I don't really have anything new to say on the subject of the heritability of sexual orientation, but it seems that occasionally I have to restate my position on it, because it's one that I very rarely see in public discussion of this issue, and it's one that I find immensely clarifying. My latest urge to do so is catalyzed by a post from Jonah Goldberg, on a CBS story.

One of Jonah's correspondents writes:

Where they come from is irrelevant. Consider the question: Where Do Adulterers Come From?"

By nature, I am an adulterer. Simply put, one woman is not enough and serial monogamy is no solution. My guess is that most men are in the same boat. History supports my hypothesis. Througout history, most cultures have supported polygamy (one man, many women). An incredible number of people continue to support polygamy, including the world's 1.2 billion Muslims.

However, I have been married for twenty years and have successfully overcome the temptation of adultery. And the temptation has been very real, including outright invitations from very attractive people. So what?

I give myself credit for withstanding the temptation. Yes, I give myself credit for overcoming my natural impulses. Am I wrong? Am I actually a psychological monster who takes great pleasure in torturing myself? I do not believe so. In fact, I believe that my adjustment to a monogamous society has been less difficult than my adjustment to the everyday society of work with all of its Puritannical poses.

So, the question "Where Do Homosexuals Come From?" is irrelevant to the question "Should I behave in accordance with my homosexual impulses?"

While I think that, strictly speaking, the writer has a legitimate point, it's a matter of degree, and sometimes quantity has a quality all its own. Maintaining his marital vows obviously goes against his nature, but that doesn't make it miserable. He at least is able to have sexual relations with someone who he finds sexually attractive, which is worth, I think, a lot. I don't think that you can compare his "sacrifice" with what (I infer) he expects gay people to do--either remain celibate or engage in sexual activity with a gender that they find repulsive (sexually speaking).

Turn society on its head. Suppose that Jonah's correspondent (assuming that he is a heterosexual) were somehow thrust into a society in which it was heterosexuality, rather than homosexuality, that was disapproved of, or even illegal. How willing would he be to have to engage in sexual relations with men?

I know that the answer for me would be Rosy Palms (assuming that I weren't physically forced into a homosexual relationship), but I wouldn't be happy about it. That's the situation that he asks gay people to accept.

My theory (well, I'm not the first to come up with it--I think that Kinsey did a lot of work in this area) is that peoples' innate (that is, the degree that is a result of genetics or womb environment) sexual orientation is not a binary state. Most are heterosexual, many are bisexual, and a few are purely homosexual, with gradations in between.

Again, as I've said many times in the past, people debating this issue tend to assume that everyone is like them. Even I'm guilty of this to a degree, except that as an extreme heterosexual (and not one formed by my environment--no one ever told me growing up that there was anything wrong with being gay, at least at home), I can understand that a homosexual man is just as turned off at the thought of doing it with a woman as I am at the thought of doing it with a guy (which is to say, a lot). I can't imagine being a woman and wanting to do it with a man--if I were a woman, I'd be a lesbian.

It's the people in between, many of whom are capable of and tempted to do it with either sex, who get morally righteous about it, because they assume that everyone is like them, everyone can do it with anyone they want, but that they are morally superior because they choose to only engage in moral, heterosexual activity. I don't feel morally superior to gays in my decision to stick with the ladies, because I have no choice. I assume that they don't either.

This point is key to the discussion about gays being "converted" to heterosexuality, via Jesus, or other means. If there are success stories, it's because they were never really "gay" to begin with, but were bisexual, with potential for heterosexuality. The failures are the ones who are purely homosexual. I know that there is no therapy (short of major brain surgery) that could make me gay. I'm straight, and have been since birth, as far as I can tell. I was never "confused" about my sexual orientation. The instant I became truly aware of the concept of sex (as in desire to engage in it), I was also acutely and instantly aware of the kind of equipment that I wanted my sex partners to have. But I accept that others are not like me (as is obvious by their behavior, both in their choice of bed partners, and in their debating arguments). I don't know if my theory is correct or not, but it seems to me to fit all the facts, and to have tremendous explanatory power.

[Update a few minutes later]

Derbyshire has a useful comment:

Jonah: That second correspondent of yours illustrates the old legal approach, i.e. that homosexuality is a thing you **do**. The current sensibility in western societies is that homosexuality is something you **are**. This is, as I pointed out in the pages of NR a year or so ago, quite a profound metaphysical shift.

Exactly, and I think that it's an enlightened sensibility, because it almost certainly corresponds to human reality. I think that adultery is something that someone chooses to do. I don't think that simply having (non-adulterous) sex with a person with whom you're oriented to having sex is in the same ethical category.

So, the question "Where Do Homosexuals Come From?" is irrelevant to the question "Should I behave in accordance with my homosexual impulses?"

Anyone ask the poster if "maybe the question "should people listen to me and my non committal question that is offensive?" or should "I resist my impulses to be an offensive dick?"

I like this game, any others?

This silliness on the part of the social conservatives towards gays has me asking the real question: Who cares?

I mean, really. If you are heterosexual, as I am, the thought of getting it on with another man is actually quite repulsive. Presumably the reverse situation is true for those who are gay. Furthermore, gays tend to live in a subculture that is quite isolated from most happily married people living in the suburbs. As a young man, I never understood the hostility of some straights towards gay men. I mean, it really does not make sense. If you are straight, you are attracted to women. If a significant percentage of the men around you are gay, then that means more women potentially available for you. So, one would think that the prevalence of gays would be in the straight man's self-interest, from the stand point of being able to score alot. Hense, the hostility and intolorant of gays on the part of straight men has never made any sense to me.

Perhaps the christian right men (like Jonah Goldberg) are insecure in their sexual identity. Maybe men like him have latent homosexual tendencies and that they are afraid that they will be "seduced" into homosexuality if they are in the presence of gay men for any length of time.

Who knows. However, attitudes such as those expressed by Jonah Goldberg have aleways puzzled me.

What "attitude" is it that Jonah expressed? All I saw was that he found the show interesting.

I agree that hostility towards homosexuals is evil. I'm not as sure that strong homosexuals are as repulsed by the idea of sex with women as strong hetrosexuals are repulsed by the thought of sex with men - otherwise I think there would be more common ground (as in, I can understand why you are uncomfortable sentiment). I think people need to just get out of each other's business - why does it matter what they do in the bedroom?

On the other hand, what is the deal with "Gay Olympics," "Gay Day," and the various other "Racist Day" activities? OK, solidarity is good, and especially if you are feeling insecure - but isn't the point that they don't want to be treated differently? I'm not in-your-face hetrosexual/white/whatever (at least I hope not), why do minorities have this need to make their minoritiness known? For example, there is this one guy I know that every time I meet him he makes sure to comment about his boyfriend - and I'm not talking about everyday normal stuff, he needs to bring it into irrelevant conversations, I guess he needs me to acknowlegde his sexuality? Just very strange (and I actually have a lot of homosexual friends, and he knows it, so I'm not sure what the point is?).

I guess I find it strange that the very people who cry racism and bigotry are the ones that actively try to make people not of their race/orientation uncomfortable/not invited. Very strange!

I don't really care if homosexuality is a choice, nature, or something you can do in your free time. The adultery analogy is flawed because the adulterer is violating trust and probably a promise or oath as well. Most homosexual acts simply do not break any trust or promises. Second, no one has presented any reason why society should care about homosexual acts.

"Perhaps the christian right men (like Jonah Goldberg) are insecure in their sexual identity. "

Or perhaps secular left men nonchalantly throw out ad homenim psychobabble to demonstrate insufficient effort put forth into cognitive thought.

For example: Jonah Goldbers is a practicing Jew, lumping him with the Christian right is simply a lazy ad homenim attack.

Actually, he's not a Jew, practicing or otherwise. He's like me--father was Jewish, but mother wasn't. You're not automatically Jewish unless your mother is (unless you actively convert). I don't think he's a practicing Christian, either. But unlike me, I do think he's a theist.

I remember reading something in December about celebrating Chanuakka. That would lead me to assume he is at least a bit of a practicing Jew.

I celebrate Christmas (sort of), but I'm not a Christian.

Of course, but the presents are better for Christmas! Any Gentile who watched "Chaunnaka Harry saves Christmas" on SNL understands this ;)

Would you celebrate Chaunnaka just for a pair of cufflinks? Its gotta be the real deal I tells ya!

With Channuka, you get eight pairs of cuff links--one per day. What's not to like?

But no new PC or new rifle unless it can be broken down into eith different subassemblies.

I think the real question is does the "On orbit assembly" strategy applied to Chaunnaka really provide a suitable alternative to the "Heavy Lift" strategy of Christmas?

Will we be limited to small candlesats or will we develop an on orbit lamp oil depot?

On the first day of Channuka, my true love gave to me...a 450-watt power supply in a pear tree...

You could probably rework the song to build a bitchen' machine, even with eight days...

A Falcon could make a good Festivus pole. Rand can do the airing of grievances, and James Miller the feats of (tensile) strength.

Quote from Rand: "I celebrate Christmas (sort of), but I'm not a Christian."

I celebrate Gay Day but that doesn't make me a homo.

Well Rand, as an actual dyke I appreciate your taking the time to put this into perspective (or should I say - reverse perspective) for this religious right twit. He compares apples to oranges with specious reasoning and thinks he's written something profound. Fairly typical for that bunch, unfortunately.

Well written Rand. Statistically speaking there are measurable differences between male and female brains. What I don't know is if there is a corrolation between homosexuals and opposing brain type (although I've always sort of assumed that to be the case.)

I'm sure that both nature and nurture apply. It also seems to me that women are more easily comfortable with homosexuality (lesbianism) than men (although again, I don't have any actual facts to back up my supposition.)

My viewpoint is shaped by what I've read in the bible which is that men sleeping with men is abhorent. It doesn't stop there. A christian must also be sensitive and tolerant (but not to the point of joining in behavior that is considered abhorent.) Like you, I'm a man that doesn't know what it means to be attracted to other men (even if I'm able to recognize a good looking man when I see him.) I have known a number of homosexual men and woman of very good character. I also know men that put aside their nature because they are christian and can see how difficult this is for them (they are uncomfortable around men and prefer the company of women. Which I find understandable although it may seem odd to some.)

If people acknowledge the nature aspect of homosexuality and they believe in god it follows that many can accept a god that would create this situation. But the bible does answer that question for those that care to learn it.

We need to be caring and tolerant of each other (with the acception of murdering bastards that I perhaps am less christian for believing that they should be wiped out to the last person.) In any case, I wish I could write so well on a difficult subject so full of emotional landmines.

Sorry, I meant to say '...many can NOT accept..."

I don't really care if homosexuality is a choice, nature, or something you can do in your free time. The adultery analogy is flawed because the adulterer is violating trust and probably a promise or oath as well. Most homosexual acts simply do not break any trust or promises. Second, no one has presented any reason why society should care about homosexual acts.

EXACTLY!!!

Be gay, just don't try to get me from behind, or if you WANT to nail me,I would stop you and say "thank you for the flattery, but please move your hands, before I become even MORE hetero"

That is how it WORKS! in the end game.

Anyone who thinks they can recall PRECISELY who they were more than 10 years ago? is lying.

If they weren't, they wouldn't be embarassed by "family film" or "family video"

We were NEVER the person we thought we were, and the hetero, AND homo nazi's need to shut the F up, and just interact without trying to find a form of dominance of opinion.

"hey" I say to a person, "Hey" he says back, "how doing I say" "I'm gay" he responds, "why is that your intro? nevermind, lets hit a bar" I say.

Doesn't change the fact that he introduces himself as gay.

Finish line analysis.

My previous point (that got distorted as an attack on Jonah Goldberg) was that, as a heterosexual man, why should I care about gays, one way or another?

When I lived in LA in the late 80's, I knew a fair number of gay men. They very much lived in a subculture that was completely separate and largely invisible to the daily lives of straight people. As such, despite knowing these gay people, I have little or no interaction with their "world". Their sexual preference, life style choice, or whatever you choose to label it as had absolutely ZERO impact on my personal life or any of my dreams or goals. I believe that this would be even more the case with straight people who don't personally know any gay or lesbian people.

For this reason, I cannot comprehend why homosexuality is even considered an issue on the part of socially conservative straights. If their worlds are so completely separate from each other, why should they care at all about it?

I think the whole issue on the part of social conservatives (such as Jonah Goldberg) is competelely idiotic.

I am well aware that homosexuality is not accepted in the christian religion. However, since most gays (especially all of the ones I knew in the late 80's) are not christian, the christian prohibition of homosexuality does not apply to them. Hense, this too is an idiotic non-issue for people to be hung up about.

I lived in East Asia for 10 years. One of the differences I notice between the West and Asia is the propensity of Westerners to engage in political activism (both left and right) over issues that have nothing to do with their personal lives. This includes everything from "pro-life" to "animal-rights" activism. My wife, who is Japanese, thinks these kinds of political issues are completely idiotic and irrelevant to modern technological civilization. Her sentiment is one shared by almost all Asian people as well as myself (who is caucasion).

"For this reason, I cannot comprehend why homosexuality is even considered an issue on the part of socially conservative straights."

One answer to this is that when a class of people don't just want to be equal but instead 'more equal' politically they do it by stamping on others. To redefine marriage, for instance, is a direct attack on an intangible, but one that is held dear by many (and part of a bigger attack on family in general.)

Many of the people that want to redefine marriage may have serious issues; but it seems that more are simply interested in using the issue as a way of attacking others.

Legal rights between between people can be established simply by agreement with most surrounding social issue being simply an annoyance. Government pretty much annoys everyone in a fairly well distributed manner. Other legal issues can be dealt with by contract.

But being in-your-face is a different issue for different reasons.

TESTING?

[keep having to play with the spelling of this post to get it submitted - system won't tell me what it's objecting to so I keep having to guess]

POST REPLY 1 - [sorry, having to fight the system to post this at all, it keeps saying it objects to something but won't tell me what]:

I give up, I keep trying to respond to this post, but the system won't let me.

One answer to this is that when a class of people don't just want to be equal but instead 'more equal' politically they do it by stamping on others. To redefine marriage, for instance, is a direct attack on an intangible, but one that is held dear by many (and part of a bigger attack on family in general.)
-----
Do please explain how someone’s else’s marriage impacts your own marriage and/or family. Does the existen! ce of such marriages legally nullify your marriage or remove your children from your custody? No? Then cut the crap as it does no such thing.


Many of the people that want to redefine marriage may have serious issues; but it seems that more are simply interested in using the issue as a way of attacking others.
-----
Oh yes, wanting equal rights now constitutes an “attack” – any other stunning examples of irrationality for us?


Legal rights between between people can be established simply by agreement with most surrounding social issue being simply an annoyance. Government pretty much annoys everyone in a fairly well distributed manner. Other legal issues can be dealt with by contract.
-----
So I assume you’re in favor of ending heterosexual marriage and replacing it with legal contracts?


But being in-your-face is a different issue for different reasons.
-----
How about you stop being so blatantly heterosexual where people can see you? (turn-about is fair play).