This post is based on a previous one, in which I criticized Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum for his views on homosexuality.

A number of people disputed my position in the comments section, but one of them was particularly dogged, and I'd like to continue the discussion here, in a post that will have more visibility, for the moment...

I can see that you and I simply do not agree. You look at homosexual activity in the prisons and see it as evidence of repressed sexuality. I look at it and see it as a behavior caused by the conditions.

I see it as both. There is no bright line between people of differing sexual orientations, but however fuzzy, many are far over it on one side or the other. Some, indeed most, are born heterosexual, and you can't get them to do it with the same sex at the point of a gun (at least the men, who literally wouldn't be able to get it up). Put me in that camp.

Some (a very unfortunate few) are capable of feeling sexual attraction only to those of their own sex.

The rest (not the majority, but a significant minority) can do it either way, but most behave heterosexually under standard circumstances, because that's the path of least social resistance.

In an environment in which the only sexual option is homosexual (e.g., to use your example, prison) those who are...flexible...will do what they need to. Those who are homosexual (assuming they are also the Big Man On Campus, or at least Prison) will be in hog heaven. Those who are heterosexual will commune with themselves, with the ugly and brutal exception of physical rape, which is all too prevalent in such environments.

To answer your question, I don't foresee any reasonably "normal" circumstances under which I would engage in homosexual activity. I would like to think I wouldn't even in outrageous circumstances like those in prison because of my faith.

I'm not going to let this question go, because it is at the crux of the issue. I'll repeat it from the previous thread, just to make the point.

I asked:

Are you saying that you can imagine circumstances in which you would willingly, even eagerly, engage in homosexual activity? If not, why not, and why do you think I would?

Your response is "I don't foresee any reasonably 'normal' circumstances under which I would engage in homosexual activity. I would like to think I wouldn't even in outrageous circumstances like those in prison because of my faith."

Really? You "would like to think"?

I don't have to like to think.

I know.

Interesting. So, you're saying that under those circumstances you might find yourself attracted to men, and the only thing preventing you from indulging yourself in that attraction is the fact that it would be immoral, according to scripture? Because it would be opposed to your faith?

If that's the case, you're much different than me, because my "faith," such as it is, has nothing to say about with whom I should or shouldn't have sexual relations. Despite this, I can confidently state, notwithstanding rape or some otherwise extreme duress, that I will never, ever, engage in sexual relations with a man. I can state with absolute certitude that I will never do so willingly, because men don't turn me on, in any sexual way.

No man, no way.

On the other hand, I have to infer from your statement that, in your case, they at least might. What does that say about you?

However, that said, I also would say that I would never commit murder. Yet given the right circumstances, I think there are many rational people, like myself, who would. To me, homosexuality and other assorted sins are not mere matters of genetics but more of environment. I don't believe anyone is born a killer any more than they are born gay. I think there are genetic factors that may predispose you to these things but they are more often than not highly influenced by your environment.

So, you don't believe that people are born to love the same sex, and you don't believe that people are born to murder.

Well, I don't have any reason to disbelieve either. Talk to any family therapist, or juvenile detective about the number of children who were torturing and killing animals from an early age, and how many of them ended up doing the same to humans. Sorry, but I do believe that some people are born predisposed to be sociopathic, and utterly indifferent to (or who even take pleasure from) the suffering of other sentient beings, and to whom murder is not only inconsequential, but enjoyable. Despite the fact that I'm neither Christian or Catholic, I am in fact capable of appreciating the concept of evil, and that some people are, sadly, born that way.

That said, I think that the comparison between sexual orientation and proclivity to cause pain and death to innocents is not only irrelevant, but odious, and I have to wonder at the mind of a person who would make such a comparison.

You are comparing, on the one hand, intimate consensual interactions between two people with the intent of eliciting joy, to the taking of life, often in a callous and brutal way.

Think about it.

So I believe you when you say you are irredeemably heterosexual. I think because of your upbringing and your natural genetic disposition that you probably have not had these desires. Neither have I. But I do believe that human sexuality is mutable and that under the right conditions it can be changed.

Do you not understand the fundamental dissonance between these two sentences? Either I am irredeemably heterosexual, or my sexuality is mutable. You cannot have it both ways.

How are you going to resolve this profound logical conflict (absent resorting to illogic and "God says it's so")?

Well, that's a lot of stuff in one place. Some comments on various subjects:

Do you not understand the fundamental dissonance between these two sentences? Either I am irredeemably heterosexual, or my sexuality is mutable. You cannot have it both ways.

As I understand it, going back to that infamous prison rape examples, most of the people perpetuating same sex prisoner rape are "irredeemably heterosexual". Your confusion is in assuming that the two concepts are opposite (they certainly appear to be).

The key is to understand that prison particular in male prisons has evolved in recent times to a highly disfunctional primate society. The "leaders" of prison are the stereotypical alpha males. Being a successful alpha male means more power and priviledges than your fellow convicts. In primate societies, one key characteristic of an alpha male is ready access to sex with females. That of course isn't going to happen in prison. So what's an alpha male operating on instinct to do? Make a smaller male a female.

More disturbing is why do prison authorities look the other way when this stuff happens? But we're getting off topic.

As I understand it, going back to that infamous prison rape examples, most of the people perpetuating same sex prisoner rape are "irredeemably heterosexual".

I don't understand that at all, though I suppose it's possible that a heterosexual man could close his eyes and pretend that he's raping a woman. It's hard to imagine that he would enjoy penetration himself. It's certainly nothing that I would find sexually pleasurable either way.

More disturbing is why do prison authorities look the other way when this stuff happens? But we're getting off topic.

Yes, that is another, and extremely disturbing topic. In fact, it's one of the most appalling officially sanctioned injustices in our society, particularly given the minor nature of the crimes (e.g., marijuana possession) that many of the rape victims are in prison for. They were certainly not formally sentenced to be raped.

I believe that there are two stumbling blocks at work here. The first is the assumption that there are only two sides to the issue of how one becomes homosexual - by conscious choice or by being born that way. The third alternative, which is supported my many and which represents the consensus of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, is that homosexuality results from subconscious response to trauma induced by one or (more likely) a combination of factors in the immediate social environment, particularly during childhood. The reconciliation, therefore, is that sexual orientation is mutable, but only under extraordinary circumstances.

(For the sake of clarity, "trauma" is used here strictly according to its clinical definition: Psychiatrically, "trauma" has assumed a different meaning [from physical trauma] and refers to an experience that is emotionally painful, distressful, or shocking, which often results in lasting mental and physical effects.)

The second lies in the confusion between comparing means and comparing ends. The argument I see from the cited comments is that being gay and being a killer can both be rooted in trauma. Heck, pedophilia and a Howard Hughes degree of obsessive neatness could also be rooted in trauma. The claim is that, despite having different sets of contributing factors and different sets of moral implications, homosexuality and murderousness emerge through the same basic "mechanics" - dysfunctional response to emotionally trying circumstances.

Some, indeed most, are born heterosexual, and you can't get them to do it with the same sex at the point of a gun (at least the men, who literally wouldn't be able to get it up). Put me in that camp.

Rand, I don't mean to be overly blunt, but a man's inability to get it up will have very, very little to do with whether or not a confirmed heterosexual might participate in homosexual activity in a prison setting. It wouldn't be about their own gratification, if you catch my meaning.

You wrote:
That said, I think that the comparison between sexual orientation and proclivity to cause pain and death to innocents is not only irrelevant, but odious, and I have to wonder at the mind of a person who would make such a comparison.

You are comparing, on the one hand, intimate consensual interactions between two people with the intent of eliciting joy, to the taking of life, often in a callous and brutal way.

Mr. Henderson addressed this somewhat already, but here is my input. What is the difference between saying one is predisposed genetically toward anything? Love, hate - doesn't matter - if the root cause (genetics) is the same, then the analogy can be logically drawn. If the root cause is different - then your argument makes sense.

Clearly, from a social order perspective the differences between love and hate are extreme (despite some who may infer - say, O.J. Simpson - that they are rooted in the same passion). But the comparison drawn here is from root causes - not comparative effects of actions.

Odious as the comparison may be - in light of the debate being conducted here, it is entirely appropriate and acceptable. If one can be genetically predisposed to be homosexual, AND one can be genetically predisposed toward violence - then where is the odiousness of the comparison? Maybe I'm missing something, but the argument sounds the same to me.

Rand, I don't mean to be overly blunt, but a man's inability to get it up will have very, very little to do with whether or not a confirmed heterosexual might participate in homosexual activity in a prison setting. It wouldn't be about their own gratification, if you catch my meaning.

I am excluding rape from this discussion, at least for the victim. I wouldn't consider a man who was raped by another man homosexual or bisexual, unless he'd at some point engaged in voluntary homosexual activities as well.

Rand,

I don't dispute a lot of what you are saying although I see now that some of the things I wrote were unclear as to what I believe so I'll try and clear those things up.

I think Alan and Jared explained my reasoning somewhat better than I could so I thank them.

First off, I do believe there is a genetic component to one's sexuality. I also believe there is an environmental component to it. I think that the amount of influence each of these factors plays varies from person to person. This is what I meant by the mutability of one's sexuality. Different environmental factors can result in different sexualities, if the genetic factors allow for it. This is what alows me to believe you when you say you are irredeemably heterosexual in the same way I am. Your genetic predisposition combined with the environment you grew up in contribute to make you heterosexual. With the life you have lived and your genetic background, there's no way you could be anything but heterosexual. The same with me. Likewise with a homosexual.

I think this same comparison does apply to those who commit violent acts. I understand the comparison may be odious but it is not irrelevant. We know that both genetics and environment play a role in the making of a killer. We also know that under the right environmental conditions, many can be changed. Think of an innercity gangland killer. They were not born to be killers but the harsh environmen contributed heavily to the results.

As far as your question, I think I answered it poorly to begin with. Again, I don't foresee any reasonable or even unreasonable circumstances in which I would find myself attracted to men. I stated (poorly) that this was because of my faith. In that statement, I meant to include ALL of the environmental factors which have formed my sexuality. Given those environmental factors and my genetic predisposition I do not foresee any circumstance where I might be attracted to men.

As to your last point, I do not see a logical conflict because of what I meant by mutability. As I have tried to explain, given different environmantal factors (child abuse, poverty, divorce, religion, wealth, rural or urban, etc.), two people with the same genetic predspostition can have different sexualities. In other words, their sexuality is mutable (environmentally). However, given the environment you grew up in and your predisposition, you are irredeemably heterosexual. At this point in time, no environmental factor could change that. For others, however, the environmental factors can sometimes be changed enough that one's sexuality can be changed (this presupposes that the genetic factors are not strong enough to rule this out).

I hope that I have answered all of your points. Again, I agree with a lot of what you are saying and some of our disagreement merely results from my unclear writings.

There is also another factor here. There are some people who find themselves attracted to one particular individual. I know "straight" men who never even thought of having a gay relationship finding themselves in love with a man. I know of at least two "out" gay men who met a woman and fell arse over tea-kettle in love. I mean these are men who were convinced they were gay, because they were attracted only to men.

I think the lines are greyer than they appear. In my experience (might be the type of circles I run in) quite a large percentage of men are either bisexual or not picky. Many went through a "stage" in the late teens and then found the right girl and stayed hetero.

We have some similar arguments going on over here, only I have some evidence to back up my position in links amidexcerpts in this post.
Rand, you seem like an intelligent fellow, but despite claiming that you base your opinion on science and logic, you offer deuced little of either, instead relying mostly on what you can imagine. Might I suggest that you might be insufficiently imaginative?

According to this recently published study, women may prefer to date one gender or the other, but they get sexually aroused by both, in other words they are all bi. Men on the other hand, are either straight or gay and not bi.

Basically, men and women who identified themselves as hetero, homo, and bi were shown films of just men having sex and just women having sex. They sexual response while watching these films was measured.

Women (of all self identified types) were equally turned on by watching men having sex and women having sex. Hetero men were only turned on by watching women, gay men were only turned on by watching men and bi men (self identified) were almost all turned on by only men and few by only women. None of the male Bi?s were turned on by both sexes like women were.

I have listed the link to the actual study if you want the methodology and hard data.

Yahoo Article.

Science Daily.

The Professor who did the study.

The Study.