[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

One of the greatest tragedies of the gay movement

Tuesday, August 7 at 7:17 PM

This Speakout has not been edited.

By Daniel Cole

A few days ago, I informed a homosexual friend that, for the first time in recorded history, a majority of Americans believe that “gays and lesbians could not change their sexual orientation even if they wanted to do so.” The reaction was predictable. His eyes lit up, and then he got halfway out of his chair to high-five the girl sitting on the other side of me. “Finally!” he said, “Americans are waking up!”

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, released on June 27, found that 56 % of Americans now believe that sexual orientation is a fixed trait, up from 36% in 1998. It appears that arguments for genetic determination and nature over nurture have made significant headway, and the result has proved gratifying to homosexuals like my friend. Perhaps he believes that an increasing acceptance of homosexuality as a genetic fact will lead to an increasing acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Perhaps he even sees gay marriage looming on the horizon of states as “provincial” and “backwards” as Colorado. As Jean-Marie Navetta, the director of communications for PFLAG, or the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, told CNN, “It’s good to see that this message \[being gay is not a choice\] is moving to a large number of Americans.”

But this insistence on the powerlessness of the individual is one of the greatest tragedies of the gay movement, and one of the hallmarks of liberal politics in general. The homosexual left has made a truly Faustian bargain. In exchange for tax breaks, or a feeling of belonging, or an acknowledgement that homosexual relationships are as valid as any others, they would deny their most basic freedom: the freedom to shape their own destinies. Let there be no mistake. The freest spirits among our Western forbearers would hold today’s gays in absolute contempt, not, as so many like to think, because all previous ages were peopled by unenlightened bigots, but because homosexual spokesmen are so eager to say, “We are unable to choose.”

Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, one of the leading lights of the Italian Renaissance, wrote a marvelous, inspiring piece called “Oration on the Dignity of Man.” He tells an allegorical tale. God, after endowing all the other creatures with their own peculiar natures, finally got around to creating Adam, only to find that he had exhausted “his vast treasure houses” of traits and qualities. So God decides to make man “a creature of indeterminate and indifferent nature,” saying, “We have made you neither of heavenly nor of earthly stuff, neither mortal nor immortal, so that with free choice and dignity, you may fashion yourself into whatever form you choose. To you is granted the power of degrading yourself into the lower forms of life, the beasts, and to you is granted the power, contained in your intellect and judgment, to be reborn into the higher forms, the divine.” America, of all nations, should be able to appreciate Pico’s liberating message, but we have to move beyond the politics of helplessness.

The good news for homosexuals is that their spokesmen, like the majority of Americans, are dead wrong. In the May 2007 edition of The Atlantic Monthly, Nadya Labi calls Saudi Arabia “The Kingdom in the Closet,” revealing that many Saudis have, at some point, engaged in homosexual behavior. Even more remarkable is the revelation that Saudis have no notion of permanent sexual identity. Some go through homosexual “phases” and later devote themselves exclusively to their traditional families; others live out their lives as bisexuals. But because they have not concluded that sexual impulses amount to inescapable, predetermined identity, almost all would scoff at the American notion that people “could not change their sexual orientation.” Without the imagined psycho-genetic barriers pigeonholing Westerners as “gay” or “straight,” Saudis cross back and forth at will.

I say not that American homosexuals should change, but that true liberation requires them to recognize that they can. Their declaration of helplessness makes the Saudi understanding of human freedom seem exalted in comparison, and that, if nothing else, should be a source of great shame.

Daniel Cole is a resident of Colorado Springs.

READER COMMENTS

Action Man, The emphasis is on "make space" -- "for fun" refers to something an anonymous poster wrote (August 14, 2:51). Humans "make space" in the sense that they engage their will and exert moral effort; in other words, they shape their own lives. Animals, on the other hand, act on instinct: no will, no choices, no options.

Humans -- including homosexual humans -- should cherish this special gift, and reject a political movement that wants to convince them it doesn't exist. I think that's what Cole's article is saying.

Posted by Humanimal on August 16, 2007 12:07 PM

Healthy humans make space in their lives for fun? You seem to think fun is deciding who can have sex with who. If you read the Speakout article we were discussing choices. Not about animal sex. You need to READ the initial article and stay on task man.

Posted by Action Man on August 16, 2007 11:49 AM

I write this, Action Man, assuming that you have time to read.

The politics of genetics, free will, and Western psychology take us near the heart of our identity as a people. It's sad that you see only a conversation about "who partners with who."

You might not know it, but most people on this message board are intersted in other issues too -- though I would never acknowledge that the question of whether America still believes in free will is "shallow and banal."

The difference between you and us: we take a few moments, use our brains, and try to advance the civil discourse; you take a few moments to cut people down for being interested in something that holds no meaning for you.

Maybe, Action Man, you should spend a bit more time reading.

Posted by Humanimal on August 16, 2007 12:47 AM

Humanimal:
Not being nasty being realistic. Y should you care who partners with who? There are much more impt issues you could be concerned about than the sexuality of the human animal. No need to respond as this is my last post, can't waste anymore time with this shallow and banal issue.

Posted by Action Man on August 15, 2007 10:45 PM

For the record, for any who might be confused, I use the internet meaning of "trolling", a very common term on message boards. Wiki entry found here. My apologies if I did not correctly express my meaning.

My comments are also addressed to the no-name poster. It's difficult to address a post to someone when he isn't even willing to leave a handle. (That would be what the leading commas are about.) Allow me to clarify that I think BG's question is perfectly reasonable. The no-name, on the other hand, should go elsewhere and start insulting people he actually has a decent chance of getting a rise out of.

Posted by Barak on August 15, 2007 02:42 PM

,
In case you haven't noticed, I don't take flamebait. You're wasting your time.

Posted by Barak on August 15, 2007 01:48 PM

Hey, Action Man, people die every day, always have -- that doesn't mean we should rip our brains out of our heads. At least here we're having a meaningful conversation: you're just regurgitating what you read in the papers last night, and being nasty.

Posted by Humanimal on August 15, 2007 10:38 AM

Nine American soldiers killed in Iraq, over 200 Iraq citizens killed yesterday, Six dead miners in Utah, One dead truck driver killed on I 70 last night, two tropical storms heading for the US coasts, and your concerned about someone's sexual orientation. You people really need to get a life.

Posted by Action Man on August 15, 2007 10:01 AM

Barak:
There we go, I knew the real you would come out. The only troll in the bunch is you Barakkk.

Posted by on August 15, 2007 07:29 AM

,
Go troll somewhere else.

Posted by Barak on August 15, 2007 12:42 AM

Just one question. How many of you who are commenting on D Cole's comments are gay? We know that Cole isn't and he claims to have one homosexual friend. So that doesn't make him an expert in this subject. So how many of you live the life?

Posted by BG on August 14, 2007 11:43 PM

Posted by BG on August 14, 2007 11:42 PM

Barak
Well spoken, you aren't even well written.

Posted by on August 14, 2007 11:08 PM

Anonymous -- It's quite a leap to conclude that animals have sex "for fun" just because they don't understand that sex is linked to procreation. In animals, sex is instinctive: this hypothesis is borne out by the fact that we don't find physically healthy, celibate specimens among sexually active species.

Healthy human beings make space in their lives for fun; other animals don't "make space" for anything. They act on instinct, and from all appeances, they couldn't do otherwise.

Posted by Humanimal on August 14, 2007 08:46 PM

Barak, all animal sex is for fun since they lack the mentality to know it will, sometimes, lead to young.

Since humans are animals+ we certainly can compare us to them.

The only animals that have sex knowing or hoping it will produce young is human animals. Give us some love here, we are as the Goddess made us and we are a successful species, even with some small percent bi or homo or asexual.

Maybe Saudi men are bi-sexual or maybe they are just waiting around for females.

Straights think we are all born attracted, sexually to the opposite sex and choose to go the other way. Straights will tell you they never chose, it was just part of the natural plan for humans.

By the way, why are there lesbians? Why? Lesbian sex is sweet, gentle and not messy so what are they waiting for.? How do the Saudis treat lesbians, take a guess? It is not pretty.

Sexual attraction is what we are, part of it anyway. Sexual behavior is what we do.

Posted by on August 14, 2007 02:51 PM

Sharon, you may be right that the choice lies in the act and not in the attraction. Then again, you may not. I think the point of Daniel's article is that the notion of an immutable "sexual identity" which is defined by the sex of one's partners is not found in other cultures. And generally speaking, I'm more concerned with what people do than with what goes on in their heads. One is quantifiable, the other is subjective. And people actually have a much greater say in whom they fall in love with than our culture gives them credit for, but that's a conversation for another time.

Regardless, the attempt to define away the behavior of, say, Saudi men by claiming that they aren't "real" homosexuals because (presumably) they're just waiting for something better to come along is an attempt to redefine the question. We have to work with what is. It's disingenuous to dismiss entire groups because they don't fit into our preconceived boxes even though their actions are the exact same as the actions of the groups that do fit into our boxes, when those actions are the very core of the debate. If we wish to be rational, we have to give at least some consideration to those groups before dismissing them as outliers.

I'd caution against using animals as examples, because human sexual behavior is different from animal sexual behavior. Case in point-- most animals don't have sex for "amusement". Those that do tend to be the horniest animals in creation.

For purely academic reasons, I'd like to see the results of that survey; I find them highly suspect.

It is entirely irrelevant to me what you assume about Mr. Cole. If I doubted anything that he said, I could rather easily call him up and ask him. I've spent a long enough time with him to know that he makes friends with people from all walks of life and all creeds, and that his compassion is beyond compare. It has shamed me many times in the past to know that I do not measure up to him in the meaningful qualities of the heart. He hardly has need to pat himself on the back, though if he wished to, he could find many better reasons to do so than having a gay friend. And since the comments on this article have veered to ad hominem attacks on his character, I think it is only worthwhile to point this out. Where you have nothing but assumption, I have decades of experience.

Anonymous, this is simply how I write. If it bothers you, I can use smaller words. I do have to say that I fail to understand how my usage of "big words" has made my argument any less correct, but then, it's clear that you're only interested in finding something, anything, to pick on in order to try to invalidate my argument. I guess that in a pinch, it's acceptable to make fun of someone for being well-spoken. And seeing as how you're making arguments that have absolutely no bearing on what I posted (or, for that matter, what Daniel posted), that's all I have to say about that.

Posted by Barak on August 14, 2007 12:51 PM

Barak:
Was this a school assignment to use as many big words in sequence as possible? My point is that homophobic people play the "don't do as I do, do as I say" card all of the time with the gay population. So if you want the gays to "buck up and act straight" because it makes you feel better, then you should be willing to do the same for the gay community.
The orientation you are born with is what you are most comfortable with, what makes you the person you are,I am sure we can all agree on that. Why insist that some, who don't follow your path, are wrong and should try and change because it' gives you comfort that your choice is correct? Most gays don't bother the straight world about their orientation, why bother the gays?
Who will we try to demonize after it's not okay to pick on the gays?

Posted by on August 14, 2007 12:28 PM

Barak, short answer. None of us have any choice in who we are sexually attracted to. The only choice we have is in whom we have sex with.

My male dog will hump anything around if there isn`t a female dog in heat in the same room. I doubt we could say, that even in the basic animal brain, he "chose" to love that chair leg.

Furthermore, the kind of male on male sex that hetero men have, I guess according to you, when there are no sheep around, is not anal penetration.

Mr. Coles entire letter is smarmy and self congratulatory. I doubt he has a gay friend. He probably goes to a Starbucks where a gay man drinks coffee, and calls that "a friend".

In a recent survey 30 some percent of men who took care of animals had sex with them.

Choosing another species is free will? No, it is availability till the blow up girl friend arrives in the mail.

Sex and sexual attraction ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

If pressed, I might be able to have sex with say, Goldy Hawn, but if a cute male butt came by, it would be, see you Goldy.

If I`m not clear to you, write some more pontificating stuff and I will gladly respond since I am waiting for my snake friend to go for a walk, slither?

Posted by Sharon B. on August 14, 2007 04:43 AM

The comments preceding my own are most instructive. Witness an opinion piece written to make a single point-- that by assuming that sexual orientation is an immutable fact, homosexuals sacrifice the right to define a part of themselves. The amount of vitriol Mr. Cole has received in response shows just how much of a sacred cow homosexuality truly is in the minds of some.

How is it possible that a simple cogitation on the nature of free will has incurred such a response? What, precisely, incited the previous posters to call Daniel "hateful", "homophobic", or worse than a snake? What in this straightforward piece indicates that there is some hidden message regarding the author's "perceived idea of 'Christianity' " (whatever that is supposed to mean)? From the sublime to the ridiculous, why would one poster stand on his soapbox to condemn the usage of a word that doesn't even appear in the letter?

I can understand that human nature dictates that a perceived threat to one's viewpoint must be met by a "shoot first, ask questions later" approach; publishing a piece inquiring why homosexuals are so eager to sacrifice self-determination can only end in being drawn and quartered by the offended. In any debate over emotionally charged topics, one must expect that no good deed will go unpunished and that every simple philosophical inquiry will invite castigation from those who confuse questions with assaults on their entire belief structure. This is uniform; no group has cornered the market on doing such a thing.

To digress from my philosophical musing, I must point out that Daniel does not claim that homosexuals should choose to be heterosexuals. He merely indicates (perhaps too subtly for the previous posters to notice) that the homosexual community should be willing to at least partially credit controllable circumstances with defining sexual orientation. I must wonder why the thought of a gay man saying "I chose to be gay" sends the previous commenters into such a fury. The first commenter, BG, undermines his own argument by making reference to just such a situation-- that of Saudi men whose sexuality is guided by the unavailability of women, and not undeniable urges. It would be easy to define those men away as not being "real" homosexuals, since they didn't [necessarily] stay homosexuals, but this results in an inconsistent definition: "Regardless of how much homosexual behavior one indulges in, one is only a 'real' homosexual if he has no choice about the matter."

And at this point, we have indulged in the tragic, time-honored Western philosophical tradition of nullifying a question by defining it out of existence. Not to mention that Daniel's entire article is a moot point because this means that by definition a homosexual has no choice in the matter; we could cluck our tongues and look sweetly, condescendingly, upon Mr. Cole. We could say to him, "Dear, you've used the wrong word. Your article makes no sense because a homosexual is, by definition, someone who has no choice. You may as well claim that fire is cold and blue is red. Perhaps you could write an article about transi-sexuals, people who are by definition able to change their sexual orientation, instead."

The very fact that the letter has engendered so much ill will indicates that the battle truly does rage on, that a homosexual is not [yet] by definition someone who is unable to choose, and that it is worth asking whether, based on anecdotal evidence, people really do have some say in the matter of their sexuality.

I can chalk the resentment of the previous posters up to many causes, both noble and ignoble. I am well acquainted with the desire to simply be left alone, to be able to hold one's beliefs quietly without having to defend them at every turn. I am also acquainted with people who are simply mean-spirited and militant. And I'm sure we all are familiar with the perennially offended, that nebulous group of people who see it as their sacred duty to defend certain viewpoints against every slight, real or imagined. The reason is ultimately irrelevant. What is important is what we have learned: to question one doctrine of the canon of Western homosexuality is to be a bigot and a hate-monger. If we wish to stay on peaceable terms with the people in question, we must never, ever, ever propose that they might be wrong in one of their suppositions.

Posted by Barak on August 14, 2007 01:37 AM

I hate cliches, but sometimes they fit perfectly: with friends like this a gay person doesn`t need enemies.

The letter writer uses the word victim, the new buzz word of the right, just perfectly, as a weapon to injure the gay community.

Not only is he hateful, but able , almost to disguise it behind caring words, but he is ignorant of basic Saudi life.

His letter so drips with sarcasm it should go through the washing machine.

I wouldn`t want this sorry excuse for a friend if no one else was available, I would get a snake for a buddy instead.

Posted by Sharon B. on August 11, 2007 11:45 AM

Personally I think it shouldn't matter whether people can or can't change to give them equal rights. Why should we have to make ourselves what we don't want to be? A straight person shouldn't have to make themselves homosexual, a bi person shouldn't have to "choose", a gay person shouldn't have to choose to be straight, assuming he/she can. Why is it so difficult to just let us be what we are without labels and without being relegated to second class citizens? I find that the saddest situation of all. Ultimately I suspect your article has more to do with "morality" and your perceived idea of "christianity" than it does the Saudis or anyone out there having sex just for sex.

Posted by Leigh Lyon on August 10, 2007 10:58 AM

Daniel:
Your no friend to the gay community. Despite the CNN/ Research Poll you still just reiterated the mantra of the homophobe "you really can change if you want to."
As far as Saudia Arabia is concerned, you should do a little research. Gay rights are not recognized in SA. Homosexuality is considered a serious crime and is punishable by imprisonment, flogging, and even death. Self identified gays who openly display their sexual preference live in mortal fear. All sexual activity outside of marriage is a crime. There is situational bisexuality due to the social customs of young men having limited access to women before marriage.
As none of the criminal code is written, the precise punishment for being convicted of homosexuality varies from prison, fines, whippings or more serious punishments such as being sent to a mental instution for treatment and public executions.
In April of 2005 the Saudi government convicted over 100 men of homosexuality all were flogged and sent to prison. Again in May of 2005. 95 men were arrested for the same crime.
So, if I were a homosexual man in Saudi Arabia, I probably would marry and live my secret life. This is self preservation not a whimsical change of sexual orientation when the mood strikes.
If you feel this way about sexual orientation, why don't you and all hetrosexual swing both ways? Or does you theory only apply to gays and lesbians?

Posted by BG on August 9, 2007 11:40 PM