OK. Now that we’ve addressed the OP, can we please get back to our tangents?
Zarathustra said,
Sexual orientation doesn’t distribute normally, so standard deviation isn’t a good measure of deviance. Also, if you’re defining “deviance” as “falling more than three standard deviations from the mean,” then people who are very strongly heterosexual are equally deviant.
RealityChuck explained the conventional thinking about the continuum of sexual orientation very nicely. There is, however, a newer and somewhat more sophisticated approach that goes something like this:
There are two intersecting continuums, one for same-sex attraction, and one for opposite-sex attraction. People who have little of either kind of attraction are asexual, those with a lot of both are bisexual. Homosexuality and heterosexuality fall on opposite corners. I don’t think this system is widely accepted yet, but, to my mind, it is more useful.
The more proper Greek prefix that means “fear” is miso-, as in misogyny, misoneism, misosophy. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a word built on that prefix that means “hatred of homosexuals.”
Although Francophobia and Anglophobia have been part of the language for hundreds of years, it seems probable to me that they originally had the literal meaning of “fear of the English (or French)”, not hatred of them. It was only later (I’m guessing) that the words came to be associated with hatred. Surprisingly, xenophobia was not part of the language until the 20th century.
OK, not to sound condescending, patronizing, or whatever the word is that I am looking for–in my experience, you can get rid of it. Easier said than done, I know, but it is possible. All you have to do is be completely comfortable with yourself. I lost a lot of friends when it was spread around that I was/am bisexual. Those that stayed around are the ones who knew that same-sex relationships were not for them, and had no doubts that they were completely heterosexual.
I have seen that most people who lash out at the gay community are the people who still have doubt in their minds. They are so afraid of even the thought that they might have homosexual tendencies, that it turns to anger, ignorance, and all sorts of things.
So, once you know that this is what you want, and this is not, I am sure that the feeling of intolerance will slowly fade away.
I do not claim to be a psychologist, so please don’t falme me if you disagree.This is all based on personal experience.
Y’all should get thee to the “Ask the Gay Guy!” threads post haste.
I hope the etymology of the word “homophobia” satisfied your curiosity. From a queer point of view, it’s just another “-ism” - sexism, racism, anti-semitism. Some people use the term “heterosexism” to talk about how the world automatically makes the assumption of heterosexuality in most things, which isn’t entirely unreasonable as 90% of the time you’d be right. “Homophobia,” though, speaks directly to an “anti-homosexual” bigotry.
One of my favorite quotes is appropriate here: “It’s always seemed to me rather pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It’s like disapproving of rain.” - Francis Maude
The fact that you don’t want to be homophobic indicates you probably aren’t. Personally, if you called someone gay as an insult, or used the phrase, “That’s so gay,” around me, I’d call you on it if I felt comfortable in the situation; it irks me, but I wouldn’t call you a bigot for it. If you want to change your attitude, hey, it’s a place to start. Besides, “adam yax felcher” works much better.
[quote] Originally posted by Zarathustra
The scale people have been talking about is the Kinsey Scale, based on research done by the Kinsey Institute over the past few decades. On a scale of zero to six, zero being exclusively heterosexual, three being 50/50 homosexual and heterosexual (that is, bisexual), and six being exclusively homosexual, the spectrum of human sexuality falls somewhere along that continuum. So although I consider myself a 5.999999999(repeating) on the Kinsey Scale (I don’t believe in extremes ;)), I have already admitted my devoted fondness for Sophia Loren.
Usually because the people who identify AIDS as a gay-only disease (and there are still people who do) are the same people who are unsympathetic to AIDS causes because they’re homophobic. Still, jumping to any conclusions is always inadvisable.
It’s not a matter of choice (although if it were it would be irrelevant anyway), it’s a matter of where you fall along the Kinsey Scale. Some people are exclusively straight, some are exclusively gay, but most fall somewhere in between. beaker, as usual, was quiet eloquent on the matter.
I think these two issues (choice/spectrum) are not completely unrelated. If one’s sexual orientation was all or nothing, pure hetero or pure homo, then (assuming as I do that there is some genetic predisposition towards a particular orientation) it is unlikely that other factors could intervene. However, looking at each person as occupying some point on a spectrum, it is more likely that environmental and other factors could intervene to - not completely change a person’s orientation but move them over a bit on the scale.
Furthemore, it also suggests the possibility that a person could will themselves to change their orientation. This would accomplished by a person who is not a zero or six, and has both sorts of feelings. This person would be suppressing the type of feelings that they don’t desire and emphasizing those that they do. (Whether they should want to do this is another issue).
OK, that was sort of what I was waiting to hear. Can I thus conclude that, for most folks, the practice of “homosexuality” can be regarded as an ethical and moral issue like any other? For example, you and I may disagree whether recreational drug use is morally acceptable, but excepting a tiny minority of “addictive personalities”, we can agree that the decision of whether to use drugs or not is ultimately an expression of an individual’s free will–with all the accompanying responsibility for his or her actions? And if a community or culture regards a form of behavior–be it drug abuse or sodomy–as antithetical to its values, then can we agree that it’s the individual’s choice and responsibility if he or she chooses to oppose those values? (Again, excepting a tiny minority of individuals who are unable to make choices for themselves due either to psychological or physiological factors.)
All the reputable psychological organizations and practitioners agree that a person’s sexual orientation, wherever it may fall on the Kinsey scale, is a combination of nature and nurture so complex that it cannot be understood, so, yes, environment has something to do with it as well.
Ah, but in addition, these same experts say that the determination of your orientation happens so early in your development that your orientation is fixed and cannot be changed. However, you certainly can change your sexual behavior, be that pro- or contrary to your orientation.
My pet theory is that the reason a good percentage of the population has it fixed in their minds that homosexuality is a choice is that they, themselves, fall somewhere between zero and six and have chosen to act only on their heterosexual tendencies. Therefore, in their mind, they themselves “chose to be straight.” (No research or anything to back that up, just my own idea. ;))
Find me someone who chose to be gay when it was contrary to their innate sexual orientation, and then we can discuss it. In the meantime, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. Regardless of whether or not it’s a choice or not, we’re still talking about basic freedoms that every person should have the right to partake of, namely the freedom to choose.
And putting the gay community in the same category as “addictive personalities” is a dangerous idea on this board…
And a very good one at that. But does it not follow that there are also many homosexuals who fall somewhere in between and have chosen to emphasize their homosexual tendencies and feelings? Or do you believe that societal prejudice against homosexuals is so great that no one would ever choose to do this?
The American Psychological Association, for one, and it’s based off over 35 years of research. The Kinsey Institute and Masters & Johnson, the leading experts on sexual development, IIRC, agree.
“Many” is out of the question, but sure, I’m sure there are some liberal-minded Kinsey 3’s out there who would rather be identified as gay than as straight. However, IMHO if they’re comfortable enough to self-identify as gay, they’re probably comfortable enough to self-identify as bisexual. The old chestnut, “Of course it’s a choice - why would anyone choose to be gay” I think applies here.
I would think it is possible that there are some 2s and 4s as well who identify as gay. A lot of people are not super in touch with their innermost feelings, as you point out with regard to heterosexuals. It is concievable that someone who could “go either way” got involved in a homosexual lifestyle/relationship at one point and subsequently came to think of themselves as homosexual. They may not even be aware of the fact that their true orientation is not as clearcut as that.
Sure, to the same extent that heterosexuality can be regarded as a moral issue. The same rules apply: don’t use coercion, don’t mess with kids, don’t cheat if you’re in an a monogamous relationship, etc.
Why would we classify homosexuality with drug use, rather than with heterosexuality, where the analogy is closer? If we want to talk about “addiction” to a sexual orientation, we could just as easily say that someone who is a 0.1 on the Kinsey scale is addicted to heterosexuality. For that matter why talk about the ethics of homosexuality as a separate issue? Why not discuss the ethics of sexuality in general?
Go right ahead and do that. But for whatever reason, homosexuality it a much more controversial topic in our society these days than is heterosexuality, so the topic of free will comes up more often with regard to the former. Many are fond of claiming that a person’s orientation is so fixed that it cannot be regarded as a matter which is subject to any choice at all. Zarathustra is questioning this.
Right. What I’m saying is that if sexual orientation is a choice, that doesn’t just open up homosexuality for ethical discussion, heterosexuality becomes fair game as well. In that case, I would want to see the logical justification for separating the two, rather than treating them as a single category of “sexual ethics.” And I won’t be convinced by the Bible or “our cultural heritage.” I want to know how individuals are harmed.
My understanding is that many men who are sentenced to lengthy prison terms discover a side of themselves of which they were never previously aware–and do so with varying degrees of willingness.
I think you’re jumping ahead of yourself there, Dumb Ox. Sure, in a liberal democratic society like ours, those may rules very well apply, but other societies have different mores. The only question I’ve addressed so far is whether homosexual behavior is subject to any particular society’s moral standards just like any other–and note (as an aside) that many societies forbid homosexual behavior outright.
There may be some people at the opposite extreme–Don Juan syndrome or nymphomania, to use popular terms for it–where a handful of individuals have no control over their heterosexual urges either. But on this end of the spectrum, such out of control behavior is regarded as pathological . . . anyway (pulling back from the brink), excepting that extreme end of the spectrum as well, it appears that the vast majority of people are subject to moral standards in their sexual behavior, and live with the decision whether to conform to them or oppose them. Freedom of will is still in effect.
Heterosexual behavior has been subject to some pretty constructive rules as well, for the past several thousand years IIRC.
A laudable goal, but also a separate issue. If you agree that the vast majority of humankind should be subject to moral guidelines in their sexual behavior–whatever their “orientation”–then we can talk about the nuts and bolts of what those guidelines should be.
So you’re proposing that we all sit down and negotiate moral guidlines to all sexual behavior? Or are you just proposing that we just debate the guidelines that are currently in place?
The problem I see with this whole discussion is that there has never been in the history of mankind one set of guidelines that have been agreed upon. Clearly, you can go from one culture to the next and see varying degrees of sexual liberalism/conservatism. Heck, you can even look at the history of Christianity and watch as these guidelines evolved.
So what guidelines are we going to be discussing here? The guidelines as seen by a baptist? A buddhist? An atheist?
I admit, I’m more than a little confused about what exactly you wish to discuss.
As I said, go right ahead. If your intention is indeed as you suggest, why then, open a thread outlining the ethical problems that you have with heterosexuality. And should the heterosexuals try to “get off the hook” by claiming that they can’t stop themselves from being heterosexual, we will jointly reject that excuse completely.
