Talk:Homosexuality/Archive 3

Choice
Patrick wrote:


 * People who condemn homosexuality seem to believe that one chooses to be gay, to believe that such a choice is a moral choice, and to believe that it is a blameful choice.

I spent 20 minutes googling to find even ONE reference to a Christian or psychologist claiming that homosexuals "choose to be gay". I couldn't find any. It looks like a straw man argument. As in:


 * How about references to things like, "They convinced my kid to turn gay!" P0M 19:30, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * They say we choose to be gay and that therefore blah, blah, blah; but the truth of the matter is that we didn't choose; so none of that BLAH stuff holds water.

Perhaps this is why the sexual identity issue is so important, and also why Wikipedians keep insisting on distingushing between "homosexuality" (the attraction, the romance -- anything but the behavior) and "homosexual behavior".

But an encyclopedia article should not exist for the purpose of helping one side win a debate. It should be accurate and neutral.

I think we can all agree that desire and behavior are distinct. Related, of course, but distinct.
 * "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride."
 * "I want to be the president."
 * "I hope you choke."
 * "I oughta wring your neck."
 * "I'd like to get into her pants."

All of the wishes expressed above are ordinarily considered distinct from the acts they mention. Wishing to be the president does not make the Secret Service give me access to the Oval Office and the nuclear football. Wishing that someone will die does not cause him to die (unless you have magic powers!) Expressing hostile feelings for someone is not identical to killing him; and usually, is not even considered a "threat" (but check with your lawyer before e-mailing Bush or Kerry!). Wanting to have sex with someone is not the same as actually doing so. --Uncle Ed 13:14, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying you've never heard the argument that homosexuality is a choice??? If it's not explicit it's quite often implicitly at the root of arguments against homosexuality/same-sex marriage, etc, etc.  Exploding Boy 13:46, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I could not find anyone who made the argument that homosexuals "choose to be gay" -- only those who "knock it down". It all hinges on what it means to "be gay".

My church asserts that every human action is a matter of choice. It evaluates some of these matters of choice as being more important than others: no one cares whether you select chocolate or vanilla ice cream. We do care whether a married man remains faithful or cheats on his wife (just to pick a dramatic case).

One of the essential elements in many religions, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the faculty of choice or will. Fasting, a practice common to all 3 of these religions, has as its one of its purposes the aim of strengthening one's will. One denies (temporarily) his desire to consume food, enduring the feeling of hunger -- not because eating is good or bad in itself, but because praticing self-denial in such a matter increases one's ability to make wise choices in other matters. --Uncle Ed 14:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've not been a part of this discussion really so I'm not sure what's really going on (though your post seems a little contradictory). I'm going to leave it at that for a while. Exploding Boy 14:18, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you meant that my post contradicts what others have posted, I agree! :-) Anyway, you inspired me to do some more on-line searching and I created Homosexuality is a choice. It's no longer a stub, so please don't delete it. Come and help make it better, please!! --Uncle Ed 15:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] The article title you have created prejudges the issue. "Is homosexuality a choice?" would be less problematical.

[P0M:] Back to the earlier discussion, there is, of course, the problem of definition that is seen in many other contexts, e.g., Jones kills Smith (for whatever reason). Under one definition, Jones is a killer. Under another definition, Jones is a sheriff who killed Smith in the line of duty. Usually, when people are assigning blame or accusing someone of having committed a sin, the question of desire and intent is in the forefront. We are not afraid of great uncle Willie who shot thirteen men in the Korean War. We are afraid of the thug who tried to kill the candy store proprietor and missed. Actually, in both cases the prudent person would want to know the motivation for the act. Maybe great uncle Willie is a psychopath who really got off on killing every Chinese and Korean he ever killed.

[P0M:] Most people are concerned about homosexual behavior because they don't understand it and feel threatened by it. The same people probably do not get upset by the idea of people eating cheeseburgers, even if, like myself, they hate cheeseburgers. They may not even get upset about people killing dolphins, whales, chimpanzees, etc. So having an objective understanding of the phenomenon may help some people behave in a rational rather than a fearful or hateful manner. (I suspect that there is a significant reason why St. Augustine counseled us to hate the sin but not the sinner, and why the placards say, "God hates faggots!" and not "God hates faggotry!")

[P0M:] I said earlier:
 * [P0M:]The issue of People who condemn homosexuality seem to believe that one chooses to be gay, to believe that such a choice is a moral choice, and to believe that it is a blameful choice.

[P0M:] I said that because one cannot be blamed for involuntary acts or desires, yet people are regularly assailed for "being homosexual" (or less kindly words to that effect) in the absence of any evidence of sexual behavior. One of my acquaitances is a Christian minister, married, and with children. He is strikingly handsome -- and deaf in one ear because he was beaten by somebody who didn't know anything else about him for "being gay." Was that assault premised on "what he did" or on "what he was?" I somehow doubt that realization on the part of his assailants that they had no specific information on when and how he chose to manifest his alleged "gayness" would have stayed their hands.

[P0M:] What somebody characteristically does may become my business if that person sticks something in my face or assaults one of my friends, but it is not my business what somebody else desires to do, nor is it my business what other people choose freely to do among themselves. It may be God's business, but he is big enough not to need my help as his "enforcer."

[P0M:] If real behavior occurs that affects the community, then the community may decide to intervene. The community can make laws, and it can inflict lesser social penalties. But in a just society the community will inform itself on what is really going on -- the motives, the actions, the consequences all are relevant.

[P0M:] Does society have any right to say to a person that he or she must form love relationships only with people of the opposite sex? God can do that, I guess. That certainly is what some people claim God has done. But, on their own, do I and the members of my community have any right (other than "might makes right") to tell an individual that s/he may not, e.g., make brick ovens with the cross-section of a heptagram?

[P0M:] Society does have a right to insist that people not eat the brains of cattle, I think, and the reason is not that members of the society find the practice repugnant, but that they realize that harm may come to people who do so, that disease may spread to other members of the community, and that the community as a whole will have to expend resources to clean up the consequences. But in such cases there must be a clear finding of harm to the individual and harm to the community.

[P0M:] Lest you think that I am a complete liberal nut case, let me also point out that there is a fundamental ethical quandry involved in all that I have just said. It is one thing to say that two people were born gay and that society has no call to interfere with their expressions of love for each other. It is not so easy to say that because someone is born without the normal affection that humans feel for each other, and instead is born with an intense antipathy toward all humans, he or she should therefore be free to injure or kill other humans. Even if God knitted him or her in the womb into just such a form, other people still have a right to protect themselves against this quasi-human individual.

[P0M:] In sum, I think Ed Poor may be right in saying that few if any people will openly state as a premise that some people are born straight and make a decision to act gay. I think that it is also unlikely that many people will openly state that some people are born gay but ought to be cut off from any possibility of finding happiness by making actual the potentials for love and erotic interaction that are innately present to them. Either way, it becomes difficult to maintain a rationalization for antipathy toward gay people.

[P0M:] If we look at the way people behave, it seems to me that some people feel great repugnance toward homosexual activity and wish to categorize it as a sin, an abomination, or at least a psychological abnormality. They typically are not mollified if they receive assurances that no actual behavior has occurred. It is a classic case of "ignorance and fear." Another large group of people looks at the emotions that are displayed between gay people, hears about the various kinds of sexual behavior that gay people engage in, and they are genuinely baffled. They cannot understand why other people can behave in a way that seems very much to go against the grain with them. Then they hear accusations of some gay person having "subverted the morals" of a presumably straight person, and they are moved by the fear that rationalization and conditioning may "make a person turn gay". This, too, is a case of "ignorance and fear" or perhaps just "ignorance and trepidation."

[P0M:] I believe that it is very useful to those people who would like to make objective decision regarding social policy if they can avail themselves of reliable information regarding how people come to form a lifelong preference for either heterosexual or homosexual activity, or form a preference for avoiding all erotic interaction, or have no preference... If we start out examining these questions as though they were all rationalizations in the service of some devious and immoral plot, then I think we will not make good progress. P0M 19:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Spoken in the true Wikipedian spirit. (Can I nominate a talk page comment for brilliant prose? --Uncle Ed 20:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words. P0M 03:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[Ed:] Uranographer's literary deconstruction of the usage of "sexual orientation" misses the point.

[Ed:] The terms sexual preference and sexual orientation have 2 different meanings. Until recently they were each discussed in separate articles; then, someone merged the two articles. The reason for having distinct terms is to express variations, subtle or otherwise, between concepts. "Preference" connotes conscious, mutable desire. I prefer pizza tonight. Tomorrow I might prefer lobster. I might even decide to develop a taste for caviar. "Orientation" connotes inherent, immutable desire.


 * [U:] So, because there were once two separate articles in this venue the terms necessarily express different concepts? I do not see this distinction as clearly as you apparently do.  I have no doubt that these words "preference" and "orientation" have these connotations to you, but I beg to differ.  I have looked in several dictionaries and have yet to find any definition that suggests there is anything "immutable" about "orientation".  In fact, "reorientation" is a word of it's own.  Can you explain how something that is "immutable" can be changed?  Doubtlessly you will reject this as "deconstruction", but I ask you to  provide an authoritative reference that substatiates these connotations which you claim to be universal.

[Ed:] Gay rights activists use the term sexual orientation as part of their campaign to convince people that gay sex results from an immutable desire, one which is just as valid and precious and worthy as heterosexual desire.


 * [U:] Are you suggesting that the term "sexual orientation", which is in such widespread use, is all the result of a conspiracy of gay activists? If not, then are all the sources I cited above just fundamentally misguided, and it is somehow incumbent upon "us", or more specifically, you, to guide them to the truth?

[Ed:] The Wikipedia should be accurate, and I'm sure no one in this part of the discussion wants inaccuracy. But it should also be neutral, which means that the article must not endorse the point of view that homosexual desires are inherent or immutable. That POV might be common, it might even be the majority view of Wikipedians (or even of the Western English-speaking world), but it is not a fact. It's just someone's opinion.


 * [U:] Fine, the article should not endorse the point of view that sexuality is "immutable". I don't think it does.  The only argument you have provided to the contrary comes from your statement "orientation connotes inherent, immutable desire" which you have not supported.  Have you even consulted a dictionary on the meaning of "orientation"?  I agree that "preference" implies there is a distinct if not capricious choice.  I also contend that the term "sexual preference" endorses the "POV" that homosexual behavior is such a choice, and this also is not a fact.  I venture to say that this is the reason that the term has largely been deprecated in favor of the more neutral sexual orientation, and if gay activists had any part in it, it is because of its neutrality.

[Ed:] Let's not play the "deconstruction game". It's amusing, but ultimately distracting. Let's return to our core values. Let's write all the homosexuality-related articles at Wikipedia from the Neutral Point of View.


 * [U:] I am not deconstructing; I am in search of precise, explicit definitions rather than vague notions of meaning. That is the very definition of "definitive".  Is this not one of "our core values"?  I think that the only distraction here is your use of this gay activist conspiricy theory to distract from an objective, scientific, neutral, and unbiased exposition of the subject of homosexuality.


 * [U:] I do not endorse the notion that homosexuality is innate, and I would oppose Wikipedia's endorement of this position. At the same time I oppose the use of Wikipedia to promulgate tan opinion that sexual orientation is merely "a choice"--and this I think is a reasonably accurate summary of your recent edits.Uranographer 13:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If we commit to doing this, than we can neither endorse nor condemn the POV that homosexuality is innate, inherent or immutable. --Uncle Ed 12:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a reminder to everyone to sign their posts by placing four tildas ( ~ ) after your comments. Exploding Boy 13:47, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * I placed "Ed" and "U" labels as requested. --Uncle Ed 13:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * [P0M] Thanks, Ed. Some of the earlier postings are hard to follow because it's hard to tell who is talking to whom.

[P0M:] Homosexuality is a phenomenon that arouses strong feelings on the part of many people. It would be most helpful if we could summarize in objective language what has been learned about the subject thusfar. It might also be helpful to survey the wide range of theoretical positions that have been taken on this subject. For instance, some people believe that the selection of sexual objects that one grows up to seek avidly is entirely a matter of social learning. Some people believe that the selection of sexual objects that one normally grows up to seek avidly is a matter of chromosomal sex, and that if an XX person choses XX people as sexual objects then something must have gone wrong somewhere. These are beliefs or "points of view", and many people hold very strong beliefs on these subjects without the benefit of much evidence. One of the interesting things that can be seen by following the life work of John Money is that he started out (on the basis of many case studies) with the belief that one's identity, as regards "who one is" sexually, was entirely a matter of social conditioning. He had in mind the cases of many people who were chromosomally of one sex but whose external genitalia had convinced parents and community that they belonged to the other sex. It seemed to make no difference to be beautiful young woman, for instance, that she was chromosomally XY. But later on in his career he adopted a much more nuanced view -- again being driven to his conclusions by clinical experience.

[P0M:] There are a fairly large number of factors implicated in the development of an individual's sexuality. The trouble is that in some cases it may be difficult to tell the relative importance of the several factors.

[P0M:] There is clear evidence to show that some genetic features have a bearing on the sexuality of some individuals. If a certain genetic abnormality causes a condition called androgen insensitivity, then the body of an XY individual with this genetic abnormality will develop as a female because the body cannot be masculinized (and a female body is the "default" configuration).

[P0M:] There is clear evidence to show that some environmental factors in the womb can cause masculinization of an XX individual. Some women who are bearing XX fetuses are also suffering from a cancer of the cells that produce the relatively small amount of testosterone present in all normal women, so these mother-to-be have abnormally high testosterone levels in their blood and the hormone is transfered to the XX embryo -- which becomes masculinized. A similar kind of thing happens fairly frequently in normal cows that carry one male and one female embryo. The resultant heifer can become a freemartin, and will grow up to try to mount cows.

[P0M:] What happens after birth is harder to trace out, but cross-cultural studies indicate that what is normal and ordinary in one society is not necessarily normal and ordinary in some other society. Most people seem to me to be clearly concerned by the idea that learning will "queer" a person, and some people believe that it is possible to teach a person how to establish a pattern of heterosexual behavior. What seems fairly clear is that the older the individual concerned the less likely it becomes that there will be a fundamental change. The most common "late term" changes seem to occur in people who have been repressing their strongest sexual impulses and either sublimating them or satisfying themselves with sexual interactions with people who are socially approved but personally less attractive. (I am thinking of the individuals who live a heterosexual life until their children go off to college and then abandon their previous heterosexual lifestyle.) As far as I know, it is very rare for an ndividual who has had a strong heterosexual identity to suddenly change in mid life.

[P0M:] None of the motivations described or implied above seem to me to be matters of morality, but frequently people seem to me to blame others for having the "wrong" sexual desires. To me, the issue of morality relates to the question of how one acts out one's motivations in the social world. There is nothing either moral or immoral about liking to eat apples. The moral issues come at the point where I have to decide whether to steal my neighbor's apples, where I have to choose whether to share my apples with my starving mother, etc.

[P0M:] Biology teachers tell me that humans all have an inbuilt bias toward fats and sugars, the reason being that in the hundreds of thousands of years of evolution that occured before humans became civilized and well fed it was important to their survival that they gobbled up all the high calory stuff they could find. It might make them fat for the summer, but they would need the fat to get through the winter. Humans also have favorite flavors of foods. Some people like wintergreen candy. I will eat it if nothing else is available, but I would rather have just about any other kind of candy. My mother loved the smell of ether that wafted through the halls of every hospital in the 50s. I rank the smell only slightly above the odor of skunk. I suppose that a group of people might adopt a convention according to which the first class of motivtions would be called an "orientation," and the second would be called a "preference," but I don't think our society has narrowed the definition of either word to that degree.

[P0M:] The really interesting question to me is whether one can influence one's own preferences. That seems to happen in some cases. I hated beer until one summer vacation on a small, hot island in the Pacific. But I haven't been able to get myself to like vegetables like brussels sprouts, brocolli, cabage, etc. -- all things that are supposed to be very good for one's health but which taste bitter and unpleasant to me. I've read that some humans have taste buds that react more strongly to the bitter qualities of those vegetables, and I seem to be one of them. I might develop a taste for Tibetan music, but I think I could never learn to like Garrison Keillor. My interpersonal relations would be very much richer if I could get myself to be attracted to a larger set of objects of amour. But I think that I share with most people the lack of much flexibility in this area. About the most I can do is to make stronger attempts to uncover the "real person."

[P0M:] Maybe attitudes toward prion would make a good case study. I can remember when the theory first came out. The scientist who argued for a cause of certain diseases that was not a living organism and not a virus was strongly reviled by the authorities of the day. Eventually, however, the evidence became so overpowering that the discoverer of prion won the Nobel Prize. Now, I recently learned, there are still people who believe that there must be a virus causing the changes in the proteins whose altered forms characterize that class of diseases. None of these three groups of players merely has a "point of view." They all have evidence, or search for evidence, to help them understand what is really going on. Science frequently is unsettled, but it would be demeaning to say of any of these scientists that they merely had a "point of view." But it would also be very risky to affirm that any of them was being entirely objective. It is impossible to prove a negative so somebody might always claim that there is a virus behind prion and people just haven't found it yet. But at least more and more stringent attempts can be made to eliminate places where viruses might hide. It is possible that somebody will discover a virus that can be cultivated in a prion-free environment, introduced into a living culture, and be seen to produce a prion-type disease. If we were writing an article on prion it seems to me that the responsible thing to do would be to present the evidence and the attitudes toward the evidence. It would be irresponsible to balance the suspicion that there might be a virus involved evenly with the strong evidence that prion is itself the cause of disease. The same kinds of standards should apply to the tenets of Aetherism, Flat Earthism, any pseudo-science, or any science.

Patrick, thank you for that 1500-word essay! It provides the sort of broader perspective which we all need, to be able to write articles which are really informative. --Uncle Ed 13:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Again, thanks for the kind words. I hope the article can reflect the several layers of causation that interact to grow the sexuality of each of us. P0M 19:29, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)