Okay, so the local newspaper published a column by a local fundie about homosexuality being purely a choice and how anybody can simply decide to become hetero and, with a little treatment, shazaam, they’re no longer gay. He cited the Bible, of course, and pretended to cite some scientific studies, none of which I can find anywhere.
Any Dopers out there know where I can find some decent published research about the nature of homosexuality? I don’t necessarily want to just say “Nuh uh, asshole!” – I’m fairly certain the issue is a whole lot more complicated that this butthead says. Any ideas where to start?
A better tactic might be to write a letter to the paper expressing shame that people in your town would think/act that way. Maybe say you’re disappointed in the paper for running it as well. Get some friends to send in letters as well.
Didn’t some organization that represents psychology experts (with an obvious name like “American Association of Psychologists” or something like that) debunk the whole “homosexuality is a psychological disorder” thing once and for all sometime in the 90s?
Sorry I can’t be more helpful, but I do know that stuff like what you’re looking for exists. I just can’t be bothered to Google it.
My own understanding from various half-remembered sources is that “reparative therapy” for homosexuals very rarely succeeds, and furthermore that “success” is generally just defined as a homosexual who is still oriented toward his/her own sex, but has successfully repressed the urge in order to follow religious commandments. Thus, the homosexual is no more “cured” of homosexuality than a heterosexual who gives up coitus with the opposite sex in order to become a Catholic priest, monk, or nun is “cured” of heterosexuality.
By no means would I suggest appeals to shame or emotion. Fight the fundamentalists’ bad science with good science. Name-calling merely helps them pose as persecuted victims, which is their peculiar specialty. You’ll hardly convince any of the fundamentalists, of course, but there are plenty of ignorant onlookers who can be persuaded.
Honestly, I do believe that people can control their sexuality, to a degree. And I am bothered by the fact that the debate always goes there (and both sides tend to take it there). Convincing the haters that “they can’t help it” will not force them to accept homosexuality.
I think the solution is to convert the attitudes of those who refuse to accept gay people, choice or not, as equal and moral citizens. Even if someone’s religious beliefs oppose something like sexual orientation, it would be immoral of them to impose those beliefs onto people who believe differently.
If I were to write a response to the article, that’s the angle I would take. The Bible says to love your neighbor, and not to judge others. That would be using his cite against him. Of course, all of this being said, there is little hope of making any change in some folks. They probably will claim that they are genetically predisposed to hate homosexuals.
The most effective thing you could do would be to rebut the argument that homosexuality can be reversed or “cured” through so-called “reparative therapy.” Reparative or (or conversion) therapy is not accepted as legitimate by any mainstream medical or health organization and is emphatically rejected by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association not only as invalid and ineffective but as unethical and potentially harmful. Even some of the founders of the so-called “Ex-Gay” movement have now confessed that it doesn’t work and that the definition of “success” is not a change in orientation, but in getting gay people either to be celibate or to participate in heterosexual relationships. Even using that rather specious definition of “success,” the success rates of these programs are abysmally low.
This is wiki but the article contains links to sources.
I got caught up in a similar argument with some co-workers and, after a while, they dropped this bombshell on me - “homosexuals are possessed by demons” - Demons!!! I was dumb-founded; actually I still am a little bit. I hope you have more success than I did, but don’t be surprised if you find logical arguments don’t go very far with that crowd.
Well, then they’re not having gay sex anymore! Duh! :smack:
I agree with the “it doesn’t *matter *if they can change it, they shouldn’t *have *to change it” POV. If we hang our demand for acceptance on the idea that homosexuality is inborn and/or fixed, then we’re accepting their assumption that homosexuality is bad. It isn’t. It isn’t good, either. It just is.
I wasn’t born with red hair. I can change my hair color whenever I want. But no one is saying that I ought to, or that I must, because it doesn’t affect anyone else. Same with sexual orientation, IMHO.
I might point out that the studies he cited don’t exist, but then I’d quickly shift to the real argument - that it’s an invasion of privacy to ferret out or legislatively “care” about anyone’s orientation, and that as long as no one is being hurt and our population is high enough, the state has no legitimate interest in the bedroom. As for the church? Well, it’s unfortunate that they care about this issue at all. But I don’t see that their orientation is very changeable, either. And as long as they’re not hurting me through the legal system, then, just like gay people, they have the right to do whatever they want to behind closed (church) doors among consenting members.
One question I’ve always asked in return, to those who say it’s just a choice, is “When did you choose, then?”
I can always remember being attracted to girls, my first crush in elementary school was Carla, not my best friend Roy.
If it’s simply a choice then ask when they made their choice to be straight. Could they imagine having sex with a same sex friend? Is there sexual tension between them and their beer buddy?
If they’re repulsed by the idea, as is likely, then they may understand the hard-wired nature of sexuality.
That said, Kinsey says it’s a sliding scale, though I suspect a saddle in the middle of the curve. My fiance works with a man who claims to be bisexual but only dates men because he prefers it that way. There may be a limited argument that, to some, there is a choice.
