The New-New Moral Majority

[Wiccan_Child]

What possible advantages are their to being gay in this society?

I get to sleep with hunky hunky men .

 

[sidhe]

It's not about morals, it's about politics. Anti-gay groups justify their attacks in part because of their belief in a changeable sexual orientation, so it hurts their cause to demonstrate that sexual orientation is static. I'm guessing the people who take a hard-line on sexual orientation being static are perfectly content with alienating a few by-choice people in order to politically defend gays from their political opponents. Not that it changes the truth at all. But the statistics posted earlier in the thread indicate that the odds of changing sexual orientation, even via intense conditioning, are vanishingly small.

Ah, but herein lies the flaw in the argument.

It has nothing to do with whether sexuality is fluid, static, or any of that. The point that people should be driving at is this: As marriage is a legal contract, does the state have any authority to place conditions on who can enter into this legal agreement, assuming they have the authority to enter such a contract?

I don't care if a man and woman, two men, two women, three men, eight women and one man, one woman and three men - whatever combination you can imagine - want to get married out of love, sex, tax breaks, or because they give you free drinks at the nickle slots in Vegas (ohhh, the free drinks...), I don't think the state has the authority to say who can enter into a legal contract with whom. To me, it makes as much sense as a ruling that an individual with MS can't privately sell a car to a person with neurofibromitosis, or that a dwarf can't form a limited-liability corporation with someone with acromegaly, or that a redhead can't contract a brunette to build their house. If a law was passed to that effect, it would be considered stupid and arbitrary, when all it is is saying two people with different genetic structures can't enter into a legal agreement. Why are the X and Y chromosomes exempt from being considered a stupid and arbitrary reason to prohibit two (or more) individuals from signing a legal agreement?

Focusing on the fluid v. static arguments around sexuality isn't the issue. It's whether the state has any authority to make arbitrary restrictions on the ability for consenting adults to enter into legal agreements.

Personally, I think every man and woman in the country should be entered into a plural marriage with Neil Patrick Harris.

 

[cantata]

I based that off a comment from the author of the study in a different article, looks like the author was ambiguous and I didn't catch it. 'Most' is still a lot, though, so I still think it's relevant.

Oh sure, most is a lot. I'm quite comfortable with that. I do think that there are general differences between men and women in terms of their responses to erotica. I just try to be conscious of generalising too much at the risk of alienating people.

The point was that females and males have different physiological sexual arousal patterns, which makes it irresponsible to use a female's sexual behavior to make a general statement about both male and female behavior. It doesn't matter whether that difference is caused by genes or socialization.

Sure, that's fine. I'm certainly not trying to generalise my experience. On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that the most effective avenues in attempting to change have been properly explored.

The evidence indicates that social pressure doesn't work very well on sexual orientation. It is almost completely useless, according to the numbers posted.

But again, I think you're oversimplifying outside influences. I'm not saying that it's as simple as society saying "Do this" and people saying "Okay". I'm saying that various extremely personal and individual factors in people's early life tend to have an effect on the way they turn out as adults. This is nothing new or revolutionary. Everyone knows that children's environments have all sorts of effects on how they turn out. That's why we have notions of good and bad parenting.

Quoting: "Most human sexuality researchers believe that one's orientation is fixed and unchangeable."

For sure; and when Freud was in fashion, most human sexuality researchers believed that non-heterosexual orientations were a result of unresolved penis envy or a distant father. There are fashions in psychology. Psychological studies are much less conclusive than other kinds of studies, because they use external effects and "symptoms" to measure what's going on inside someone's head. It's not like doing a blood test to see if someone has a particular chemical in their blood, say. Researchers are inclined to extrapolate from psychological studies to fit their pet hypotheses.

Because of your example, it must be possible for at least a small number of females, ages 14-17, to go from straight to bi if they want to. But that doesn't imply anything about the effectiveness of socialization. It does open the possibility that females change if they meet the same criteria you did, although it would take more examples like it to be very meaningful.

Sure. Again, I'm not trying to generalise from my experience alone. I actually know quite a few queer-by-choice people; all our stories are different. We changed for different reasons and with different results. I also know some people whose sexual orientation changed naturally as they got older.

The thing that worries me about the idea that sexuality is (and must be) static is that it encourages people to find a label for themselves and stick to it their whole lives. I would prefer that people didn't feel the need to do that. I would like people to have a more relaxed attitude about who and what they are; about "how they identify". I think it would cause everyone less angst in the long run.

I know of no evidence for seperating positive social pressure from negative, nor do I know of any evidence that positive pressure is more effective that negative. Like you've already said, attempts to un-gay people are made with both kinds of pressure. And these attempts fail.

Attempts to un-gay people are usually rooted in guilt.

Do you find it surprising that people who "want" to change because they're terrified of an angry god generally find that they can't manage it?

Pragmatically, it's more effective to use science and statistics to change the political attitudes of voters in order to secure legal rights than it is to try and engage moralists on their own terms and change the morals. The path to legal and social freedom can be won with either method, but the political path is more effective, so I tend to think of it as a political matter moreso than moral.

Sidhe commented more efficiently on this than I ever could.

No evidence to support this.

Given the stats, I'm going to stick with my belief that orientation cannot be changed, except in cases so few as to be negligible.

Well, no, because no one's done the studies.

I have never seen a study in which attempts were made to change sexual orientation for "positive" reasons - like, say, because someone feels that they'd prefer not to limit the group of people that they can have relationships with on the basis of the shape of their genitals. I have also never seen a controlled study of attempting to change orientation. I have seen lots of studies which show that ex-gay ministries don't work, and that doesn't surprise me. They don't know what they're doing. Could a hypnotherapist or NLP expert help someone change their orientation? Maybe. Generally speaking, reputable people don't try. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It has nothing to do with whether sexuality is fluid, static, or any of that. The point that people should be driving at is this: As marriage is a legal contract, does the state have any authority to place conditions on who can enter into this legal agreement, assuming they have the authority to enter such a contract?

But who determines the latter authority? The state.

I don't care if a man and woman, two men, two women, three men, eight women and one man, one woman and three men - whatever combination you can imagine - want to get married out of love, sex, tax breaks, or because they give you free drinks at the nickle slots in Vegas (ohhh, the free drinks...), I don't think the state has the authority to say who can enter into a legal contract with whom.

So you don't think the state should interfere if a man employs a four-year-old for 30p an hour?

To me, it makes as much sense as a ruling that an individual with MS can't privately sell a car to a person with neurofibromitosis, or that a dwarf can't form a limited-liability corporation with someone with acromegaly, or that a redhead can't contract a brunette to build their house. If a law was passed to that effect, it would be considered stupid and arbitrary, when all it is is saying two people with different genetic structures can't enter into a legal agreement. Why are the X and Y chromosomes exempt from being considered a stupid and arbitrary reason to prohibit two (or more) individuals from signing a legal agreement?

Focusing on the fluid v. static arguments around sexuality isn't the issue. It's whether the state has any authority to make arbitrary restrictions on the ability for consenting adults to enter into legal agreements.

Personally, I think every man and woman in the country should be entered into a plural marriage with Neil Patrick Harris.

While I agree with the most of what you say (NPH wallpaper is mandatory in my house), I think the state should have some say in who can or cannot engage in a contract. If MS don't want to sell their product to someone, that's their business. If a religious minister doesn't want to marry an interracial couple, that's their business. But no contract should broker an illegal activity (child labour, murder, theft, etc).

Basically, so long as a contract doesn't break any laws, it should be allowed. But that begs the question: does a same-sex marriage break any laws?

 

[acropolis]

Ah, but herein lies the flaw in the argument.

It has nothing to do with whether sexuality is fluid, static, or any of that. The point that people should be driving at is this: As marriage is a legal contract, does the state have any authority to place conditions on who can enter into this legal agreement, assuming they have the authority to enter such a contract?

I don't care if a man and woman, two men, two women, three men, eight women and one man, one woman and three men - whatever combination you can imagine - want to get married out of love, sex, tax breaks, or because they give you free drinks at the nickle slots in Vegas (ohhh, the free drinks...), I don't think the state has the authority to say who can enter into a legal contract with whom. To me, it makes as much sense as a ruling that an individual with MS can't privately sell a car to a person with neurofibromitosis, or that a dwarf can't form a limited-liability corporation with someone with acromegaly, or that a redhead can't contract a brunette to build their house. If a law was passed to that effect, it would be considered stupid and arbitrary, when all it is is saying two people with different genetic structures can't enter into a legal agreement. Why are the X and Y chromosomes exempt from being considered a stupid and arbitrary reason to prohibit two (or more) individuals from signing a legal agreement?

Focusing on the fluid v. static arguments around sexuality isn't the issue. It's whether the state has any authority to make arbitrary restrictions on the ability for consenting adults to enter into legal agreements.

Personally, I think every man and woman in the country should be entered into a plural marriage with Neil Patrick Harris.

I was talking more about gay rehab, which is also an issue. Clearly not the most important one for you. But even for gay marriage, I maintain that operating on the political level is more effective than trying to use moral arguments.

 

[Fin12]

What does that have to do with anything? There are no advantages in sexuality!

If your gay you have to deal with all the negative social aspects of it with very few positives.

Thus if sexuality was a choice no one or VERY few would be gay.

Becuase that is not the case, we can argue that sexuality is not a choice.

 

[sidhe]

But who determines the latter authority? The state.


So you don't think the state should interfere if a man employs a four-year-old for 30p an hour?


While I agree with the most of what you say (NPH wallpaper is mandatory in my house), I think the state should have some say in who can or cannot engage in a contract. If MS don't want to sell their product to someone, that's their business. If a religious minister doesn't want to marry an interracial couple, that's their business. But no contract should broker an illegal activity (child labour, murder, theft, etc).

Basically, so long as a contract doesn't break any laws, it should be allowed. But that begs the question: does a same-sex marriage break any laws?

As long as the two individuals are of legal age to enter the contract, no issue. And a same-sex marriage doesn't violate any laws, no harm, no foul.

On some of the other issues you raised, those are kinda strawmen to what I was saying. Any individual has the right to refuse to enter into a contract with someone else, but the state (apart from laws governing age of consent/accountability) has no right to say who someone cannot enter a contract with. If a midget wants to only extend their legally binding services to other midgets, fine. If the Baptist church up the street doesn't want to hold a polyamorous pagan wedding, great. But the state shouldn't say that, in the case of a legal contract, neither is possible to occur.

I specify "legal agreement" here, because a restaurant or other service industry establishment shouldn't be able to kick someone out on the basis of sexual preference, race, etc., unless they're establishing a contractual relationship with each customer, i.e. a private club membership.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As long as the two individuals are of legal age to enter the contract, no issue.

Why is it an issue if one or both individuals are underage?

And a same-sex marriage doesn't violate any laws, no harm, no foul.

Except those laws that forbid same-sex marriage, of course.

On some of the other issues you raised, those are kinda strawmen to what I was saying. Any individual has the right to refuse to enter into a contract with someone else, but the state (apart from laws governing age of consent/accountability) has no right to say who someone cannot enter a contract with. If a midget wants to only extend their legally binding services to other midgets, fine. If the Baptist church up the street doesn't want to hold a polyamorous pagan wedding, great. But the state shouldn't say that, in the case of a legal contract, neither is possible to occur.

Agreed. Though I'm still curious about the consent/accountability thing. Is it not as arbitrary as sexual orientation, stature, religion, etc?

I specify "legal agreement" here, because a restaurant or other service industry establishment shouldn't be able to kick someone out on the basis of sexual preference, race, etc., unless they're establishing a contractual relationship with each customer, i.e. a private club membership.

Why not? While we may find it appalling and disgusting for a restaurant to refuse service to people deemed 'too Middle-Eastern', I think you'd agree that this isn't enough to force our 'be tolerant' mantra upon them.

 

[acropolis]

But again, I think you're oversimplifying outside influences. I'm not saying that it's as simple as society saying "Do this" and people saying "Okay". I'm saying that various extremely personal and individual factors in people's early life tend to have an effect on the way they turn out as adults. This is nothing new or revolutionary. Everyone knows that children's environments have all sorts of effects on how they turn out. That's why we have notions of good and bad parenting.

If we're talking about the social affects on children, then they have a great deal of influence. There is still the 'nature' part of brain development, of course, so I don't think it's possible to completely shape a human mind via socialization. But the formation of identity when people are young is very fluid. When I say I believe orientation is fixed, I mean it's fixed beyond a certain young age. Or at least it is set so deep that attempts to change it will fail in nearly every case, making efforts to change someone's orientation unjustified. And additionally, I think it's likely that genes can prevent a switch from being possible, though I haven't seen any concrete evidence for it, so it's just speculation.

For sure; and when Freud was in fashion, most human sexuality researchers believed that non-heterosexual orientations were a result of unresolved penis envy or a distant father. There are fashions in psychology. Psychological studies are much less conclusive than other kinds of studies, because they use external effects and "symptoms" to measure what's going on inside someone's head. It's not like doing a blood test to see if someone has a particular chemical in their blood, say. Researchers are inclined to extrapolate from psychological studies to fit their pet hypotheses.

Yes, psych studies aren't proof in the same sense that studies in other branches of science. But it's all we've got to go on, other than our own experiences, so I still think they're useful. But the human being is terribly complex, so making totalizing statements doesn't make much sense. It is justifiable to say that behaviors are statistically improbable to a high degree, since the numbers are easier to find than any potential causes. Which is what the current studies seem to show: changing your gender is highly improbable.

Sure. Again, I'm not trying to generalise from my experience alone. I actually know quite a few queer-by-choice people; all our stories are different. We changed for different reasons and with different results. I also know some people whose sexual orientation changed naturally as they got older.

It would be fascinating to see a study of some sort about this queer by choice phenomena, since I hadn't heard of it before you brought it up. Personally, I wouldn't want to deal with sexual tension in all of my friendships, there is enough of that as it is. I also just prefer to go where my desires lead me, rather than go through the stress of changing myself to fit my own, or anyone elses, mold. But if you're involved in acadamia at all you should put together some kind of study, I think there could be a lot to learn if it was conducted well.

The thing that worries me about the idea that sexuality is (and must be) static is that it encourages people to find a label for themselves and stick to it their whole lives. I would prefer that people didn't feel the need to do that. I would like people to have a more relaxed attitude about who and what they are; about "how they identify". I think it would cause everyone less angst in the long run.

I don't have any strong feelings about how sexuality should be, but having options is always nice, so I can't really disagree. I'm just going off the numbers that say changing is virtually impossible. Sexual behavior is a primal element of humanity with a long history, so I'm a little skeptical that it can be shifted around at will.

Attempts to un-gay people are usually rooted in guilt.

Do you find it surprising that people who "want" to change because they're terrified of an angry god generally find that they can't manage it?

I'm not surprised that people can't switch orientations for any reason, since the numbers say it's not likely. And I don't think I could ever modify that part of me, but that's just one tiny bit of evidence.

Well, no, because no one's done the studies.

I have never seen a study in which attempts were made to change sexual orientation for "positive" reasons - like, say, because someone feels that they'd prefer not to limit the group of people that they can have relationships with on the basis of the shape of their genitals. I have also never seen a controlled study of attempting to change orientation. I have seen lots of studies which show that ex-gay ministries don't work, and that doesn't surprise me. They don't know what they're doing. Could a hypnotherapist or NLP expert help someone change their orientation? Maybe. Generally speaking, reputable people don't try. And therein lies the problem.

If a study like that comes along, I'll reevaluate. Though, like you said, ethical practitioners probably won't perform any such study in the near future.

 

[Baggins]

Sorry, but the Christian's I hang with, love Jews and have no problem with Traditional Jewish marriages. The Orthodox Rabbi isn't going to consider a "homosexual couple" married either. What I'm saying is that you seem to care more about being at one's side when they die, but could care less where they will spend eternity. If GOD doesn't exist, then FRANKLY you standing around at someone's bedside is rather worthless, don't you think? What exactly was gained --- if GOD doesn't exist? If it's all about you, then the act becomes rather selfish, don't you think?

What the heck is a "Christian company" anyway?

Companies are capitalist and out to make money.

For any Insurance company who anounced they wouldn't insure gay couples there would be 10 who would strp right in and do it with out any fuss.