Homosexuality is a choice (and so is heterosexuality)

In this picture: a man who has chosen to be homosexual

In this picture: a man who has chosen to be homosexual

“I was BORN gay!” is only ever a tactic for justifying a life-choice. A truer path is rejecting a need to justify the choice. We are born pansexual.

We are born bisexual. Homosexuality must be chosen. Homosexuality is a social-contrivance, as is heterosexuality. Yet still comes the chauvinistic wailing of half-informed, half-engaged, secularly faith-based homo-proponents:  “Homosexuality is not a choice! Like, for one thing, you can’t help who you love! And, like, for another thing scientists say there’s a gay gene!”  But not all homos agree.

Two conflicting trends in US homo-advocation

A glance at recent US history shows a time when homo-proponents insisted, “Hey! I should be able to gobble genitals alike my own, if I so choose!”  More recently, social-engineers in favor of population-reduction have infused, into our culture’s spiritual-peasants, a new talking-point: “You can’t help it–you were BORN gay!”

A slave to your genitals

Two scientists pretend to find the gay gene

This is what it will look like when scientists supposedly find the "gay gene."

The notion that someone is “born gay” appeals to a very narrow set of demographics, none of which think critically or argue honestly.  When I hear a male cock-connoisseur lisp on and on about how he was genetically predisposed to blowing guys–that holds exactly as much weight with me as when a glassy-eyed religionist prattles on that “Jesus (or Muhammed or Moses or Mother Earth) has touched my heart (or liver or bowel)”–both are simply self-absorbed lies, often parroted enough to fully become self-deception.


God is dead

Preacher reinforces the Jesus Fantasy

Preacher reinforces the Jesus Fantasy

When Nietzsche said, “god is dead,” he meant that God was never alive but was always a contrivance by society.  His observation was, is, and always will be ultimate truth.

Homosexuals choose to be homosexual

That “you cannot help who you love,” is, by far, the most popular talking-point for those who insist that they are at the mercy of instincts born of genetics.  Ironic, that they should presume a knowledge of genetics that is thorough enough for them to understand so much of their destiny–even before they possess enough knowledge to string together intelligible sentences by which to explain themselves: “The better you know something, the more simply you should be able to explain it”–Einstein.

Nevertheless, and facades aside, you will notice a consistent theme among those who “cannot help who they love”:  without exception, they love exactly who they want.  Often, they will even try to make a federal case out of it.  Literally.

A popular idiocy muttered by many would-be homo-heroes is that, “If I could choose then I would just be hetero–that would make my life MUCH easier.”  Of course, this is manifestly untrue insofar as the life of those who say such things amounts to a popularity-contest in which most judges are at least homo-apologists but typically downright hetero-phobic.  Meanwhile, and facades aside, no one is a hero for simply gobbling genitals alike their own.

Heterosexuals choose to be heterosexual

A couple who have chosen to be heterosexuals

A couple who have chosen to be heterosexuals

And the other foot drops: absolutely heterosexuality is a choice.  We are all born sexuality (sensually) indiscriminate.  Thereafter we may learn–then must accept and choose–a sexual-orientation (i.e. sensuality discrimination).

Moreover, no one at all–and least of all advocates of heterosexuality–truly trusts that heterosexuality is default. Instead, our culture does many things, often going to silly lengths, to instill heterosexuality in the minds of citizens:

  1. Each woman should be shaved, shined and socially set-apart–in aspect, thought and deed–in as many distinctive ways as conceivable, so as to encourage heterosexuality.
  2. Each man should be meticulously deprived of intimacy, empathy and a sense of self-sufficiency, and taught that a woman, then, will complete him.

The above two points should be enough to clarify the matter, yet they are surely just two pebbles in the mountain of socialized ignorance that is hyper-heterosexuality.

Hyper-heterosexuality as utility; homo-heroification as an anti-religion religion

One thing that I consistently mention to my friends of fag and dyke persuasion is that they should realize that, religion aside, even a naturalist atheist (such as myself) could make a decent case against the practice of homosexuality: the eventuality is obsolescence. And yet plenty homo-apologists self-righteously, indefensibly preach that if you are not for homo-heroification then you must be a redneck Leviticus-quoting Christian-fundamentalist.  (Of course, they forgo that Leviticus is the third book of Moses and a mainstay for Jewish theology–these homo-warriors know exactly how far they are let to spout their anti-religion.  Cowards.)

Moreover, history shows plenty examples of how, when in need of population, the social-engineers of a culture will devalue abortion and homosexuality, and praise fertility and family.  (Now, in our world today, the global social-engineers are, by and large, advocates of population-reduction: they believe that there are “too many people in the world.”  It is for this reason that your average serf is better-versed in abortion than culinary, better-versed in homo-heroism than in physics.)

Self-deceiving heteros

Virtually every talking-point of virtually every self-deceiving homo-proponent is utter nonsense.  Yet such should be expected, since they learned from nonsense: the nonsensical talking-points of self-deceiving hetero-proponents.  So for every coward who lies, saying, “you can’t help if you’re gay”–there are many more cowards who lie, saying, “heterosexuality is ‘normal’.”

Realities of sensuality

To pretend that we have inherent sexuality is indefensible.  The inherent likability of pleasurable sensation does not limit itself–governors do.  Twin baby boys are going to suck each others’ penis, as an 11th toe, if the parent lets them.  Two girls are going to finger their own and their sister’s vaginal opening–if the parents let them.  Incest laws exist precisely to get citizens of a given culture off in the right direction–by making sure they get off with the right partner.  Not every culture’s incest laws are the same.


If you choose homosexuality then that is your choice.  Carry on, but you are not “open-minded” or “progressive” or “better”–you are just choosing homosexuality.

If you choose heterosexuality then that is your choice.  Carry on, but you are not “stronger” or “better” or “normal”–you are just choosing heterosexuality.

If however, you choose asexuality or polyamory then you’re a fucking weirdo, and you need to stay away from me, my kids, and my community–you perverted monster.

Nah–just kidding 😀

Related Posts

This entry was posted in Russ Lindquist and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Homosexuality is a choice (and so is heterosexuality)

  1. J.B. says:

    You’re an idiot.

  2. J.B. says:

    I showed this to my english teacher, since we are currently studying editorials and opinion pieces.. This was his reply:

    I agree that he seems more interested in impressing himself and those on his side than in convincing anyone. He is attacking everyone but himself. Plus, he provides no evidence. Where is his evidence that people are born “pansexual” and that we “choose” to be homo-, hetero-, or bisexual?

    Though he makes good points, he is not persuasive. Thanks for sharing. I might use this in the future. I know some will find it offensive…


    To make a successful argument, you must not only acknowledge the opposition’s viewpoint (which you did), you must also provide strong evidence against it, WITHOUT insulting the reader! Once you insult the reader, no matter what you say, it will not convince anyone of anything.

    Nice try though. *snort*

    • Russ says:

      Your english teacher probably isn’t in a position to judge my writing: He is probably neither patient enough nor honest enough, nor smart enough.

      *For example, if you were to send him the preceding assertion then his first thought would probably be that I was “wrong” not to capitalize “english.” My point: Probably, your teacher is–as are most–a pitiable pedant. As to you: you are still in the academically infantile stage of accept teachers’ words simply by an Appeal to Authority, so I certainly am too smart to talk to you 😉

  3. Nigel says:

    I’ve recently discovered this as well. Boy George even believes that homosexuality is a choice. I’ve come to understand many things from my own personal experiences, but there are so many complications to sexuality.

    Often, I wish I were still 11 when I had no knowledge of sex. Now that I’m fifty, alone, and intending to stay that way, I want sex less and less. I have my fantasies, but they are just that. Someone told me once, “we never get what we want.” What is the basis for what we want, and why? The biological and the emotional are so mysterious. I’ll be glad when I don’t have to think about them one day.

  4. Amanda says:

    I have found your entire website to be nauseating. From your hatred of the military to your garbage about homosexuality. Your postings clearly show you think inside an extremely small box.

  5. A girl says says:

    I love the F. Nietzsche quote, him being one of my most personally important philosophical figures. (Germany/Vienna raised many influential minds, IMO.)
    Have you ever posted any views Nihilism?

  6. Curious says:

    Russ, is your position that there is no major biological preference for heterosexual over homosexual desire? And that it’s all (or mostly) a social construct?

    Realities of sensuality: I agree that if we are blinded to our sexual experience, say oral sex, we just enjoy it based on how good it felt (to put it simply).

    To me this seems to be beside the point though. I do think evolution has a lot to say about our sexual desires and preferences, and by this I mean the things that we find attractive, etc.

    The research on homosexual parents and their childrens sexual orientation is very interesting and relevant to this discussion, here’s two opposing conclusions.

    This supports the view I think you hold: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872

    This supports the view I hold: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22381718

    I’m just beginning to look into this in more detail, interesting topic. Please share some of the most convincing evidence you have for your position, would be interesting to see where you’re coming from.

  7. An says:

    I like you, I don’t agree or disagree with your views, but. I like you, none the less.

  8. walkerhjames says:

    I think there is some truth to what you are saying – we can choose what to do with our sexuality, and sexuality is fluid. However, there is a growing body of evidence showing that humans are born with some innate sexual preference.

    Studies like this examine this through a biological lens – there are many more like it that investigate the role of genetics! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1887219

    I encourage you to look at some of the twin studies, as well.

    I think our sexual preferences are determined by a combination of freewill and genetics.

  9. Cassiopeia says:

    I (just notice how I always start with “I”) am grateful to find you -even though this was written two years ago- in this ocean of repetitions, stupidity, lack of persona(s), lack of freedom -specially freedom of tought- I am so glad to read you that I recover a little fait in human kind. I respect your courage and your wide open and self loyal thinking. Thank you for not being another ship. I wonder how this society produced someone like you, wonderful casualty! Cheers to philosophy, I see it, it’s moving!