Introduction: Sometimes a blast from the past can be an interesting thing. Searching my archives at Mac-a-ro-nies, I discovered I had first blogged about gay marriage nearly a year ago. Among the things I said is: "Gay marriage will not become widespread in the foreseeable future." Curious? These are this blogger's thoughts back when the hottest domestic issue was just a bed of glowing embers.
Homosexuality and the eye of the beholder
Kevin Drum and Kieran Healy have provocative thoughts about a recent post by Matthew Yglesias, a very sensitive young man.
I wasn't too impressed with Andrew Hacker's Gays and Genes in the New York Review of Books but it did contain one hell of a factoid, namely a 2002 Gallup poll about whether people think homosexuality is innate or caused by upbringing. Republicans opted for upbringing by a 61-39 margin whereas Democrats chose innateness 66-34.
I first began considering the topic of nature v. nurture in regard to homosexuality when I was an active member of Nerve, the online magazine about sexuality. One of its major contributors, Simon LaVey, was a gay scientist who has aggressively promoted the idea there is a gay gene or genes. I have never found his argument persuasive. It is too results oriented. He wants homosexuality to be biologically determined, and voila! it is.
Kevin believes pre-existing political positions determine people's response to the issue.
I've mentioned before the fact that many liberals mightily resist the idea of biological causes of behavior, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, for mostly ideological reasons. Most conservatives, on the other hand, mightily resist the idea that people are products of their environment, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, also for mostly ideological reasons. But just as both sides are willing to change their tune on federalism whenever it suits them, so are they willing to change their tune on nature vs. nurture when their normal stance doesn't support their preferred policy goal.
I agree and will go a step further. I believe people's thoughts about the societal status quo likely determine their reaction to the whether gays are born that way or become that way. Currently, though discriminated against in some aspects, such as the inability to marry, homosexual men are, as a group, better educated and wealthier than the most Americans. They are welcome in conservative politics, albeit somewhat secretively. (Read David Brock's Blinded by the Right for the eye-opening details.) A typical Republican Joe or Jane probably perceives most gay men as "just like us" except for their sexual behavior.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - bhw
This isn't scientific, but the reason I think that sexual preference isn't a choice but a natural preference is because I can't otherwise explain my own. Why am I heterosexual? I just AM. It's like any other preference: why DO I like broccoli and asparagus? I just do.
Also, how does environment influence sexual preference when so many homosexuals grow up in heterosexual households and within a generally heterosexual society? I mean, all the dominant messages out there tell you that heterosexuality is "normal".
2 - Shark
McD: You've called me a racist explicitly a number of times on BC. Time to put up or shut up. I'll stop when you meet my challenge:
Find one derogatory post I've written about "...people of color's' basketball, singing, thinking, or writing abilities."
3 - Mac Diva
From what I've read, gay households are more likely to produce offspring who at least experiment with homosexuality, and more homosexuals than straight households. So, that suggests environment plays a part. However, the same sources say most children from homosexual homes turn out heterosexual. Why do some persons reared by straight persons become gay? That is the best argument for nature, not nurture. Over all, the result is the same as for gay households: Mainly straight offspring. But, considering the spareness of objective research, I am still uncertain in regard to homosexuality and the nature-nurture debate.
4 - RJ Elliott
Let me be blunt:
If homosexuality was purely a matter of choice, no rational human being would choose to be gay.
Here are the consequences of being gay:
- Increased chance of getting one of the numerous STDs (sometimes fatal)
- General societal disgust
- Damaged family relations (in many, if not most, cases)
- Lack of a "natural" sexual release (procreative)
- Penis-vagina sex feels good for both parties. I can only imagine that penis-anus sex is pleasing for only one party (supporting evidence is the number of women who refuse this type of intercourse due to "pain" reasons)
- Vagina-vagina sex excludes natural penetrative contact ("sex aides" are only somewhat "natural" in composition, and one suspects in "feeling" as well)
Further evidence:
- Homosexuals *do* tend to act differently than heterosexuals, indicating a biological/genetic difference
- Brain structure has been shown to differ among homosexual and heterosexual groups.
If it's environmental, it must occur early in life to account for these factors. I personally feel it is genetic.
5 - bhw
Oy. And here's the scary side of the nature argument.
If homosexuality was purely a matter of choice, no rational human being would choose to be gay.
So, gays are either defective by nature, or they're just plain nuts.
- Increased chance of getting one of the numerous STDs (sometimes fatal)
This is not a "consequence of being gay". This is a consequence of having unsafe sex. It's a behavior. And it applies to all people, no matter their sexual preference. Just ask all the HIV-positive men and women in Africa.
- General societal disgust
Too broad. Maybe this was true 30 or 40 years ago, but now I don't think it is. We are a much more tolerant society, although we have lots more work to do.
- Lack of a "natural" sexual release (procreative)
Is this true of infertile heterosexual couples, as well?
- Penis-vagina sex feels good for both parties. I can only imagine that penis-anus sex is pleasing for only one party (supporting evidence is the number of women who refuse this type of intercourse due to "pain" reasons)
The arrogance of men. How 'bout we toss in a "usually" for good measure? My husband sometimes says: "Pizza is a lot like sex. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good." To which I reply, "Only a man would say that about sex."
Also, how many women refuse anal sex, anyway? I'd venture to guess that the women who "enjoy" anal sex actually do ENJOY it. When done correctly, it's not painful. If women refuse anal sex without trying it, how do they know it's painful? Isn't it possible that their refusal probably has as much to do with the "ick" factor as anything else?
- Vagina-vagina sex excludes natural penetrative contact ("sex aides" are only somewhat "natural" in composition, and one suspects in "feeling" as well)
And yet lesbians worldwide continue to eschew the so-called natural penis. Some like fake schlongs just fine, and others prefer human hands. How big a "loss" could it be? [Note: The PENIS is not as great as men tend to think it is. Get over it.]
- Homosexuals *do* tend to act differently than heterosexuals, indicating a biological/genetic difference
Aside from having sex with members of the same sex, what behavior(s) are you talking about? And is all behavior genetically determined? Are criminals genetically programmed to commit crimes?
- Brain structure has been shown to differ among homosexual and heterosexual groups.
I'm not familiar with the studies you allude to. Please elaborate.
If it's environmental, it must occur early in life to account for these factors.
Why? Do five-year-olds "act" gay?
6 - Mac Diva
I am not convinced that some people would not choose to be gay. It seems to be that no one would choose to be a member of a violent gang, either. But, millions of people do. (And, foreshadowing something I'm about to write about Spain, sometimes that violent gang is the government or societally approved.) I am not saying the two things are the same from a values perspective. But, people make choices that would seem to be outweighed by disapprobation much of the time. So, mere societal disapproval of homosexuality is not a convincing reason not to choose it -- if it is a matter of choice. I am going to guess that comfort level has something to do with young people being exposed to homosexuality and becoming gay. Those who feel more comfortable among gays than they do among straights may be the ones who become gay. That could include a biological inclination in addition to liking gay people.
As for people behaving rationally most of the time, I have doubts about that, too, RJ.
7 - Joe
The thought of you as an active member the online magazine about sexuality leaves one with the exact same surreal, awkward feeling as seeing Courtney Love taking off her clothes on Letterman or Jame Gumb doing his happy dance in "Silence of the Lambs." Utterly cringeworthy.
8 - Shark
I looked it up; McD's article in Nerve was called, "My Ongoing Battle With Racist Dildos"
9 - Roger
I agree with Mac Diva. I've had a long day so go lay down and sleep or suck your thumb "SHARK". "Oooo" I mean Gold Fish. What is "Shark" or bhw ("LOWER CASE")? I can't take fish or "b"low "h"ard "w"imps seriously...
10 - RJ Elliott
A response to "bhw":
If homosexuality was purely a matter of choice, no rational human being would choose to be gay.
So, gays are either defective by nature, or they're just plain nuts.
Defective in a sense, yes. Just as those who are nearsighted (like me!) are defective in a sense. That doesn't mean they are "human garbage" to be thrown away. It's simply a fact that ALL people are imperfect, and their imperfections, if caused by genetic factors, are by definition genetic flaws, or defects.
- Increased chance of getting one of the numerous STDs (sometimes fatal)
This is not a "consequence of being gay". This is a consequence of having unsafe sex. It's a behavior. And it applies to all people, no matter their sexual preference. Just ask all the HIV-positive men and women in Africa.
It is a fact that male-male penetrative sex is more likely to damage sensitive tissues and increase the likelihood of getting an STD.
- General societal disgust
Too broad. Maybe this was true 30 or 40 years ago, but now I don't think it is. We are a much more tolerant society, although we have lots more work to do.
Gays are still viewed as being an oddity. Their sexual behavior is inexplicable to most people, since most people are straight. I don't know a single straight man who doesn't avert his eyes in disgust when watching two gay men engage in sexual (including "french-kissing") behavior.
- Lack of a "natural" sexual release (procreative)
Is this true of infertile heterosexual couples, as well?
No, that behavior is evolutionarily normal, even if children are not the end result of such behavior.
- Penis-vagina sex feels good for both parties. I can only imagine that penis-anus sex is pleasing for only one party (supporting evidence is the number of women who refuse this type of intercourse due to "pain" reasons)
The arrogance of men. How 'bout we toss in a "usually" for good measure? My husband sometimes says: "Pizza is a lot like sex. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty good." To which I reply, "Only a man would say that about sex."
Some women claim to enjoy it. Maybe they do. But many do not.
Also, how many women refuse anal sex, anyway? I'd venture to guess that the women who "enjoy" anal sex actually do ENJOY it. When done correctly, it's not painful. If women refuse anal sex without trying it, how do they know it's painful? Isn't it possible that their refusal probably has as much to do with the "ick" factor as anything else?
To get way-too-personal, I have tried this form of sex with a couple ex-girlfriends, and as soon as I get a "head" in, they change their minds. Due to, you know, the pain of unnaturally inserting a relatively large object into an "exit-only" oriface...
- Vagina-vagina sex excludes natural penetrative contact ("sex aides" are only somewhat "natural" in composition, and one suspects in "feeling" as well)
And yet lesbians worldwide continue to eschew the so-called natural penis.
Thanks for confirming my belief that lesbians do what they do not out of personal choice, but out of a preternatural inclination to find other women attractive, despite the loss of natural flesh-in-flesh penetrative male-female intercourse.
Some like fake schlongs just fine, and others prefer human hands. How big a "loss" could it be? [Note: The PENIS is not as great as men tend to think it is. Get over it.]
- Homosexuals *do* tend to act differently than heterosexuals, indicating a biological/genetic difference
Aside from having sex with members of the same sex, what behavior(s) are you talking about?
I think you know...
And is all behavior genetically determined? Are criminals genetically programmed to commit crimes?
This isn't just "behavior" we are talking about. It is the inherent inclination to find one sex more sexually attractive than another.
- Brain structure has been shown to differ among homosexual and heterosexual groups.
I'm not familiar with the studies you allude to. Please elaborate.
Well, I can provide a link if you really want one, but I would have to do some Web researching...
Anyway, there have been studies that have shown that the gay-male human brain is more like the straight-female human brain than the straight-male human brain. Same with lesbians.
If it's environmental, it must occur early in life to account for these factors.
Why? Do five-year-olds "act" gay?
I did not say 5 year olds. But surely 13 year olds.
11 - Tom Norris
"Conservatives think that everything but being gay is determined by the genes and Liberals think everything except being gay is caused by the environment. There's a moral there somewhere."
The moral is simple: most people are idiots.
12 - Roger
bhw, I have to wonder whether or not you are gay or at least bi-sexual. On this posting I can assume by your statements you are female. On a previous posting("Gay marriage Who cares") you debated tooth and nail against what I thought was reasonable future scenerios for implementing gay marriage. You are diluted. Plain and simple! You think that this is so cut and dry that all that needs to happen is this signing of a paper making it legal. Wake up to reality. Especially when it involves kids from previous marriages and the wishes and beleifs of the other parent. If everything was as simple as you wanted it, what a great world it would be. Again I have never heard someone who claims to be heterosexual fight like you are on this subject.
13 - bhw
bhw, I have to wonder whether or not you are gay or at least bi-sexual.
My sexuality is neither here nor there. Why does it matter? Do I have to be a minority to argue tooth and nail on minority issues? Do I have to be an animal to join PETA?
Typical tactic of a homophobe. The problem is, only homophobes worry about being considered gay if they're not.
And though I may be "diluted," at least I'm not deluded.
14 - bhw
Roger:
It's simply a fact that ALL people are imperfect, and their imperfections, if caused by genetic factors, are by definition genetic flaws, or defects.
And here come the eugenics! Genetic variations = defects. So, what would the perfect human look like?
It is a fact that male-male penetrative sex is more likely to damage sensitive tissues and increase the likelihood of getting an STD.
Are you aware of the injury that happens to most women when they lose their virginity? This makes them more prone to catch an STD during that encounter.
*But only if they're having unprotected sex with an infected partner.*
Did you also know that women injure vaginal tissue every time they have intercourse? Small fissures in the tissue occur. Again, this makes them more prone to catching an STD.
*But only if they're having unprotected sex with an infected partner.*
Does the fact that women get injured during intercourse mean that there's something wrong with or unnatural about that sexual act?
and as soon as I get a "head" in, they change their minds. Due to, you know, the pain of unnaturally inserting a relatively large object into an "exit-only" oriface...
Or due to improper technique, not to criticize yours, since I wasn't there.
Also, thanks for admitting your personal interest in something other than the "flesh-in-flesh penetrative male-female intercourse." Don't worry, I don't think this makes you genetically defective.
My point is that sexuality is quite diverse. What a boring world it would be if everyone stuck to plain old intercourse! Or even pretended that that was the only natural sexual act.
And, remember, men, your penis does not rule the world. It only rules *your* world.
Aside from having sex with members of the same sex, what behavior(s) are you talking about?
I think you know...
Actually, I don't. That's why I asked.
This isn't just "behavior" we are talking about.
That's what you were talking about. You said that gays "act" differently from straights.
Gays are still viewed as being an oddity.
By some. Indeed, many, in some areas of the country and world.
My initial point in commenting on MD's post was to say that I thought sexual preference was naturally determined and not a choice or purely environmentally determined. But I don't know that scientists will ever find a "gay" gene. That's because identical twins, who are genetically identical, sometimes have one twin who is straight and the other who is gay. Identical twins also usually have different personalities. So you might say that environment has something to do with it, but I think studies have shown personality traits to be present at birth.
15 - Mark Saleski
Gays are still viewed as being an oddity
cripes, i wish that ignorant people werent' viewed as an 'oddity' either.
i guess i'm just 'diluted'.
16 - Roger
Go back to the other message board. I'm not a "homophob". The bottom line is things are not going to be as simple as you would like. It's not as easy as signing a piece of paper. Laws, legsilation and many other things will have to be changed.
As far as your comment on the other posting, you are dead wrong. It isn't that simple for straight couples. In my line of work I see a ton of straight people filing restraining orders against there ex preventing them from having there kids around their new boyfriend or girl friend. I am just stateing a fact. This is what's reality, and as much as you don't like it we all have to live with it and abide by the law. What is your point???
bhw
"If a divorced parent begins a homosexual relationship, that's his or her business. And it's his or her business on how he/she handles the situtation with the kids."
17 - bhw
Roger: On the other thread, you advocated a special set of rules [a waiting period and extra scrutiny] for gays who wanted to get married, if gay marriage is ever legalized. I said that we shouldn't have a separate set of marriage laws/rules for gay couples.
Most of your arguments about how gay marriage should be treated differently from straight marrige has to do with your experience with straight divorce. You see kids being used by their parents against each other.
That has nothing to do with gay marriage, even when you can cite a few cases where a "heterosexual" marriage ends and one of the parents begins a gay relationship.
I'm sorry that parents care less about their kids than they do about hurting their former spouse. But you seem to want to legislate parental kindness, and you want to give extra limitations to gay couples because of the damage straight divorced couples are doing.
Sorry, but I don't agree with that. Equality means equality to me. Except that we don't really have it yet in the first place.
As far as being a homophobe goes, your comments here indicate quite well how you feel about homosexuals. I don't know what name you put on it, but you don't exactly seem non-homophobic to me.
18 - Shark
Don't be fooled by his pose; Roger is actually a homosexual from Canada.
PS: He's a lumberjack and he's okay...
"Hey, who deluded my tequila!?" --Shark
19 - Shark
re: Roger
Anyone else terrified by the idea that some hate monger with the IQ of a banana slug is working in a field having anything to do with child care?
20 - JR
And here come the eugenics! Genetic variations = defects. So, what would the perfect human look like?
By definition, there are none. We are all severely deformed apes.
21 - bhw
Speak for yourself, JR. I am a perfectly formed ape.
22 - Roger
You guys amaze me. One of my best friends a is gay. We had all of the same clasess in college with a two and a half hr span between classes.
In two years we probably got breakfast togehther hundered times. Not to mention studying. Tony repects me and likewise I respect him. I also have two lesbian friends not to mention that I live in a area that is reportedly only 2nd or 3rd to San Fran in gay population. Don't fucking insult me and call me a homophob! If you recall I also said the same scrutiny should apply to white trash divorced couples. If it was up to me any couple whether straight, gay, white or black with children should be scrutinized when seeking another relationship. I'm stated the obvious as far as making it legal. It will take more than just signing a piece of paper. Every State, Federal and Local laws and Statues pertaining to marriage will have to be re-written. That's what it will take to do it right and get it right the first time. Do you want it done right the first time or do you want society to keep beating a dead horse as we are.
Shark if you are refering to me in comment 19 you are fucked up. You obviously don't have kids or haven't seen some of the cruel shit that I've seen. See how you are affected if you ever unfortunately have to put a face to the name of an 8 year old who's been raped. You are a fucking cunt. What the hell is "Shark" you fucking nameless little bastard. You are probably one of these child predators.
I'm not hiding behind fake names, initials or e-mail addresses. I don't care if anyone running this site likes this comment or not, but e-mail me from your own PC. I'll post your name and everything about you on the net within 36hrs. In fact the e-mail I left you will come straight to me. Coward!!!
23 - Roger
I don't know how old ou are Goldfish aka shark, but I've noticed that all you do is drop in and make stupid, cowardly remarks like a damn high-schooler. What kind of carrer do you have?
I do know this, mercury is lethal, sharks are full of it, so let's hope for the best.
24 - bhw
Roger, I had you confused on this thread with RJ Elliot, to whose comments I originally replied (#4 and #10). When I read your comment (#12), I assumed you were him.
That said, I still disagree with you about how to handle gay marriage. No "separate but equal" for me, no matter how ugly the divorces get.
Also, your comment about my sexuality (saying that I must be gay) simply because I advocate strongly for gay rights, does strike me as anti-gay because you see it as an insult.
25 - Mark Saleski
...like a damn high-schooler
you mean like:
What the hell is "Shark" you fucking nameless little bastard.
You are a fucking cunt.
???
excellent.