This thread seems to be winding down to a certain extent. Rook hasn’t posted in almost two days, and the thread is sinking a bit in the forum. Still, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to read the entire thread, and it’s a good one. There are some great expositions on the nature of homosexuality and some excellent general discussions. So I just wanted to post something of my own, probably in the nature of a summing-up.
First, Rook is acting like some Spanish peasant in 1525 who believes the world is flat, and who is debating with one of Magellan’s crewmembers just returned from sailing around the world. The sailor is trying to convince Rook that the world is round, but Rook won’t hear of it. Rook has certain ideas in his mind: “If you were to walk on the surface of a big table, eventually you would get to the edge and fall off. So at some point the world has to end and you will fall off.”
The sailor tries in vain to convince Rook otherwise. He points out his own experience of sailing around the world. He points out the phenomenon of receding objects sinking below the horizon. He points out scientific analyses of the diameter and circumference of the world, showing how a large world would merely appear flat. But Rook isn’t interested. He is fixated on that table. So he keeps asking a bunch of leading questions that steer the discussion back to the table. He asks, “Why would anyone create a spherical table? It would be a freak of nature. A mutant table. Form follows function. Tables are flat and have edges. If there’s an edge, you will fall off of it. Therefore, eventually you must fall off the edge of the world. QED.”
In the particular discussion in this particular thread, Rook is fixated on the fact that the physical aspect of man and many other species is nicely differentiated into two distinct genders. Thus, according to him, this must automatically be the template for all of “nature,” and any deviance from this template must, by definition, be “unnatural.” And so he keeps steering the discussion back to penises and vaginas as the key to all of “nature.”
In the meantime, posters on the other side of the debate point out that “nature” also demonstrates other templates; that there is no particular reason for the psychological and sexual dimension of mankind or animals to mimic the simplicity of the physical characteristics of gender; that there’s ample scientific evidence pointing to sexual orientation being a sliding spectrum rather than an “either/or” proposition.
Rook has asked for scientific proof, and links to scientific proof have been provided: Kinsey’s sexual orientation scale; studies of physical differences between gays and straights; the APA’s conclusions on the nature of homosexuality. Rook wants something neater, more concrete, and more persuasive, like proof of a “gay gene.” But biogenetics is still in its infancy, and a single “gay gene” may not exist anyway. In the meantime, the other scientific studies that have been cited are still legitimate science. They are based on scientific observation and measurement of the world around us, and it’s ignorant of Rook to discount them by saying, “But the mechanics of penises and vaginas prove the contrary.”
One more time: There’s no reason to assume that there’s a direct and unbreakable parallel between the simple mechanics of human procreation and the complex mechanism of human psychology. Evolution isn’t just about “procreation of the species.” It’s also about “survival of the species.” And survival of the species is enhanced by developing maximum variation, and not by sticking to a one-size-fits-all model. And the variations are random. Not all will maximize procreational tendencies. Some will work contrary to the idea of procreation. That’s the way evolution works. Randomly.
Contrast the two ideas: a) “Procreation of the species” is simple–one mechanical model suffices. b) “Survival of the species” is more difficult–hence a thousand variations in tools and behaviors in the animal kingdom, and a thousand variations in the psychological make-up of individual humans. Sexual orientation, performance, fantasies and all the rest fall into the latter realm. Anyone can stick a penis into a vagina. But that’s only one percent of the sexual process. You still have to deal with the psychological dimension. And there’s more there than meets the eye.
But let’s say that Rook isn’t interested in science or evolution or psychology. After all, he just wants the world to be flat. So he keeps asking the sailor tendentious, leading questions, such as “But tables are only made one way, and won’t you fall off it once you get to the edge?” Finally the sailor can only insist on his personal experience: “I myself sailed around the world, and I didn’t fall off.” And so Rook says, “You know, I’m tired of hearing people say that they have sailed around the world. It didn’t happen.”
And this is probably the lowest blow of all. Gays and lesbians have posted to the board stating that, whether or not a gay gene exists, they still did NOT choose to become gay. They know it from personal experience. They’ve agonized over it. They’ve suffered because of it. Perhaps they even attempted suicide because of it. It’s the story of their lives. They have lived it. They are 5-10% of the population. They are good, stable, sane people. Good thoughtful adults who have faced up to their worst fears and embraced their strengths and their limitations. Good law-abiding, tax-paying, patriotic American citizens. Good caring, upstanding people. Not liars, and not psychopaths.
But Rook has heard it too many times before, and he doesn’t want to hear it any more. Homosexuality clearly must be a choice. Why? Because he’s tired of hearing it. And because penises and vaginas fit together so nicely.
Can anyone define “willful ignorance” for me?
