Homosexuality: Tolerance & Genetics

[Zarathustra]

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.

I'm not lumping at all. I was responding to a personal anecdote posted by Burgs.

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! Smile

That's a perfectly reasonable desire. I'm sure black people feel that way. And Asians, and women. No one wants to feel they are being excluded. Especially if that exclusion is a product of racism or homophobia. I understand this, and I agree with you. At the same time, perhaps you can understand that it's reasonable for people who don't fit into those groups to resent being preached at and judged simply because they enjoy being included in their own groups, with people they can relate to. I don't want to read about a character simply because he fills a quota, and someone in the real world feels insulted when this quota isn't met. If that were the case, every work of fiction would include a realistic proportion of American Indians, Africans, Europeans, etc., etc. It would be too contrived and politically-driven to suspend disbelief.

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?"

No one has suggested there is a "homophobia gene," any more than someone has suggested there is a "racism gene." I wasn't talking about homophobia at all, but instead a simple repulsion for an activity. You seem to imply that this repulsion is the same as homophobia. Not true. I might find bulimia repulsive, but it doesn't mean I hate or fear bulimics. Vomit is repulsive. Certainly there's a genetic reason why we vomit, and an evolutionary benefit. Repulsion is certainly coded in our genes with regards to which substances we should put in our bodies for food. Otherwise, we'd be eating stuff that killed us. Just as repulsion with regards to food makes sense biologically, so to does repulsion with regards to sex that deters reproduction. There's nothing hateful or fearful about what I'm suggesting. It's perfectly plausible in scientific terms.

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.

You can't examine the issue of gay characters in books without examining the possible reasons why people would or would not like this. I don't think it's silly at all. And I bet people like Starkin don't think it's silly. For you to say that gays wanting more gay characters in books is a silly desire, is more insulting to gays than anything I've said here. Obviously, they feel passionately about it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

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?

I don't think gays need me to tell them that heterosexual people find their form of sex distasteful. Yet, if we ignore this factor when asking this question (i.e., why aren't there more gay characters in fantasy?), then we're ignoring an important, real component of this issue. I'm not amazed that people get offended by what I say. I'm amazed that people think I shouldn't say it merely because it's offensive--and then they spend pages arguing that it isn't true, as if these are the same issue.

I see the same slack-jawed amazement from your side of the debate: many of you seem shocked that some people find gay sex offensive. And yet, we're supposed to have "silly threads" about things people find offensive as if it were nothing more than silly fun. And then this thread only gets serious when people like me voice their offense. (Personally, I thought it was serious even before I stated my reasons for not wanting gay characters.) But the only offense which you find reasonable to voice is the offense of people being insulted by those voicing their offense.

You ask me what I was trying to accomplish? I'm trying to point out this double-standard that only gays have a legitimate perspective in this debate. I'm trying to fight the ad hominem attack that repulsion equals phobia and repression. I'm taking up for my personal preferences because gays have no problem taking up for theirs. Indeed, this question wouldn't even be asked if there weren't a perceived "unfairness" about a perfectly reasonable lack of gay characters: the writer didn't want to write about it, and the readers largely don't want to read it. You might as well call Donaldson a homophobe for not making Covenant gay, if you're going to call me a homophobe for appreciate Covenant not being gay.

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.

True, I don't need to. I could let people call me names which I find offensive and not respond because they might find it offensive that I take up for myself. While that's true, I find it confusing. Why take up for people's right to throw around offensive slanderous terms but not take up for people's right to defend themselves? Is taking on the PC movement really worse than calling someone a homophobic bigot?

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?

If I were raised by Rosie and her partner, I would absolutely feel just as grossed out about their sex as I would sex between two men. [Ha! A Rosie-is-fat-and-ugly-slam!] But I think most people would be grossed out thinking about sex between their parents. Does this mean they are parent-phobic? Of course not. It's not even insulting. Sometimes being grossed out about other people's sex life is perfectly normal. I mean really, can you guys think about your parents having sex without immediately wanting to think about something else instead? How about father-and-son sex? Don't we all find that distasteful? Does this mean we have a phobia against fathers and sons? Of course not. The point I'm making here seems so obvious to me, the only thing that I can imagine keeping people from agreeing with such a position is the brainwashing and guilt factor of political correctness. Which is why I attack it. You guys would attack a movement, too, if it said you're a bigot because you think the idea of father-and-son sex is gross. Wouldn't you?

Repulsion doesn't equal bigotry. To say so discriminates against natural repulsion.

[SoulBiter]

Wayfriend. You misread my post. And per your request I wont continue to post different shows that I could. I didnt say that those shows portrayed Gays as the social norm. What I said was:

there is so much social gerymandering going on to make something I consider wrong a social norm.

Those shows and the many others I could post are meant to 'move' being Gay to be a social norm. And you are wrong. Norm doesnt mean majority nor does it mean represented in every show or circumstance. And norm doesnt mean average. And where did you get the idea that in order for something to be a 'norm' it has to be protrayed more than not? Its just a short word for normal. What I said was that these shows are depicting Gays as being more and more mainstream in an effort to make being Gay a social norm. Its social gerymandering. You might not have meant to but you twisted what I said to mean something I didnt say at all.

Burgs, I have had this debate before many times. My younger brother is Gay and we have had this debate many times as well. It doesnt convince me. I never said that I knew for a fact anything. I said that I 'believe' that its a choice. The argument of why someone would make themselves an outcast is no argument. There are other things that people do that make them outcasts in certain areas and they do it anyway. Why would someone in a very conservative school decide to go Goth? Or to get a Big mohawk and color it red or blue? It could very well be a way to get attention.

I expected to get quite alot of flaq with my original post so Im not surprised. However we have totally de-reailed this thread and I would prefer to not continue to do so. If someone was to move this to a more 'on-topic' forum area I would be glad to continue this conversation. But keep in mind I was espousing my views. I am not looking to change anyones opinion nor do I think anyone is going to change my 45 year old views on this.

[burgs]

Eh - this was hijacked a long time ago. That's why I decided to repost.

Soulbiter: wearing black clothes or getting a Mohawk is very, very different from choosing who to have sex with.

I'm sure there are any number of women you find repulsive, and no manner of coaxing could "arouse" you to consummate a relationship with them. How, then, are homosexuals capable of doing this? Making one's "privates" aroused are quite different than liking a particular haircut.

[Starkin]

I bet people like Starkin don't think it's silly.

To tell you the truth Malik, I'm actually tired of this whole thread. (Although I do seem to find myself coming back to it over and over again to see what people are saying. Call it morbid curiosity.) It's gotten away from its original "silly question" into something that I've heard sooooo many times from sooooo many people over the years. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course and nothing anybody says is going to change their minds. Live and let live, right?

But. Having said that I just have to say one thing:

Being gay for me has NEVER EVER been a choice. WHY oh WHY would I CHOOSE to live this life after what I've had to put up with for 20 years? Having my family tell me I'm going to Hell on a regular basis, bombarding me with Bible scriptures (like thats supposed to mean something), having people calling me a faggot and a queer on the street, always feeling like the odd guy out at family get-togethers, being made to feel dirty and disgusting... I could go on and on. If sexual preference was a switch that could be turned on and off on a whim, then I would've chosen to be straight a long time ago. Sure would've saved me from a lot of grief over the years. And as far as choosing to be gay to get attention? Give me a break!

Picture if you will a teenage boy laying in bed at night crying, BEGGING God to help him not be gay. Like SRD, my formative years living around "hellfire and brimstone" preaching was probably the worst thing to ever happen to me. All the praying, all the begging and crying, all the trying-to-change-myself thing didn't do one damn thing. I continued to be attracted to males. Looks like it was just meant to be.

I thank my lucky stars every day that I live here in Canada now, where I was able to marry the love of my life David, where most people here (there are still anti-gay people here, just not as much as my old home in good old central Illinois) could care less how you live. David's family has welcomed me with open arms. Wish I could say the same of my family back home. To them, David is my "special friend", said, of course, with a snicker or two.

Forgive me one and all for this post, I know its all over the place. My thoughts are all jumbled and I've never been the most articulate person around. But I think you all get my point here. I'm not going to say anything more about it and I think we should all move on. After all, there's a lot more to me (and others) than being gay and a hell of a lot more things to talk about here on KW.

Like, SRD's work. And loving Linden Avery!

[wayfriend]

And you are wrong. Norm doesnt mean majority nor does it mean represented in every show or circumstance. And norm doesnt mean average.

It doesn't?!?! Better tell Miriam Webster!

Main Entry: norm
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin norma, literally, carpenter's square
Date: 1674

1: an authoritative standard : model
2: a principle of right action binding upon the members of a group and serving to guide, control, or regulate proper and acceptable behavior
3: average : as a: a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b: a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group c: a widespread or usual practice, procedure, or custom : rule <standing ovations became the norm>
4 a: a real-valued nonnegative function defined on a vector space with value analagous to length and satisfying the conditions that the function is zero if and only if the vector is zero, the function of the product of a scalar and a vector is equal to the product of the absolute value of the scalar and the function of the vector, and the function of the sum of two vectors is less than or equal to the sum of the functions of the two vectors; specifically : the square root of the sum of the squares of the absolute values of the elements of a matrix or of the components of a vector b: the greatest distance between two successive points of a set of points that partition an interval into smaller intervals

synonyms see average

So what you have stated, that I say is wrong, is that TV is portraying gays as "typical", "average", and "the usual practice". Because that's what it means to claim it is being touted as "the norm".

I expected to get quite alot of flaq with my original post so Im not surprised.

Yeah, well, if you go telling people the dictionary is wrong ...

[SoulBiter]

sigh - The definition you found is correct but the context you are using it is wrong.

The definintion you are using is out of context of the discussion and you are using it in order to boster your argument. In the context that we are talking, social norms are the rules for how people should act in a given group or society. The standards of behavior of a a given group. Any behavior that is outside these norms is considered abnormal. It doesnt take a majority to be considered social normal nor does it take an average. You can be a minority in some way and still be considered social normal.

Again... I will post my original statement:

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.

What part of that are you not getting? I dont know how else to explain it.

I believe that there is social gerymandering ( a re-alighnent of values if you will) going on with the media to make being Gay a social norm. They are doing this by putting more and more shows out there that deliberatley have Gays in them for that purpose. Its using media in exactly the same way that Burgs described as why he wished that Dumbledore had been shown as Gay up front.

That said, it would have been nice to know a bit earlier, because JKR had an enormous impact on the developing minds of millions of children. To show them a strong, likable gay character that defied stereotypes would have been terrific.

It doesnt say that it would be nice to know that Dumbledore was Gay so that he could more easily identify with the character but instead for the enormous impact it would make on the developing minds of children. Why? Of course so that they would be more accepting of Gays and Gays could move to being a social norm.

So now I go back to my assertion that the media is being used to do exactly that.

I dont apologize for my beliefs. I also dont apologize for my opinion. But I do apologize to anyone whom I might have offended or insulted while I was expressing my beliefs and views.

[burgs]

This is the last thing I'll say.

"The media" only gives its readers/viewers, whatever, what they want. If there are more gay themed books (there are), or more gay TV, movies, videos, etc. (there are), that's because there is a demand for these things.

And it's because more and more people are accepting (*not* tolerating) homosexuality as, if not normal, OK. My mother told me when I was in high school that she wished all the fags that she saw on Oprah and Donahue would go back into the closet.

Last Christmas, she hugged my partner Chris, gave him a kiss, and said, "We're happy to have you as a member of our family". My Dad hugged him too.

I feel bad for Starkin and his experience, because I've seen the devastation that kind of upbringing can cause. Mine wasn't pleasant, but my parents never told me that I would burn in hell. That's why I want more characters in books or movies to be positively identified as gay. My parents had no experience whatsoever with anything remotely gay, and didn't know what in the world to do with me.

So yeah, I do love that Dumbledore is gay (although it's still a bit weird, how she outed him), and I hope that the children who read the books will grow up to be good parents to gay children, if they have them.

I *know* that homosexuality is normal. I *know* that it's not a choice. And I want everyone else to know it too. A vain wish, but one can always dream.

[wayfriend]

sigh - The definition you found is correct but the context you are using it is wrong.

Sigh - don't blame me if what you meant isn't what you wrote.

In the context that we are talking, social norms are the rules for how people should act in a given group or society.

... which is not any accepted definition of the word 'norm'. But let's stipulate a norm is 'how people should act'.

Are you saying that TV shows are telling people that they should act gay? If so, I would still disagree unless you could demonstrate.

Any behavior that is outside these norms is considered abnormal.

OR we can stipulate, contrary to what you just said, that 'norm' is "not abnormal". (But if you change your own personal definition without notice, who can follow?)

So you're saying that that there's a movement to portray gays as "not abnormal"? Well, that's what I said ... there saying it's okay to be gay.

Perhaps you thought that by saying "gay should not be a social norm", you sounded more responsible than saying "it's not okay to be gay", even though it means the same thing?

[SoulBiter]

In the context that we are talking, social norms are the rules for how people should act in a given group or society.

... which is not any accepted definition of the word 'norm'. But let's stipulate a norm is 'how people should act'.

Hmmm well I pulled that definition right out of college sociology so how is that not an accepted definition?

Are you saying that TV shows are telling people that they should act gay? If so, I would still disagree unless you could demonstrate.

Nope. Again you are taking what I said out of context.... seemingly on purpose.

Any behavior that is outside these norms is considered abnormal.

OR we can stipulate, contrary to what you just said, that 'norm' is "not abnormal". (But if you change your own personal definition without notice, who can follow?)

I didnt change it without notice. You continue to take what I said and try to twist it around to mean something different. I dont understand why you are doing that since all I am doing is stating my opinion.

So you're saying that that there's a movement to portray gays as "not abnormal"? Well, that's what I said ... there saying it's okay to be gay.

I wouldnt have put it that way but its accurate enough. Basically they are putting enough of that out there that as people become more and more accustomed to seeing it they will be more and more accepting of it.

Perhaps you thought that by saying "gay should not be a social norm", you sounded more responsible than saying "it's not okay to be gay", even though it means the same thing?

Did I not say I didnt think being Gay was right? Oh thats right. I didnt. I instead said that I believe that it is wrong. Which is the same thing but Im sure you will find some way to twist it around so that what I said isnt what I said.

[[Syl]]

Take it to the Tank already.

[Zarathustra]

I *know* that homosexuality is normal. I *know* that it's not a choice. And I want everyone else to know it too. A vain wish, but one can always dream.

I don't think it's a choice. I believe it's genetic (though I recognize there's not much evidence for that yet). However, I don't know how you can say it's normal, if only 10% of the population does it. There's a difference between "okay," and "normal." I think homosexuality is perfectly okay. But it's not normal.

Take it to the Tank already.

Yeah, this should probably be split.

[High Lord Tolkien]

In before the split.
(With maybe a different take on it too)

I think that homosexuality is genetic.
It's "wrong" in the sense that it's something that interferes in the survival of the species wrong.
Beyond that...who cares?

I do find it odd though to take pride (Gay Pride Parades for example) in a defect.
I'm a diabetic, my pancreas doesn't work, it's defective.
I don't take pride in it.
But then again I haven't been historically discriminated, beat up and killed over it either.

[Marv]

A few of you doth protest too much, methinks.

[wayfriend]

It's "wrong" in the sense that it's something that interferes in the survival of the species wrong.

On that basis alone, so is abstinence, drinking, skydiving, helping handicapped people, playing video games, manufactoring cigarettes, going to war, living to be older than 40, using antibiotics, and lots of other things.

Perhaps being civilized intellectual beings means we recognize that there's more to life than ensuring the species survives.

[emotional leper]

It's "wrong" in the sense that it's something that interferes in the survival of the species wrong.

On that basis alone, so is abstinence, drinking, skydiving, helping handicapped people, playing video games, manufactoring cigarettes, going to war, living to be older than 40, using antibiotics, and lots of other things.

Perhaps being civilized intellectual beings means we recognize that there's more to life than ensuring the species survives.

That's exactly why intelligence is bad for you. If your genes for smarts also make you not want to reproduce, those genes are defective, as they will not get passed on.

[[Syl]]

That's a bit simplistic. Reproduction isn't always favorable. Otherwise, we'd all be alpha male types. Of course, society would then crumble. A gene that holds a phenotype that limits reproduction under certain circumstances would be beneficial to the species as a whole, thus more likely to be passed on.

[High Lord Tolkien]

It's "wrong" in the sense that it's something that interferes in the survival of the species wrong.

On that basis alone, so is abstinence, drinking, skydiving, helping handicapped people, playing video games, manufactoring cigarettes, going to war, living to be older than 40, using antibiotics, and lots of other things.

I agree but you just listed a series of *choices*.
Not any genetic defects or genetic wrongness.

Reproduction isn't always favorable

True but from single celled organisms on up it's what we're all about.

(that site confused the hell out of me, btw. )

[wayfriend]

I agree but you just listed a series of *choices*.
Not any genetic defects or genetic wrongness.

So we should be LESS tolerant of people who DON'T have a choice?

Also, no one has ever demonstrated that being gay is a "defect" or a "genetic wrongness". (There was a whole thread about that.) That's just wishful thinking.

[[Syl]]

If that were true, HLT, you'd be killing your neighbor and his sons and impregnating his wife.

[burgs]

I do find it odd though to take pride (Gay Pride Parades for example) in a defect.

If I knew how to link to a new thread, I would create a thread in the Tank and link to it from here. I don't know how to do that. If anyone else does, please do and we can continue the rather pointless conversation over there. (Pointless because I've only ever changed one person's opinion in my entire life, and the circumstances were rather extraordinary. I doubt I'll have the good fortune to be in the right place at the right time again.)

Gay Pride, as I understand it, isn't pride in one's orientation; rather, it's pride in one's courage to come out of the closet and be openly gay in a society peopled by those who wouldn't publicly acknowledge their racism, but that can acknowledge their homophobia (which I use broadly to also include people who just flat out don't like homosexuals, think it's wrong, but may not "fear" them).

I'm a diabetic, my pancreas doesn't work, it's defective. I don't take pride in it. But then again I haven't been historically discriminated, beat up and killed over it either.

Yeah - that's exactly the point. All marginalized people feel proud of overcoming whatever hurdles society has set out for them. Or whatever hurdles their own genetic makeup has afforded them. You might be proud of following your insulin schedule, and how well you take care of yourself. People who are marginalized or challenged (again, I'm using that broadly) should be proud. It doesn't always need to be pride that has to be celebrated with a parade, but some do, and who are we to say they can't or shouldn't? In Chicago (and elsewhere, I'm sure), Puerto Ricans march. The Irish march. Nothing wrong with the pride they have in their heritage, is there?