Hi PhELPs,

Is free will at odds with the "choice" to be gay?

No.

We don't choose our desires. Do you? One moment, you desire to watch YouTube. Another moment, you desire to listen to a different album. Another moment, you desire to go to the bathroom. Another moment, you desire to sleep. Another moment, you desire to read RfM.

You desire lots of things at different times. The philosophy of desire is a fascinating topic, but for now, let me just say that, to borrow from social psychologist Jon Haight, desire is like an elephant, and you--and the rest of us--are like a very small rider on top fo the elephant trying to goad the elephant into going in the direction that we want. The elephant has a mind of its own. What generally winds up happening is that instead of trying to get the elephant to go here, we wind up trying to prevent the elephant from going there, and there, and there.

With regard to free will, it's not so much that we choose option A, or B, or C, among a plethora of options. Instead, we rule out all but one option. We say no. Expressing one's freedom of the will seems to be about saying no to all impulses but one, and choosing the one. We don't choose our desire. But we do--to some extent--choose what to focus on, and what to act on (if anything).

It's true that I didn't choose to be gay. The probabilities were fixed by the time that I was born, thanks to genes and, especially, neonatal development. These factors are activated by experiences, but they're not shaped by them. That is to say, by no means do I believe that any type of environmental conditioning could somehow guide an individual who was otherwise destined for homosexuality into heterosexuality. I believe that one's genome and, more than anything, one's neonatal development fully determine one's sexual orientation for life: gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, etc.

Of course, you can choose to not express your sexual orientation, but not acting on the desire doesn't in any way attenuate the desire.

I believe that we do have freedom of the will, but the degree of that freedom varies from individual to individual, and it's not very great, in any case. Physics shows us that determinism is false, if for no other reason than because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

If you're interested in the problem of free will, I recommend _A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will_ by Robert Cane.

Best,

Steve

but as a philosopher, it might be interesting to consider the possible impact of the idea of reincarnation on such a 'choice' or 'non-choice' (it certainly impacts the idea of tendencies or desire inclinations). I found there to be many viewpoints by googling /gay reincarnation/

You made me think of a BofM verse, Mosiah 5:2. "...we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually."

(No correlation between being evil/gay intended here). But the thought that such a complete and permanent change of nature could actually occur is at odds with the rest of the book of mormon where the Nephite characters are constantly trying to avoid slipping back into their old ways.

The whole idea in the BofM that the desire of our hearts affects our works which affects our natures is false. It leads tbms to believe that if someone's nature keeps them following the Brethren, it's their fault somehow. I also think the idea of a dual good/evil nature where a person naturally starts evil unless they know about jesus is false. People naturally want to get along with others and make society work, so I would say most people are naturally good.

I think a person has an innate temperament with some elasticity. They can bend and stretch like a rubber band, but they might wear themselves out if they are stretched for too long, or snap if they are stretched too far.

I don't think a person ever wanders too far from their native temperament, but within that range of elasticity, they may choose what to be or what to do.

Thank you for this. Free will to me is a recognition of personal autonomy. I don't really get how the statement that it's an illusion of the brain negates it. So is every other perception and emotion aswell. Sure it's an illusion of the brain, just like colour vision is. In a sense colours are not part of nature but part of our cognitive machinery. And so is free will, an experience of autonomy produced by our brains that is sort but not necessarily 100% accurately representing this autonomy.

The basic reason behind the claim that homosexuality is a choice is that this is what is needed to make it a moral issue. Obviously literally any human action will have a gazillion reasons preceding it, if we were omniscient a huge list of causes and effects traced back to the big bang could be produced to explain why you didn't eat a sandwich this morning. And that would be ludicrus and improductive so obviously evolution has endowed us with a more efficient (and thus less accurate) intuition about moral responsibility. And it's one that is useful even though it's artificial.

Especially because we are not omniscient and tracing cause and effect very far or very accurately would literally paralyze us when confronted with even the most simplest of decisions (like say what socks to wear). Instead we have a very simple model, human = moral agent. And human choice = moral responsibility. And thus the claim, or indeed experience of us gays, that it's not a choice is a statement that we are not morally responsible for our sexual orientation. For many of us, not only do we know that we didn't choose it, we spent years wishing we could choose being straight. If it had been true we most certainly would have turned straight by now.

Free will does not entail having terminator 3 brains. Everyone understands that while brains may be "plastic" it's still nowhere near THAT plastic. It is a very limited "freedom" indeed and one that is arguably a fiction. But also not a fiction in the sense that it is a universal human experience that also happens to be the basic building block of morality and every legal code you could possibly imagine. That "it's not a choice" also suggest that one shouldn't be punished for it.

Your posts always make me think a bit, brefots.


I disagree with a few things, for example this:

"The basic reason behind the claim that homosexuality is a choice is that this is what is needed to make it a moral issue."

and:

"And thus the claim, or indeed experience of us gays, that it's not a choice is a statement that we are not morally responsible for our sexual orientation."


That kind of reasoning is far too easily appropriated by pedophiles, psycho-killers etc. They, too, can claim their "orientation" was given to them at birth.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue because it doesn't harm anyone. It's as moral or immoral as eating a banana, say ;^/

To broaden this, it could be argued that most of us are born with an "orientation" to murder, given a certain set of circumstances; but that in no way argues for murder being not a moral issue or that we are not morally responsible should we give in to that "orientation."

Correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Steve,

Thank you reading my post as a philosophical one. I regretted the post almost as soon as it had been submitted. In part, it's just too hot button.

But it's interesting that you mention Kane. I haven't read Kane's book, but I believe that Kane indicated (once to me and other) that his version of free-will was very limited, and only active in limited circumstances, just enough to maintain technical freedom of the will, it seemed to me. I;m not sure that technical free-will is enough to make people obsessed with free-will happy. This last point was kinda the point I was going for by making the original post.

Hi PhELPs,

Life is too short to regret forum posts. :) We're all learning.

I find it humorous that anyone would worry--I mean *really* worry--about free will. We either have it or we don't. If we have it, the degree of it is secondary. The foremost question is whether it's a property of individual humans.

Regardless of what the answer is, our lives remain just as we experience them. If we don't have free will, then we can't do anything about it, and whether we argue or not is also out of out of our control. If we do have some degree of free will, then that implies that the future is contingent upon our decisions and actions. I find this to be an empowering vision for human life, and I believe that it is, in fact, the case.

I'm sleepy, and really have to get some rest, but if I have time tomorrow or the next day, I'll explain some thoughts that Heidegger had that I agree with. We know what science is, but few of us understand how science relates to metaphysics, and why metaphysics is important. The most important questions aren't scientific, but metaphysical. Science, itself, appeals to metaphysics in order to justify itself.

Best,

Steve

Gay Philosopher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'll explain some thoughts that Heidegger had that I
> agree with. We know what science is, but few of us
> understand how science relates to metaphysics, and
> why metaphysics is important. The most important
> questions aren't scientific, but metaphysical.
> Science, itself, appeals to metaphysics in order
> to justify itself.

I look forward to reading this!

I choose to not believe in free will.

that was brilliant ;)

is god forcing free will on the gays again ?

of course being gay can be a choice for some or many. It can be a cultural fad, like in ancient greece or Rome. Go to Riyahd university in Saudi Arabia, and you will find that half their students are "gay" as a counter cultural movement. Im not saying that everyone has a choice to be gay, or that it is bad, but to generalize by saying that gays dont have a choice not to be gay is rediculous.

Uhm...you just argued against yourself by putting gay in quotes in that instance, acknowledging that they aren't (if your claim is even true, which I highly doubt). BEING gay is not a choice, having a gay relationship certainly IS, regardless of whether you are gay or not. BEING straight isn't a choice, but being in a straight relationship IS. See the difference?