Homosexuality: Tolerance & Genetics

[Aleksandr]

Re: And Anne McCaffrey and Robin Hobb have written them. No other straight author I know of has except Robert Silverberg.

Also Mercedes Lackey, Tanith Lee, and Marion Zimmer Bradley.


Re: It's not "more wrong" in any way, it's just different somehow

Well, Spanish is different from English and Catholicism is different from Protestantism. I don't think we need to suppress knowledge of differences. Where the problem comes in is if we equate "different" to "wicked".

Note: I'm also gay. I never really gave much thought to whether the Land *should* have gay characters. One thing that did interest me about the Land early on (I read the first four books when I was 13) was its almost complete sexual equality. Except among the Haruchai men and women are quite interchangeable in the Land. That even carries through down to the time of the Clave where we meet a female Graveler and female Riders. And it's so natural that no one in the story ever comments on it.

[Starkin]

I never really gave much thought to whether the Land *should* have gay characters.

As a gay person, I would just like to see gay people represented. That's all. I look at it this way: no matter what world or dimension or universe human beings are living in, you're going to have gay people. At least 10% of the population!

Should a gay character be made "special"? To be talked about over and over and studied ad nauseum? No, of course not. They should just be prepresented in some capacity. After all, don't we all want to see ourselves in a story?

[emotional leper]

About 10% of the population. Does that include only homosexuals or does that also include bisexuals?

[Starkin]

About 10% of the population. Does that include only homosexuals or does that also include bisexuals?

The 10% thing is approximate. Here's a link to Wikipedia regarding the Kinsey Reports. It can explain it better than I could.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_report

[variol son]

It includes everyone who does not identify as heterosexual, as far as I'm aware.

One thing Malick, can you please stop lumping all gay men in the drag queens who hit on straight guys category? I'm sure there are many out there, but I'm not one and neither are any of the gay guys I know.

[Starkin]

One thing Malick, can you please stop lumping all gay men in the drag queens who hit on straight guys category? I'm sure there are many out there, but I'm not one and neither are any of the gay guys I know.

Yeah. You'd never catch me in drag. Although I am a big fan of RuPaul.

[emotional leper]

Starkin, I'm aware of the Kinsey Scale. However, does that 10% mean everyone who rates 1 or higher?

[Edit] NM. 3 or Higher it seems.

[sgt.null]

Actually, deliverance was set in LA, and what they were doing to poor Ned was homosexual in nature, so it doesnt support the meme that Southerners are homophobes...

well, i hate to disagree here. but in the culture, the person who acts as the male during the rape is not gay. as long as they remain dominant in the sex. the prison culture runs on this thinking.

[emotional leper]

Actually, deliverance was set in LA, and what they were doing to poor Ned was homosexual in nature, so it doesnt support the meme that Southerners are homophobes...

well, i hate to disagree here. but in the culture, the person who acts as the male during the rape is not gay. as long as they remain dominant in the sex. the prison culture runs on this thinking.

Just because a thought is held by a group of people does not make it true.

Having sexual relations with a member of the same sex, by definition is not heterosexual. Not strictly homosexual, possibly bisexual, if one engages in sexual activity with members of both sexes, but you're not heterosexual. Cognitive Dissonance is a wonderful thing.

[Charles Timewaster]

CT wrote:

And if this sort of disgust is genetic, why do attitudes vary so much? Shouldn't we see the same level of homophobia in San Francisco as we see in Backlash, Alabama? I've got to believe that the difference is cultural, not genetic.

Um, excuse me -- I am from Alabama, are you stereotyping people from Alabama as being Homophobes? It certainly seems so -- If so, I really don't appreciate it.

No, I'm talking about societies-as-a-whole, not individual people.

I think it makes sense to say things like, "San Francisco is one of the most gay-friendly parts of the country"...obviously there are homophobic people and even organizations there, but based on things like election results, wouldn't you say that the city-as-a-whole could be described as relatively gay-friendly?

(Obviously it's wrong to stereotype individuals based on that. It's rude to say, "Oh, you're from San Francisco! You must be a decent human being!" Get to know the person first, and <i>then</i> decide whether or not he's decent!)

And I think you'll have to agree that much of rural Alabama is plagued with homophobia (again, based on things like election results)...it's not nearly as bad as Iran or Saudi Arabia, but it's still pretty disgraceful. So I was using "Backlash, Alabama" to conjure up the image of a random homophobic small town without singling out any real town.)

All that said...I see that I've offended people, which distracted from the point I was trying to make. That's my fault as a writer, so I'm going to withdraw that analogy and apologize.

Here's a rephrased version: "Homophobia was common in Nazi Germany, but homosexuals are much more accepted in Germany today. If there was a 'homophobia gene', how did it vanish so quickly? Isn't it more likely that the change was cultural rather than genetic?"

What you guys are doing is telling me that I shouldn't have this opinion--not merely that the opinion is wrong. Not only are you saying that my personal preference is incorrect (which you have no right to dictate), but you're saying that this opinion comes from living a "sheltered life."

Well, I think they've got a point. I mean, this started out as a nice silly thread about what might have happened if Covenant had been gay. And all of a sudden you barged in and announced that you don't want to read any books with gay characters and that you'll never rent "Brokeback Mountain"and so on and so forth.

I mean, it's one thing to be privately disgusted by gay people. It's another thing to blurt it out on a message board that's frequented by gay and gay-friendly people and then stand slack-jawed in amazement when they get insulted. Were you trying to accomplish something, or is this something else that you're "biologically programmed" to do?

[burgs]

What you guys are doing is telling me that I shouldn't have this opinion--not merely that the opinion is wrong. Not only are you saying that my personal preference is incorrect (which you have no right to dictate), but you're saying that this opinion comes from living a "sheltered life." Your refusal to accept a biological explanation for my reaction is the exact argument technique that homophobes have used throughout history.

It's difficult to respond to this, because I'm not sure which opinion we're discussing. Are we discussing that you don't want to read books with gay characters, that you don't want to get hit on by a gay man or be complimented if one finds you attractive, that you think homosexual sex is repulsive (man on man...to make further use of a stereotype I'll assume that watching two man have sex is OK), or something else that hasn't been mentioned?

As far as I'm concerned, you can believe anything you want. But other people can believe what they want, and if they think that you're wrong, they're just as entitled to that opinion as you are to yours. And if they want to call you a homophobic bigot, you don't need to immediately attack them or their beliefs by lashing out at the "PC" movement.

This so-called PC movement has been going on for quite a while. I personally think it's called social progress. For example: blacks can vote; women can vote; blacks and whites can marry; people are more understanding and sympathetic toward those with disabilities; people are more sympathetic and understand in general; fewer dogs are "outside" dogs, left to sit at the end of a chain, or huddle in their doghouse; animals are being treated more humanely - etc.

Sometimes it feels like the PC movement is more trouble than it's worth (I mean, social progress) - but that's usually only to those who currently hold all the power: white heterosexual males. In general.[/i]

[SoulBiter]

Maybe its normal and maybe its biological. But if it is, then I would be willing to theorize that homosexuality is natures way of controlling the population. As the population gets larger maybe a higher percentage of people are born homosexual. Only time will really tell if that is true.

However.... regardless of that. My upbringing has taught me to be homophobic. Call it a character flaw but thats just how it is with me. Im OK with that. But it does get on my nerves that there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider (wrong? best word I can come up with) a social norm. I dont like it that the Boy Scouts are being attacked because of their stand on this issue. I also dont like that homosexuality is being thrown in my face from the media more and more.

I also think its almost a fad in some areas. I notice some of my daughters guy friends in high school. First they are Gay, then they arent, then they are, then they arent.

Yep.. got me rambling up here on my soapbox again. sorry.

[burgs]

However.... regardless of that. My upbringing has taught me to be homophobic. Call it a character flaw but thats just how it is with me. Im OK with that. But it does get on my nerves that there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider (wrong? best word I can come up with) a social norm.

Although I disagree with your belief, it's yours, and you're entitled to it. But I have to ask... What if you had been adopted by Rosie O'Donnell and her partner? You probably wouldn't be homophobic. If you can specifically point to your upbringing as to why you're homophobic, then could you take a step further and think that might not have been a good thing?

It's fine to be "phobic" of some things (gangs, rapists, thieves, murderers, very large cats with menacing teeth), but to be phobic of a person or thing that is generally peaceful seems to be socially regressive, wouldn't you think?

I also think its almost a fad in some areas. I notice some of my daughters guy friends in high school. First they are Gay, then they arent, then they are, then they arent.

Adolescence is a sexually confusing time. Lots of things start happening to our bodies, and we don't know what to make of them - or what to make of how our bodies are responding to things. Men who later in life identify as being heterosexual have acknowledged that when they were in high school, they had homosexual relations - mostly with other straight guys. Some say they were exploring, some say they were questioning their sexuality, some say they were just (pardon me) getting off. The internet has had quite a bit to do with adolescents exploring their sexuality (straight or gay), if only in that there are places where they can think about it and talk about and not be condemned. For gay or questioning teens, they find outlets that they wouldn't have found twenty years ago. So words like bisexual and gay could be desensitized, making it seem "faddish".

[wayfriend]

But it does get on my nerves that there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider (wrong? best word I can come up with) a social norm.

Can you point to one example of one case where anyone attempts to paint being gay as "a social norm"?

There's a huge world of difference between "okay" and "a social norm", because "norm" means "average". I agree that there's a lot of painting gay as "okay". But the word minority in the phrase "gay minority" says everything you need to understand that it is not "a norm".

(And as for the "so much" of it, it's free people standing up and demanding acceptance. That's the freedom of America. The "so much" of it is directly proportional to the lack of it in the recent past.)

[iQuestor]

Charles Timewaster said:

No, I'm talking about societies-as-a-whole, not individual people.
I think it makes sense to say things like, "San Francisco is one of the most gay-friendly parts of the country"...obviously there are homophobic people and even organizations there, but based on things like election results, wouldn't you say that the city-as-a-whole could be described as relatively gay-friendly?

(Obviously it's wrong to stereotype individuals based on that. It's rude to say, "Oh, you're from San Francisco! You must be a decent human being!" Get to know the person first, and then decide whether or not he's decent!)

And I think you'll have to agree that much of rural Alabama is plagued with homophobia (again, based on things like election results)...it's not nearly as bad as Iran or Saudi Arabia, but it's still pretty disgraceful. So I was using "Backlash, Alabama" to conjure up the image of a random homophobic small town without singling out any real town.)

All that said...I see that I've offended people, which distracted from the point I was trying to make. That's my fault as a writer, so I'm going to withdraw that analogy and apologize.

Here's a rephrased version: "Homophobia was common in Nazi Germany, but homosexuals are much more accepted in Germany today. If there was a 'homophobia gene', how did it vanish so quickly? Isn't it more likely that the change was cultural rather than genetic?"

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[SoulBiter]

But it does get on my nerves that there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider (wrong? best word I can come up with) a social norm.

Can you point to one example of one case where anyone attempts to paint being gay as "a social norm"?

There's a huge world of difference between "okay" and "a social norm", because "norm" means "average". I agree that there's a lot of painting gay as "okay". But the word minority in the phrase "gay minority" says everything you need to understand that it is not "a norm".

(And as for the "so much" of it, it's free people standing up and demanding acceptance. That's the freedom of America. The "so much" of it is directly proportional to the lack of it in the recent past.)

You dont need me to look that up for you I know. How about just watching TV for a bit. Look at the reality shows. Theres one my daughter likes to watch called 'Next'. They have many shows where they are setting up Gays with Gays. There were several HBO shpws that portrayed Gay as the norm..Queer as Folk. Have you watched the show Brothers and Sisters? How about Will and Grace? How about 'The L word", Noah's Arc and The Herndon Davis Show which are fairly new.

I could keep going if you like. There are many many many more medias that are now portraying Gays as a social norm or attempting to use the media to make being Gay a social norm.

[SoulBiter]

However.... regardless of that. My upbringing has taught me to be homophobic. Call it a character flaw but thats just how it is with me. Im OK with that. But it does get on my nerves that there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider (wrong? best word I can come up with) a social norm.

Although I disagree with your belief, it's yours, and you're entitled to it. But I have to ask... What if you had been adopted by Rosie O'Donnell and her partner? You probably wouldn't be homophobic. If you can specifically point to your upbringing as to why you're homophobic, then could you take a step further and think that might not have been a good thing?

It's fine to be "phobic" of some things (gangs, rapists, thieves, murderers, very large cats with menacing teeth), but to be phobic of a person or thing that is generally peaceful seems to be socially regressive, wouldn't you think?

I used the term Homophobic only because its the one being bandied around. But I wouldnt actually consider it a phobia. A phobia being a irrational fear. But for one Im not scared of Gays. I know, based on how I was raised, that being Gay is wrong. I also believe its a choice. What would make me and Im sure millions of others wrong? Just because someone else says so? So I would have to answer that yes my raising in this manner was and is a good thing.

[wayfriend]

I could keep going if you like.

Please don't. You have mistakenly given me demonstrations of shows that show gays as acceptible as proof that they show gays as the norm. Either you don't realize that "the norm" means "average", and for gays to be depicted as "the norm" then they would have to be depicted as being more common than non-gays. Or you do, but persist anyway.

There are shows about hot doctors. That doesn't make hot doctor's the norm. You would insist that it would, if you had it against hot doctors.

[burgs]

I know, based on how I was raised, that being Gay is wrong. I also believe its a choice. What would make me and Im sure millions of others wrong? Just because someone else says so? So I would have to answer that yes my raising in this manner was and is a good thing.

You're not gay, but you know for a fact that it is a choice? That people - apparently insane - freely choose a "lifestyle" for them that is socially unacceptable rather than one that is acceptable, just like they might choose to read SRD rather than GRRM. Or listen to Judy Garland instead of AC/DC.

The only choice that homosexuals make is the choice to come out, and who to come out to. Some homosexuals live their entire lives in the closet, because they fear people who are quite certain that who and what they are is wrong, and that there may be reprisals for coming out. Like hate crimes. But being in the closet, getting married as a facade, doesn't change the fact that they're gay.

[burgs]

I could keep going if you like.

Please don't. You have mistakenly given me demonstrations of shows that show gays as acceptible as proof that they show gays as the norm. Either you don't realize that "the norm" means "average", and for gays to be depicted as "the norm" then they would have to be depicted as being more common than non-gays. Or you do, but persist anyway.

There are shows about hot doctors. That doesn't make hot doctor's the norm. You would insist that it would, if you had it against hot doctors.

Not only do they not represent social norms, but Queer as Folk didn't do the gay community any favors. Sure, it was a decent show, but it played a bit too much to stereotypes, especially the footloose and fancy free attitude towards sex that many people assign to homosexuals. It's there, sure, but gay men that sleep around aren't at all different from their counterparts in either frequency or tone.

You could say the same about Jack's character on Will & Grace, but I would analogize his character to someone like Bea Arthur (as Maude or Dorothy), or Mrs. Roper from Three's Company. All a bit flamboyant, but none representative of their gender/sexual orientation as a whole.