Thursday, August 03, 2006
Since my book, Anything But Straight, came out in 2003, public opinion has dramatically shifted on whether being gay is a choice.
Reuters reports the proportion of Americans who believe homosexuality is innate -- 36 percent, is up from 30 percent in 2003. Similarly, 49 percent believed homosexuals cannot be changed to heterosexual, compared to 42 percent in 2003.
Okay, I can't really take credit for this shift, but it certainly is fun trying.
99 Comments:
posted by , at
8/04/2006 3:25 AM
Of course, you are not the sole reason public opinion has shifted, but you are certainly part of the reason, especially about how Gay men and women think about themselves, which is probably the most important opinion.
Re: Anonymous' comment that homosexuality is neither innate nor a choice. I guess I'm dense, but I wish he or she would explain the other options. He/she may have something important to contribue to the discussion but it's not useful to suggest an alternative and not explain what it is.
posted by Glynn Harper, at
8/04/2006 8:50 AM
I love how these Breeders',mostly uneducated recliner monkeys',have the mystical ability to decide how a person becomes'Gay..The sheer arrogance of it galls'me..I have no idea how it feels' to be a Heterosexual,the best I can do is observe,listen,read,and conclude..I observe Heterosexuals' to be exceedingly unhappy in their choice of Lifestyle..Even with laws', society,family, friends,marraige counciling, they have a divorce rate that mirrors' their inability to make good choices in their sex partners',and the marraiges' they create..I listen to Heterosexual men whine & groan on how miserable women are..This discord is two-fold in complaining from Heterosexual women about men..I read on a daily basis, news reports' of the violence these Heterosexuals inflict on themselves' and others'..As miserable as they are in their chosen Lifestyle, I'm supposed to admire them and envy them..But, I don't.I don't read of Gay murderous gang members'running through the streets'.I don't read about strip clubs' for Gays' with naked lap dances offered as entertainment,unlike the morally superior (in their own brain)Heterosexual.I don't read of Gays' using abortion clinics' as a method of birth control.Yes, the Heterosexuals' are paragons' of the purest of virtue.Its' only right,by using their Heterosexual version of morality as a shining beacon for Gays' to aspire to.Judge not,lest ye be judged,dear Heterosexuals'..
posted by , at
8/04/2006 9:06 AM
I am so very grateful for your work, Wayne. It has helped me to speak with people in my church and other "simple people" with not much education that believe all that churches said.
I think you should seriously consider having it translated into Spanish, Chinese and Russian, so many people I know here in NY can read it too!
posted by , at
8/04/2006 2:34 PM
So 36% of Americans now believe I was born to be me, and 49% believe I can't be changed from what I am. That means 64% believe I "chose" homosexuality, and 51% believe I can (and probably should) be "cured." I'm surrounded by a nation of ignoramuses! And when you consider that some of these idiots are homosexual themselves, it really doesn't bear thinking about. A dramatic shift, Wayne? I wish it were so.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/04/2006 3:24 PM
Wayne, I think your book is important. It puts a case that really needed to be put, it is absolutely replete with solid fact, and it is written with style, nay flair, nay panache!.
For any wanting to look at the current state of the evidence on the origin of sexuality, I recommend "Born Gay, the Psychobiology of Sex Orientation", by Wilson and Rahman.
posted by , at
8/04/2006 4:03 PM
Homosexuality could be determined by events early in childhood. In that case it would be neither innate nor a choice. Logically, there are at least three possibilities.
As for Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman's 'Born Gay', I guess that will be the last book ever written to try to prove that people are born gay. If it doesn't prove to be the last book ever, it certainly ought to be the last.
Come to think of it, since many other books before that book tried to prove that people are born gay, what was point of Wilson and Rahman writing that book at all?
posted by , at
8/04/2006 7:55 PM
Anonymous, that's just too silly.
The book is a very good "snapshot" with excellent exlanations, of the current state of the science. As the science advances, so the textbook will need to be updated.
posted by , at
8/04/2006 8:07 PM
posted by , at
8/04/2006 8:28 PM
I won't attempt another s erious answer to this. It's not worth it.
posted by , at
8/04/2006 9:37 PM
I was attracted to adult males when I was 4 or 5 years old (in a non-sexual way of course) and yes I DO remember that far back. Why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay in this vicious fearful superstitious biggoted violent world. I know fundamentalists tend to be hard-headed dumb fucks but they obviously have the critical thinking skills of a barnacle. The events around the world today and especially in the middle east and our own government show that human consciousness has barely risen above the level that it was when we first crawled out of the primordial ooze.
It's been around 100 degrees for the past 3 days and i feel like a cranky bitch on wheels. If any evangelical types dont like what i wrote above; shove it!!! We're sick of you m----- f-----s!
posted by , at
8/04/2006 10:09 PM
I think homosedxuality is a little bit of both nature and nurture. Alot of it is circumstance. Who you are, where you are when you are developing sexually. This argument will go on a long time. I give up - both sides are right and bothe sides are wrong. The truth, in my opinion, is somewhere in the middle.
posted by , at
8/04/2006 10:17 PM
Anonymous:
"So what is the point of writing more books of the born-gay type? There is none. It's just a joke."
Well, if according to the recent stats, 64% of people still believe it's a choice, then someone still needs to hear the message. The more books the better. As long as someone is out there cranking out the misinformation, someone else can be countering it.
The only environmental influence I'll entertain is perhaps in utero.
Read Bruce Baghemil's Biological Exhuberance.
posted by , at
8/05/2006 3:42 AM
Why does everyone make it such a black or white issue?
posted by , at
8/05/2006 11:43 AM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 12:15 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 12:25 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 12:48 PM
I imagine that there are straight people who are involved in gay relationships or just gay sex, but it doesn't mean that they are homosexual, any more than gay people who date or marry people of the opposite sex are really straight.
I think we need a consensus on what homosexuality really is. I believe that I was born gay because I am and have always been attracted to other men. Attracted is the key word. I'm not talking about physical sex. I'm talking about the gender of the person that I approach to make a connection, perhaps a lifelong bond. I'm talking about the gender of the person that I want to grow old with, when sex is merely a fond memory. For me, a gay man, that gender would be male. For straight guys, that gender would be female. It IS a black and white issue. The only gray area would be in the bi-sexual realm.
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/05/2006 12:49 PM
Those people who claim to have chosen to be Gay are more often than not the ones who identify as "queer." I think they are either outright liars, or confused Bisexual folk. Most recently, I saw a woman claim to have "become" a Lesbian because she objected to male patriarchy. She said she "liked guys better" but refused to sleep with them on account of her political beliefs. She can sleep with a thousand women, and she still won't be a Lesbian. Homosexuality isn't about what you do, or WHO you do, it's about how you feel! These "Gay for political reasons" folks aren't doing us any favors! They need to be honest about themselves. If you lie about your sexual orientation, you're as bad as the fundamentalist bigots, that's my opinion.
posted by DC HAMPTON JACOBS, at
8/05/2006 12:52 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 1:01 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 1:04 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 2:49 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 3:16 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 4:31 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 4:31 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 4:32 PM
I appreciate that all comments here are civil.
It always amazes me that people never question the origins of heterosexuality. Its merely the natural order of things. What's to question?. No one ever asks themselves when they chose to become heterosexual or enumerate the environmental factors required to instill or guaranty heterosexuality?
"Why does everyone make such a black or white issue out of it?"
Well, when judges are deciding minority civil rights cases based on the inherency of minority characteristics, it's important.
"...and has been asked here before, where indeed is any scientifically replicated evidence that human beings are indeed "born gay"?"
Bruce Bahgemil's Biological Exuberance has a few thousand pages detailing the prevalence of homosexuality throughout the natural world. Are humans a special case?
I have no doubt that there are bisexual people who decide to "change" their orientation. They may in fact have such limited sexual experiences that they don’t see themselves as bisexual. They honestly think they’ve changed their orientation. But, speaking of evidence, why do we never see evidence of the claims from the right that there are hundreds of thousands of ex-gays.
posted by , at
8/05/2006 4:36 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 5:37 PM
As mentioned elsewhere in Wayne's blog, some FIFTEEN studies have demonstrated similar - evidently, then, repeatable - results regarding the Birth Order factor in homosexuality, and most of these have been careful to exclude social factors and limit the effect to the womb.
posted by , at
8/05/2006 5:58 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 6:13 PM
Anonymous, what you incline to believe in this matter does not, I am afraid, alter the facts.
It is a very obvious thought, to suppose that the presence of older brothers in the home may alter the nurturing of the growing younger brother. So obvious, that the people who do the studies long since thought of it and excluded it.
Anonymous, it is the NUMBER OF PREVIOUS MALES IN THE SAME WOMB that produces the effect. It is nothing to do whith how older brothers treat the younger brother after he's born.
posted by , at
8/05/2006 7:39 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 8:01 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 8:20 PM
posted by , at
8/05/2006 8:54 PM
BTW I'm Phil, this PDA won't let me choose a name, there's a field missing. I guess the blog doesn't like windows Mobile 5 too much!
posted by , at
8/05/2006 8:56 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 2:14 AM
Well Again, some people who claim they changed without any kind of therapy could possibly by Bisexual.
I am now very happy to accept that I'm gay, I have gone through the period of trying to change, it only made me feel dishonest and tought me that I am truely attracted to the same gender.
Ken
posted by , at
8/06/2006 7:10 AM
Anonymous at 2:14, that fact that sexuality apparently sometimes shifts 'spontaneously' without therapy to me seems like an indicator that something biological is going on. It doesn't at all sound to me like evidence that homosexual desire arises from social patterns in childhood.
Ken, thank you for your honest comments. Your experience seems to be that of many who have tried "therapy" to change sexual orientation. Would that others, like dear Chadwick Thompson, were as honest. He goes into schools to speak and try to persuade people they can change their sexual orientation, even though the Time magazine profile of him makes it clear, in his own words, that his own has not changed.
posted by , at
8/06/2006 11:10 AM
This is the relevant quote from the Time article (found by following the link on Mr. Thompson's own "inqueery" web site:
"Thompson, who has written a book with the near parodic title Loving Homosexuals as Jesus Would, hasn't been completely successful in rejecting his gay desires. He admits he still notices handsome men and says, as though he had an internal Geiger counter, "My attractions are probably about 1% of what they used to be." "
Well now, let us see if we can deduce what "my attractions are probably about 1% of what they used to be" might actually mean.
The word "probably" leaves things a little open, does it not? They are "probably" 1%, but they MIGHT be 100%!
Let us say that they are indeed 1% of what they used to be. What has happened to the other 99%? It is absolutely crucial to know this.
Is Chad saying that the "lost" 99% of his former desire for guys has now been REPLACED by desire for women? In other words, that he has a libido of normal strength, thinks as many sexual thoughts and feels as many sexual feelings as anyone else, but now it's mostly for females, with only a tiny occasional thought for males?
OR, is Chad saying the the 99% of his former homosexual desire has been abolished and NOT REPLACED by any sexual feeling at all, and thus he feels nothing for women, and a tiny tiny bit for men, so his libido is many times less than most other people's and he rarely has any sexual thoughts or feelings at all, but when he does, they are for guys? That, is short, he is virtually "asexual"?
This most certainly needs clarification.
posted by , at
8/06/2006 11:29 AM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 12:59 PM
Clearly, this blog is a target of a slick and deliberate public relations campaign of disinformation by the extrme right.
While I am honored they have assigned an "anonymous" full-time (is it not obvious this is a paid hack who comments the second I finsish publishing) to my blog, I still find it offensive and indicative of the right's lack of civility and morality.
Since they have no facts, science or reality on their side, they rely on classic bullying tactics. They use thier deep pockets to assign people to blogs, ensuring that they can drown out other legitimate and thoughtful viewpoints.
Sadly, for the extremists, this intimidation technique will not be tolerated on this site.
As I have promised, these ignorant and illogical comments will be deleted the moment I read them. While I have long respecred differences in opinion, I will not surrender this site to paid shills whose job is to spread propaganda and false information.
To my legitimate readers - thanks for your comments and support. I apologize that this blog has been infested with low-life, third-tier lobbyists. However, we must remember this low road is the mark of the right wing. Simply by speaking the truth, we can overcome these spammers.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
8/06/2006 1:24 PM
Woooo, I guess I missed something at 12:59!
posted by , at
8/06/2006 2:54 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 3:54 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 9:18 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 9:24 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 9:26 PM
Yeah Boo, a few months ago some whack job who called himself kurt would post an anti-gay blog within minutes after anything positive was put on here. He either was being paid by the facist christian right, or truely was a very disturbed individual with no life outside of cyberspace. I suspect he's still posting here as an anon.
He generally only uses lower case letters for the whole note and his spelling and grammar are a little sucky. And he really seems to hate me for some reason.
B QUEER!!!!!!!!
posted by , at
8/06/2006 9:31 PM
His theories were just a byproduct of his cocaine addiction. He would prescribe it as a cure all.
posted by , at
8/06/2006 10:38 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 10:44 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 10:56 PM
posted by , at
8/06/2006 11:11 PM
Anon,
You're entitled to your opinion. If outdated 19th century non-science satisfies you, fine. Though, your sense of what caused your orientation is very much at odds with that of most other gay people.
posted by , at
8/06/2006 11:53 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 12:11 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 1:08 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 1:10 PM
Friends:
It is clear we have a person on here who has some serious issues and is a very disturbed individual. And, is likely working for the right wing.
Even sader, I don't even read his/her posts. I simply delete them.
On some level we must have compassion for people who work out thier personal issues on a blog, instead of dealing with them in a healthy manner. We can only hope this person one day recieves they help he deserves.
Thanks for your patience.
posted by Wayne Besen, at
8/07/2006 1:10 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 1:29 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 1:31 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 1:32 PM
Anonymous, are you saying that people should only write books about, or work at, things they;re not really interested in?
How very odd!
posted by , at
8/07/2006 3:11 PM
Anon - as soon as I recognize it is you, I read no further and press delete.
However, since this was only one sentence, I read it: "Sadder still, I did not write a whole book about my obsession or make aliving out of it."
Yes, I am proudly getting paid for my efforts. Unlike you, I write real books not book length blather that instantly get's erased. How sad that a person would become a parasite - on another person's blog, no less. Talking about not having a life!
posted by Wayne Besen, at
8/07/2006 4:08 PM
But professional ex-gays are pawns??? You must be striaght - aren't you??
posted by , at
8/07/2006 5:27 PM
It is notable that none of the "Anonymi" has attempted, despite their purported understanding of homosexuality and their purported knowledge of true ex-gays, to provide even a tentative answer to my question earlier about the "lost" 99 percent of Mr. Chad Thompson's homosexual desire, as alluded to in the Time magazine article.
posted by , at
8/07/2006 7:26 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 8:15 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 8:44 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 8:46 PM
I ask you, Anonymous, because you seem to be quite prolific at speaking for others and because you profess knowledge of and believe in the veracity of, ex-gays.
I may also ask Mr. Thompson, if I can find a way to do it that doesn't cost money.
posted by , at
8/07/2006 8:54 PM
Anon, I would think that you'd have at least a draft of your own book ready for publication, because as it is, no credible sources believe ex-gays even exist.
posted by , at
8/07/2006 9:15 PM
Wayne, you need to try IP address blocking.
NancyP
posted by , at
8/07/2006 9:15 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 10:34 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 10:40 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 10:40 PM
posted by , at
8/07/2006 11:24 PM
Well, I for one would like to hear your definition of "ex-gay" then. Like Phil was asking, has your orientation changed so that you are attracted to the opposite sex, or have you merely repressed your homosexual orientation? And more importantly, how as this achieved?
posted by , at
8/08/2006 12:27 AM
posted by , at
8/08/2006 12:54 AM
you still get thanks Wayne, even though you're not the sole reason responsible, you're one of the most visible.
Wayne, how I wish you'd talk to my friend you live by. It's as if when people start hearing one person who carries a title of authority say that being gay isn't what God intended, they latch onto it, and even lie to their own self and who they were made to be... what can we do?!
Again, many thank Wayne, you always know what to write to encourage and defend our community's right to be who we are without hatred, which we know is very real. Thank you again, Dal
posted by , at
8/08/2006 11:13 AM
PS - I meant to say I LOVE what you said to the idiot about their blather being deleted instantly when you get paid for your writing. YAY! And If anything my own friend I never hear from, needs your book or a one-on-one with the author himself. lol I wouldn't know how to get it to him. He's one of those unattainable sobe personal trainers who's latched onto what their pastor tells them 'being gay is wrong - God says clearly'. As a Christian, that's BS. Surely, everyone knows someone they love who's turned away from their friends or who they are inside and pushed away into a "fantasy world" where there's no such thing as a gay person around.
What a sad world THAT is.
You make my world a bit easier Wayne, thanks... Dal
posted by , at
8/08/2006 11:21 AM
The thing about the anonymous', anonymouses, anonymi...whatever, is the persistance involved. This more than anything is what gets my suspician roused. If your posts getting deleted pisses you off, why do you continue to post? If there weren't an agenda, I would think this person or people would give up. Rejection whore perhaps??
posted by jekelhyde, at
8/08/2006 11:01 PM
posted by , at
8/09/2006 11:06 AM
Questioning, I really don't think Wayne is afraid.
It has seemed obvious to me that many "anonymous" posts are not aimed at genuine discussion, but are simply intended to be distractingly argumentative and "clever" to no useful end.
Too much of that takes up useful space and disrupts the flow of genuine discussion.
I am sure that Wayne is committed to genuine discussion and to an exchange of views, with points for and against, even when those views may differ from his own.
But, really, why should he let people just come in here and make a mess?
posted by , at
8/09/2006 1:57 PM
Food for thought...more like junk food for thought. Wayne, thanks for eliminating the loony rantings of this cowardly asshole who doesn't even have the balls to identify himself.
Marty, Georgia
posted by , at
8/09/2006 5:23 PM
posted by , at
8/09/2006 5:40 PM
posted by , at
8/10/2006 12:56 AM
posted by , at
8/10/2006 12:56 AM
Anonymous at 12:56, you say that ex-gays exist and ask why this is not part of the discussion.
But it absolutely is!
I would be most interested indeed to enter into personal discussion with any ex-gays, if you could furnish the email addresses of some of those persons. I am sure that they should be willing to enter into private discussion.
I would be especially interested for such discussion to focus on how the desire for the same sex diminsihed; how desire for the opposite sex began to manifest and augment; how these two changes interfaced; the timescale to reach completion of the changeover.
I look forward to your response.
posted by , at
8/10/2006 8:42 AM
posted by , at
8/10/2006 2:29 PM
Questioning, I do not believe that such a posting would be removed.
But in any case, it would be better and more private to email the information directly to me.
I look forward to a response.
posted by , at
8/10/2006 6:02 PM
And, as always, it doesn't come.
posted by , at
8/11/2006 11:01 AM
posted by , at
8/11/2006 12:16 PM
I am not asking them to post them here.
I am asking them to email me personally via the link from my name.
They may be assured of discretion.
posted by , at
8/11/2006 12:34 PM
Phil, I am going to give this some deep consideration.
posted by , at
8/12/2006 1:58 AM
posted by , at
8/12/2006 6:28 AM
posted by , at
8/12/2006 6:52 AM
Yeah, I still see plenty of my posts here, too
Anonymous K
posted by , at
8/12/2006 12:04 PM
posted by , at
8/12/2006 2:29 PM
posted by , at
8/12/2006 2:31 PM
posted by , at
8/12/2006 2:33 PM
posted by , at
8/13/2006 7:01 PM
I see that one of my posts was removed. I don't remember what it was, but I'm sorry for any offence.
posted by , at
8/19/2006 12:26 PM
<< Home
