save for fueling fallacious arguments in a case of homophobes trying desperately to rationalise the undesirable amidst their perceived ideals, in a world that is inherently flawed, vis-a-vis homosexuals who are forced to reply with polar opposite responses in order to defend the state of their sexual orientation in society; to label homosexuality with the word choice definitely implies a possibility for change while to call it nature renders it, perceptively, unchangeable, or at least that there is no reason for such because that which is exterior to the realm of choice is also external to the considerations of morality (ie. because only the unnatural may be immoral).

and so on one hand, they who believe that gayness is a choice are almost surely anti-gay, and they who believe otherwise must surely be gay. this is truth, insofar that there is no reason for providing an answer other than to (1) attempt disparage the other side or to (2) defend your position on one side. make no mistake--both sides are guilty of these idiocies.

this is also truth because almost all arguers are bad arguers. if there's one thing ive learnt about human discussion, it is that people of all opinions are, fundamentally, blundering fools who spew forth seemingly verbose rhetoric that upon simple analysis speaks more to their misaligned state of mind than the related truth and meaning of what is important and at hand.

though i am aware that sexual orientation is resultant of base genetics and factors present in prenatal development, i also know that all sexual behaviour is contingent upon choices by the individual to adhere to or allay these essentially natural proclivities.

this would imply that homosexuality is not immoral per se, because its origin is out of reach of individual choice, but because gay interaction is, then the question of morality applies. in case youre wondering, it is always morally right to act in accordance to one's own nature. additionally, a heterosexual woman must surely have been born heterosexual but it does in no way follow that she must have physical relationships that are heterosexual, for that is surely subject to choice.