Answer: .00

My favorite (stolen) metaphor for genetics versus environment debates is comparing them to arguing about whether the area of a rectangle is due to its length or its width.

You are giving them ground when you allow them to put you in the position where you have to defend being a hetereosexual. Butch up, Ace!

Sullivan would never cop to any of this, mind you. His position has always been that he doesn't care if people are homophobic or not; he simply wants his rights, and once he gets them, the homophobes can go hang.

Of course, it's a lie. He takes that position because same-sex advocacy hinges on the argument that it has no effect on anyone else's life. Once it becomes a matter for the thought police, though, that argument explodes.

The strongest drive in any living thing is to reproduce. For a species to continue, there is a corresponding strong drive not to have same gender sex as it will never result in reproduction.

Just as humans can be taught not to continually reproduce, they can be taught not to be repulsed by same gender sex. But those teachings are up against strong instinctual drives.

We could just have Ernie fellate Bert and let the kids watch it. Maybe the Wiggles and that Feathersword pirate guy could oil each other up on Disney Channel while singing the Mashed Banana song. The possibilities are endless. Let's get kids early.

"American public has a duty to watch gay porn films in order to desensitize themselves to the idea of gay sex."

Do gays have a corresponding duty to watch hetero porn films in order to desensitize themselves to the idea of hetero sex.

The strongest drive in any living thing is to reproduce.

We're not talking about any living thing, we're talking about Ace. Though I may be wrong, I never got the impression that his strongest drive was to hear the pitter patter of little aces of spades.

I still think out of fairness Ace shd see the movie.

Your natural sexual orientation may well be genetic (and let me use the word "genetic" here rather loosely to include all sorts of innate hormonal and developmental factors)...

As a geneticist, I commend your distinguishing between that loose usage and its proper meaning. But might I suggest that science would be better served by nconfining the use of "genetic" to cases of, y'know, genes?

Your natural sexual orientation may well be genetic (and let me use the word "genetic" here rather loosely to include all sorts of innate hormonal and developmental factors)...

As a geneticist, I commend your distinguishing between that loose usage and its proper meaning. But might I suggest that science would be better served by confining the use of "genetic" to cases of, y'know, genes?

Do gays have a corresponding duty to watch hetero porn films in order to desensitize themselves to the idea of hetero sex.

In hetero porn, there is still something there for gays, so to speak, but not vice versa.

What, you've got a problem with spider-lovers now? Wow, are you ever going to have problems with Brokeback Cobweb.

Bigot.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

If the Darwin theory of evolution is actually fact, then how can homosexuality be genetic?

Inquiring minds want to know...

Jennifer, if you're opposed to your kids watching hot male puppet-on-male puppet action, you're a biggot. We should be promoting tolerance to all types of sex acts so kids don't grow up thinking one type of sex act is--heaven forbid--BETTER than another!

When little Junior hits the dating scene, he should not be discriminating against those in the same gender. Discrimination is wrong in all forms and we, as a proverbial village, should work together to change these oppressive thoughts in our youth so that we can all hold hands and be equal in this world.

Until this is done, Bert and Ernie will never truly be free.

Well I always assumed that my repulsion to a pervert compacting the fecal content of his lower colon with an erect penis was genetic. I felt that way since I was a young boy. It's part of who I am and others, in the spirit of diversity, should learn to accept who I am.

Look, we're just friends, ok?

Spiders?

Seriously?

Ace, you've been hoodwinked by a ruse, a phantom concocted in the bowels of the White House and Rupert Murdoch's Nightmare Generator.

If you'd just wake up you'd realize that the true threat to our freedoms comes from wasps and their fascist friends, hornets and yellowjackets.

For the next 90 days, everytime you see someone over 70 imagine what they do in bed. Get some graphic detail into your head. Observe what droops and how much. Count the wrinkles. Revel in the limpness. Dwell on the performance.

Think you will develop an aversion to old age sex?

The problem with getting used to gay people, is by definition when you think of them, you think of sex. That's what being gay means - or at least what separates gays from straights. If it weren't for that you wouldn't even notice for the most part. When you get used to gay people they turn into people, not what they do in bed.

Now as far as I'm concerned that's not an argument to watch gay porn, but rather an argument to get your mind out of the gutter. After all what do you care what people do in bed, unless they are doing it to you?

I agree with durand. If being gay is genetic, then it would absolutly have to be an evolutionary dead end, wouldnt it?

I could see an argument that bisexuality could be an advantage, but not homosexuality.

The litmus test for good-faith on the part of gay rights activists is how they respond to ex-gays - people who chose to undergo some sort of conversion therapy (note: not one that was forced on them) and successfully did so. I'm willing to believe that for a majority of gays such a thing is neither possible nor desirable, but for those who want to do it and are able to, the gay community should respect them for it. After all, they're living out their choice of lifestyle, right?

But these people are constantly vilified by the gay rights crowd. They get more hatred heaped on them than Clarence Thomas at a meeting of the congressional black caucus.

how can homosexuality be genetic?

Lots of weird, apparently maladaptive stuff is in fact genetic. Sickle-cell anemia is genetic -- black people evolved in places where malaria was endemic, and the sickle cell confers some protection against malaria; it is better to be a bit anemic than to be malarial. Bad eyesight is usually genetic. Epilepsy, diseases of the nervous system, cancer, and maybe even heart disease are genetic.

I don't find the notion of individual homosexuality to be all that fantastic because it's not really maladaptive in any larger sense. First of all, the term only applies to creatures that reproduce sexually; and it (generally) only applies to social animals (primates in our case). As long as the individual organism can contribute to the surivival of the gene pool in some positive way, that particular organism's genes do not necessarily have to be passed on to offspring in order for evolutionary processes to work. A gay man may contribute to his own genetic success by (for example) helping to make sure his extended family is successful; by being a productive member of the society in which he lives; and other social but non-sexual mechanisms.

The sexual behavior of homosexual organisms is another matter entirely, and I'm not going to get into that here. Many sexual practices are clearly unhealthy (such as anal sex); futher, sexual practices can often become deviant and harmful not only to the individual but also to the society he is a member of (pedophilia, bestiality, etc. are examples of this). I will leave the quesiton of deviancy in the context of homosexual sexual expression to people with a deeper understanding of it.

My point here is simply that being gay is not necessarily any more maladaptive than a heterosexual person who chooses not to have children.

Why do you hurt me, Ernie?

Both of you shut the fuck up.

And remember, "C" ain't just for "cookie" anymore...

I'll be glad when Brokeback Mountain leaves the theater so we can stop visiting Ace of Gays HQ.

This fixation started way before Jack and Ennis went camping.

Bert, you promised me, pinky promise, you wouldn't do this out in front of everybody.

Why do you insist on backing me into a corner like this? And why is the sky red at sunset and sunrise?

And how much air does it take to fill a hot air balloon that floats in the sky?

"As long as the individual organism can contribute to the surivival of the gene pool in some positive way, that particular organism's genes do not necessarily have to be passed on to offspring in order for evolutionary processes to work"

I cant believe this is true. How is a homosexual going to contribute to the gene pool in any way? By making sure his brothers and sisters reproduce? It makes no sense.

A PHONE RINGS

Allah - Hello?

Ace - Enn...uh...Allah, it's me.

Allah - Dammit, I told you not to call me at home. What the hell do you want?

Ace - I want to talk to you.

Allah - Look, I'm done talking. We went camping, you grabbed my junk and I left. End of fucking story.

Ace - Tell you what, we could a had a good life together, a fuckin real good life. You wouldn't do it, Allah, so what we got now is Central Park.

Allah - We didn't have anything to begin with. Sure, we cuddled a bit, but that was for warmth, you jackass, not because I had feelings for you. Let's try to keep this friendship to just a few visits to the local club per year and that's it.

Ace - You got no fuckin idea how bad it gets. I'm not you. I can't make it on a couple a high-altitude fucks once or twice a year. You're too much for me, Allah, you son of a whoreson bitch. I wish I knew how to quit you.

Allah - That's it. I'm hanging up.

-CLICK-

Ace - Hello? Hello?

fin

I'll be glad when Brokeback Mountain leaves the theater so we can stop visiting Ace of Gays HQ.

Now if I wrote that...

For example, Amish, if the hypothetical gay guy is a farmer, he would provide food to the straight, reproducing people. Or if he knows something about how to survive, he could impart that knowledge on others and, therefore, they'd increase their chances of survival.

Or make the chicks really nice clothes which attract the men....

Ace,

Well, they may both be right. It may be both genetic/innate and quite possible to overcome or suppress by exposure to it.

I think in that case that Kaus would be right, because it would be genetic and not a social construct, regardless of whether it could be overcome.

Actually, the same can be said of homosexuality. Your natural sexual orientation may well be genetic [but] it could be modified via intensive therapy.

My retort to this claim, which usually stops people short, is to ask the (heteosexual) people claiming it if they believe with intensive therapy they could become homosexuals.

I personally don't believe that I could. I just don't see how, regardless of any therapy, I would start finding men sexually attractive. Feeling an attraction to women didn't develop in any such way: Puberty kicked in, and it just magically happened. For gays, by all accounts, puberty kicks in, and they're just as magically attracted to the same sex.

(Yes, there is a ton of evidence that in desperate situations, such as jail, straight men will resort to homosexual activity, but once they have options again they will no longer consider engaging in those activities with other men.)

But gays, of course, are passionately against he suggestion that they should undergo such "conversion therapy." (With good reason, I think.) But shouldn't similar reasoning suggest that straights shouldn't have to undergo gay-sex-desensitization therapy, either?

I see your point, but I think the difference is one is tolerating another's actions and the other is changing your own actions. Well, I guess both involve changing a mindset though. Hmmm...maybe it really is a matter of degree rather than principle. Still, we're talking a pretty big degree here.

So: Assuming it's possible for a straight guy to no longer be queasy at the sight of men kissing, what degree of duty do they have to undertake such desensitization therapy just to make Andrew Sullivan fully free?

None. But I think there are at least three choices, not two: 1. Like (or at least not dislike) the behavior. 2. Dislike but tolerate the behavior. 3. Dislike and don't tolerate the behavior.

If homosexuality is genetic or otherwise not a choice (and I personally believe it is not a choice), then I think there may be a duty to do #2, at least in certain situations. Exceptions could be if you believe it is wrong, say for religious reasons, even if it is natural, and so on, but I think in a secular/public sense you would probably want some tolerance.

But I think there's quite a difference between asking someone to back off on an issue and demanding that they change how they feel about it.

I'm personally wigged out by spiders. Yes, I could very well overcome this phobia by a few months of arachnid-petting. If arachnophilia became the new sexual hot-button issue, but should I be required to undergo such a distasteful therapy just to be politically correct?

Absolutely, and you should further be obligated to put the spider-petting videos online.

I agree with you that it may be natural to find homosexuality activity repellant. There is obviously a procreative purpose toware finding the opposite sex attractive, and there could be a similar purpose to finding the same sex very unappealing (to keep you focused like a laser on the opposite sex).

We can debate tolerance of homosexuality, but I think it is beyond ridiculous for homosexuals to ask for anything more than that.

Of course it occurs to me that I wouldn't say (or believe) the same thing about, say, other races. I think that we actually probably do have a genetic tendency to be wary of others that do not look like us, but I certainly would not say I think it is ridiculous for other races to demand anything more than tolerance or that is ridiculous for them to feel it is wrong if we secretly dislike them.

OK, I give up.

I've always felt the genetics vs environment thing was a bit stupid - are there no straight guys with an elongated third finger or whatever the physical sign is supposed to be? Furthermore genetics like sickle cells or a poor heart structure does not support the idea that a person's sexuality is predetermined from birth. If you want to say there seem to be trends toward say increased degrees of submissiveness in certain genes or something equally general then maybe I could agree, but otherwise it looks like a pretty fantastic leap of logic that appears prompted by PC motives.

But all that aside, let's say for argument's sake that genetics actually could determine such a thing - I promise you it won't stop there. Pretty soon every preference and therefore every action is predetermined; no one can be blamed for their failures, nor can they credited for their achievements.

The genetics debate in re: homosexuality is IMO a complete waste of time; a gay person should not need to "justify" their sexual preference to anybody and engaging in such an endeavor just seems insecure and guilt-ridden.

Monty,

I believe that you are talking about the "kind gay uncle" hypothesis, where genes that contribute to homosexuality continue to be passed on because the gay uncle assists his relatives enough so that they can survive and propagate.

By inspection, I would have to say that it doesn't make much sense. Ensuring the propagation of some of your genes by assisting your relatives is all well and good, but it doesn't come close to actually producing children yourself.

If I were to guess, I would say that male homosexuality (which is certainly quite different than female) is probably caused by a mishmash of genetic and congenital effects. Hell, some say it could even be some sort of response to an infection at an early age.

This is assuming of course, that all (or most) gay men are gay for the same reasons. And, it assumes that what we think of as homosexuality is really the same phenomenon in all (or almost all) gay men.

Nathan S.:

My point was that if homosexuality is genetic (I'm not entirely convinced of this), then the "kind gay uncle" hypothesis is one way to explain it in evolutionary terms if you accept the "selfish gene" model (again, I'm not sure I do).

What disturbs me more about the whole debate is how gayness has somehow passed into the same "minority group" debate that race issues and handicap issues reside in. Somehow being gay makes one a minority; it is no longer a behavioral trait. I think this is a very meretricious thing, because it makes one wonder why other atypical sexual expressions are not treated likewise: pedophilia, bestiality, S&M, and so on. Why are these other sexual behaviors "deviant", but not homosexual behavior? A sound argument can be made that if homosexuality is not a matter of choice (and thus outside moral approbrium), then so is pedophilia. And of course this is a nonsensical argument, but that's the logical conclusion in my mind.

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that homosexuality is genetic, at least in any specific case. Oh, you can argue about hormonal imbalances, endocrine levels, and the like; but ultimately homosexuality is a behavior, not a physical trait.

Do gays have a corresponding duty to watch hetero porn films in order to desensitize themselves to the idea of hetero sex.

How do gays feel about things like heteosexual porn? Are they repulsed? Or just indifferent? If the latter, that might in part explain why they think it would be easy for hetereosexuals to change their mindset about gay sex.

I know a lot of gay men and women that have their own biological children. Some before they came out, some through artificial insemination, and some who decided family and children, though not hetereosexual sex, was important enough to marry. And yes, their spouses knew of their orientation or were gay themselves.

I think they're indifferent or even aroused. Most gays still retain some attraction for women, if slight, and can, I think, have a perfectly good time having sex with a woman. It's just not their first preference.

So I do think this idea -- "If I'm not bothered by straight sex, why are you bothered by gay sex?" -- does color their views on the issue.

If the Darwin theory of evolution is actually fact, then how can homosexuality be genetic?

Inquiring minds want to know...

A very common retort. Monty answered it well but I think perhaps got a bit bogged down in the details.

All you really have to keep in mind is that "genetic" doesn't mean "good" for the purpose of passing on those genes. If you have genes for sexual orientation that make men be attracted to women and vice versa 97% of the time, then those genes may be doing well enough to succeed. If 3% of the time they flip the other way, causing a dead end, then that's not going to end the human race. But it would still be genetic.

And, in fact, what we see is only about 2-3% of the population is gay.

Feisty:

You are right. I was a bigot. I hadn't thought about the ramification of my words. If we are a society that refuses to embraces the beauty of puppet on puppet action, then how can we call ourselves free? I am a changed woman. I still feel sorry for Howdy Doody though. I have a feeling he had a thing for Mortimer Snerd and it went unfulfilled because in the 40's puppet love was just unheard of. Not all puppets were as lucky as Chuckie when he found his lovely Bride.

I think we can change the world here, if we just free our minds.

I thank you...

Monty,

Oh, certainly. I mostly agree with you there. I tend to think of it as mostly biological in nature just because I cannot imagine someone actually making a conscious choice to do such a thing, although maybe that says more about me than about homosexuals.

I think they're indifferent or even aroused. Most gays still retain some attraction for women, if slight, and can, I think, have a perfectly good time having sex with a woman.

I think the word you're looking for is "bisexual", Ace.

Most gays still retain some attraction for women, if slight, and can, I think, have a perfectly good time having sex with a woman. It's just not their first preference.

Most gay men I know wd scream in horror at the thought. Again, I remind you that in hetereo sexual porn there is at least one strap on and one real cock. So, yes there is something for gay guys.

When you and Allah going to the movies?

The genetics debate in re: homosexuality is IMO a complete waste of time; a gay person should not need to "justify" their sexual preference to anybody and engaging in such an endeavor just seems insecure and guilt-ridden.

Scott, perhaps you're younger, but not too long ago one of the standard justifications for serious, overt discrimination against gays was, "Well, they choose to be that way, so it they don't like the consequences they can make different choices."

If it is not at all a choice, then that argument loses its weight, and, indeed, it has virtually disappeared in recent times, with even some very socially conservative groups are conceding that essentially nobody chooses to be gay. (There is still room for much debate on behavior even if the inclination is not a choice, of course.)

Bob:

If you have genes for sexual orientation that make men be attracted to women and vice versa 97% of the time, then those genes may be doing well enough to succeed. If 3% of the time they flip the other way, causing a dead end, then that's not going to end the human race. But it would still be genetic.

I don't like it when people say genes code for any specific feature or trait. Genes operate in a highly combinatorial fashion -- they have to, because we don't have that many of them. Human behaviors are "emergent" in the sense that they can be influenced by genetics but not necessarily determined by them. Example: there is a pronounced tendency in my family to nicotine and alcohol abuse. I presume these same predispositions are present in my own genetic makeup; however, I neither smoke nor drink. These were decisions I made, rational behaviors I choose to adopt.

I've seen a lot of pop-science crap being written these days about how serial killers are "born bad", how certain men are "born gay", even how some people are "born conservative". Some ivory tower doofus recently even tried to prove the existence of a "God gene" that predisposes people to religious belief!

Genetics informs human behavior; it does not determine it. And thank God for that: therein lies Free Will.

First, "genetic" is distinct from "hereditary". A fatal genetic malfunction can't be passed on if it kills before puberty, but such genetic disorders nevertheless occur. Therefore, if homosexuality is in fact actually genetic, it is not required to be hereditary. Also, the sexual drive in humans is not absolutely tied to reproduction; most people are up for having lots of sex without much caring whether pregnancies result. Which means that you could possibly express homosexuality, whether it is biologically innate or not, as a normal sex drive interacting with an aversion to the genitals of the opposite sex, or some such.

Scott,

No, the word I'm looking for is "gay." There really aren't any true bisexual men, a study has found. Self-identifying bisexuals are almost exclusively aroused by the male form, the same as gay men.

And gay men can and do have sex with women. The fact that they might have sex with a female friend, or a woman who comes on strong to them, doesn't really make them "bisexual." If their strong preference is for men, occasionally sleeping with a woman hardly changes that.

I think that most gay men have had sex with women at some time in their lives, mostly before they were out or whatever, but they do occasionally sleep with women.

There's been at least one study (sorry, I don't have a link) showing that in 40 percent of cases where one identical twin is gay, the other will be too. That's way too many for coincidence, not nearly enough to justify the "it's all genetic" case. End of discussion. So far, Hubris has made one of the more sensible comments on this thread.

Not that I really care about determining the root causes of homosexuality. Or heterosexuality, for that matter. Mostly, unless I'm actually participating, I would prefer that people keep their sexuality out of my face. Figuratively speaking.

I dunno, utorn. I find it difficult to believe that if a study such as your describe exists, it wouldn't be shoved in our face 24/7.

Most gay men occassionally sleep with women? I still don't buy it.

No, the word I'm looking for is "gay." There really aren't any true bisexual men, a study has found. Self-identifying bisexuals are almost exclusively aroused by the male form, the same as gay men.
Posted by ace at December 16, 2005 02:06 PM

You're mistating the study you linked to. If you read it again, it just says that bisexual men are rare.

The only reason I care, is I have a friend that I legitimately believe is bi, though he's now happily married to a woman. He, at one time, was fine with a guy, but he generally dated women.

Monty,

Why are these other sexual behaviors "deviant", but not homosexual behavior? A sound argument can be made that if homosexuality is not a matter of choice (and thus outside moral approbrium), then so is pedophilia. And of course this is a nonsensical argument, but that's the logical conclusion in my mind.

I don't see why that's that nonsensical. I have debated this subject often with people, and those that eventually concede that perhaps it is not a choice to be gay will often argue exactly that point, that perhaps it isn't a choice to be a pedophile, so does that mean we should tolerate that?

Here's how it breaks down for me personally: If gay people started out straight and were in fact repulsed by the idea of gay sexuality and yet they somehow made a conscious choice to go that route, then I could accept that they have serious problems and perhaps deserve disapproval and even scorn from society. At the very least I'd consider them to have some serious mental health issues (why would you force yourself to do something you find repugnant, unless it's something for a noble cause?).

But if it's not a choice, if they just find themselves attracted to the same sex at the same time that most of the rest of us develop an attraction to the opposite sex, then that changes things. They're not willfully going down some contrary route. They're just going down that route that seems as natural to them as mine does to me.

So how is it any different that a "natural" pedophile, if there is such a thing (and, unfortunately, I believe there may be, as it's reasonable to assume such genetic anomolies would happen occasionally)?

To me it boils down to who is being hurt. Society has a responsibility to protect children from predatory adults. If someone is attracted sexually to children, they damn well had better learn to fully repress those urges and never, ever act on them.

Does society have a similar responsibility to protect consenting adults from each other? I don't really see that it does. If two guys have no interest in women and want to have a relationship, I don't really see that it's hurting anyone.

So, no, I don't think saying that if homosexuality is not a choice then we should tolerate it leads to the conclusion that we should tolerate everything that is not a choice.

Ace,

I'm no expert in genetics but I do know for a fact that I do not have a genetic predisposition to believe that you are an asshole. Since it's pretty clear that everybody considers you an asshole and genetics are diffuse and widely varied one must necessarily conclude that there is no genetic component in making that determination about you.

Hope that's helpful to you.

Have a nice weekend.

The only reason I care, is I have a friend that I legitimately believe is bi, though he's now happily married to a woman. He, at one time, was fine with a guy, but he generally dated women.

There's a term for people like your friend - greedy bastards.

Utron:

I would prefer that people keep their sexuality out of my face. Figuratively speaking.

Generally, I agree -- but this laissez faire attitude has societal repurcussions.

Pornography, for example, is pretty much a mainstream thing nowadays -- it's a huge industry, and some of the biggest "stars" have crossed over into other entertainment venues (Traci Lords, Tera Patrick, and others). I personally think this has been a very Bad Thing for the Commons because it forces people who disagree with that lifestyle -- for moral or religious reasons -- to have to deal with it anyway. It forces a point of view on people because it intrudes onto the public Commons.

Another thing that bothers me about trying to "mainstream" gayness is the fact that no one wants to talk about related sequelae -- pedophilia primary among them. You can argue that a pedophile is just as "genetically programmed" for their sexual preferences as gay men are; why is one considered deviant and the other not? By forcing homosexuality into the Commons, we must admit other sexual behaviors -- for if we don't, what rationale do we use? The only argument that carries any real weight is the moral one -- gay men are consenting adults, whereas pedophiles prey on the innocent -- but the issue becomes murky very quickly. How young is too young? What does "consent" mean?

In other words: if homosexuality is primarily a lifestyle choice (which I think is the case), why does one person's choice to be gay merit special protection over people who do not choose to be gay? And if I am forced to accept homosexuality into the public Commons, what argument can be mounted for keeping other sexual expressions out of it?

And you guys butchered me when I warned you about the Teletubbies. F all of you. I mean bless all of you.

But Jerry, I can't stand being without you anymore.

Come back, Jerry.

There's a term for people like your friend - greedy bastards.
Posted by Slublog at December 16, 2005 02:18 PM

The whole time I've known him (maybe twelve years) he was monogamous -- always went for long term dating, like a year or two, until he got married.

He just happened to be with a guy one of those times.

I've heard the talk about all bisexuals being promiscuous, but I don't buy it - at least not in this guy's case.

The earlier poster was right. This really is becoming Ace of Gays, HQ.

I was kidding. That's the term my friends and I used for the large number of bis at our college.

Scott, perhaps you're younger, but not too long ago one of the standard justifications for serious, overt discrimination against gays was, "Well, they choose to be that way, so it they don't like the consequences they can make different choices."

Bob (or should I say Gramps),

Perhaps you're older, and think there might once have been a time when it was legitimate to suggest that gays should just "change" if they don't like society's attitude toward them, but personally I think it was a mistake on the part of homosexuals to duck the challenge by claiming "it's not our fault - it's genetic!", when the proper response was and always will be "get over your own prejudice and MYOFB".

Although possibly harsh sounding to someone not used to the idea of a gay man who is unapologetic for his sexuality (and to be fair I'm not saying you are that person, just that you apparently aren't young), this in my view is the most worthwhile route to achieving true acceptance not just "we'll tolerate your leprosy only because we know it's not your fault" (whose logical end result ironically will be to return homosexuality to its previous status as a medical disease, er excuse me a "genetic disorder", something homosexuals in the 60s and 70s were fighting very hard to change).

Hey, isn't that Keith Olbermann advertising on Ace's sidebar? Whoa.

I just put a new WiFi card in my funky old laptop and took it out to the nearest Pretentious Wanker Sandwich Shop for lunch and a test-surf, and it turns out Ace is blocked by the filter. Naughty content or summat. I blame all them gay boys.

I don't actually buy the argument that gays are any more promiscuous than most heterosexuals. I think the strength or lack of libido is not based on sex, sexual preference or any of those factors.

See-Dubya:

I noticed that earlier. I thought it was just a hallucination from my antihistamine.

If marriage is redefined at the whim of the majority, why wouldn't age of consent laws and pedophilia laws also be on shaky ground?

Certainly polygamy will be on its way in, sooner or later, after gay marriage is accepted. Polygamy has an actual religious and cultural tradition around the world to lend it the weight of precedence.

My last post meant to attribute the first idea back to an earlier poster who mentioned age of consent. That part got cut off.

Adolfo/Ace-

You're mistating the study you linked to. If you read it again, it just says that bisexual men are rare.

Which study are you guys talking about?

Monty,

I don't like it when people say genes code for any specific feature or trait. Genes operate in a highly combinatorial fashion -- they have to, because we don't have that many of them. Human behaviors are "emergent" in the sense that they can be influenced by genetics but not necessarily determined by them.

See, this is what I meant when I said you got bogged down in details. ;-)

The question I was answering was how could homosexuality be genetic if the recipients of that genetic trait would not pass on their genes. I gave a hypothetical example of how genes that produced 97% heterosexuals and 3% homosexuals could work just fine overall.

I was not saying this is how it works but rather attempting to refute the notion that there was no way it could work.

You are of course correct to note that talk of "genes" and "genetics" is often very loose.

Example: there is a pronounced tendency in my family to nicotine and alcohol abuse. I presume these same predispositions are present in my own genetic makeup; however, I neither smoke nor drink. These were decisions I made, rational behaviors I choose to adopt.

Agreed. However, every genetic situation doesn't work this way. One wouldn't speak similarly about their eye color, for example, as that is flat-out fixed.

Are gays just kind of disposed to be gay but could successfully be straight? Or is their sexual orientation fixed very early on in their life and cannot be changed?

I believe the evidence overwhelmingly shows it is fixed very early in age. That then brings us to the realm of behavior.

I've seen a lot of pop-science crap being written these days about how serial killers are "born bad", how certain men are "born gay", even how some people are "born conservative".

We agree that you can be born with tendencies. We agree that you can fight these tendencies.

The issue is as I mentioned in an earlier message: If your urge is toward a behavior that is harmful toward others, then society can and should condemn it. If it doesn't harm anyone, then it's another matter.

So a lot of the debate boils down to that: Does homosexuality inherently harm society? Many gay people think it does not (though of course irresponsible manifestations of it could, which is true for many things).

I tend to agree with them. If two men are getting it on (in private) a few houses down, then how does it harm me? That's not like a pedophile luring a five-year-old into his house and causing great harm to them and their family. It's not like a serial killer burying their latest victim in their basement.

Genetics informs human behavior; it does not determine it. And thank God for that: therein lies Free Will.

And for gays it comes down to them being attracted to another adult that is attracted to them and wanting to have a relationship with that person, and they don't see why that is not OK to do.

Soctt:

It seems to me that gays want it both ways: they don't want to be seen as having a "disease" (which would indicate that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice), and yet they also want people to acknowledge that being gay is a "natural part" of a person like eye color or skin color (hence genetic).

I was born with bad eyesight, but I wear glasses. I could have chosen not to wear them and claim that my bad vision was "just a part of who I am" (which it surely is); and yet being able to see clearly trumped my genetic heritage. Choosing to be half-blind surely is not a morally evil choice, but I would in a sense be forcing my bad vision on other people: my driving would suffer, I would bump into people as I walked along, I would miss works of art that I could not see clearly, etc.

I don't think that gays should be belittled or harassed or driven from our midst; but I also completely disagree with putting them in a special minority class for what amounts to a personal choice. A gay man may be born with a disposition towards homosexuality; but it is his choice as to whether to express it or not.

I don't actually buy the argument that gays are any more promiscuous than most heterosexuals.

The best argument that I've heard in support of this is simply that gay sex (m or f) has no societal consequences, like children. There is simply no product of the union.

Therefore there is no step limiting factor to sleeping with anything that gets you off.

To answer a question that has been asked, it is possible for homosexuality to be genetic if it is the result of a recessive allele (i.e that must be inherited from both parents in order to be fully expressed).

Like the gene that causes sickle cell anemia, it is possible that this gene provides some other, unrelated benefit when you get just one copy. Genetics is somewhat more complicated than the old Mendelian models would indicate, but they are accurate enough for the purposes of this discussion.

If the statistic bandied about that 2-3% of the population is gay is close to correct, one could then infer that approximately 30% of the population carries this gene. A 30% chance of carrying the gene means that there is approximately a 9% chance of two carriers randomly partnering, and then 25% of their offspring, or 2-3%, will carry two copies and express the trait of "gayness".

Of course, if the actual expression of the gene is not "gayness", but rather some biochemical sensitivity that can lead to "gayness" only in the presence of other factors, then the percentage of "carriers" could actually be higher.

It [mainstreaming sexuality] forces a point of view on people because it intrudes onto the public Commons.

Actually, Monty, our viewpoints aren't that dissimilar. I'm pretty libertarian, not say libertine, about private behavior. But I don't care for the general level of sexualization--straight and gay--in popular culture, and I certainly think that constantly lowering the bar of acceptable public behavior has been harmful to the social commons. I talk how I want on this moronblog, and I'd like to keep it that way; if I had kids, AoSHQ wouldn't be a site they visited.

I'm against discrimination with real-world consequences--economic discrimination, sodomy laws, and so forth. But basically, I'd prefer to see the whole issue moved out of the limelight, where elements in the Gay Pride movement pushed it. I wouldn't want my hypothetical kids to be told that homosexuals are evil per se; equally, I'd rather they didn't see guys in assless chaps gyrating down Main Street once a year.

Which study are you guys talking about?
Posted by Scott at December 16, 2005 02:35 PM

I don't know, it was a post about two weeks ago about porn response in men. You could do a search on Ace o' Spades for references to porn, but it might take a few days to sift through it all.

Ace-

And gay men can and do have sex with women.

So I guess you also believe that straight men can and do have sex with other men?

I think we've seen society grow more promiscuous as heterosexual sex is given fewer consequences.

Jennifer, I think Ace needs some serious goosing about this one. As does Olbermann.

"Keith, I wish I knew how to quit you..."

I don't actually buy the argument that gays are any more promiscuous than most heterosexuals

They're not more promiscuous than hetero guys, but they don't have the dampening (women would say 'civilizing') effect of the fairer sex to moderate their activities. Lucky bastids.

What disturbs me more about the whole debate is how gayness has somehow passed into the same "minority group" debate that race issues and handicap issues reside in. Somehow being gay makes one a minority; it is no longer a behavioral trait.

Enjoy.

Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.

Since the late 1980s we have been "taught" that homosexuals are born that way, and we have obediently learned and accepted it like the lapdogs we are. Please ignore any evidence to the contrary. Also prepare yourselves to be taught new lessons.

Dang. That was me, ribbing Ace about turning tricks for that crazy Keith Olbermann money.

utron:

We're like Mike and Ike: we think alike! (Not sure what that joke is all about, but my grandmom used to unload it on me all the time, then laugh like hell.)

Monty,

I don't think that gays should be belittled or harassed or driven from our midst; but I also completely disagree with putting them in a special minority class for what amounts to a personal choice. A gay man may be born with a disposition towards homosexuality; but it is his choice as to whether to express it or not.

Agreed. People who don't want to be classified as mentally or physically handicapped should err on the side of doubt and take responsibility for their lifestyle.

Incidentally, I found a link referencing that twin study I mentioned up above here. To respond to blank's comment, the study wasn't pushed in people's faces precisely because it undercut the idea that homosexual behavior was genetically determined and hence beyond criticism (several flaws in the logic there). By now, "homosexuality=your genes" is pretty much dogma in the Gay Pride movement and much of academia.

I think we've seen society grow more promiscuous as heterosexual sex is given fewer consequences.

Sure. You can think all of the good things that you want about people, but in aggregate, limits and barriers are very effective.

Utron:But basically, I'd prefer to see the whole issue moved out of the limelight, where elements in the Gay Pride movement pushed it.

This is exactly right, in several senses. It's not just the limelight, it's where this issue and a host of others has taken up residence in the marketplace of ideas.

Not to bring up anything controversial or anything (and please let's not split this thread - this is explanatory only), but abortion witnessed a similar change of venue with Roe. It no longer was an economic issue, or a state's issue, but instead a privacy issue. Now, it is the case that any argument that addresses the consequences / tolerance of abortion qua abortion is dismissed out of hand because the issue is no longer abortion.

The same is true with homosexuality, or gay sex, or promiscuity. It is difficult to talk about societal consequences when society is not given a stake in the issue. Instead, the media and the SIGs have moved the issue itself out of bounds, and we are forced to debate it on the merits of studies, privacy, diseases, etc.

So I guess you also believe that straight men can and do have sex with other men?

Of course not. If you have sex with men, you're gay.

People engaged in homosexual sex are not more promiscuous?

Everyone knows that the gay life is a fuck-fest. Any gay person with an ounce of honesty will admit to this.

Check out Craig's list and other alternative publications. Their Personals section is overwhelmingly saturated with advertisements/solicitations for casual hook-ups (of the homosexual kind).

Forget the old-fashioned meeting place of highway rest-stops.

Through the advent of the Internet, there are Forums dedicated to hooking-up for homo sex and group homo sex. The forums also list popular locations that guys can go to during the day, mostly parks with rest rooms, and get/give hand jobs and blow jobs.

Damn, Sue. Gettin' all linky and shit.

Since the late 1980s we have been "taught" that homosexuals are born that way, and we have obediently learned and accepted it like the lapdogs we are.

The consent of the victims.

From one of the linked articles: At the tender age of five, Bauman had been sexually seduced by a twelve-year-old neighbor.

One of the annoying things that does not make its way to the surface is the notion of gay males as predators, and or homosexuality the result of predatory practices. I'm NOT espousing this position, btw, but it remains, like many other arguments, out there to be refuted. But it is dismissed because it rests not on accepted dogma,, but on the notion of "deviancy = power." An honest assessment of homosexuality would refute this notion first and foremost, not through anecdotal evidence, but because this is a critical notion in the acceptance of homosexuality.

... taught new lessons.

And I am even more annoyed when the issue is not about homosexuals, but power politics. And that's when I get mean.

Fighting one does not equal fighting the other. It's just business.

Scott,

Scott, perhaps you're younger, but not too long ago one of the standard justifications for serious, overt discrimination against gays was, "Well, they choose to be that way, so it they don't like the consequences they can make different choices."

Bob (or should I say Gramps),

Perhaps you're older, and think there might once have been a time when it was legitimate to suggest that gays should just "change" if they don't like society's attitude toward them,

Whoa! Hold on there, sonny boy!

Where did I say it was legitimate? Nowhere. I merely said that is what people said. Now, if, right or wrong, people are saying that it is legitimate to punish you since it is for something that you chose to do, I think you can see the value in kicking that argument out from under them if the evidence shows that it is not a choice.

but personally I think it was a mistake on the part of homosexuals to duck the challenge by claiming "it's not our fault - it's genetic!", when the proper response was and always will be "get over your own prejudice and MYOFB".

OK, so how far would you take this? Should gay people pretend it's a choice just so they could fight the MYOFB battle?

If not, then if it's not a choice why not take that opportunity to bury that particular objection and move the argument forward? Is the commitment to the broader objective of tolerance for homosexuality or to the narrow objective of convincing people to mind their own business?

Although possibly harsh sounding to someone not used to the idea of a gay man who is unapologetic for his sexuality (and to be fair I'm not saying you are that person, just that you apparently aren't young),

Read my other posts. I'm hardly the hardline social conservative here. I don't really care what consenting adults do with each other.

this in my view is the most worthwhile route to achieving true acceptance not just "we'll tolerate your leprosy only because we know it's not your fault"

I think it advances the argument. Regardless of whether you want to accept it or not, a lot of people were stuck in the mindset of "why would gay people choose this lifestyle". If they come to believe that it's not a choice, then a lot of them will start to reconsider some of their beliefs. And then you're going to step in and say, no, we don't want you to come to a position of tolerance this way, we refuse it, either accept it regardless of whether it's a choice or we don't want your acceptance? Uh, OK.

(whose logical end result ironically will be to return homosexuality to its previous status as a medical disease, er excuse me a "genetic disorder", something homosexuals in the 60s and 70s were fighting very hard to change).

I disagree completely. It was previously considered a psychological disease because it was assumed everyone was naturally hetereosexual and therefore they most be really screwed up if they somehow "turned" gay. As the evidence continues to build that some people are naturally gay then that helps a lot of people see it in a new light. And, no, not necessarily as something akin to leprosy that they'll tolerate. Maybe they'll just tolerate is they'd tolerate left-handedness or blue eyes or anything else that doesn't really affect them.

Forget the old-fashioned meeting place of highway rest-stops.

How can I? How can I?

Bob, but it does affect everyone. Comparing homo-sex to being left-handed, which by the way, I am, is not fair or accurate.

So I guess you also believe that straight men can and do have sex with other men?

Ace: Of course not. If you have sex with men, you're gay

You've said this before and I still don't know what you mean here. Are you denying an underlying brain difference so that 'what one does is what one is?'

If you get raped in prison, does that make you gay? Why not, according to your view? Because you didn't want to have the sex? So, isnt' that a matter of internal desire then? And isn't internal desire different that observed behaviour frequently?

If, as you believe, there is not such thing as bisexuals - that they have an underlying primary attraction to males - how is this consistent with your 'what you do is what you are' line. After all, bisexuals DO have sex with men and women.

So there, you certainly seem to accept the notion that an underlying brain diference controls irrespective of observed activity.

Look. There's just brain differences between gays and straights (talkig bout men.) Hook them up to fmri machines and show each photos of the naked men, then naked women. They will exhibit different arousal patterns. THAT is what "gay" and "straight" is. What lights up your brain, baby.

And in that sense, history is replete with straight men acting 'gay' (the navy, prison, british 'public' schools) but are still 'under the brainscan' straight.

Maybe they'll just tolerate is they'd tolerate left-handedness or blue eyes or anything else that doesn't really affect them.

But it does affect us, Bob. All of us. Gay marriage, gay pride, Will and Grace, The Village People, "don't ask, don't tell" -- this issue is in the public Commons now, and largely at the insistence of gays themselves. I don't think "tolerance" will do; gays want acceptance, even positive reinforcement for their lifestyle.

I find this a dangerous road, for reasons I have gone into earlier.

Bart: true, but I'm not sure lesbians have the same gravy train running.

'what one does is what one is?'

Yup. Within the realms of consensual acts, of course. Would you rather argue that you are limited by what you genetically "are," whatever that means?

Look, suppose that you are an alcoholic. You like booze. But you don't take a drink because of damage that you subsequently do to your family, bank account, and so on.

Perhaps medically, you may still be an alcoholic, but you are repressing the tendency, and therefore from the societal position, you are not. It's that simple.

In golf, my natural tendency is to fade. But if I'm playing a right to left hole, I might try to draw the ball. At the end of the day, I get to choose what I do. I can give in to the appetites (as Aristotle called them) or I can pursue the course of virtue. It is that simple.

DeeDaGo: I'm not sure what your argument is with what I said. You don't seemto deny there are underlying 'appetites' as you write - and I certainly don't either.

You just seem to want to make the point that people can still resist their appetites. I agree. A gay man CAN theoretically go his life without having sex with me even though his 'appetites' direct otherwise, jsut as an alcoholic can go his life without touching a drop.

But my point is that there is an underlying appetite. And it is with reference to this that one is 'gay' and 'straight.' Nothing more.

Scott, the article Ace referred to is here:

What Makes People Gay?

It talks about how measured arousal in men was directly linked to their sexual orientation while women were aroused both by men and women regardless of their professed orientation. Much sport has been made of this finding, of course. I don't really see anything to back up Ace's assertion that gay males also are aroused by women, so I'm not sure where he got that.

Utron, that article actually has one of the authors of the original study that said 50% of identical twins of gay people are gay now saying that his subsequent research has put the number at 20%.

The original 50% number was interesting because nobody knew what to do with it. The genetics advocates were unhappy that it was so low, and the choice advocates were unhappy that it was so high. I think that's why it didn't get that widely reported: It disappointed everyone.

The 20% might give hope to some in the choice field, but that's still a lot higher than the 2-3% you'd expect. Anyway, it's probably not simple genetics, as there are a host of factors involved (genes, hormonal environment in the womb, etc.). What does seem clear (to me anyway) is that regardless of how it happens, it happens early in life, and it is not a choice. Gay people inevitably talk about hitting puberty and feeling attracted to their own sex in the same way most people being feeling attracted to the opposite sex. I don't think this is a massive conspiracy to lie about this.

There have also been a host of gay people that did not want to be gay and tried to their best to get therapy to turn themselves straight. The success rate of this type of therapy is very close to zero, so close in fact that one suspect many/most/all of the success stories are just playing the role.

Hook them up to fmri machines and show each photos of the naked men, then naked women.

I believe they hook their penis' up to machines. They do something similar to test for pedophilia and erectile dysfunction.

Of course not. If you have sex with men, you're gay.

Why is your definition of heterosexuality so rigid and your definition of homosexuality so loose? Saying there is only hetero and homosexuality with nothing in between is quite literally the same as saying there is only black and white - no gray. How then are we supposed to refer to things that don't fit either strict criteria?

I'm sure there are studies saying all kinds of things about the breakdown of hetero/homo/bi, but I really wonder how accurate they could be given the difficulty of objectively measuring sexual preferences that fall somewhere between the extreme two ends of the range.

For example, prisoners are one of the most common mis-users of sexual terms - "pitchers" tend to consider themselves "straight", but their "catchers" to be the gay ones. And indeed they would all be quite um, "up" for the chance to get with a woman - so what are they? "Bisexual" might not be the term they would prefer but it is the only one that encompasses the full range of their appetites, and the same is true of someone who is gay-yet-sleeps-with-women.

But my point is that there is an underlying appetite. And it is with reference to this that one is 'gay' and 'straight.' Nothing more.

Ultimately, we are probably pretty much on the same page. I reject intrinsic value arguments on the face of it when it comes to people, because people are always capable of so much. Romantic Humanism, man.

But then the problem becomes how you define it. If (a) gene and (b) gene make you gay by definition, you have to be careful of how you define homosexuality going forward. If you are going to materialistically define something or someone based on an incomplete science like neuropsychology, neurology, neuroscience, or genetics, then what are you going to say when the science expands past your defninition? What if every gay man also has (c) gene - is that now part of the definition, or just an anomoly?

This morning on the radio I heard that John Paul Jones was gay. Am I the last person to know this? I guess he was famous for writing poem after poem about his shipmates firm buttocks.

Bob, but it does affect everyone. Comparing homo-sex to being left-handed, which by the way, I am, is not fair or accurate.

Ha! You feel victim to my plan to flush out all the left-handed people that were attempting to mix with us righties!

OK, how does gay sex affect everyone? The sex itself doesn't. You could point to AIDS and say that cost society a lot, but gay sex does not equal AIDS.

But if that's your line of thought, then how about this hypothetical: If two gay people meet and form a monogamous relationship, then how are you personally affected by that?

But it does affect us, Bob. All of us. Gay marriage, gay pride, Will and Grace, The Village People, "don't ask, don't tell" -- this issue is in the public Commons now, and largely at the insistence of gays themselves. I don't think "tolerance" will do; gays want acceptance, even positive reinforcement for their lifestyle.

People being homosexual doesn't affect you. People having homosexual relationships in private doesn't affect you.

People having homosexual relationships in public doesn't really affect you that much either. So you tell your kids when they ask that some people like the same gender. And what comes from that?

Some of your other examples talk about being in-your-face about matters that should be private. Well, OK, but that isn't an issue of being gay, as you probably feel the same way about heterosexuals pushing excessive sexuality into the "Commons".

what are you going to say when the science expands past your defninition? What if every gay man also has (c) gene - is that now part of the definition, or just an anomoly?

Good point. But i don't think it's that difficult. "Gay" or "Straight" is a matter of desire. Do naked women or naked men turn you on? That desire is reflected/'a product of' certain center in our brain. The fmri can display that difference. Or simpler still, one's penis will. Male/female figures cause it to grow erect or not.

Seems a fair way to assign words and doesn't really leave our language all that susceptible and uncertain in the face of further scientific advance.

People being homosexual doesn't affect you. People having homosexual relationships in private doesn't affect you.

Of course not. But that's not the point. The truth is that there have been homosexuals throughout history, some quite famous.

The issue is whether these people can a) force some level of societal acceptance of their lifestyle, regardless of other consequences, and b) with the creation of a centralized power structure around homosexuality and its acceptance, whether that group will be limited to issues vitae, or whether it will expand and push for other issues.

There are subtext issues, as well, Bob - if you base acceptance of homosexuality on an issue of privacy, tolerance, or multi-culturalism (a la heartache Andy), then you de facto grant them a certain voice. I think that you could make a great argument that the voice is not only not serious, but dengerous in many cases.

Bob:

People being homosexual doesn't affect you. People having homosexual relationships in private doesn't affect you.

People having homosexual relationships in public doesn't really affect you that much either. So you tell your kids when they ask that some people like the same gender. And what comes from that?

Okay, here's the core of the beef: now you're telling me what I think! If I am a conventional Christian, then what you just said is patently wrong:
to the extent that I am a conventional Christian, then homosexuality is a sin, and thus your public display of such is an affront to my morality. Even non-religious people may have moral beefs with the lifestyle.

And as far as gays not impacting my lifestyle, what about the examples already show in this thread? It is clearly affecting me already, as it does everyone else who lives in the society. I believe that gays should be able to pursue their own lives, but not at the expense of the vast majority of other people who have problems with that lifestyle -- be they moral, health-related, or whatever. I don't think that being gay should privilege someone over people who are not gay.

I find this to be a very slippery slope indeed. If you insist on "gay" rights, what about other sexual rights? Should I be allowed to marry my sister? Or *two* of my sisters, so I can mix both in*c-est and polygamy together? Should I be allowed to marry a fourteen-year-old girl? Aren't these all just "lifestyle" choices? If not, why not? And if so, how do homosexuals rationalize their own circumstances apart from the others?

That desire is reflected/'a product of' certain center in our brain. The fmri can display that difference.

That's pretty reductionist. That argument leads to a purely mechanical conceptualization of man, wherein everything is chemicals firing off and neurons talking to each other in particular sequences.

Last time you'll tickle me..Bert, you bitch.

*Sigh*

I'm doing it again -- coming off as more strident than I mean to. I'm not saying that gay people are evil, or wrong, or sick in the head (as a rule, anyway). But I am trying to point out that increasingly homosexuals are asserting a "right" where none exists, and that chafes the very core of my conservative soul. If you wish to be gay, then more power to you; just understand and accept the consequences that accrue to that decision, that's all I'm saying. Don't insist that the rest of society conform to your own personal choice -- you knew what the game was when you decided to play.

Of course not. If you have sex with men, you're gay.

Why is your definition of heterosexuality so rigid and your definition of homosexuality so loose? Saying there is only hetero and homosexuality with nothing in between is quite literally the same as saying there is only black and white - no gray. How then are we supposed to refer to things that don't fit either strict criteria?

Scott, read that article I linked to above. They basically found regardless of professed sexuality, men showed either gay or straight arousal patterns. Men saying they were bisexual typically showed strictly gay arousal patterns. So, counterintuitive though it may seem, if that study is to be believed it actually may be more black-and-white than you'd think (certainly more than I thought!).

What I don't understand is Ace's notions that one act of gay sex makes you gay while countless acts of straight sex do not make you straight if you've had gay sex. No offense, Ace, but I don't see where you're getting this from. You seemed to indicate that it was from that article, but I don't see anything like that in there. I also don't see where it says gay men are aroused by women.

I'm sure there are studies saying all kinds of things about the breakdown of hetero/homo/bi, but I really wonder how accurate they could be given the difficulty of objectively measuring sexual preferences that fall somewhere between the extreme two ends of the range.

This study measured arousal in the brain using MRI scans (not measuring erection levels as a previous poster indicated). And, again, they found virtually everyone split one way or the other, which I would not have expected, as I've pretty bought bought into the "continuum of sexuality" theory.

For example, prisoners are one of the most common mis-users of sexual terms - "pitchers" tend to consider themselves "straight", but their "catchers" to be the gay ones. And indeed they would all be quite um, "up" for the chance to get with a woman - so what are they? "Bisexual" might not be the term they would prefer but it is the only one that encompasses the full range of their appetites, and the same is true of someone who is gay-yet-sleeps-with-women.

Gotta disagree here.

Prisoners are horny men and want to have sex so they accept the best substitute around to simulate what they would really want. "Pitchers" are doing something roughly comparable to straight sex (and, for that matter, the same as one form of straight sex). "Catchers" are not doing anything that would typically happen to a man during heterosexual sex, so, yes, in that way they are engaging in behavior that is more gay. My understanding, though, is that many catchers are forced into the role, hence expressions about being made to be someone's bitch, etc.

I don't think the term bisexual applies to them just because they are engaging in gay sex. If they are only doing this out of desperation and under no circumstances would choose a man over a woman, if they are not aroused by men but merely willing in extreme situations to use parts of them to get off, then I wouldn't say they are gay or bisexual. Just more desperate than I could ever see myself being (I'd rather do without, thanks).

And I am even more annoyed when the issue is not about homosexuals, but power politics. And that's when I get mean.

Fighting one does not equal fighting the other. It's just business.

I don't feel you and I are in vast disagreement.

As I see it, there are generally two types of homosexuals, much like there are generally two types of liberals: the rank and file, and the political activists. The former majority faction doesn't really have an agenda, the latter most certainly does, and it's for the most part radical.

It's the latter faction that is whittling away at our traditions, pushing us down a slippery slope toward a neo-Marxist Marcusian society.

The former faction quietly supports the latter simply because they have common enemies, but the rank and file does not realize that the activist faction has far different goals.

The two current, primary goals of all radical leftist groups in America are to destroy the traditional nuclear family structure (in particular the patriarch's position) and eliminate traditional religion. The utopia they want is almost exactly what Plato described in his Republic, and the two aforementioned things are the biggest obstacles. They're too close to success for my comfort.

I don't feel you and I are in vast disagreement.

Nope, I'm right with you.

See, you thought I was arguing, when I was in violent agreement. There I go again.

It's the latter faction that is whittling away at our traditions, pushing us down a slippery slope toward a neo-Marxist Marcusian society.

The increasing awareness of people that this is what we are up against is the single biggest victory in the last few years.

DeeDaGo writes:

There are subtext issues, as well, Bob - if you base acceptance of homosexuality on an issue of privacy, tolerance, or multi-culturalism (a la heartache Andy), then you de facto grant them a certain voice. I think that you could make a great argument that the voice is not only not serious, but dengerous in many cases.

Hey, I thought you weren't speaking to me anymore. (Just kidding!)

I am not certain what your objection is about granting homosexuals a voice. That sounds reasonable to me. You say you could make an argument that the voice is serious and dangerous, and I think you should have to make such an argument if you intend to deny that voice.

Monty writes:

Okay, here's the core of the beef: now you're telling me what I think!

Not really. My point was that it doesn't really have a big impact in your life. Look, if you want to tell your kids, "Those people are homosexuals, and we believe that their behavior is a sin, and if you ever have urges to act that way then you will be sinning", then that is your right, too. You certainly can't argue that everything objectionable to a Christian must be hidden from public view, can you? And if you can't do that, then where do you draw the line, and how do you justify putting homosexuals, including ones not doing anything outrageous, on the "hidden" side of the line?

If I am a conventional Christian, then what you just said is patently wrong: to the extent that I am a conventional Christian, then homosexuality is a sin, and thus your public display of such is an affront to my morality. Even non-religious people may have moral beefs with the lifestyle.

Again, you can't ban all sins from your view. That would be the establishment of a religion essentially.

I believe society, in a nonreligious way, has a right to limit certain things from public view. I would agree that overt sexuality is one of those things, for reasons too complex to get into here. But how do you justify putting more stringent limits on homosexual behavior?

Personally, if we toned things down with heterosexual displays and put the same limits on homosexual displays I'd be happier with that than if we left things as they are. Obviously you'd disagree. But how do you justify it without invoking religion?

And as far as gays not impacting my lifestyle, what about the examples already show in this thread? It is clearly affecting me already, as it does everyone else who lives in the society.

What examples? How is affecting you? Because some silly gays are suggesting straights have a duty to see the stupid cowboy movie? The fact that the Village People exist? What examples?

I believe that gays should be able to pursue their own lives, but not at the expense of the vast majority of other people who have problems with that lifestyle -- be they moral, health-related, or whatever. I don't think that being gay should privilege someone over people who are not gay.

What moral, health, or other expenses are you paying because of gays?

I find this to be a very slippery slope indeed. If you insist on "gay" rights, what about other sexual rights? Should I be allowed to marry my sister? Or *two* of my sisters, so I can mix both in*c-est and polygamy together? Should I be allowed to marry a fourteen-year-old girl? Aren't these all just "lifestyle" choices? If not, why not? And if so, how do homosexuals rationalize their own circumstances apart from the others?

As Ace said, he doesn't believe in slipperly slope arguments, because once we start accepting slipperly slope arguments there's no telling what other kinds of arguments we'll accept.

But, seriously, I find this to be a false dichotomy. Society right now says only a man and woman (within certain restrictions) can marry. If society turned around and said only two adults (with the same restrictions) could marry, then it does not follow that the floodgates are open to everything.

Society has a right to ban things that harm it. In*cest is bad due to genetic defects and family disruption. You don't have to cite the Bible to justify that. Polygamy is bad because you wind up with situations where a small group of the population hogs all the (traditionally) women, which pisses off everyone else and causes strife. You don't need to cite the Bible on that (and indeed you'd be in trouble if you did; see Solomon). Children also are protected by society for obvious reasons. You can bicker about the exact ages and say that some people mature faster, etc., but in the interest of simplicity society picks an arbitrary age that seems right to most people and sets the limit there.

Homosexuals marrying doesn't hurt anyone directly (as opposed to hurting their religious sensibilities). It doesn't cause genetic problems, it only affects people that wouldn't be in straight marriages anyway, it doesn't victimize children, and so on. Saying that you're against people marrying underaged horses so you also oppose gay marriage doesn't follow.

I'm doing it again -- coming off as more strident than I mean to. I'm not saying that gay people are evil, or wrong, or sick in the head (as a rule, anyway). But I am trying to point out that increasingly homosexuals are asserting a "right" where none exists, and that chafes the very core of my conservative soul. If you wish to be gay, then more power to you; just understand and accept the consequences that accrue to that decision, that's all I'm saying. Don't insist that the rest of society conform to your own personal choice -- you knew what the game was when you decided to play.

What "right" are they assering? I'm not clear on that. What specifically are you being asked to "conform" to?

And why do you assume gays "wish" to be gay any more than straights "wish" to be straight?

Bob, just to be clear on my position in the genes/choice debate:

I don't buy the notion that genes determine anyone's sexuality, in the sense that there are "gay genes" and "straight genes." What they do is define the paramters within which your sexuality will be defined by a variety of factors, including foetal development and physical and social factors in the childhood environment. For most men, this includes things like whether or not they're attracted to fat chicks (just being flippant, ladies); for some, it will include to what extent they are sexually attracted to other men. While orientation might be malleable at an early stage, I suspect it tends to move fiarly quickly to a primarily gay or straight polarity.

I've talked with a number of gay men on the subject of realizing they were gay. Nobody's ever said, "This is when and why I decided to be gay," but other aspects of their stories vary widely. I'm not arguing against genetics and for choice; I'm arguing 1) against bad genetic pseudo-science; and 2) against the idea that a desire with a physical cause is morally unassailable. I'm not crazy about being prescriptive in areas we don't really understand (no offense to Dr. Symes, but I'm betting that in 20 years most of those studies of nmri scans and differences in the hippocampus will be regarded as glorified phrenology). In the nature/ nurture argument--debate sounds a little too dignified--both sides have been arguing with ulterior motives, and they've been pretty damn pushy about telling individual gays and straights how they really feel, not to mention how they ought to feel.

Scott, read that article I linked to above. They basically found regardless of professed sexuality, men showed either gay or straight arousal patterns. Men saying they were bisexual typically showed strictly gay arousal patterns.

It said "most", not all - to me that's incomplete at best. Do they have a perfect lock on how to measure "pleasure" using just neuro-chemicals or are the data gathering tools (and how to read them) themselves in a state of evolution as seems to be suggested by the wildly different views that surface in the nurture/nature debate? For example were the subjects given one question or a battery of them, and if the latter was any thought given to whether the responses to earlier stimuli might have compromised the responses to later ones? For another example, what about studies saying that 75% of all people will have had some kind of gay encounter by the time they are 18? How is that possible if everyone is hardwired from birth into one black/white preference?

Sorry but color me unconvinced.

That blank at 4:42p was me BTW; forgot to enter my damn name...

Utron,

Bob, just to be clear on my position in the genes/choice debate:

I don't buy the notion that genes determine anyone's sexuality, in the sense that there are "gay genes" and "straight genes." What they do is define the paramters within which your sexuality will be defined by a variety of factors, including foetal development and physical and social factors in the childhood environment. For most men, this includes things like whether or not they're attracted to fat chicks (just being flippant, ladies); for some, it will include to what extent they are sexually attracted to other men. While orientation might be malleable at an early stage, I suspect it tends to move fiarly quickly to a primarily gay or straight polarity.

The term "genes" has been used loosely here. I think the more important issue is whether this is a choice that is made or whether that's just how someone is, and whether if they are a certain way they can be flipped. I think the pertinent issue is as you've described above: This happens early, there is no choice involved, and it seems to be virtually impossible to have any effect on sexual orientation once it manifest itself. Probably our only disagreement is I get the impression I believe this happens earlier than you do (primarily a genetic influence combined with a womb environment). But no big deal.

I've talked with a number of gay men on the subject of realizing they were gay. Nobody's ever said, "This is when and why I decided to be gay," but other aspects of their stories vary widely. I'm not arguing against genetics and for choice; I'm arguing 1) against bad genetic pseudo-science; and 2) against the idea that a desire with a physical cause is morally unassailable.

As for #1, I think you attach more importance to specifics than I do. The evidence seems very clear that it is not a matter of choice, and that's the key to me. I don't mind if someone sloppily refers to that as it being "genetics" (and may have made that mistake myself a time or two). Obviously you do.

For #2, I have already agreed with this. A lot of "natural" tendencies are harmful, so I don't think that is sufficient. But once you start getting to the point where the situation is the person didn't choose to be this way and they're really not hurting anyone, then I start wondering why I should give a damn. Live and let live and all that.

I'm not crazy about being prescriptive in areas we don't really understand (no offense to Dr. Symes, but I'm betting that in 20 years most of those studies of nmri scans and differences in the hippocampus will be regarded as glorified phrenology). In the nature/ nurture argument--debate sounds a little too dignified--both sides have been arguing with ulterior motives, and they've been pretty damn pushy about telling individual gays and straights how they really feel, not to mention how they ought to feel.

Motives aside, one reason I believe we there should be tolerance toward homosexuals is that I believe many of the laws were based on the premise that it was not a choice. Given that that is looking like very shaky ground, I think we should reconsider a lot of these laws.

But I'm out of time...

this includes things like whether or not they're attracted to fat chicks (just being flippant, ladies)

I dig fat chicks - as long as they wear it all on their behinds...

It said "most", not all - to me that's incomplete at best. Do they have a perfect lock on how to measure "pleasure"...

Probably not. It's intriguing but just one study, and now you know where some of the claims are coming from.

or another example, what about studies saying that 75% of all people will have had some kind of gay encounter by the time they are 18? How is that possible if everyone is hardwired from birth into one black/white preference?

I think it's been established that those studies were faulty. I think that might be one that came from Kinsey, and most of his studies have been found to have serious problems (if for no other reason than they were based on people coming to his clinic, thereby skewing the results, sometimes dramatically). I also believe that it too broadly defined "homosexual experience".

For example, when I was 9 or 10 a friend the same age and I started hanging out with an older guy in his mid-teens. This guy was the leader of our group, due to his age. Part of his "leadership" was, if he decided we needed punishment, having us pull our pants down so he could whip our bare asses.

Is this a "homosexual experience"? According to some things I have read, and probably according to the surveys you mention, it would count as one. But from the point of view of my friend and me, it really wasn't. We were just submitting to a humiliating experience because we wanted to earn the favor of the cool older kid. At no point were we attracted sexually to him or any other male. Maybe this kid was gay, or maybe he was just enjoying embarrassing us, so I can't say if this was a homosexual experience for him, but it certainly wasn't for us. Hell, nothing was a sexual experience for us at that point (which changed dramatically a year or two later when puberty hit).

(In case anyone's concerned how the story ends, we eventually got tired of hanging out with the moron, even if he was older, and we went back to doing stuff that didn't involve getting whipped. No psychological damage was done.)

Regardless of whether you want to accept it or not, a lot of people were stuck in the mindset of "why would gay people choose this lifestyle". If they come to believe that it's not a choice, then a lot of them will start to reconsider some of their beliefs.

I do accept that alot of people felt that way, but that's covered beneath the sweeping penumbra of the MYOFB clause and should have been dealt with accordingly rather than abandoning the position altogether and falling back on the Quasimodo act, because "reconsideration" is only useful if the resulting new conceptions are more enlightened than the old - encouraging people to treat it as a freak growth or some such only changes the public attitude from ignorant belligerence to ignorant pity as such is not exactly an improvement in my book...

To follow up, I found this about Kinsey's numbers:

102 respondents, or 60% of all white males in the survey, claimed never to have had any same-sex contact. Of the 64 who responded to the question of "age of first homosexual contact" the range was from 8 to 42, with a mean of 18.06.

So he has "only" 40% of men having a homosexual experience ever. Kinsey's studies skewed homosexual (probably due to self-selection, as most homosexuals in that era saw it as a problem and sought help from people like Kinsey), which is why he came with a homosexuality rate about 3 times what broad-based population studies have consistently come up with since then, so no doubt this number is also inflated.

Aside from that my Google search didn't turn up any hard numbers (not that I spent a ton of time on this).

I do accept that alot of people felt that way, but that's covered beneath the sweeping penumbra of the MYOFB clause and should have been dealt with accordingly rather than abandoning the position altogether and falling back on the Quasimodo act, because "reconsideration" is only useful if the resulting new conceptions are more enlightened than the old - encouraging people to treat it as a freak growth or some such only changes the public attitude from ignorant belligerence to ignorant pity as such is not exactly an improvement in my book...

I don't think it was necessarily abandoning a position as much as sidestepping an issue. If the fact that it was a "choice" to some people was a hangup for them, and if those people decide it is not a choice and that advances them toward more tolerance, then just accept it, I say.

I have had the homosexuality debate with a lot of people, and a lot of them, especially older ones, think it's a choice and see it almost as gays thumbing their nose at society, so they almost feel compelled to thumb their noses right back by digging in and refusing to "give gays any special rights".

I have convinced some of these people (with evidence) that it is not a choice, and that makes a big difference in a many cases. Then they kind of relax and often then starting seeing it as not a big of a deal after all and start rethinking their positions.

I guess instead I should have just screamed at them, "Choice or not, MYOFB, you bigot!" That would have advanced the issue much better, I'm sure.

And, no, I don't agree that this turns it into pity or an affliction. I kind of flippantly made the left-handed comparison, but I think it might be apt. If people really believed that left-handed people chose to be that way, they might actually find it pretty annoying. The attitude would be, "Look, we've set up everything in this world for right-handed people, so why do you have to stubbornly be such a pain in the ass by choosing to be left-handed? We're sick of your smeery writing, you put your mouse of the wrong side of the keyboard, you are too good to use the same scissors as we do, and for what?"

Instead it's accepted that some people just are left-handed, and it's no big deal. Most people are right-handed, so things that have a "handedness" get set up for them, so there is a bit of inconvenience, but there's no pity. (Well, maybe a little with the way they get ink all over their hands if writing with a slow-drying pen. )

I hope PLV is still lurking around here. This thread could be very helpful to him.

I was going to post a long-winded response to Monty's arguments, but Bob beat me to most of my points. But, at least he did leave me one of them to argue. :)

And that is this: What Monty calls the "Commons" (which, if I understand him correctly, refers to the nation's collective social/cultural consciousness) is an ever-evolving entity. One of the implications of this is that things tend to become less controversial as time goes by and people get used to them. Monty cited pornography as another unwelcome presence in the Commons. Well, guess what? There are any number of other things in the same Commons now that we take for granted, that once upon a time were just as unwelcome, if not more so. Women's suffrage. Rock & roll music. Legalized gambling (in 48 of 50 states). The list goes on and on. Some people may not have liked these developments at first, but (a) such resistance almost invariably diminishes over time as people get used to them, and (b) none of these things has scuttled the Union or led to social anarchy, despite what their critics once feared. I see no reason why the same wouldn't be true of homosexuality (or for that matter porn) in the mainstream. That's nothing more than cultural evolution at work.

That's nothing more than cultural evolution at work.

The benign natures of many modern social trends have not yet been verified. Few conservatives are very pleased with what they perceive as pernicious social decay. But more to the point, it is questionable as to whether children, who are certainly a significant factor in the Commons, should experience these 'cultural evolutions.'

Legalized gambling (in 48 of 50 states).

Errr, isn't this where gambling is present? And isn't it usually present because of the indian-reservation workaround? It is not legal in the states, but on the federally reserved portions of land that have been ceded to the Indian tribes.

The reason that this is an important distinction is that a lot of things that some would have you believe are becoming non-controversial through acceptance did not really go through a public vetting at all, but "snuck in" through the [ahem] back door.

It is a little disingenuous to use phenomenon that was forced on the commons, or the public, by default as examples of things that are accepted. The way that a lot of this "acceptance" comes from a judicial fiat being put into effect, and then the polis having no means of ridding themselves of whatever it is.

There are a host of examples with this, and gambling is one of them. If you live in Washington State, as I do, you are confronted with Casinos and p0ker halls every time that you turn around. They get the prime locations because the tribes can prove that at one time, Indians occupied and benefitted from that piece of land. If you know NY, a lot of these locations are analogous to putting a casino on Lexington and 88th. Washington St. seems to have accepted this incursion, but I wouldn't call it acceptance. I would say that there is an uneasy peace, but there really is no recourse or outlet available for anyone who wants to fight against the machine. There is much less peace and it is much more uneasy in other states.

I see similar scenes happening everywhere, including the "acceptance" of various symbols being verboten.

That last was mine.

DDG - you said:

The best argument that I've heard in support of this is simply that gay sex (m or f) has no societal consequences, like children. There is simply no product of the union.

The societal consequences are huge. This doesn't mean homosexuality should be outlawed or its practitioners punished, but I'm a whole lot more comfortable in discussions that don't pretend it's a consequence-free lifestyle.

Aside from that, however, Slublog expresses doubt that gays are more promiscuous than straight men. I don't have any personal data to argue that, but my brother, who's gay, tells some pretty sordid stories, all of which would dispute the point.

Among them, the fact that there are parts of his home town (a large midwestern city) that have doctors who could almost always tell him, within two or three degrees, the name of the person who'd introduced the "community" to whatever nasty infection he was there to get cured of.

Quite the rational fellow, my brother says he's now celibate (though understandably not at all happy about it), just because he's tired of running the risk of getting a disease named after him.

Seeing all of that, and raising the periodic eyebrow while being told that "it's all good!" isn't a reaction I'm willing to be Stepford Wifed out of.

Patton The societal consequences are huge.

It is a little odd to ignore the obvious societal consequences, just as it is odd to ignore the consequences of other items that populate liberal agendas.

Without being comprehensive, I think that you can fairly say that there are disturbing consequences to abortion (lower birth rates), homosexuality as a life style (disease proliferation), and gambling (higher crime rates, poor tax) without criticizing the individuals who undertake these actions. And I think that it is completely fair to talk about these issues qua society without having to give the constant mea culpa to the individuals that follow these paths.

This is not about suppressing an individual's right to do x at all, or oppressing an individual.

Bob: "If two gay people meet and form a monogamous relationship, then how are you personally affected by that?

I'm not, Bob. If two guys want to suck and fuck each other, it has no impact on my life. It does, however, affect me when the gay community pressures school-boards to use textbooks that include the gay lifestyle.

DDG:

I thought I'd post a response here that you probably won't even see, since the thread's so old, but just in case you do happen to see it, I agree completely with your statement

"This is not about suppressing an individual's right to do x at all, or oppressing an individual."