"Homosexuality is a choice" - Letter to the Editor Rebuttal

[Ab_Normal]

HEre's a real pip from the local fish-wrapper:
Homosexuality is a choice
The only thing that Kaylin Greene got right in her letter of Jan. 2 were the words "straight people.'' God does not create homosexuals. Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, not a race. Homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not natural procreation.

We know some gay people and it isn't the person we hate, it is the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a disease just like alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.

A person can recover from homosexuality (Ann Heche), but you can't recover from your race. You can change certain things about yourself, like skin color (Michael Jackson), but you are always going to be the same race that God made you.

If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Why should homosexuals get special benefits and privileges when most "straight people'' don't? It would be easier to accept people for who they are if they would quit throwing their sinful lifestyle choices in our face.

Dan and Karen De Ruwe
Otis Orchards
Otis Orchards, WA


Here's my first attempt at a reply:

Interestingly enough, the day before I read the De Ruwes' letter of 1/5/04 ("Homosexuality a choice"), I finished reading Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl, PhD. Drawing upon a rich body of zoological research spanning more than two centuries, Dr. Bruce Bagemihl showed that animals engage in all types of nonreproductive sexual behavior. Sexual and gender expression in the animal world displays exuberant variety, including same-sex courtship, pair-bonding, sex, and co-parenting -- even instances of lifelong homosexual bonding in species that do not have lifelong heterosexual bonding. In some of the studies cited, the researchers dissected animals exhibiting homosexual or bisexual behavior, to find that they were biologically and genetically normal.

True confession time: I nicked two sentences from the publishers description of the book, because it described the book better than I could.

And I can't think of a closing paragraph without getting all snarky.

Alas, I can't credit you all on the letter -- but thanks in advance for your help. ;)

[Roland98]

Quick question--what's the word limit for the newspaper?

[Diadectes]

Why should homosexuals get special benefits and privileges when most "straight people'' don't? It would be easier to accept people for who they are if they would quit throwing their sinful lifestyle choices in our face.


<edited threats of violence>


Diadectes, please see the forum rules: (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42034)

(2) You will not post material that is knowingly defamatory, illegal, abusive, threatening, harassing, or racially offensive. As with anything, you will use good common sense. In other words, you agree not to be a jerk.

Threats of violence are not tolerated.

-Roland98
S&S Moderator

[Down]

Ab_Normal, you know, I’ pretty sure that sometimes or even in many cases homosexuality IS a choice. Sometimes it’s not definitely.

Let’s look at this from a different point. Some people are born with genetic defects or diseases. Some of such defects are physical like harelip or cleft palate. These both defects are natural, aren’t they? People are born with these defects. It’s a kind natural diversity, isn’t it? Should we provide surgery to compensate harelip then? Or we just declare that there is nothing bad and for sake of diversity would encourage people born with harelip to be proud of that?

I think that nature of homosexuality is rather complex, there are different reasons for it: genetic, physiological, psychological, social. IMHO, even homosexuality is natural for a person, it is kind of genetic disease like harelip. But it’s up to such person or its parents what to do with that: to treat it or to live with it.

[Abacus]

Maybe this is a dumb question. But why should it matter if it is a choice or not?

[Karalora]

Let’s look at this from a different point. Some people are born with genetic defects or diseases. Some of such defects are physical like harelip or cleft palate. These both defects are natural, aren’t they? People are born with these defects. It’s a kind natural diversity, isn’t it? Should we provide surgery to compensate harelip then? Or we just declare that there is nothing bad and for sake of diversity would encourage people born with harelip to be proud of that?

I hope you can see the difference between a purely physical malformation that hampers a person's ability to function in society (harelip impairs speech) and a psychological "abnormality" (for want of a better term) that has no harmful effect other than the ones imposed by an intolerant society.

Furthermore, harelip is easily corrected via relatively minor surgery. There is NO known "cure" for homosexuality. A bona fide homosexual cannot by any means be "made" or "conditioned" to prefer the opposite sex; the only alternative for them is celibacy. A comparable situation would be if harelip were untreatable and the only way sufferers could avoid the associated speech impediment was to stop speaking altogether.


The people who wrote the letter to the editor are guilty of presenting a false dichotomy:

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, not a race. Homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not natural procreation.

Wow! A double false dichotomy! The writers seem to be under the impression that all human traits can be attributed to a) 100% genetics, or b) 100% conscious decision. Not only do they not allow for combinations of the two, but they completely ignore those traits that are the result of, or influenced by, external environmental factors, perfectly normal genes failing to "switch on" for one reason or another, childhood conditioning, etc. I wonder how they account for their own food preferences as children.

[Rhaedas]

God does not create homosexuals.

At least they admit from the beginning it's a religious objection.

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, not a race.

When does one make a choice on which sex they will begin to feel attracted towards? And race is a cultural division, not a scientific one, there is no sharp dividing line between what we define as races.

Homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not natural procreation.

Here they disclose the fear they have, that there's some massive gay movement to gayify everyone. Again, why are people who grow up feeling attracted to the same sex depicted as liars about their feelings? Thre's no point of sexual choice, you just tend to desire one or the other as you develop sexually.

We know some gay people and it isn't the person we hate, it is the sin of homosexuality.

Then don't engage in those acts. And stop persecuting those people you claim to love.

Homosexuality is a disease just like alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.

One could say religion falls within this category as well.

A person can recover from homosexuality (Ann Heche), but you can't recover from your race.

This reeks of racism..."recover from your race"? And certainly there are many who become confused on their sexuality and experiment, as well as some who are bisexual to various degrees. There are many who aren't confused as well. One celebrity does not a case make.

You can change certain things about yourself, like skin color (Michael Jackson), but you are always going to be the same race that God made you.

What of the many gays who try to force themselves to desire the opposite sex, because of society pressures, leading to unhappiness and depression, even suicide? The religious one I'm sure question as to why god gave them these feelings, but supposedly commanded them to deny them.

If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on.

I don't think infants can be sexually mature, so this would be an impossible task. How about demonstrate the point in development where people make the sexual choices they do? When did you make the big choice of male or female attraction? And you can't cop out and say that gays are really attracted to the opposite sex, but are lying about it to purposefully sin.

Why should homosexuals get special benefits and privileges when most "straight people'' don't?

No one should get special benefits. But no one should get persecuted for things such as race, gender, or even sexual preference.

It would be easier to accept people for who they are if they would quit throwing their sinful lifestyle choices in our face.

Perhaps if one would stop worrying about what is going on in others' bedrooms... :rolleyes:

People such as this obviously feel threatened somehow by any public suggestion of homosexuality. Rather than living their life as they see fit, and letting others do the same, they have to become aggressive towards other's beliefs and feelings, inventing dangers to society to crusade against.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Abacus
Maybe this is a dumb question. But why should it matter if it is a choice or not?

If the fundie has to admit that being gay is natural and not a choice, they have to admit that their god created it.

It's a huge sticking point with fundies. Despite the fact that homosexuality shows up across many different species, and not just in humans, they will never admit that it's natural. It would completely derail their argument.

[ex-xian]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
And I can't think of a closing paragraph without getting all snarky.

Alas, I can't credit you all on the letter -- but thanks in advance for your help. ;)
If it were me, I would end the letter by exposing the cry of "special privleges" for the red herring that it is. Homosexuals don't want special rights, they only want the same rights granted to heterosexuals. I've never heard a gay-basher answer the question as to what these "special rights" really are.

[Diadectes]

Ab-Normal-

Since these individuals belive that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle choice' (whatever the hell that means), perhaps you should ask them when they were last tempted to have gay sex and how they overcame their feelings. After all, if genetics and environment don't have anything to do with it then they are basically saying that anyone can have gay feelings, themselves included.

[The Lone Ranger]

As a friend of mine used to say:

"Oh yeah, I chose a 'lifestyle' that makes me reviled and hated by a large percentage of the population -- to the point that some of them would be perfectly willing to kill me if they had the opportunity. That was really brilliant on my part."

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by Roland98
Quick question--what's the word limit for the newspaper?

200-250 words. Which is why I try to stick to one topic.

ex-xian: Yeah, the "special privileges" thing threw me for the loop. What, the special privilege of not being beaten to death? The special privilege of being allowed to rent a house or apply for a job? The special privilege of being able to make the legal commitment of marriage? But I don't know if I can add that in and keep under the word limit.

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by Down
Ab_Normal, you know, I’ pretty sure that sometimes or even in many cases homosexuality IS a choice. Sometimes it’s not definitely.

Let’s look at this from a different point. Some people are born with genetic defects or diseases. Some of such defects are physical like harelip or cleft palate. These both defects are natural, aren’t they? People are born with these defects. It’s a kind natural diversity, isn’t it? Should we provide surgery to compensate harelip then? Or we just declare that there is nothing bad and for sake of diversity would encourage people born with harelip to be proud of that?

I think that nature of homosexuality is rather complex, there are different reasons for it: genetic, physiological, psychological, social. IMHO, even homosexuality is natural for a person, it is kind of genetic disease like harelip. But it’s up to such person or its parents what to do with that: to treat it or to live with it.

My main point is to rebut their statement: "If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on." by using agreed-upon evidence from the world of zoology, as described in Bagemihl's book. (And, to be honest, the coincidence of having just read the book was too much to pass up.) I believe that to be an effective letter to the editor, I have to stick to one point, since I've only got 200-250 words to get my point across.

[Karalora]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
My main point is to rebut their statement: "If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on." by using agreed-upon evidence from the world of zoology, as described in Bagemihl's book.

Don't play their game. Challenge them right back--ask them to show you a natural-born heterosexual straight from birth, and to prove that the baby is heterosexual. Show them that they are equivocating and attacking a strawman.

[Diadectes]

And in any case, if they're fundamentalists, they're unlikely to accept the connection between humans and animals. An argument from animal behaviour will either fall on deaf ears or be used as further evidence that homosexuals are little better than beasts.

[The AntiChris]

Unless you genuinely have a problem with any activity that is not "natural" (whatever that means) then this is a stupid argument.

By engaging fundies on their own terms you're tacitly accepting that there genuinely is a problem with "unnatural" acts and to be consistent you'd have to condemn anyone who might actively "choose" to indulge in homosexual behaviour.

Chris

[Roland98]

I think Diadectes has a point, but then again, you're really not trying to convince the letter writers.

You might take a look at this reference:

Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 2003 Oct 21;118(1-2):82-90.

Sexually dimorphic gene expression in mouse brain precedes gonadal differentiation.

Dewing P, Shi T, Horvath S, Vilain E.

Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.

The classic view of brain sexual differentiation and behavior is that gonadal steroid hormones act directly to promote sex differences in neural and behavioral development. In particular, the actions of testosterone and its metabolites induce a masculine pattern of brain development, while inhibiting feminine neural and behavioral patterns of differentiation. However, recent evidence indicates that gonadal hormones may not solely be responsible for sex differences in brain development and behavior between males and females. Here we examine an alternative hypothesis that genes, by directly inducing sexually dimorphic patterns of neural development, can influence the sexual differences between male and female brains. Using microarrays and RT-PCR, we have detected over 50 candidate genes for differential sex expression, and confirmed at least seven murine genes which show differential expression between the developing brains of male and female mice at stage 10.5 days post coitum (dpc), before any gonadal hormone influence. The identification of genes differentially expressed between male and female brains prior to gonadal formation suggests that genetic factors may have roles in influencing brain sexual differentiation.


Preliminary and not strongly supported yet (and not exactly about homosexuality), but if you're going for the "wow 'em with science" approach, it might score some points. Essentially, what they've shown is that you can predict sexual behaviors even well before birth.

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by Diadectes
And in any case, if they're fundamentalists, they're unlikely to accept the connection between humans and animals. An argument from animal behaviour will either fall on deaf ears or be used as further evidence that homosexuals are little better than beasts.

I'm a bit concerned about that, actually... but I'm not trying to change their mind, I don't think it can be done. I think that the folks who read the letters would benefit from some actual data.

[BDS]

It seems to me that the fact that animals practice a variety of sexual behaviors is irrelevent, as is whether homosexuality is innate or not. The argument that homosexuality is innate has long intrigued gay activists, but why is it relevent? If, for example, we could show that a prediliction for pedophelia is innate, would that in any way absolve pedophiles of guilt for practicing pedophelia?

[sodium]

I would agree that homosexual activity is a choice, so if you believe that it is immoral, you aren't going to absolve it because homosexual desire is innate.

That isn't really the question.
Homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not natural procreation.
Homosexuality is a disease just like alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.
I think this comes more to the issue at hand. It's easier to be tolerant of homosexuality if you believe that it is basically fixed and incurable. Tolerance isn't going to increase the number of homosexuals. Your kids are no more likely to grow up homosexual because the sodomy laws were overturned. And there's no sense it trying to cure a homosexual, as you might attempt to cure kleptomania. You can convince someone to engage in heterosexual acts, but in the end, you haven't really created more heterosexuals.

Now, you can argue that those [i]shouldn't[i] be considerations. We should be tolerant of homosexuality even if this would result in more homosexuality, and homosexuality wouldn't be a disease even if we could cure it. But a lot of people will be easier to convince if they agree with the assertions of the previous paragraph. That's why it makes sense to try to convince people that homosexuality isn't caused by recruitment or tolerance, if indeed it isn't.

[Ab_Normal]

Originally posted by BDS
It seems to me that the fact that animals practice a variety of sexual behaviors is irrelevent, as is whether homosexuality is innate or not. The argument that homosexuality is innate has long intrigued gay activists, but why is it relevent? If, for example, we could show that a prediliction for pedophelia is innate, would that in any way absolve pedophiles of guilt for practicing pedophelia?

The letter writers argue that homosexuality is a choice and only a choice, with no biological component.

As to your second point, no, it wouldn't absolve pedophiles, because they directly inflict harm on others if they act on their impulses with a child. (Let's be careful we don't wander off into MF&P territory here. ;) )

[BDS]

I understand your point, sodium. I just disagree that such an argument has any bearing whatsoever on whether homosexuality is moral or immoral.

By the way, there are several sociobilogical theories of how homosexuality increases reproductive success. The human reproductive strategy has always been to have few offspring, and invest a great deal of care into each of them. It is certainly possible that non-reproductive family members (whether homosexuals or not, possibly celibate priests, for example) increase the reproductive success of the family by adding financial support to their nephews and nieces. Given that the gene (not the indivdual) is the unit of reproduction that is passed on unchanged, it is hardly a stretch to suggest that a 5% or 10% penchant for homosexuality may have selective benefits.

[Adora]

What I've always wondered is, where did this whole "Choice" thing start from? Historically I mean. When did the idea first come to the fore in the public discourse of Homosexuality?

[Dark Jedi]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
200-250 words. Which is why I try to stick to one topic.

ex-xian: Yeah, the "special privileges" thing threw me for the loop. What, the special privilege of not being beaten to death? The special privilege of being allowed to rent a house or apply for a job? The special privilege of being able to make the legal commitment of marriage? But I don't know if I can add that in and keep under the word limit.

Actually, the way you presented it here does nicely....

[Barcode]

God does not create homosexuals.

Then why claim "God created everything?" I guess anywhere between 3-10% (depending on which study you believe) just popped up out of nowhere (kind of like God himself). Or maybe we're the work of the devil, but if they were familiar with their religion they would know God created Satan too. So, where do we come from, if not from God in their philosophy?

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, not a race. Homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not natural procreation.

Yes. I think I'm going to start a lesbian recruitment campaign. I've been trying to make some of my hot heterosexual friends gay for years; but alas, all my seductive looks and approaches have failed. Gosh, if only I could recruit people -- I'd be sure to start with the likes of Gillian Anderson.

Ask them to account for the fact that almost every homosexual is born to heterosexual parents. Ask them to explain how teenagers with little or no exposure to what homosexuality actually is due to either (i) lack of education (ii) not knowing any gay people manage to discover their same sex attraction all by themselves.

I guess they could resort to blaming t.v characters and the media for corrupting the nations youth; but if that were the case, where are all the children turning into gun-toting-maniacs because they watched a shoot-em-up movie?

Suffice to say, this argument coming from fundies is especially ironic. Seems to me that one needs to be recruited from birth in order to believe in God and the church -- something backed up by official statistics, which is more than can be said for their specious claims.

We know some gay people and it isn't the person we hate, it is the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is a disease just like alcoholism, kleptomania, etc.

Kind of the way I feel about religion. I'd be sorely tempted to reply "it's not Christianity I hate; but it's adherents who manipulate a belief system to fit their own biases."

I would like to know why they hate something which does not have a direct (or indirect) impact upon their life -- if you spend your time wondering what two men do in the bedroom, then perhaps you should find a new hobby or get out more.

A person can recover from homosexuality (Ann Heche),

Well I don't recall Anne Heche making any statements along the lines of "I'm a reformed lesbian." People can and do change -- sexuality is fluid. It's highly unlikely I'll ever date a man, but I can't rule it out. Even if I did, I would not consider myself to have "recovered" from anything -- since every one of my relationships has taught me valuable things.

If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on.

Pathetic. How many newborn boys emerge going "this chick is hot?" Come on, it's not until puberty that hormones kick in and sexual desires begin to emerge. Perhaps these people should have paid more attention in biology 101.

Why should homosexuals get special benefits and privileges when most "straight people'' don't?

They don't see themselves as having special benefits because they take things like partnership benefits, joint mortgages, life insurance etc for granted. It's not even questioned -- many gay people have to jump through hoops to get their relationship recognised. I don't want anything more than you; but when I'm working the same kind of job, paying the same taxes and contributing to the economy -- then I do expect the same basic rights as you.

It's called equality.

It would be easier to accept people for who they are if they would quit throwing their sinful lifestyle choices in our face.

Yes. Every day I get up and put on a t shirt which says "I'm a lesbian" -- I often introduce myself at social gatherings as "Hi, my name is ... and I'm a lesbian." Ask them how many people they know doing this before they talk about throwing homosexuality in their face.

I go out every day and see heterosexual couples walking hand in hand -- if I do the same with my girlfriend, then it is "throwing it in your face." Why is that?

Of course, if I'm wrong and they live in a town where gays are flaunting themselves everywhere -- then please inform me where they live so I can consider moving there and getting in on some of the fun!

[Ab_Normal]

Well, they had a gay-lesbian parade last June and there weren't any lynchings. I'm afraid that's as progressive as it gets here in Spokane.

Yesterday's letters to the editor page was even more disheartening, chock full of apologetics for Bush and flat-out declarations that America is too a Christian nation, nyah-nyah. I'm ready to give up...

[Insomniac Dreams]

God does not create homosexuals

they speak for the omniscient sky fairy do they? Where is their evidence that God does not create homosexuals?

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle, not a race

I don't doubt that homosexuality isn't a race....whatever that means.....However, I beg to differ that it is a choice. Much research has been conducted on homosexuality which if anyone is even vaguely interested in i could gather it together and post it. Even on a personal anecdotal level, i differ that it is a choice. I have never ever felt compelled to have straight sex....I didnt understand the whys and wherefores until i heard about homosexuality......then i finally understood what i was feeling.....I never look ed up homosexuality in the dictionary and thought to myself 'i know what ill do tomorrow.....'

homosexuals can only increase their ranks through recruitment, not procreation

dammit, wheres my set of steak knives then? also how do they reconcile homosexuals who have children either by denying their sexuality for a numbe rof years or within a homosexual relationship...and how many of them turn out to be just like their parents? ie screaming queens or butch dykes?

a person can recover from homosexuality (Ann Heche)

many would doubt that ann heche is a reliable source of information regarding homosexuality considering what it did for her career.....and her prediliction for appearing on tv in interviews about how she has been transported from this planet (some wish shed stayed away.....) also, how do they reconcile those who 'recover' from their heterosexuality?

If you can show us a natural-born homosexual straight from birth, not classifying a newborn with a birth defect, then you might have a leg to stand on.

*raises hand*

Why should homosexuals get special benefits and privileges when most "straight people'' don't? It would be easier to accept people for who they are if they would quit throwing their sinful lifestyle choices in our face.

all i want from the law is nothing special....i dont agree with the current law that gay bashing should be treated any different to thumping my best mate.....i don't believe in playing the gay card to get what i want. All I want from life is to ensure that whatever happens to me, my partner at the time is taken care of and has legal rights, same as any heterosexual unmarried couple wants.....and i would like to state for the record that that bloody Peter Tatchell does nto speak for me.....and I hope nto for all homosexuals.....

I also do not 'throw' my lifestyle choice in their faces....but i do have to 'endure' their lifestyle choices being thrown in my face....but i dont complain....i dont write letters to government and campaign for christians not to have the right to worship.......i hopefully have enough respect for humanity that while i disagree with it, i tolerate those who practise it.......

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Notice he compares it to kleptomania. He's talking about the "choice" to actual have homosexual sex, not the choice to be attracted to the same sex. At least, that's what he'll admit to when backed into a corner. Kleptomania is not a choice, but you still can "choose" not to steal. That's his analogy. And we don't condone stealing when it's done by a kleptomaniac, just as we shouldn't (in his opinion) condone homosexual activity.

Just a heads up.

-B

[abe smith]

Nobody bothers to mention that all those dirty filfthy things that "homos" do are ALSO DONE regularly by heterosexuals ( = all of you lovely "normal" people.) The only difference is that doing-those is perfectly-okay (EVEN for Roman Catholics! as long as the res ultimately gets stuck into the re, to make a BABY.); all those dirty filthy rotten perverted things are CRIMES if "homos" do them; but those things are perfectly OHKAY, "normal", acceptable when heteros do them. What the hell kind of sense does THAT make?

[Ab_Normal]

Good point, abe, but probably not one I can make in the letters column of a "family" newspaper... ;)

Here's the only response to the initial letter that they've printed so far. I feel like hugging the writer.
Wrong to print hate-filled letter

Regarding the letter to the editor of Dan and Karen De Ruwe. What exactly is the motivation of The Spokesman-Review in printing the hate-filled bigotry of people like this? Are you intentionally trying to rile people up so they will read your paper?

That letter was not part of any meaningful dialogue or debate. I'm embarrassed to think that people outside of Spokane can read this, knowing how it reflects on our community. Spokane's reputation as a cultural and social backwater is only reinforced by attitudes such as this.

Is homophobia part of the corporate culture of The Spokesman-Review? I can think of no respectable city newspaper that would give voice to people such as the De Ruwes. I'm completely offended by your decision to print their letter.

[Steinsky]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
Notice he compares it to kleptomania. He's talking about the "choice" to actual have homosexual sex, not the choice to be attracted to the same sex. At least, that's what he'll admit to when backed into a corner. Kleptomania is not a choice, but you still can "choose" not to steal. That's his analogy. And we don't condone stealing when it's done by a kleptomaniac, just as we shouldn't (in his opinion) condone homosexual activity.

Just a heads up.

-B
But how then will they argue that it's not natural?