For people who continue to believe that sexual orientation is a choice:

Deciding to "come out" to your family is still quite an ordeal for gay youngsters in the west, but in the Middle East it can be catastrophic. Having a gay member of the family brings shame on the entire household; it can cause fathers to lose their jobs and make brothers and sisters unmarriageable.

Some families respond to a son or daughter's coming out with physical violence or by throwing them out of the house. Others send them off to be "cured" by psychiatrists who offer ludicrous remedies and charge a fortune.

Not surprisingly, some gay and lesbian Arabs try to escape these problems by taking refuge abroad. In theory at least, the US, Britain, Australia, Canada and several other countries now provide asylum for those who are persecuted because of their sexuality - but the chances of actually getting it are slim.

Who would "choose" to be this way, given the often horrific consequences?

Who would "choose" to be metally ill? If the answer is "noone", why do we bother to treat mental illness if it is not a "choice"?

Perhaps these middle easterners have had a brief moment of terrifying clarity and have realized that they are not very "special" people. Their minds have subconsiously compensated for this, and voila, they have discovered that there is no need for dispair, because they have found their "specialness".

Whether or not one wants to (arbitrarily) define homosexuality as a mental illness doesn't change the fact that these people face severe consequences for it. I find it absurd to think that they would "choose" to risk this, if it was possible for them to marry and engage in a heterosexual relationship.

I believe people tend to be hardwired in their sexual orientation.

Some are hardwired straight, others gay, and still others bisexual. Percentage numbers are unknown and probably unknowable since the bis may choose one or the other, or be converted back, hell they may not even know where they stand or may avoid specific catoragization for various reasons.

Calling it a mental illness doesn't really help further the debate. A few decades ago it was considered a mental illness, recently non-acceptance of gays was considered a mental illness. I think we'd all be better off loosening up our labels when labels are known to change with the political tides.

Drunkards and addicts suffer from being such so who would choose to be a drunkard, or a cocaine addict? I suspect no one would choose to be either, yet many of them exist. Are they hardwired to be drunkards or coke addicts?

Do we apply the same logic to pedophiles as is being applied here to homosexuals? IE, who would choose to be a pedophile that is ostracized as well as gets caught, fined, jailed time and time again but who continues to be a pedophile? Seems that the choice of being a pedophile results in hardships that no one would willingly choose to endure as well. So is being a pedophile a hardwired condition?

Now I know that homosexuality evolves consenting adults whereas pedophilia does not, but I’m trying to consider the logic of our defining a cause of each to be within the control or not of the individual in question; not the criminality (or lack thereof) aspects of acting on the “condition”.

How do we say being a pedophile is a choice that is punishable whereas being homosexual is a hardwired condition that the person affected has no control over? How do we define what causes one sexual persuasion or another? How do we define, with any certainty, what is a choice or a hardwired condition? It can’t be decided purely on the hardships resulting from the lifestyle, as it is a certainty that many people do choose lifestyles that are sure to result in hardships.

Drunkards and addicts suffer from being such so who would choose to be a drunkard, or a cocaine addict? I suspect no one would choose to be either, yet many of them exist. Are they hardwired to be drunkards or coke addicts?

Probably, or at least they're hard wired to be susceptible to addiction to mind-altering substances. That doesn't meant that they can't overcome it, and it seems like a category error to analogize that with sexuality.

Do we apply the same logic to pedophiles as is being applied here to homosexuals? IE, who would choose to be a pedophile that is ostracized as well as gets caught, fined, jailed time and time again but who continues to be a pedophile? Seems that the choice of being a pedophile results in hardships that no one would willingly choose to endure as well. So is being a pedophile a hardwired condition?

Very likely, yes.

Now I know that homosexuality evolves consenting adults whereas pedophilia does not, but I’m trying to consider the logic of our defining a cause of each to be within the control or not of the individual in question; not the criminality (or lack thereof) aspects of acting on the “condition”.

Behavior can be controlled, but desires, and objects of desire cannot. I'm wired heterosexual. If I were in a society in which there were no women, or having relations with women were illegal, I'd be celibate rather than do it with a guy. That's what we're demanding of homosexuals.

How do we say being a pedophile is a choice that is punishable whereas being homosexual is a hardwired condition that the person affected has no control over?

No one is punished (at least in this society) for simply being a pedophile. Pedophiles are punished for acting on their pedophilic urges. Just because they don't have a choice about what turns them on doesn't mean that they don't have a choice as to whether or not to molest children.

How do we define what causes one sexual persuasion or another? How do we define, with any certainty, what is a choice or a hardwired condition? It can’t be decided purely on the hardships resulting from the lifestyle, as it is a certainty that many people do choose lifestyles that are sure to result in hardships.

No, it can't be decided purely on that, but in this case, it seems like a pretty good indicator to me.

I saw Professor Reynolds link'd to the same opinion article. I read it and found it pretty lame. The thought that kept going through my mind is that some people will never get over Brokeback Mountain not winning an Oscar.

The alternative explanation to "born that way" is NOT "choice." Psychological orientations of any kind that aren't innate are products of subconscious responses to various influences. The psychological professionals opposing the "born that way" claim aren't arguing "choice" - they're arguing that there is a relationship between homosexual development and various psychological and social factors.

I'm attracted to blogs - did I choose that attraction, or was I born that way?

It should be said that not only one camp is guilty of the "choice" canard. A kneejerk response known to be said by some social conservatives is: "People choose to have gay sex." Such people let the issue of sexual activity distract from the deeper issue of sexual psychology.

At any rate, the phrase "choose to be gay" should go the way of dial telephones and New Coke.

I think rjschwarz is less correct than he thinks. My impression is that most people are *not* hard-wired in their orientation; they just have tendencies which get reinforced by social norms.

Some small number of people are born hard-wired heterosexual, homosexual, or strongly bisexual, and some possibly larger number have their wiring calcify into a particular direction due to early experiences. But lots of people are "flexible", they *can* choose to be more or less heterosexual.