Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The Nature of Homosexuality

This article by Dennis Prager is interesintg.
It brings up a few issues in my mind.
Firstly, there is the question of the difference between male and female homosexuality.
Anna Montrose claims that she in essence "chose" to be gay. Does this mean that homosexuality is not inborn?
Well, according to Steve Sailer, Lesbians are less likely to think of their homosexuality as inborn than are homosexual males (although the greater tendency toward bisexuality in women compared to men, who are more likely to be gay or straight, would be more consistent with a genetic explanation than male homosexuality).

Second, though, there is the question of whether or not homosexuality is entirely inborn, or whether living in a non-gay-friendly culture tends to mean that only those who are irrevocably gay are gay. In other words, is it that sexuality is immutable for everyone, or just that everyone who could be changed already has been?

Of course, this also ties in with how we define homosexuality; are we just talking behavior, or are we talking in terms of orientation? In other words, (a) does culture and environment have an effect on sexual orientation for some people, and (b) what effect does it have on behavior, i.e. on homosexual sex by non-homosexuals?

Which brings up the interesting question: if it turns out that tolerance of homosexuality increases the number of homosexuals or the number of people engaging in homosexual behavior, but a certain percentage of homosexuals will occur no matter how intolerant the culture, will society choose tolerance and greater homosexuality, or accept the fact that the innate homosexuals will forever be a marginalized group?

Of course, if one sees no moral distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality, then increased homosexuality would not be a problem, so greater tolerance would be chosen. If homosexual behavior is seen as an absolute evil, then intolerance would be the obvious choice; to protect those who can be "saved." If one sees the inborn-ness of homosexuality as determining its moral status, then the issue is more complicated.

In any case, it has occurred to me that most people are so committed to talking about homosexuality as inborn vs. innate that no one has discussed whether there is a middle ground, and if so, what are the repercussions.

That is all.

That is all.

No comments: