The Atlantic - Latest Comments in What if it is a lifestyle...

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Hugo Pottisch — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:22:56 -0000

Matthew

I agree with you "naturally". But fish are not free. Compared to most animals on the planet - the most oppressed humans today live in 5-star hotels. Our "poor" are fat - this is not bad because of health or esthetics but because it confirms our numbness. One cannot even speak of ignorance anymore - that implies some brains and the ability to distract oneself actively... no no - we have past the age of ignorance and have entered the new age of numbness... and we are not even high.

I hope, by the way that, gays do not partake in needless oppression and torture themselves - ie prohibit others, who are innocent and potentially straight from having families or sex. I'd be the least they can do.. to make their own case genuinely?

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Matthew — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:46:26 -0000

One problem with many of these posts is the implicit acceptance of a false dichotomy; specifically, if genetic than natural and if not genetic than 'potentially' unnatural. Sexual variation is the RULE in all vertebrates. Whether a choice or not, we see it in nature and thus it IS natural. There are reports of homosexual behavior in all human cultures dating back to the beginning of recorded history. Given these facts, how can we accept that this is not part of the natural human condition. This is truly denial on a grand scale. The major difference between human vertebrates and most other vertebrates is that human have social institutions that discriminate against natural variation, whereas most other vertebrates are much more tolerant of variation. It is the hypocrisy of humans being viewed as the enlightened species, yet being the species that has 'perfected' hate, discrimination and genocide, that has always rankled me. Are we really so enlightened? This quote from Ruskin suggests that we may not be: 'No human being was ever so free as a fish'

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Hugo Pottisch — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:23:24 -0000

Thanks, Mason. But I shouldn't feel so mad with Christians regarding all this. After all - we all want stability and trust. It can act as powerful insurance to know that your spouse believes in concepts such as sin and punishment. even if you trust yourself - what about your spouse? These are powerful root-fears.

And to be fair. The Taliban and al qaeda are extremists who fear that islamic men will lose their grip on women. they attack highly religious places like Pakistan for it. Christians in the US are not that kind of enemy - at least when it comes to gays.

There has been good progress regarding homosexual acceptance in the US, also among Christians, and it is clear that the marriage thing will not wait long.

I apologize to Christians for having implicitly and explicitly ridiculed your believes and.. fears. I just hope that you will discover that the idea of marriage gets even stronger and purer when one is aware where it stems from and what it tries to fulfill. A false sense of security is sometime better than non - but why bother when genuine security is within reach?

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Mason — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:28:04 -0000

Nicely done Hugo -- I think you're absolutely right that the need to control other people's sexuality is rooted in a struggle to maintain one's own monogamy.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Hugo Pottisch — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:44:31 -0000

BrianH,

You make a great point. Homosexuality is still something bad for many and all problems stem from this. (sorry for my length).

Maybe not because of the sexual act itself which can be a turn-off for straights. but because of the religious argument that gays cannot reproduce and have sex for other reasons than reproduction. Reproduction is more important than love and bliss when it comes to marriage and a more important reason for sex for religious people? Sad but true?

How religious people view gay sex today is this:

I am married to my wife and have to reproduce with her. But I really fancy my sexy co-worker as well. It would be sinful if I chose to sleep with her to fulfill mere desire and non-reproductive fun. ALL gays are doing this all the time - from a Christian point of view.

Christians who see gayness as choice - automatically think of themselves in this way. That is why the black dude that I confronted told me first that he was attracted to white chicks but chose not to act on it. They are mentally challenged to see that being gay is something utterly different than what they are associating regarding their own private issues.

We have to clear up that obvious misunderstanding once and for all. We also have to address that we should value love more than reproduction when it comes to marriage. Else - we should legally prohibit infertile people from ever marrying.

Gays in relation-ships too can feel attracted to somebody outside their current relationship and have to "choose" in this case if they want to follow that desire or not. The Christian thing to to do for a Christian gay would be to stay faithful. In case he has promised loyalty - it would also the humane thing to do.

(one rarely needs religion for good ethics - if anything religion only makes it more difficult to act ethically and not dogmatically).

Yes - there probably are some 16 year old or younger girls that I would be attracted to under certain circumstances. I cannot choose this. But I know that I would not want to act on it - that is a choice I have made in advance. But I can still sleep and have relationships with other women who are not underaged and who I am also genuinely attracted to.

I am not a social outcast for loving my same-age partner and for having a stable relationship with her and our dogs. Life is hard enough as it is like that. A gay in my position would still be a sinner for most Christians?

Christians are insecure about their own sexuality and relationships. They seem to depend on old scriptures and punishment and not love and trust and relationship-work for their marriage to feel real.

I think what Christians are most afraid of in the context of gays and how they mistakenly see them is:

If it is legally ok for society to live out ones desires like gays do - what about me. Should I not also follow my desires more? Would the fear of punishment and sin that I have grown up with not become meaningless to most except me? Shit - I am not that much into my current wife/husband and do not know how to feel about it... it was so much easier post-the-gay-thing. one just follows order and does not have to worry about one's own feelings which are all automatically sinful.

Dear gays - please imagine that supporting prop 8 for many Christians is as fearful as coming out is for young gays. That Christians are afraid of gays is in this context understandable - and I would say - not their choice given the dogma.

Choosing to reduce marriage to reproduction above love however is a choice - a stupid one for everybody. the government will now sooner than later get out of the marriage business all together (look at young voter trends). then the dogmatic fears of life will have self-destructed.

Again - the whole Prop 8 thing will backfire big time for Christians. Pointing out how insecure they are about where they come from, who they are and where they are going.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

BrianH — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:04:43 -0000

Its not that choosing to be gay is choosing wrong vs choosing right, people make the argument about choice because being gay comes with nothing but ridicule, especially in the public sphere. No one would choose to be publicly debased on television, the internet, radio and everywhere else gaybashers choose to spray their hate. Thats why many people who are gay have such a hard time coming out. I assure you that if being black was something that couldnt be seen by the naked eye then many people would've tried to hide the fact that they were black back when being black was looked down upon in public.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

JonF — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 18:18:01 -0000

Re: We have a word for a marriage without sexual attraction - a sham.

That's too categorically harsh. I would agree that immigration "marriages" deserve the fraud quotes, and that deceptive gold-digging deserves moral opprobrium. But the classic marriage of convenience in which both parties are completely honest with each other about their reasons for marrying is not a "sham" and by long social tradition is perfectly honorable.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Tony Comstock — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:39:33 -0000

For all I know, a stamp collector's delight may be inborn or may be a chosen development - and I don't mean to trivialize anything by the comparison: I don't know or care whether his or her stamp collecting is deep or shallow. It does not matter.

This for me is essential. When we put people who are different in the position of having to "prove" the depth to which they are different in order have the right to have their difference tolerated, we're moving onto shaky ground. As Jim said, the CRM has dropped weed seeds everywhere. It's taught us that rights must be earn; through sincerity, or suffering, or both.

I disliked the spectacle of what amounted to a lot of gays who loved Lawrence v. Texas very nearly denying that a general right of privacy was involved in the decision! "No, X or Y or Z type of disapproved-of consensual sexual activity wouldn't fall into such a zone of protection; that alleged logic is just ridiculous, and is an attack on homosexuals. No, it wasn't saying that pure disapproval is insufficient justification for a punitive law. No, the decision was just about us and applies only to us, because we're okay, because we're acceptable, because we were born just like you only with the equivalent of different eye color. (And of course we believe in normal moral bounds, being normal and acceptable...)"

And the next round will have a gay blogger wondering why the gays forgot their history and voted to strip rights from whoever is up next. As TNC pointed out in an early post, the Irish were quick to put their history behind them...

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Tony Comstock — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:19:27 -0000

Tony C's reductionism of the whole thing to sex (and I think his posts on here lack an empathy and understanding) really feels to me as belittling, and denigrating that other huge part of who we are -- the emotionally bonding with another human being.

My apologies. The last thing I would want is to make anyone feel belittled because of who or how they wanted to make love.

And that's my point. All the rest of it --the sharing of a life together, the entwined, happy life -- is born in sexual attraction, and nourished by the act of making love.

Sex is not the only part, nor necessarily the most important part, of my relationship with another man.

I won't presume to speak for you, but I would guess that most people would say "not necessarily the most important part of my relationship with my wife/husband/partner, but a without sex/sexual attraction, it's not the same kind of relationship". Without acknowledging sexual attraction as a necessary condition, gays/lesbians who wanted to avail themselves of the benefits of marriage couple simply marry a will person of the opposite sex.

We have a word for a marriage without sexual attraction - a sham. And in fact, in circumstances where the state has a reason to care (immigration for example) a marriage without sexual attraction is not recognized as legally binding.

Conversely, when a couple marries, the state puts it's certification on their sexuality. There have never been laws against two men living together chastely, and intertwining their lives however they wish (save, of course, physically.)

But there have been laws against having sex out of marriage. Marriage is the ultimate state and social blessing of the sex act. It is the ultimate way for society to say "what these two people do in bed together is just fine."

I'm sorry you think I'm being reductionist, and I offer my apologies. But to me, to dismiss sex as a minor part of sexual attraction, or sexual attraction as a minor part of marriage seems to be the very essence of why it's belittling to tell people they can't marry the person of their choosing.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Johnny H — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 07:57:45 -0000

An interesting discussion, and although I'm coming late to it, feel compelled to make a few comments.

IT: Thanks for pointing out the genetic component, I always get frustrated at the superficial understanding of genetics that most have when trying to speak about a "gay gene" and absence of proof thereof.

It seems quite obvious (as well as proven, empirically, and for all of us, anecdotally) that sexuality falls on a continuum. And early on, where you fall on that continuum, appears relatively fixed. And it's some type of an inverse, lopsided bell curve. Nearly all fall towards heterosexuality, some small percentage fall toward homosexuality . . . some number are in the middle -- and perhaps that leads to confusion where there are some individuals who are sexually more fluid in being able to choose (both for sex, and emotionally) between partners of both the same and opposite sex. It's at least somewhat infuriating that some point to that as evidence of a "choice", when I think the reality is that those individual's orientation was simply "fixed" somewhere in the middle of the distribution curve.

I also think it's a mistake to move away from arguing "choice". It is important, if for no other reason than the legal framework we have emphasizes this is how we construct laws/remedies to assure fair and equal treatment for all, and secondarily, the evidence is overwhelming that there is very little "choice" involved in the question of sexual orientation. The failure of ex-gay/reform programs, the prevalence of homosexuality in spite of heavy social opprobrium, the suicide of young gays fighting internalized homophobia, the substance abuse among gays, etc. -- all point to just how incredibly difficult it is in the face of society that favors being heterosexual it is to try and "choose" to be what you quite simply are not. Look how difficult it is for E's friend - and I too faced it -- was raised a conservative Catholic, fought it for years until I was 30 and on the verge of committing suicide. It undercut everything I had been taught and conditioned to believe that I was expected to be to be successful, respected and happy in my life. And it was bullshit. And we continue to inflict this pain on young gays and lesbians. I do thank god for the Internet, it's a godsend -- how different my life would have been if as a teenager I had the same access to information and other viewpoints as many young people do now. And of course, that's why we see so many coming "out" at a much younger age and dealing more successfully with their orientation, as well as nothing less than a tsunami of support/understanding by younger people of this issue (just look at the poll data on those voting no on Prop 8 in CA, totally consistent with age - younger you were, the more likely you voted no).

@Craig -- your post is excellent.

@mademark -- I think sex is a sticking point -- again, societal conditioning to be repelled by homosexual acts. Tony C's reductionism of the whole thing to sex (and I think his posts on here lack an empathy and understanding) really feels to me as belittling, and denigrating that other huge part of who we are -- the emotionally bonding with another human being. Sex is not the only part, nor necessarily the most important part, of my relationship with another man. I feel closer to him, more empathetic, entwined, happy just sharing our life. And so this villification by the right, by the religious, is an attack not just on sex, but on my very essence and happiness. We live in a prudish, sexually repressed society. The sex act itself, the label deviant, the fear of molestation, recruiting of children and all that crap is used to misdirect and obscure, to whip up hate and bigotry -- and disguise that behind this culture war over SSM and the rights of gays, really are just people who want to live their lives together as any straight couple, be treated equally and avail themselves of the same rights, responsibilities and support as any straight couple and be happy.

It's much easier to make it about the "sex", and strip it of the deeper core of our being, our emotions and love. And if anything, that's what makes the whole position of the religious fundamental right/Catholics, et al, just so unbelievably ugly, vile, hateful and most importantly, hypocritical.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Alex Russell — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 04:07:55 -0000

I like what TNC is trying to do. The "you have a right to differ" is not fully spoken by the business about "it is unjust to wall people off from happiness for who they are by nature". If you have a right to differ, you have a right to differ deliberately.

Look, I do believe, and agree with evidence, that what people want, and how people react, is in this respect inborn. TNC does too.

But there are a lot of things that we do because of what we want, things that are choices, that are deliberate, that we think out and decide on and come to terms with. And, as far as our right to do those things, to explore our own lives and seek our own sense and happiness, it does not matter where the original desires or reactions or interests come from. For all I know, a stamp collector's delight may be inborn or may be a chosen development - and I don't mean to trivialize anything by the comparison: I don't know or care whether his or her stamp collecting is deep or shallow. It does not matter. Just, does this person have the right to seek out and have the life and the place in the world that suits him or her? Or, can the people around him wall him or her away into miserableness, faking, deprivation, or furtiveness? For reasons for dislike or disapproval alone?

Nolo mentioned Lawrence v. Texas. I was overjoyed by the decision - and I always disliked the narrowness with which it was subsequently interpreted, and, much more than that, I disliked the spectacle of what amounted to a lot of gays who loved Lawrence v. Texas very nearly denying that a general right of privacy was involved in the decision! "No, X or Y or Z type of disapproved-of consensual sexual activity wouldn't fall into such a zone of protection; that alleged logic is just ridiculous, and is an attack on homosexuals. No, it wasn't saying that pure disapproval is insufficient justification for a punitive law. No, the decision was just about us and applies only to us, because we're okay, because we're acceptable, because we were born just like you only with the equivalent of different eye color. (And of course we believe in normal moral bounds, being normal and acceptable...)"

If arguments for equality, and inborn-ness arguments, are all there are, the plaintive sound (or even the angry sound!) of "it's not our fault!" will always be in this, and will always be real, and will always, deep down in it, sound scared. (And perhaps not so deep down. I have seen bisexuals treated horribly, and called liars and mentally ill, by gays who thought that bisexuals meant that gays were bisexuals and therefore that gay was a choice and apparently therefore that the whole ground of their being okay and not to blame was in danger. That is fear, right there, and nothing else.)

What TNC and a couple of other people here are pointing to is something else: just plain the right to be different, and to be different actively, and to choose differently. What, in this light, does it matter why anyone wants to do anything, or loves someone or something? It isn't central to anything. What is central is that people own their own lives because they are their own lives, and their own selves. Gays don't have to be pulling out their innermost deterministic IDs with shaking hands to answer questions... and they definitely don't have to be claiming "this isn't chosen" about their whole navigated waking lives (every footstep?). People have the right to be different.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Thomas R — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:06:33 -0000

Yup

"Love - creating a home with a partner, doing the dishes, watching television, holding hands." is not what they focus on because it's not what they consider wrong.

Traditionally if two guys want to share a house and watch TV together religious conservatives don't mind. Even if they wanted to be affectionate they could think "well maybe they're European or related somehow." Besides which what is a monastery? It is a group of men living together and caring for each other. Some Protestants might see that as gay, but others respect it and besides which a great deal of "Yes on Prop 8" types are Catholic.

So the sex is what they focus on because it's the part they deem a sin. Many of the anti-gay Christian sites I've seen believe that men should be more affectionate to each other and that they should "love each other." If you go to many a Pentecostal Church there's men hugging each other like at some Progressive Men's group. I believe some even think male homosexuality is because certain men are starved for human connection to other men and end up turning the desire for acceptance into something sexual. (And personally I think that is where my homosexual attractions may have started, which might be why I never totally "crossed-over" to just being gay)

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Tony Comstock — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:19:30 -0000

@mademark,

I regret that my comment to you did not land with the affection and solidarity with which it was intended, and offer my apologies.

My point was simply that sexual attraction is about sex; and no one, not you, and not me, should feel compelled to prevaricate or apologize for that.

Peace.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Hugo Pottisch — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:02:50 -0000

I do not think that one should confuse the "choice" argument with genetics (but your genetics was good).

It is much better to look at oneself and to ask oneself, yourself, if you feel it is choice or not. Do you choose who you are attracted to or not? If you do not feel it is your choice and it does not hurt anybody else... why should we ask a straight guy to do it with gays and why would we want gays to sleep with women? this is absurd on all levels. this is more than forcing people to change their life-styles.

Does Huckabee feel as if he has chosen to be attracted to his wife instead of some bearded man (not talking about the Mrs Huckabee gene)? How would he feel if he had to spend the rest of his life living together with a man - could he imagine choosing to love him?

what it also boils down to. if you can choose to be gay then you can only act gay but not truly be it.

i am with mike, helmutt, and of course with craig on this. this whole thing will eventually back-fire for the "religious" community. they are resisting change necessary for them, not gays, to survive. long after the last christians has walked the earth - there will be gays.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

mademark — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:24:18 -0000

Lastly, to Tony, who wrote: "You really want us to believe you put up with all the shit a gay guy's got to put up with so you can open Christmas presents?"

What is it you think I put up with? Daily condemnations by idiots lost in bibilical texts? Fag jokes at the water cooler? Whatever I put up with I decided to put up with decades ago because my spirit would not be crushed, nor will it ever be. And yes, frankly, I do put up with it so I can buy a Christmas tree next weekend from a tree farm with the man I will end my life with. Hell yes! If the tree farm man or the kid who cuts it down rolls his eyes at us, fuck 'em. That's exactly why I put up with it, because I decided to be free a long time ago and it won't be taken from me. If you don't get it, it ain't my problem.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:05:16 -0000

Craig,

Thank you for that perspective.

As someone said above, it's amazing that more people don't listen to people actual experience with being gay, and instead cling to their ideas about what it is.

I have a friend who voted for Prop 8 for religious reasons. I think the "choice" idea WAS a sticking point. Yes, it's that her religion tells her homosexuality is bad, but it also seems to be the idea that it may have been caused by bad things happening when the person is young. If it can either be caused by something or something you can fight against, and someone is convinced it's a sin because of the bible, than I think it's very hard to convince someone otherwise. "Well, I don't think homosexuality is entirely natural; I'm not judging people for their choices, I just think it's immoral if they get married" she said. I asked her, then, if she found that she were attracted to women, would she deny that attraction? She said, "well, humans are sexual creatures..." So I said, "Okay, well, if you were ONLY attracted to women and ONLY wanted to be with women, woudl you fight it and marry a man anyway?" Her response: "I don't know. I'm not in that situation."

Umm, exactly. Of course, I guess we would have the same problem if she thought it was not a choice, but I think the rationalization that it is a "choice" makes it easier to say that it's "wrong" even though homosexuality has no ill effects on anyone - except for the ill effects caused by society saying it's bad.

That being said, I still agree that if it were a choice, it still shouldn't matter. But in that sense, even if a man were to choose to allow himself the possibility of falling in love with another man, could he really ultimately choose if he actually DID fall in love with another man? I mean, I certainly can't help who I fall for. And I truly wish I could.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

mademark — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:57:45 -0000

Tony, gosh did you miss my point. The comment about opening Christmas presents was about the normality of our lives and how we perceive the totality of them - in which sex is a very small part, if a part at all. We are no different from those who think we are - it's just a set of genitals. I stand by my assertion that we are perceived almost soly from a sexual perspective by people who find us 'repugnant' (the same silly fools who laugh at a male-male kiss on a movie screen). If my points went over your heard, I can't help that.

As to Mike's comment, of course - it's called heteronormity, and it's why very few (straight) people ever consider the absurdity of considering sexual orientation a choice. They don't ask themselves when they chose to be straight because they think nothing else exists, except by choice (though nature is full of examples of 'sexual exuberance').

In the end it's all circular babble. Choice/not choice, black/gay, nature/nuture. Considering the miniscule genetic difference in all humans, I wouldn't be surprised if an impartial alien scientist discovered that sexual orientation was much more immutable than skin color. After all, cut us and we all bleed red.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

enigmaticparadox — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:44:40 -0000

Here's the issue on the gay marriage choice question visa vie a biological or social foundation of heterosexuality: if being gay is a choice, then it's just as reasonable to reject the choice. So if people who choose to be gay want to be married, I can't fault anyone who chooses not to oppose them. I don't think I have a responsibility to respect all choices equally. Indeed, the very idea of culture implies valuing some choices more than others.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Andrew — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:19:49 -0000

IT,

Thanks for the lesson. It is helpful. I myself am basically a layman, and do enjoy when my general knowledge becomes informed by that of somebody who clearly knows more on a topic. A lot of times, even when we know something about these subjects, we can have a tendency to speak of them clumsily, as in using the shorthand of a single gene as if complex characteristics are usually dependant upon single genes. At any rate, it's always helpful to have somebody come along and tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

Of course, my argument about the genetic aspect of this is more along the lines of it being interesting, though not persuasive to those people are trying to persuade--partly due to the inconclusive nature of the science, partly due to the aversion many people who would need to be persuaded have towards the sciences, and partly due to the example you gave with regard to alcholism (although they would more than likely draw the line toward more taudry mental illness, e.g. sociopathy or pedophilia).

I was under the impression that current views on the subject of handedness, or hand preference, were to the idea that it were a developmental trait and not a genetic one. Hmm.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

craig — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:39:49 -0000

sorry TNC... i have a real problem with this argument. while i do understand and respect the idea of choice - or lack thereof - with regard to race and sexuality, simply put - the two are nothing alike. just as many black people seem to hate the argument that marriage rights for gays is civil rights issue similar in nature to the 60 civil rights movement, i think many gays would have a problem with your comparison (i am both black and gay so there is no need for other readers to jump on my case about being ill informed on either perspective).

gay people don't choose to be gay, that much is true but they have consistently had to defend this notion - blacks never have to make the case that indeed their skin color is darker by nature, not by choice. being gay is a "lifestyle" or a "preference". imagine for a moment having to convince people something as obvious to you as your color is indeed how you perceive yourself. better yet, imagine trying to explain to people when you "chose" to be heterosexual. you might see this type of argument as a dead end - but when it comes to your own identity it can be rather frustrating to be told that you "chose" to be straight or black.

the revelation of ones sexuality is very different than the awareness of ones color. i grew up in a black family. my parents were black. my brothers were black. most friends were black. they are all straight. my emerging sexuality at the age of 11 or 12 was terrifying. i was entirely isolated. i would have made a deal with the devil to change that. on the other hand when i was 8 and a white kid called me a n****r i went home and my parents were there to talk me through it. it was clear from day one that as a black boy i was part of a community that was there to support me, that had a sense of pride in itself, that wouldn't try to change me despite what the world at large might say or do. it wasn't until i was in college with gay friends that i was finally able to find a gay "family" to engage with me on the level, to help me become a part of a community, to find a sense of pride in who i was.

while i agree that the choice issue can smell of liberal condescension, it is not an argument waged against blackness in the same way it is consistently wielded against gays. it's condescending to say one "can't help being black" but it's totally infuriating to be told i have made the choice to be gay (which is something i hear a hell of a lot more often.) seriously, how often have you been told that your not really black, you just choose to be black, you could be something else if you really wanted, if you prayed hard enough? wouldn't that piss you off a little?

it is not a dead end argument when talking to religious bigots like huckabee - people who refuse to examine a world outside of the twisted parameters of their religious zealotry. as long as these people believe i woke up one day and decided that being gay was a better idea than reading the bible or, more often, that i am somehow in legion with the devil himself, they will never be able to understand (much less come to respect) my "lifestyle". rather, they will continue to try to pray my gay away.... when was the last time someone told you they wanted to pray the black off you?

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

rb — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:03:23 -0000

Andrew, no offense taken! I was just trying to illustrate (with a pointed question) that the concept of genetically-determined race/ethnicity is nonsensical.

And your familiar background alines pretty well with you ethnic background

It does! My family and I have similar genes, and we consider ourselves Italian (mutt, really, but who's counting).

And yet even though I have 3 Italian grandparents, I am genetically *much* closer to my cousin, who has 3 Irish grandparents, than I am to a randomly chosen Italian person.

In fact, my cousin and I are genetically more similar to each other than are any two super-Italian Italians who aren't at least cousins.

Even though those two hypothetical Italians are both totally Italian and my cousin is 'almost totally' Irish, they are different from each other where my cousin and I are the same.

This is why I say that my genes are determined by family, not ethnicity, and why I think it's misleading to think of ethnicity as having a genetic basis.

(This is beside the point on the larger question of policy and tactics around the issue of homosexuality, on which we largely agree).

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

TB — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:54:19 -0000

Ta-Nehisi wrote:

"Whenever people say, "You should not discriminate against people because they didn't chose to be black," I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension."

Wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong wrong wrong.

When I say something like that, trying to explain gay rights, it's NOT condescension, it's empathy.

When I see someone being discriminated against because they're gay or poor or a woman or they were born in the third world, I think of the words my mother would often say:

"There but for the grace of God ... "

THAT is what separates a lot of modern conservative thoughts & actions from those of liberal thoughts & actions.

So many times I see conservatives, and especially conservative Americans look at a situation and say, in so many words, "Well, glad it ain't me!"

The point is, is that it just as easily COULD HAVE been you.

None of us have the luxury of choosing when and where and how we are born.

THAT is one of the basic tenants of America and The Enlightenment; ALL men are created equal.

It does not matter if you are rich or poor or black or white or straight or gay. All of us, every last one of us, has to be treated with fairness and equality, or we all fail as a nation.

Ironically, Harvey Milk summed it up best:

"In the Declaration of Independence it is written: ‘All men are created equal and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights.’

“For…all the bigots out there: That’s what America is. No matter how hard you try, you cannot erase those words from the Declaration of Independence.

“That’s what America is. Love it or leave it.”

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

IT — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:38:02 -0000

By the way, the conservatives aren't going to buy it if it's "natural" either. They'll say it's like a tendency towards alcoholism, an inherited sickness.

I don't know why they are so terrified at variation. But remember religious conservatives also used to be terrified by left-handedness.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

IT — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:34:00 -0000

Okay, genetics lesson.

FIRST, very few complex traits show a simple on-off effect associated with a single marker with simple dominant/recessive transmission of two alleles. Even the simple blue/brown meme of eye color that we all learn in school does not account for green or hazel or other variation in shades. Indeed turns out there are multiple genes affecting eye color; it's just in a predominantly Northern European population such as the school test was invented for, there isn't as much variation in some of those other genes. Thus, the eye color meme is a lot harder to pull off in an ethnically diverse classroom, where other variants are present.

Similarly, there is unlikely to be a single gay gene. More likely is that there will be a number of genes probably, each with multiple different alleles that interact with one another in different ways--and with the environment too. Polygenic traits are very hard to identify and characterize.

Second, controlled twin studies show up to a 50% correlation of gay-ness, which is WAY above random. As a geneticist, I don't expect 100% correlation for anything but really simple traits (like whether you can roll your tongue in a cylinder. Turns out that's a really simple dominant/recessive--a much better meme than the eye color in a modern classroom!).

Third, there is stochastic variation in the expression of traits; phenomena such as imprinting and other examples of epigenetics can influence the penetrance or expressivity of traits. It is certainly well documented that traits between identical twins can vary, at least in part because of these effects.

Genetics is not an absolute; it merely provides a palette of possibilities. The rigid deterministic view of genetics is characteristic of conservatives who take a black-white view of everything. But any geneticist is more likely to think of our genes as giving us a range of results. You won't be tall, even if your genes tell you to be, unless you are well fed.

Of some interest is a recent model of handedness that suggests that the dominant is right-handed (R), but in the absence of (R), you aren't necessarily left handed. Instead, the choice is randomized. That is, rr people will be either right OR left, by chance. If that's the case, then absolutely you could ahve identical twins, one right handed and one left handed. Another example, not epigenetic.

Finally, let us consider the hunt for "cancer" genes for an example of how fraught this all is. Cancer is a disease that starts with aberrant gene function and clearly runs in families. Yet efforts to identify the associated cancer genes such as BRCA1 or BRCA2 in breast cancer explain only a small fraction of familial disease, and do not explain the random disease occuring in the population. It is very likely that complex behaviors such as sexuality will also have multiple components; even if we find one link, it's unlikely to be either absolute or singular.

Oh, and by the way, sexuality DOES run on a continuum!

There. Professional pedagogy OFF.

Re: What if it is a lifestyle...

Hellmut — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:31:55 -0000

Yes, you are right but there is a context to the choice argument. It is a response to the accusation of sin.

If it's not a choice then it cannot be a sin. That's why it remains essential to press the point with religiously motivated opponents of marriage equality and gays.

I would love to say it better. May be, you can figure it out.