Treating Gay People

[Chinahand]

You don't go around calling red heads abnormal or deviant.

I think that is more out of common sense, experience and a need to survive.

 

That statement just comes across as 'That's just the way it is' but doesn't say much more. Can you please explain what you mean?

I think its called a joke - explaining them tends to reduce their impact.

 

But anyway - Red heads are reputed to have a temper.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - why do you consider I am homophobic? Have I advocated persecution of homosexuals? I am simply suggesting that as and when our technology is capable we use it to remove an abnormality which serves no useful purpose. This does not involve causing suffering to anyone.

 

Your use of norms and values demonstrate that you have a heterosexist understanding or attitufe to sexuality. By extension these norms lead you to use terms such deviancy and abnormal, thus reinforcing a heterosexual understanding of sexuality, one that marginalises homosexuality. This is homophobic.

 

You have also presented the issue of homosexuality as something of a problem. Or something worthy of elimination because when viewing things through in heterosexist terms you cannot see it is as having any purpose.

 

Though I do fully agree with you. Homosexuality is not normal. But then I have little care for what is normal or not, it isn't important. Norms only serve to marginalise and to form modes of thinkings such as yours.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - why do you consider I am homophobic? Have I advocated persecution of homosexuals? I am simply suggesting that as and when our technology is capable we use it to remove an abnormality which serves no useful purpose. This does not involve causing suffering to anyone.

 

Your use of norms and values demonstrate that you have a heterosexist understanding or attitufe to sexuality. By extension these norms lead you to use terms such deviancy and abnormal, thus reinforcing a heterosexual understanding of sexuality, one that marginalises homosexuality. This is homophobic.

 

You have also presented the issue of homosexuality as something of a problem. Or something worthy of elimination because when viewing things through in heterosexist terms you cannot see it is as having any purpose. So what? Plenty of people who identify as heterosexual do not have children. Shall we shoot these people or maybe turkey baste these forms of deviants for not fully utilising their sexual organs as they 'should' be used?

 

Though I do fully agree with you. Homosexuality is not normal. But then I have little care for what is normal or not, it isn't important. Norms only serve to marginalise and to form modes of thinkings such as yours.

[Sebrof]

LDV - why do you consider I am homophobic? Have I advocated persecution of homosexuals? I am simply suggesting that as and when our technology is capable we use it to remove an abnormality which serves no useful purpose. This does not involve causing suffering to anyone.

 

Your use of norms and values demonstrate that you have a heterosexist understanding or attitufe to sexuality. By extension these norms lead you to use terms such deviancy and abnormal, thus reinforcing a heterosexual understanding of sexuality, one that marginalises homosexuality. This is homophobic.

 

You have also presented the issue of homosexuality as something of a problem. Or something worthy of elimination because when viewing things through in heterosexist terms you cannot see it is as having any purpose.

 

Though I do fully agree with you. Homosexuality is not normal. But then I have little care for what is normal or not, it isn't important. Norms only serve to marginalise and to form modes of thinkings such as yours.

 

It appears to be normal in our society to think that Jade Goody should be sanctified. Thank God I'm a deviant.

 

S

[Chinahand]

Homosexuality is not normal. But then I have little care for what is normal or not, it isn't important.

 

Why can't homosexuality be normal - or as normal as anything else in life.

 

Every human is unique.

 

In all the aspects of a person - their physique, their personality, their interests, their background, their career, their aspirations etc etc etc - I believe it is just about meaningless to pick out some aspects and say these are normal and others aren't - our diversity will make a mockery of any such attempt.

 

Everyone will be abnormal in some way if you say having this or that behavioral, or physical trait, makes you a member of a minority group.

 

Whether its freckes, a love of late Elvis records, a desire to waste your lunch time posting on MF, we are all in some form or another abnormal. So what - that is what makes us normal - our diversity. There's nowt as queer as folk as they say.

 

Shouting about deviancy and it being made extinct or whatever Evil Goblin is going on about is just such alot of noise - for what purpose? I genuinely don't get the hang up.

[jimbms]

You don't go around calling red heads abnormal or deviant.

I think that is more out of common sense, experience and a need to survive.

 

That statement just comes across as 'That's just the way it is' but doesn't say much more. Can you please explain what you mean?

I think its called a joke - explaining them tends to reduce their impact.

 

But anyway - Red heads are reputed to have a temper.

Quite correct, after being married to one for 25yrs I for one am not stupid enough to call one devient, she who must be obeyed will verify that, but in saying that I do love redhead women above all other hair colours.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Why can't homosexuality be normal - or as normal as anything else in life.

 

Every human is unique.

 

Maybe I have understood you are wrong but are you saying rather why can't homosexual people be seen as normal rather than what I mean which is that homosexuality is abnormal?

 

In a society where the dominant discourse surrounding sexuality is that framed by heterosexuality its counterpart homosexuality cannot be understood as normal. In this discourse heterosexuality is understood to be what is right, good, proper, 'natural', etc whereas homosexuality is the 'other' and marginalised because of this understanding. Homosexuality could not be normal, for if it were it would make the term meaningless in respect of these two sexualities. That is why normativity is something to be rejected.

[Chinahand]

LDV - this polarization of discourse in Manichaean terms is in my mind a purely academic exercise - a cosntruction pure and simple.

 

Feminist literature is also a fan of it, and I suppose it has seeped into gay studies from there.

 

I find it very unhelpful - it simply polarizes the debate. Surely you can't see your second paragraph above as being how you want society to view your gender, its setting the debate on Evil Goblins terms and confirming his stereotypes - and in my mind has little to do with reality.

 

If you choose to split the world up into males and females, or heterosexuals and homosexuals you'll see a division. But you can also divide the world up into extroverts and introverts, artists and scientists, romantics and rationalists etc etc etc.

 

It is only within a particular manichaean discourse that you split things up into 'others' and marginalization is a consequence of that compartmentalization of thinking.

 

Decompartmentalization works against such rigidities - ideas like metrosexuality. These philosopies are far less manichaean and reject marginalization and normative discourse.

 

You can split a person up into a million different polarities - male, heterosexual, introverted, scientific, rationalist. But in doing that all you end up with are the million facets which reflect and refract the complexity of life.

 

Trying to squeeze life into a single dichotomy and then say that dichotomy expresses the norms, power-relations and marginalizations of a society is a very 20th century idea - french, left bank, left wing, cold war logic - that's a nice set of dichotomies isn't it.

 

I'm much more into complexity, chaos, fuzzy logic - why form the debate in a homosexual - heterosexual normative structure - that structure totally fails to deal with metrosexuality which is a far better fit to the messy reality of life than blacks and whites.

 

The world is full of nuance and greys, but people seem to want to force it into simple blacks and whites. Seems nuts to me!

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - this polarization of discourse in Manichaean terms is in my mind a purely academic exercise - a cosntruction pure and simple.

 

Feminist literature is also a fan of it, and I suppose it has seeped into gay studies from there.

 

I find it very unhelpful - it simply polarizes the debate. Surely you can't see your second paragraph above as being how you want society to view your gender, its setting the debate on Evil Goblins terms and confirming his stereotypes - and in my mind has little to do with reality.

 

If you choose to split the world up into males and females, or heterosexuals and homosexuals you'll see a division. But you can also divide the world up into extroverts and introverts, artists and scientists, romantics and rationalists etc etc etc.

 

It is only within a particular manichaean discourse that you split things up into 'others' and marginalization is a consequence of that compartmentalization of thinking.

 

Decompartmentalization works against such rigidities - ideas like metrosexuality. These philosopies are far less manichaean and reject marginalization and normative discourse.

 

You can split a person up into a million different polarities - male, heterosexual, introverted, scientific, rationalist. But in doing that all you end up with are the million facets which reflect and refract the complexity of life.

 

Trying to squeeze life into a single dichotomy and then say that dichotomy expresses the norms, power-relations and marginalizations of a society is a very 20th century idea - french, left bank, left wing, cold war logic - that's a nice set of dichotomies isn't it.

 

I'm much more into complexity, chaos, fuzzy logic - why form the debate in a homosexual - heterosexual normative structure - that structure totally fails to deal with metrosexuality which is a far better fit to the messy reality of life than blacks and whites.

 

The world is full of nuance and greys, but people seem to want to force it into simple blacks and whites. Seems nuts to me!

 

It isn't a polarisation of discourse. It is rather a decontruction of heterosexual discourse. I have no wish to be seen or termed or normal. But this is not to say I accept I am abnormal. I do not accept the heterosexual discourse. It should be challenged. However, if EvilGoblin wants to frame things in terms of what is normal then he is right, but I completely reject his understanding of sexuality. It is simply a tool to oppress and marginalise.

[Evil Goblin]

Chinahand – I assume that the thrust of your posting, from its’ content and esoteric reference to (typically Gnostic) Manichaeanistic Dualism, is to the effect that we should not be seeing things or people as either “normal” or “abnormal”. This is to fly in the face of reality, where both “normal” and “abnormal” exist. You appear to understand “abnormal” in perjorative terms, but subjectively adding this emotional content distorts the true meaning of a word (usually to be found in any decent dictionary). To say that someone or something is “abnormal” is not to imply that they/it are “bad” in some way, simply to say that they are not in conformity with the norm. It may well be the case that some “abnormalities” are a good thing or, in cases a mixture of good and bad.

 

As you indicate, it is possible to divide people up into any number of different categories, depending on the criteria applied. The vast bulk of differences which can be observed and the fact that the vast majority of these delineations are of no practical consequence to the Human Species does not mean to say that the use of the adjective “abnormal” or “deviant” is necessarily unjustified in any particular case. The continuation of the species is not dependant on whether people have red hair, blond hair or whatever – such characteristics confer no survival advantage or disadvantage. Where such characteristics are as widely spread and inconsequential as things such as hair colour, eye colour, etc. I agree that it simply makes no sense to talk of them as either normal or abnormal. However, when the characteristic involved is one which works directly contrary to the natural purpose of the species, as does homosexuality, it makes eminent sense to consider it as deviant.

 

It is worth contemplating that, although we know that homosexuality has existed for several thousand years, this is a mere blink of the eyelid in evolutionary terms and the condition is probably an evolutionary side-track which in due course will be eradicated by nature in the normal course of events. After all, only those random genetic mutations which are passed on to offspring and confer a survival advantage tend to continue in a species.

 

As for you, LDV, how is my position one which oppresses or marginalises homosexuals? All I advocate is helping nature on its’ way by removing the causes of homosexuality from the gene pool. Who will suffer from this? What loss will there be to humanity?

[Chinahand]

Evil Goblin I see no evidence to back up your statement that homosexuality's existance is recent in evolutionary terms - did the bonobo chimps suddenly start manefesting this behaviour in the last couple of thousand years, penguins, ostriches, dolphins, sperm whales etc etc.

 

If you are serious you need to be reading researchers like Joan Roughgarden. Her book Evolution's Rainbow documents homosexuality in over 450 vertibrate species. Her ideas are controversial - seeing the incidence of homosexuality directly influencing the ideas for sexual selection - and at the edge of a vigorous scientific debate on how homosexuality has become an almost universal trait in vertibrates and how it remains within a population when it obviously reduces the likelihood of having decendents.

 

Just as the peacock's tale makes it more likely to be seen, less likely to quickly fly away etc there are evolutionary strategies which at first sight reduce "fitness". There is no reason to presume this is not the case with homosexuality.

 

Quite the opposite from your statement that it is a recent evolutionary dead end, all the evidence is that it is an ancient and diverse part of life.

 

I think calling things like homosexuality abnormal is unnecessary. Rare is an equally usable word. As I mentioned last time, more than a few gays would use the word priviledged.

 

I admit that when you get into semantics you are rapidly getting away from science and into politics, but in many ways that is the point. If people didn't discriminate against gays and accepted that one part of their behaviour then I believe they would realize that in basically all other parts of life they are entirely mainstream - maybe more artistic, maybe more faithful when it comes to female homosexuality, less so with male etc etc, but basically ordinary, productive, members of society.

 

To deny their rights to have recognised permanent relationships, adopt children etc etc is to me pernicious and as a person interested in equality and human rights I'll defend homosexuals right not to be treated differently than anyone else.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

You appear to understand “abnormal” in perjorative terms, but subjectively adding this emotional content distorts the true meaning of a word (usually to be found in any decent dictionary). To say that someone or something is “abnormal” is not to imply that they/it are “bad” in some way, simply to say that they are not in conformity with the norm. It may well be the case that some “abnormalities” are a good thing or, in cases a mixture of good and bad.

 

But Chinahand and everyone else is quite right in recognising that descriptions of homosexuality as abnormal is pejorative. Nobody is going to understand how power relationships operate in terms of normativity by refering to a dictionary. When the term abnormal is used for homosexuality it reproduces a specific understanding of sexuality where heterosexuality is seen to be correct and right and homosexuality is seen to be wrong.

 

The vast bulk of differences which can be observed and the fact that the vast majority of these delineations are of no practical consequence to the Human Species does not mean to say that the use of the adjective “abnormal” or “deviant” is necessarily unjustified in any particular case. The continuation of the species is not dependant on whether people have red hair, blond hair or whatever – such characteristics confer no survival advantage or disadvantage.

 

You talk of practical consequence which is just utter tosh. What you seem to be implying is that homosexuality holds back the survival of the species and has consequences in terms of survival of the race. People are define themselves as gay are not going to be able to fertilise their other partner, but so what? Plenty of heterosexual couples choose not fertilise theirs. Many gay people actually choose to have children by other means.

 

Where such characteristics are as widely spread and inconsequential as things such as hair colour, eye colour, etc. I agree that it simply makes no sense to talk of them as either normal or abnormal. However, when the characteristic involved is one which works directly contrary to the natural purpose of the species, as does homosexuality, it makes eminent sense to consider it as deviant.

 

After all, only those random genetic mutations which are passed on to offspring and confer a survival advantage tend to continue in a species.

 

No, it only makes eminent sense if you have a particular understanding of sexuality, one which seeks to marginalise homosexuality and preserve the dominance of heterosexual discourse. You don't seem to recognise that in your terms homosexuality would appear to be 'natural'. You also have not recognised that there is no evidence to show there has always existed a dichotomy of sexuality, heterosexual and homosexual.

 

I don't think you have a very good understanding of sexuality at all. From the statements you have made you seem to presume that sexuality is wholly or almost wholly a genetic matter. The history of sexualities and present-day sexualities fly in the face of this fact.

 

It is worth contemplating that, although we know that homosexuality has existed for several thousand years, this is a mere blink of the eyelid in evolutionary terms and the condition is probably an evolutionary side-track which in due course will be eradicated by nature in the normal course of events.

 

But it is not really WORTH considering by anyone seeing as how they is absolutely no evidence or indications to point either way to show that homosexuality is a recent phenomenon.

 

As for you, LDV, how is my position one which oppresses or marginalises homosexuals? All I advocate is helping nature on its’ way by removing the causes of homosexuality from the gene pool. Who will suffer from this? What loss will there be to humanity?

 

Helping nature on its way? For someone who seems to be an advocate of the 'purpose of the species' your desire to genetic intervention would seem to completely unnatural.

 

I can explain why you view your view marginalises but it would take time to write because you enter into this debate with such a heterosexist perspective of sexuality that it completely distorts discussion of the topic. Because it is simply isn't the case that people are born either gay or straight. But suffice to say, you marginalise gay people by devalueing them and reinforcing ideas of their abnormality. Sexuality makes up who we are in a very fundamental way. To devalue homosexuality in this manner is to reinforce heterosexual norms in an attempt to devalue me and other gay people.

 

The loss to humanity will be people like me, my friends, my community, and other gay people in the world. And you think this is all right, simply gay people are less likely to have babies.

 

Anyway, this idea of how Nature works that you seem to understand, she seems like a bitch.

[Evil Goblin]

Chinahand, LDV, etc. - to pick up again on this topic, did you see the following:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechn...-new-study.html

 

The clear implication is that homosexuality is one of nature's ways of both controlling population levels and culling the less "fit" in a gene pool. Given our prospective ability to manage population growth ourselves and to remove genetic problems at source, the engineering out of the human gene pool of homosexuality seems perfectly rational.

[Chinahand]

Clear implication - what planet do you live on Evil Goblin? The examples the article give are where homosexulaity helps the population - in Albatrosses where due to male mortality female pairs take on the work of raising chicks, and in Dolphins where homosexual behaviour promotes bonding between males - which allows them to work better as a team - with lower mortality, higher reproductive success as a result etc.

 

You are desperately trying to cram your personal beliefs into observational science.

[Evil Goblin]

Just goes to show, Chinahand - whatever the results of scientific enquiry people still reach different conclusions from the same evidence. It seems to me that if I am desperate then so are you.