Lifestyle Choices
- Thread starter Quinlan
- Start date
In it's simplest form, I'd say a lifestyle choice is something that has been molded by experience, which can be influenced and changed at a later date.
Homosexuality and gender are not considered choices because one was born with these traits. Although one can change these traits, it would not be a lifestyle choice, but a lifestyle overhaul.
Obesity is seen a choice because one usually gradually develops this condition.
So if someone has always been big then it would be conisdered more in line with homosexuality? How do we know that they're born homosexual?
That depends if the obesity is caused by an underlying medication condition or whether it resulted from bad decisions.
I don't believe we are born with a predisposed attraction to one gender or the other. I believe that we are born with a tendency to prefer one over the other which is either validated or not through life experiences.
Why are you trying to compare homosexuality to obesity?
A lifestyle is a manner of living that reflects a person's values and attitudes, whereas a sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of emotional, sexual, and romantic attraction to a certain gender. As such, lifestyles are inherently chosen whereas sexual orientations are not. Whether or not you believe homosexuality falls under the category of "lifestyle" or "sexual orientation" largely depends upon which source of information you go by.
Obesity is defined as a medical condition whereby excess body fat accumulates to the point of causing health problems. Obesity in itself is neither a lifestyle choice nor a biological orientation. Lifestyle choices and/or biological factors can lead to obesity, but obesity in and of itself is simply a medical condition.
In essence, it makes just as much sense to compare homosexuality to obesity as it does to compare homosexuality to athlete's foot.
A lifestyle is a manner of living that reflects a person's values and attitudes, whereas a sexual orientation is an enduring pattern of emotional, sexual, and romantic attraction to a certain gender. As such, lifestyles are inherently chosen whereas sexual orientations are not. Whether or not you believe homosexuality falls under the category of "lifestyle" or "sexual orientation" largely depends upon which source of information you go by.
Obesity is defined as a medical condition whereby excess body fat accumulates to the point of causing health problems. Obesity in itself is neither a lifestyle choice nor a biological orientation. Lifestyle choices and/or biological factors can lead to obesity, but obesity in and of itself is simply a medical condition.
In essence, it makes just as much sense to compare homosexuality to obesity as it does to compare homosexuality to athlete's foot.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
A lifestyle choice is something that you make a conscious effort to be part of. Example, doing psychedelic drugs. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, because it is intrinsic to who you are; you can't control who you are attracted to (for those who disagree, I will not argue this). Homosexual activites can become lifestyle choices though. Such as being active in the gay community, then it becomes a lifestyle choice in a way. However, just because you are homosexual, doesn't mean it is a lifestyle choice.
Obesity is a little different. There are some people who have no control over their weight. It is intrinsic to their biology. There are however, some people who could have control over their weight, but they let it run out of control (because they aren't trying to do anything about it). Then it is a lifestyle choice, because they are consciously choosing to be obese.
Obesity is a little different. There are some people who have no control over their weight. It is intrinsic to their biology. There are however, some people who could have control over their weight, but they let it run out of control (because they aren't trying to do anything about it). Then it is a lifestyle choice, because they are consciously choosing to be obese.
Is discrimination acceptable?
You're not born with a gender; you're born with a sex.
You're conditioned into the roles respective of each sex from infancy.
I disagree we are born with a gender, we are naturally tuned to that gender.
Men are naturally attracted to women, we don't need to be conditioned our hormones do that for us.
I wasn't talking about sexuality. I was talking about gender... Masculinity and femininity and the identification of the roles assigned to each..
A person can be heterosexual without identifying or complying with culturally issued masculine or feminine roles or traits.
We're born with a sex-- or the reproductive organs of a male or a female (but sometimes both actually..)
I think they are similar in a few ways:
-Stigma attached to both (probably decreasing for homosexuality)
-Health risks associated with both
- I see the actual behaviours as a result of the concious mind being overcome by innate drives
-Similar arguments against both (Unnatural, sinful, unhealthy, lifestyle choices, spreading to offspring etc.)
- Probably very similar success rate (ie. almost non-existent) for turning an homosexual straight as there is for turning an obese person into a slim one.
I don't really know I've just heard it bandied about that it's ok to discriminate against people if they're making a choice to be that way.
Style is mostly an illusion. And they call it freedom, when it's usually exactly the opposite. Chooser means consumer, in reality there are no multiple-choice tests.
Exactly. Same with racist roles before.
S
Shai Gar
There is no significant health risks associated with simply being homosexual. There are health risks involved in having homosexual sex. There are also mental health risks associated with being within a stigmatized group. However, being homosexual does not mean you have poor health whereas obesity, by definition, means you have poor health.
I have no idea what the success rate of changing either is, however I do know this...
The rate of obesity is steadily increasing every year and has been increasing since the 1960s, whereas the rate of homosexuality has remained relatively steady. If obesity were primarily innate in nature, then it would not have increased at such a high rate. If homosexuality were a manner of choice, then it would expectantly have increased as societal attitudes have become more tolerant. This seems to indicate that obesity is considerably more of a choice than homosexuality is.
Last edited:
S
Shai Gar
True. However, I suspect that even the majority of these cases face health issues directly related to their weight.
I really don't buy into this lifestyle choice = conscious choice idea.
Ask any obese person whether they consciously chose to be very fat?
Obesity that isn't strictly genetic or non genetic developmental disorders (epigenetics etc) is the result of many life experiences and choices.
And I believe homosexuality is too. In some ways homosexuality is a sort of reaction against societal conditioning towards strictly defined sexual roles. Basically lots of subtle experiences and decisions compound into a feeling that the reason why you feel different is due to a specific cause eg homosexuality.
The causality is clearly more complex/chaotic than the obesity case, but it is a reasonable hypothesis.
The fact is currently there is virtually no proof that homosexuality is genetic or that it is due to early developmental issues. There have been plenty of hypothesis, some of which have made it to the media, but little that have been confirmed. Is this due to our primitive knowledge of biological science, or simply because the evidence isn't there?
As such, I will certainly change my belief if significant contrary evidence eventuates.
Interestingly, if homosexuality is not considered to be a legitimate lifestyle choice, then that automatically makes it a disease. When given such a status, there will always be those who believe it should be cured. On the other hand, if society recognises that sexuality is not strictly defined and recognises homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle choice then it is no longer an issue.
Last edited:
I'm curious. What are your thoughts on the birth order studies? The twin correlation studies? The fetal hormone studies?
If homosexual behavior is not derived from a biological source, then how come it is so prevalently practiced in varying forms in nature by hundreds of species of animals? If it isn't biological in nature, then how come scientists are able to manipulate hormones in rats to produce homosexual behavior in rats and breed rams that approach only other rams for sexual encounters?
Why would you discount all this evidence which suggests that homosexuality does have strong biological roots?
Last edited:
With regards to human studies, because human behaviour is a complex phenomena, you run into the following difficulties:
1. Controlling other factors eg in twin studies, birth order etc, there are common environmental factors. 2. Reproducibility 3. Statistical significance. (eg if you found twins adopted at an early age - before 5-6, you'd have to have enough sets and a strong enough correlation so the effect of other variables can be ignored).
But if you want to link directly to the published articles (find them on google scholar), I might have a look for a serious discussion.
Genetics may explain partial susceptibility. In the same way you might find a genetic correlation between those who test as intuitives on the MBTI.
But this is hardly the same as causation, further experiences and choices need to be made. My point is that it is ultimately a choice. Feeling 'different' from other people doesn't mean you are homosexual. Yet society conditions those who feel different in a certain (gender nonconformity) way to think they are homosexual.
If you found a supposed genetic indicator for male homosexuality were to test a large sample group, I'm sure you'll find a significant portion of 'straight' people who have the genetic indicator. I'm of course assuming that a gene itself is unlikely to be found (in which case, I would expect a substantial number of supposed 'straight' men to be homozygous for the gene).
The animal evidence with hormones doesn't really apply - unless you also find that human homosexuals have the same substantial imbalances of similar hormones. All it means is that the hormonal imbalance made those animals misinterpret the behaviour of others. Though the breeding of homosexual rams is interesting, assuming its statistically significant and reproducable (to avoid biases).
The most likely out of all of the biological evidence to suggest a very strong predisposition is of course prenatal hormones or other epigenetic factors - and if so, one needs to show a direct link between the difference in hormone levels and developmental differences (eg different hormone levels in the fetus, or differences in the development of the brain).
1. Controlling other factors eg in twin studies, birth order etc, there are common environmental factors. 2. Reproducibility 3. Statistical significance. (eg if you found twins adopted at an early age - before 5-6, you'd have to have enough sets and a strong enough correlation so the effect of other variables can be ignored).
But if you want to link directly to the published articles (find them on google scholar), I might have a look for a serious discussion.
Genetics may explain partial susceptibility. In the same way you might find a genetic correlation between those who test as intuitives on the MBTI.
But this is hardly the same as causation, further experiences and choices need to be made. My point is that it is ultimately a choice. Feeling 'different' from other people doesn't mean you are homosexual. Yet society conditions those who feel different in a certain (gender nonconformity) way to think they are homosexual.
If you found a supposed genetic indicator for male homosexuality were to test a large sample group, I'm sure you'll find a significant portion of 'straight' people who have the genetic indicator. I'm of course assuming that a gene itself is unlikely to be found (in which case, I would expect a substantial number of supposed 'straight' men to be homozygous for the gene).
The animal evidence with hormones doesn't really apply - unless you also find that human homosexuals have the same substantial imbalances of similar hormones. All it means is that the hormonal imbalance made those animals misinterpret the behaviour of others. Though the breeding of homosexual rams is interesting, assuming its statistically significant and reproducable (to avoid biases).
The most likely out of all of the biological evidence to suggest a very strong predisposition is of course prenatal hormones or other epigenetic factors - and if so, one needs to show a direct link between the difference in hormone levels and developmental differences (eg different hormone levels in the fetus, or differences in the development of the brain).
Last edited: