Remarks on the Gay/Straight Alliance and Homosexuality in General

The issue of sex in general and homosexual sex in particular is rather interesting, not just because almost everyone is affected by it but also because of the polarizing debates which surround the gay movement. The interesting part of these debates is the fact that both sides can be demonstrated to be wrong, and to consciously avoid trying to explain all the data. Even in debates between the militant gay rights proponents (hereafter denoted the Left) and the anti-gay movement (hereafter the Right) many of the issues never come up, because both sides have a vested interest in sticking to their preferred, simplified arguments. Bringing up data which defeats your own argument while also defeating your opponent is no way to win a debate.

The philosophical approach to be taken in this essay is scientific. The writer has very little invested emotionally in this issue, not having been affected much by it to date. Although many on the right are motivated by religion, especially Christianity, the basic approach of this analysis is compatible with most religions. Obviously, in detail differences would appear with different groups.

Specifically, we will argue that the following points are false:

1. Everyone is either homosexual or heterosexual at birth, and nothing can be done to change it.
2. Everyone is the same at birth, and homosexuality is a conscious choice.

Once the falsity of these points is established, some other issues can be addressed. For example, what can we say about the development of sexual identity in the adolescent? Are there advantages or disadvantages to exposing adolescents to information on homosexual practices?

Our approach will start with a basic look at evolutionary biology, probably the best way to understand the basic nature of sex. We will continue with a brief look at a variety of sexual practices.

Evolutionary Biology on the Nature of Sex

The first question we will briefly address is what sex is, and why it exists. We will adopt the methodology of evolutionary biology (hereafter EB), and argue that its purpose is to provide sexual reproduction to facilitate evolution. Note that the issue of whether or not evolution proceeded by itself or under the direction of God or some supreme being is immaterial to our discussion. The fact is that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, and the fact of evolution itself has many interesting implications, regardless of whether it just happened by accident or was used as a tool of some higher intelligence.

All we need of EB here is the concept that each species transmits their generic heritage primarily from parent to offspring, but also through occasional mutations. Genetic combinations and mutations which tend to promote the survival of future generations are selected for, and become more prevalent in the population. This scheme requires an inherent variation in the gene pool to work, and as a result people differ in any inherited characteristic, for example in physical characteristics such as size and hair color, as well as behavioral characteristics such as level of sexual desire. EB is very useful in understanding why people are inclined to certain behaviors based on their genetics (the hardware). The issue of how we should behave, i. e. what practices and systems are appropriate in our society (the software), is a separate issue.

Homosexual activity does not result in reproduction, and hence it is clearly abnormal behavior from the evolutionary standpoint. There is no survival benefit, and in fact negative impact on the chances of passing one's genes to future generations. Arguments by the Left that homosexuality is ``normal'' are just biologically silly.

Society's appropriate response to homosexuality is a completely separate issue. Obviously certain practices such as gay-bashing are condemned by all reasonable groups, but just stating that homosexuality is normal is bowing to political correctness at the expense of actual correctness.

EB on Sex and Love

The physical component of sex first involves being attracted to potential mates. While the lower animals might be pretty much under the control of instinct at this point, certainly humans will normally operate with a plan in mind. Physically, feelings of pleasure result from stimulation of the appropriate genital regions. Certainly there are other erogenous zones, but the genital areas are typically where these feelings are greatest, especially those regions involved in (hetero)sexual intercourse.

The emotional component of sex (love), promotes the establishment of stable families by producing a strong attraction between two people. This bond often seems especially strong in the first years of a marriage, just when the most support is required by both parents in raising infants. A desire to pursue other sexual partners would probably not be selected for during this period (according to EB), since a few years of effort raising a child is probably a better investment for gene survival at this point. To answer this question definitively, specific numbers for the various scenarios would be used and the probability of leaving descendents calculated.

EB on Sociological Aspects of Sex

The sociological aspects of sexuality are very interesting, but we will just touch on a couple of them here. Most of human evolution occurred in the hunter/gatherer days, in which women predominantly were the gatherers and child caretakers while men were the hunters. Since the women invested much more of themselves in their children, it was critical for them to promote a stable family situation at least during those times in which they had very young children and needed the most support. This would tend to reduce promiscuity among the women, but very occasionally straying could have a big beneficial impact by possibly giving access to better genes than were provided by the husband. In the worst case, a woman's genes could survive an infertile husband in this way, although there were obvious risks to promiscuity.

Men, on the other hand invested less in child-rearing, so that promiscuous behavior could result in creating children to be raised by their mothers and possibly stepfathers with no investment of energy by the father at all. By evolutionary theory, this behavior would thus be favored in the sense that genes promoting it would tend to survive in the population. On the other hand, they had a vested interest in making sure that the children that they were helping to raise or support were in fact theirs; they would thus take a dim view of straying women. Note that there is no conscious understanding of evolution required by these scenarios. Those genes which would support these attitudes and behaviors would be the ones which would predominate due to natural selection. Contemporary sexual behavior and tendencies generally support these hypotheses.

Note that evolutionary biology has no opinion on whether certain behavioral strategies are moral or good, just on how successful they are in propagating one's genes to future descendents. Promiscuity, for example, might result in a lot of unhappy people who nonetheless produce many similarly unhappy descendents. As such it may be useful in explaining why people are inclined to certain behaviors, but not useful as a guideline to appropriate behavior today.

Deviant Sexual Practices

Rather than just address homosexuality, it seems useful to consider briefly a wider variety of sexual practices. These are here labeled deviant because they deviate from normal heterosexual intercourse. We will discuss both the mental/emotional and the physical aspect of these practices. We will start with the physical.

Consider the fact that many kinds of physical stimulation such as masturbation and oral sex are able to produce sexual pleasure. Most deviant sexual practices involve basically the same physiology as ordinary sexual intercourse. There are also other erogenous zones besides the ordinary ones, which vary somewhat from person to person.

Some deviant sexual practices such as anal sex involve nearby regions. It doesn't seem impossible that even physiologically normal individuals could get sexual signals from anal stimulation. Certainly the nerves involved in these experiences are rather close to those from other regions of the pelvis, and it's not hard to imagine these feelings extending to stimulation of nearby regions such as those involved in anal sex. There could also exist mutations which shift the areas of maximum sexual sensitivity somewhat, or enlarge them.

Once the requirement for reasonable stimulation of an erogenous zone is satisfied, the rest of sex is mental. Consider masturbation, the use of sexual toys, bondage, etc. As long as some mental excitement is present, sexual pleasure/orgasm can result. In fact, there are no known physiological differences between gay and straight individuals, for example. A while back some genes were trumpeted as markers for homosexuality based on one study. Just this year (1999) a follow-up study found no association between those genes and homosexuality. This issue has not yet been laid to rest, but it has not been easy to find genetic differences in homosexuals.

There is certainly an important mental component of sexuality. When individuals grow up without good relationships with adults of both sexes, they may have difficulty in being normally attracted to the opposite sex in any capacity. Abused children may grow up to be pedophiles, for example. Their sexual physiology may be normal, but the objects of their affection are not.

Addressing the Myths

Now that we have established some facts, we are equipped to address some popular myths. Some on the Left are fond of saying that ``everyone is either homosexual or heterosexual at birth, and nothing can be done to change it.'' We have already argued that genetics suggests a range of sexual inclination is much more probable than a binary homo/hetero choice.

But we don't need to produce complicated arguments from EB. The very existence of bisexual individuals disproves the statement. They clearly have choice as to their sexual partners, and they choose both at various times. Now if the bisexual population was extremely small, and composed of individuals who were predominantly homosexual with rare heterosexual experiences (and vice versa), one might argue that this phenomenon is rare and pathological, and does not disprove the general rule. Such is not the case. In fact, the bisexual population is a pretty large group, and one in which many members have frequent sexual contact with both sexes. Examples of publicly bisexual individuals from the world of pop music are Michael Stipe of REM and David Bowie.

Historically many homosexual men have married and fathered children to disguise their homosesuality. The very fact that they could perform this feat indicates that orgasms and sexual pleasure were attainable and so we could identify them as bisexual. Some homosexual figures in history never married (Leonardo da Vinci), and perhaps are better counted as homosexuals than bisexuals.

Taking this type of argument to an extreme, the Right argues that homosexuality is just a (sinful) choice, and homosexuals should repent. While there have been cultures and locations supportive of homosexuality in history, the converse is more common. Certainly, in our culture, homosexuals suffer a lot more harassment than heterosexuals. While there may be individuals who embrace the homosexual lifestyle in part to rebel against authority, it seems pretty silly to argue that the whole phenomenon is just a choice. There are very few schools in which homosexuals face no harassment. Some people are in fact inclined to homosexuality, but this doesn't make it normal.

So What is the Truth, Anyway?

It's always a lot easier to demolish bad arguments than come up with one final truth. While we can't supply that, we can note some things which are true. First, as discussed above, the emotional component of sex is very important, because it is what holds families together. Certainly we would expect individuals who are unable to form a close bond of affection with the opposite sex to be candidates for homosexual activity.

Most men are able to perform sexually without any real emotional attraction to their sexual partner (employing prostitutes), or even with active hostility to their partner (rape). (EB and experience suggests that women are unlikely to be much like men in this regard.) We might thus expect them to be able to perform homosexual acts without any special attraction to men, and indeed such is the case in homosexual laisons and rape in prisons. Studies indicate that a majority of the homosexual activity in prisons occurs between heterosexual inmates (at least on the outside). Of course the sexual preferences of rape victims are immaterial to whether or not rape occurs.

So given all this confusing data, what are we to conclude? First, the incidence of purely homosexual individuals, those attracted to their own sex exclusively while completely unable to perform in the heterosexual mode is very small, probably no more than one or two percent. We delete the bisexual (or potential bisexual) population here to arrive at my small number. Studies based on anonymous surveys indicate that the total incidence of people who repeatedly engage in homosexual activity is more in the range of 5%. The Left argues that this could be as high as 10%, as in the name of the WFNX radio gay issues show ``One in Ten,'' but no reliable studies support this.

There is a lot of potential for learning new sexual techniques. Consider a young heterosexual couple with exclusively traditional sexual experience. What if they wander into a shop selling sex toys and get some instruction in how to use the equipment? Maybe they would come with a good instruction manual, to reduce potential embarrassment. Could this couple learn some completely new tricks? Certainly they could. If they are told that bondage is a good way to pump up your sex life, there is a reasonable chance that they might enjoy it.

Certainly oral and anal sex are not beyond the pale. Oral sex is popular with some teenagers (and Presidents) as a way to perhaps do something less than intercourse, and with less risk of pregnancy or even venereal disease. I knew an incredibly promiscuous guy when I was in grad school, who I'll call Jim (because that is his name). He was a 21-year-old alcoholic, and only a sophomore. He brought an incredible array of women into his (single) dorm room right down the hall from me. We had another friend, John, who was almost in the same league as Jim in female conquests, but a grad student and not an alcoholic.

Jim related to me that John had asked him if he had ever [had anal sex] with a woman. Jim reacted with great emotion, telling John that he never had, and he never would. John retorted that Jim shouldn't knock it if he hadn't tried it. Jim viewed that as a giant step toward homosexuality, something that was anathema to him.

Well what about it? Was Jim right? If John had more to drink than normal, and an aggressive homosexual man tried to get him to perform homosexual acts, is there any chance that he would do it? I would have to say that there is, at least if if he is a big fan of REM or Davie Bowie!

What's Wrong with Homosexuality?

Recreational sex is something that is in opposition to stable family situations, except within marriage. Right now our country has an enormous number of children growing up in single-parent families due in no small part to recreational sex, either between unmarried partners who then separate, or due to marriages breaking up over infidelity. Homosexuality is almost by definition recreational sex; homosexual couples with children get a lot of publicity, but don't amount to much statistically.

All major world religions reject homosexuality, essentially for this reason. The Catholic Church is notable for their extreme positions against recreational sex. They even prohibit birth control for married couples, since there would be no procreative purpose served thereby!

As discussed above, EB predicts that men will seek more sexual partners than women on the average, due to the good possibility of leaving descendents without much expenditure of effort. Their sexual activity is primarily limited by the availability of women. When men are performing sex acts with other men, this natural limit is not present. Researchers have documented the fact that many gay men cruising gay bars have hundreds of different sex partners in the course of a year. This type of promiscuity is what touched off the AIDS epidemic in San Francisco in the early 1980s. AIDS has changed this behavior somewhat, but not completely.

A world obsessed with sex has a lot of drawbacks. We have mentioned family disintegration and venereal disease, but we haven't really scratched the surface. These forces unleash powerful emotions, and promiscuity is responsible for many psychological problems. We are not helpless victims of our genes and tendencies. Our abstract reasoning ability gives us choices such as fidelity and even celibacy, which should not be disparaged.

Adolescent Sexual Identity and Experimentation

Recent scholarly articles have pointed out that America essentially invented adolescence in this century. Prior to large-scale attendance in secondary schools, most people got married fairly soon after puberty, which itself was delayed from its current timing. In contrast, today we have teenagers with time on their hands talking about topics of interest to them, among which sex generally is pretty prominent. Unfortunately, due to the general decline in religious and moral arguments against promiscuity, many of them are experimenting with sex as well as talking.

Adolescents have a lot of uncertainty about themselves as they go through the process of developing their own identity and self-image. Despite their probable attendance in sex education classes, there is a lot of information about forms of sex that they won't be taught. Information about homosexuality is likely to be of the politically correct variety anyway, rather than the accurate variety.

So what if kids experiment with some of these things? Is it a big problem? Actually, the situation is similar to experimenting with drugs. Powerful feelings of euphoria can be associated with either experience, and the result can be a kind of addiction, either a sexual addiction or a drug addiction. Kids who should be studying and preparing for a college experience may be fogging their cognitive capabilities with drugs. Others may spend their time thinking about sexual partners and techniques rather than thinking about their studies. This is not good news for society, regardless of your beliefs about religion and morality.

Homophobia

Another problem with the Left is their ``homophobia'' terminology. Of course every political group has their preferred terminology. When it comes to the abortion issue, we hear about the ``pro-choice'' and the ``pro-life'' groups, but we never seem to hear about the ``anti-choice'' or the ``pro-death'' or ``anti-life'' groups.

The Left likes to compare the gay movement to the civil rights movement. Recently a gay student was beaten and tied to a fence to die. A black man was tied to a truck and dragged to death. The Left would say that both cases are similar and I would agree. In both cases we see extreme hate of a different group. But if you invoke ``homophobia,'' or fear of (your own possible) homosexuality in the first case, would you invoke ``blackophobia'' or fear of turning black in the second? No, there is enough hate in the world without requiring the perpetrators of these crimes to be simultaneously fearful. The criminals in the gay crime tried this defense, but the jury didn't buy it. ``Homophobia'' is a pretty rare phenomenon, and shouldn't be commonly applied to anyone who disagrees with the political agenda of the Left.

Evolutionary biology reasoning can be applied to issues of sexual attraction/revulsion as mentioned above. In the case of incest, although siblings may be physically almost indistinguishable from desirable potential mates, most people have no sexual interest in them, or are even revolted by the idea. While this can be legislated or culturally determined, it is likely that a certain component is biological, due to the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding. Following the same line of reasoning, EB might favor a genetic basis for revulsion toward homosexuality since avoiding dalliances with the same sex could only tend to make procreation and gene survival more probable.

So why does the Left talk about homophobia? It is simply a rhetorical device to diminish your opponents, by charging them with the offense of psychological problems, in this case irrational fears. Presumably those on the Right who suffer from such problems might also be incapable of logical thinking about the issue. In reality, it is doubtful that homophobia is common enough to deserve the mention that it currently gets.

The Gay/Straight Alliance

Before we consider the GSA, as I understand it, we should consider gay activist organizations, along with their goals and tactics. Like any political movement, they seek to prevent discrimination or harassment of their members, and to gain political power and pass laws which benefit them either socially or economically.

Certainly gay-bashing crimes are deplorable and should be outlawed. Other laws high on the agenda of the gay movement are those which give certain political and financial advantages to spouses, such as insurance benefits, social security benefits, or joint tax filing. For example, a married couple filing jointly in which one partner (traditionally the wife) does not work pays a significantly lower rate than the worker would pay if single. The reasoning behind this old law is that the unemployed spouse is probably at home raising children, and since this benefits society, a financial benefit is given. Although few gay couples have someone at home raising children, they would like to have the ability to marry and hence qualify for this and other benefits.

To obtain political respectability, they have lobbied medical organizations to change their diagnostic schemes so that homosexual orientation is not labelled a psychological disorder. They have been pretty successful at it, and many organizations have fallen into line. Having GSA organizations in high schools and colleges fits nicely into the search for political respectability. Under the guise of teaching tolerance and respect for differences, their goal is to instill in young people a belief that there is nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle and in fact many of their friends may be gay. Former GSA members, even those who never have any homosexual experiences, may be expected to support gay rights legislatively in the future.

More insight into the GSA can be obtained from an article which ran in the Boston Globe on 12/26/99, on page K6. This article, by one Arthur Lipkin, states that Massachusetts has over 140 GSA chapters in high schools around the state. [Lipkin's bio states that: ``Arthur Lipkin is the author of "Understanding Homosexuality, Changing Schools: A Text for Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators," Westview Press, 1999. He is a research associate at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and directs the Safe Colleges Program of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.] He talks about the desirability to stop harassment, violence, and self-destructive behaviors, the usual arguments which can't be denied. He then states that while ``our officials and school personnel have set the standard for other states,'' their vision is still limited. ``Indeed, progressive reformers nationwide appear not to understand the true import of such an anti-homophobia project.''

He goes on to make a few unsupported arguments attributing almost all the problems afflicting men (``the primary or ultimate cause of all violence,'' low verbal test scores, etc) to fear of homosexuality, which would somehow be banished by more education. How he would get those with this great fear into a GSA meeting is not explained. He compares the civil right movement with the gay movement; this is the old argument that people have no more ability to choose their sexual behavior than their skin color.

His most revealing argument is possibly that ``Studying the range of human sexual feeling and gender expression can help relieve straight-identified students from the pressures of a narrow, inflexible heterosexuality. Some might also come to see the arbitrariness of sexuality labels.'' What exactly does he mean here? You too can become bisexual? What is the arbitrariness of sexual labels? Doesn't his group think that everyone was either homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual at birth, and not going to change? If so, then these labels are not arbitrary at all. If not, then encouraging a lot of recreational sex of kinky varieties is not something we should be discussing in the high schools! If sexual labels are arbitrary, his comparison to the civil right movement also collapses.

Is it at all possible that the radical gay movement would actually want more people to participate in homosexual activity, even those who might otherwise consider themselves heterosexual? Sure, the more people thinking that gay sex is a good thing, the bigger the political movement and the more support for their agenda in the areas discussed above.

One of the big problems with the GSA, which is right on the surface, is that it is a club which exists because of sex and hence is really a sex-oriented group. The football team consists of people interested in playing football. The chess club consists of people interested in playing chess. The literary club consists of people interested in writing. Similarly, the GSA consists of people interested in issues of sexual identity, specifically what kind of sex acts you might be interested in performing (since this determines your sexual identity).

On the high-school level, a club oriented towards this topic is inappropriate at best. The attractiveness to kids of talking about taboo subjects is obvious, and if it upsets the parents, so much the better. The argument for the GSA is that it will promote tolerance, but actually the macho kids are highly unlikely to ever attend. Invoking confidentiality (which seems logical) means that a lot of politically correct propaganda from the Left, such as that quoted above, may be distributed without anyone on the outside ever hearing about it.

So what if your child already knows the truth about homosexuality, and firmly claims to be heterosexual? Is there any harm in their attending a few meetings if their friends go? I would guess that if your child has an extremely strong will, there may not be significant danger to them. I worry more about supporting the group, and other kids who might believe that attendance is some kind of blanket stamp of approval. The issue is a lot like renting videos of which you disapprove. Even in cases where they will not have deleterious effects on you personally, you are supporting the makers, and perhaps should vote against that video by refusing to rent it.

Summary

Let's summarize our major points in bullet fashion: