Human Sexuality: Momus Claims Inborn Orientation?

Am I reading you correctly? Because I would entirely disagree.

i do not think that sexual desire and taste are inborn , orenation might be though .

I just posted on this on the Firbanks thread.

good for you

Yeah, Sterling, the point I wanted to make here is essentially the one you made over there: that the idea of sexuality as inborn held immense political currency at its peak in the early 90s or so. It was massively compelling to politically moderate middle Americans who weren't overly bothered by homosexuality but wanted some sort of moral clarification for it, insofar as it argued that homosexuals weren't "deviant" -- i.e. didn't choose to behave differently, or didn't have widely different social histories that made them homosexual -- it was "not their fault" and they were "just like you, only gay." I think it was also massively comforting to homosexuals in the same position, those who had been homosexually oriented since their earliest memories and recognized that this wasn't something they could elect to change, but struggled to reconcile that with e.g. their religious beliefs.

But while this tactic may have been short-term useful in getting people to stop villifying homosexuals, it was (a) sort of spuriously constructed, and (b) basically a way of circumventing the central question, which was and still is: why should we see anything "wrong" with same-sex desire? Its answer was a sort of unfounded "Well who cares, it's inborn and you can't do anything about it anyway." But that argument (a) doesn't correspond very well to reality, and (b) even politically speaking leaves a whole spectrum of queer sexualities (basically anything other than cute same-sex couples in patterns identical to Judeo-Christian hetereosexual dating and marriage) out in the cold.

The other problem is that this inborn thins encourged a victims discourse, in both whe why would anyone want to be queer and the we are poor lonely faggotse sense. I like the idea of hoosing , of homosex being an aesthic or cultural reasons . There is something powerful in being sexaul- In fact there is a movement to enouarge this kind of hoie, best exmplifed by sites like this> or the George Orwell article in last weekens Gaurian or the Tom and Viv artile in the new yourk review of books

― anthony, Friday, 24 May 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

did that close the link ?

>>I like the idea of hoosing

it does sound like fun...

choosen

(Also a "homosexual not by nature but not by conscious or rational choice*" model violates this stupid anti-sociological thing we do in the U.S. where everyone wants to pretend that we have absolute freedom and anything that happens to people is either "their choice" or "not their fault." American political rhetoric is like really really bad at comprehending that people's inclinations and even their apparent "choices" are usually hugely shaped by culture and circumstance -- the only time this thought even gets introduced to discourse is with regard to crime, where it's probably most vexing and often least helpful.)

* I assume this to be the case for really the majority of homosexuals.

I hate to say this , but I will. Ambuguity is not something that Americans are usually v. good at.

On the contrary. Look at the present BushCo government and its various public statements compared with resultant actions. Not so much hypocritical as perfectly unable to be pinned down.

I very carefully *didn't* say that people are born with a sexual orientation. The scientific jury is still out on the question of the 'gay gene'. Nobody knows.

What I *did* say was that the people who are against such an idea tend to be right wing Christians like the folks behind the Narth site , because they can then point to all sex education or gay tolerance activism and say that it's part of a crusade to convert kids to a 'lifestyle option'. And they can (as Narth does) say that 'therapy' (for individuals) and silence (in public speech) are suitable responses to homosexuality.

Clearly you can say that an idea is unproven, but point to the fact that the people who resist it are extremely unpleasant and illiberal. Unproven theories have a political significance even before they're proved or disproved, because so much rides on them.

I also take the points raised on this thread, that the genetic disposition argument is not the only defence of homosexuality, and may even be a rather lame one. Ideally, we wouldn't need to be justifying homosexuality at all, by whatever argument. But in a puritan culture like the US, where more people are reading John Grisham than Ronald Firbank, it still seems to be necessary.

But in a puritan culture like the US, where more people are reading John Grisham than Ronald Firbank, it still seems to be necessary.

Momus, are you saying that Grisham novels lead to closed-mindedness? Wrong, but an interesting theory;>

Assuming that this is the 21st century we live in, it's too scary that homosexuality is still being seen by some as a "disorder" that needs fixing. With all the problems that the world currently has, who a man/woman is with in their bedroom (or wherever) hardly matters.

However, I think the problem is, for the NARTH lot, that they can't find a pat answer to explain why some are gay, and others aren't. (Therefore, it must be wrong.) They are only expressing the opinion for (most likely) hundreds of others.

[However, I did get a laugh from their "left-handedness connected to Lesbianism" theory. Where to put us "lefties" who like men;>?]

Here's an interesting question (which my cousin got on her exam): How do you explain the evolutionary paradox that homosexuality is stil prevalent?

On the subject of gay genes I've got some ace flared Lee Coopers, but if I wear them in certain pubs I get looked at funny.

Reason momus-ish liberals accuse science of being politically biased -- it's what THEY would do!

nath: many gay parents have several children before they come out... this may change as it becomes more and more acceptable to be 'out' and people embrace gay lifestyles earlier in their lives. but my point is that homosexual does not equal non-breeder. also i would speculate that homosexuality is more prevalent in the sections of society where there is less overall breeding going on anyhow - namely the middle/upper classes

"Here's an interesting question (which my cousin got on her exam): How do you explain the evolutionary paradox that homosexuality is stil prevalent?"

Not that interesting once you stop to think about it (ie. it's a no- brainer), even if you accept the notion that homosexuality is genetic.

I've yet to come up with any intelligent advocate for any position on this issue that didn't allow for a *combination* (almost dialectical) of nature and nurture