KGS homophobia?

[Monadology]

While I agree with you that it's absurd and offensive to partition off or censor reference to homosexuality on the grounds of having sexual implications, I don't think you're helping your case by making an equally absurd (though far less offensive) analogy to any and all human relationships whatsoever.

Homosexuality is a sexuality. It may not be primarily about sex, but it is primarily about sexual attraction. Just like heterosexuality. A homosexual relationship or heterosexual relationship is ESSENTIALLY defined by the factor of sexual attraction. That's simply what those words mean. This is not the case with teacher/student relationships or friendships or blood relations.

The reason it's absurd and offensive to partition off or censor reference to homosexuality on the grounds of having sexual implications is because it's such a blatant double standard relative to the references that we don't seem to care about in a heterosexual context (such as referring to one's spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend).

[Monadology]

Deleted to avoid argument.

I don't know that it's been shown to be genetic, though I wouldn't surprised at all if there were individuals who were genetically predisposed to it.

Either way, I think it probably also arises from psychological factors in at least some cases (just based on the fact that humans develop many other non-standard sexual attractions based on psychological factors). It just seems implausible to me that people could develop a sexual attraction to feet or shoes due to psychological factors, but no human has ever developed equivalent attractions to their own sex due to psychological factors even if such instances are rarer than cases of genetic homosexuality.

[hyperpape]

@Monadology You're right that there is an essential sexual component (excluding the rather rare case of asexual individuals interested in long-term intimate relationships). But I think deja's point is perfectly compatible: the issue is that by saying "don't talk about being gay", you're telling people not only to not talk about sex, but to not talk about arguably the most important type of relationship a person can have. It's one that involves sex, but isn't just about sex.

@Kirby The distinction you're making is absolutely irrelevant in context. That said, I'll be cautious, and just say that the scientific evidence that homosexuality is influenced by pre-birth cause is about as strong as it is for almost any behavior (as opposed to physiological traits). Note that that's not to say that there's a particular gene, or that sexuality is determined by the time of birth.

As far as evidence, there's twin studies and all that jazz.

@Monadology (again) Well, the examples you're describing mostly concern aspects of one's attraction to members of a given gender (someone likes women, and focuses on their feet). So there's a bit of a difference there. Just because of evolution, you'd expect there to normally be a biological disposition to like people of one sex, but not necessarily one to like people with a certain hair color.

[Kirby]

Looks like I have been warned. I will stop discussing this topic.

[deja]

While I agree with you that it's absurd and offensive to partition off or censor reference to homosexuality on the grounds of having sexual implications, I don't think you're helping your case by making an equally absurd (though far less offensive) analogy to any and all human relationships whatsoever.

Ah, thank you, Monadology - honestly. Whether you realized it or not you've understood half of what I posted. Now I know you can figure out the other half. Here's a hint – reductio ad absurdum. Yes, it's Latin but Google is a wonderful thing...

[hyperpape]

Acquired or not, homosexuality is not like a hobby. If you tell people not to talk about it, you are telling them not to talk about an essential part of who they are. Doesn't matter how they got that way.

Btw: I don't see a reason what you say wouldn't necessitate shutting up about anything heterosexual. It would just be a different sort of hobby. There's a consistent idea there: you can imagine a perfectly well run server where any discussion outside of Go is verboten. But even when the moderators are most active, that's not KGS--no one moderates the L19x19 room that way, for instance.

@deja Monadology should know that one...what's his name, after all?

[Kirby]

Since my post offended somebody on the forum, I removed it and the quoted reference to it.

I do not wish to offend anyone, and my questions were sincere. I don't have many datapoints to establish a knowledgable opinion, so I could be offending people that do.

The matter is still one I'm undecided on, but I apologize if I've upset anyone.

[Monadology]

While I agree with you that it's absurd and offensive to partition off or censor reference to homosexuality on the grounds of having sexual implications, I don't think you're helping your case by making an equally absurd (though far less offensive) analogy to any and all human relationships whatsoever.

Ah, thank you, Monadology - honestly. Whether you realized it or not you've understood half of what I posted. Now I know you can figure out the other half. Here's a hint – reductio ad absurdum. Yes, it's Latin but Google is a wonderful thing...

I used the term in the thread on brute forcing Go just yesterday. I know very well what it means.

Since you'd prefer not to clarify how you think I misunderstood you, let me make an attempt:

As I understood your post, this was the rough form of your reductio ad absurdum in your post:

p)If we censor reference to homosexuality because such references have sexual implications/connotations, then we should do so for any and all human relationships. (If A, then B)
q)This is an unacceptable/ridiculous/absurd result, (Not B)
r)so we should reject the claim that we should censor reference to homosexuality. (Therefore, not A)

What I was calling absurd was the first premise (p). I don't think it holds at all because homosexuality is a sexuality and most human relationships are not and therefore do not carry sexual implications like homosexuality.

However, I was agreeing with you because I do think your argument works if "any human relationship" is replaced by "heterosexual relationship."

[daniel_the_smith]

I have never really gotten what difference it would make if it were genetic or not.

If it happened to turn out that altruism does not have a genetic basis but is an acquired trait, would that make it less noble? No.

Or to use a negative example, if it turned out there was a gene that predisposed people to theft, would that make it less a crime? Of course not.

I think it's quite difficult for most to imagine one's self having the opposite orientation, so it's hard for people to put themselves in each other's shoes over this issue. Instead, (for those of us who are hetero) try to imagine living in an alternate universe where homosexual relationships were the norm, and your own relationship was just barely tolerated by a good portion of the population. That exercise makes things quite clear to me.

[Monadology]

I think the difference is that we do not have a taboo against 'fixing' or excluding those who have what we consider to be abnormal psychological traits. If it's psychological, it's a lot muddier of an issue whether or not these kinds of social behaviors toward it apply.

On the other hand, similar claims regarding genetically derived traits are taboo thanks to the positive reinforcement from the success of the civil rights movement (and similar progressive developments) and negative reinforcement from the horrifying results of eugenics (see: Nazi Germany).

EDIT: To be clear, I don't think either of these cases make a difference logically, but they make a difference culturally which is why people have a tendency to assume or act as if it does make a difference.

[Kirby]

Disclaimer: I know I said that I would not discuss this topic anymore, but hopefully this one won't offend anybody. If it does, let me know, and I will remove it.

I think that daniel_the_smith's post gives some good perspective to me, somebody that doesn't have a lot of expertise in homosexuality.

What actualy made more sense to me, though, was a slightly different exercise than what daniel_the_smith mentioned - I can imagine the current situation I'm in with my wife.

As some people may be aware, my wife is from Korea. Some people are a bit conservative there, and are against the idea of interracial marriages between people from Korea and people from outside of Korea. As such, some people may consider my own marriage to be tabboo.

I can think of the perspective of these conservative people. Me being with my wife may seem unnatural or weird. It may not seem like an ideal situation - or one that people should steer away from.

But would I say that this makes my marriage any less valuable or sincere? I don't think so at all.

Coming back to the genetics issue, thinking of things in this light, I don't think that genetics makes a difference, either. Was there some gene inside of me that made me want to marry a Korean person? Or did I choose to marry a Korean person because of my upbringing? It makes no difference, of course. The fact of the matter is, I love my wife, and I find our relationship totally valid.

If I think of homosexuality from this perspective, I think that I can understand it much more clearly - and I can better see how my questions from earlier may have been offensive.

Am I on the right track with this analogy?

[daniel_the_smith]

FWIW, I don't think your prior post was terribly offensive all by itself-- but those sorts of questions are often asked by people who really aren't curious at all as lead-ins to an offensive position, so it is understandable that people would be offended.

I think the difference is that we do not have a taboo against 'fixing' or excluding those who have what we consider to be abnormal psychological traits. If it's psychological, it's a lot muddier of an issue whether or not these kinds of social behaviors toward it apply.

On the other hand, similar claims regarding genetically derived traits are taboo thanks to the positive reinforcement from the success of the civil rights movement (and similar progressive developments) and negative reinforcement from the horrifying results of eugenics (see: Nazi Germany).

Maybe people see things that way, but it's not an accurate picture of reality. There's just not going to be a clear line where genetic influence stops and psychology takes over. For one thing, there are more than just those two factors (e.g., the neo-natal environment could have a large effect, too, etc).

[Horibe]

What I was calling absurd was the first premise (p). I don't think it holds at all because homosexuality is a sexuality and most human relationships are not and therefore do not carry sexual implications like homosexuality.

Here is what I think is absurd. Two people are in a KGS chat room. Everyone in the chatroom knows that both people are male.

One says "Gotta run, I am going to lunch with my girlfriend's parents"

One says "Gotta run, I am going to lunch with my boyfriend's parents"

Are you seriously suggesting that the second statement carries sexual implications that the first one does not?

[Monadology]

Are you seriously suggesting that the second statement carries sexual implications that the first one does not?

No. One of the major points of my post was that BOTH carry sexual implications. How is that not clear? I'll even quote the final paragraph of my original post:

The reason it's absurd and offensive to partition off or censor reference to homosexuality on the grounds of having sexual implications is because it's such a blatant double standard relative to the references that we don't seem to care about in a heterosexual context (such as referring to one's spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend).

Deja analogized talk about homosexuality to:

Any talk about one's relationship with another human being, in whatever capacity that be – student/teacher, husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, father/daughter, mother/son and so on

I disagreed that the analogy was that general. I agreed that the analogy applies to talk about heterosexuality and heterosexual relationships and hence still agreed with Deja's ultimate conclusions.

EDIT: Hence in my response:

However, I was agreeing with you because I do think your argument works if "any human relationship" is replaced by "heterosexual relationship."

--------------------------------------------------------

Maybe people see things that way, but it's not an accurate picture of reality.

Yep, that's pretty much my experience of how people usually operate.

[deja]

I don't think it holds at all because homosexuality is a sexuality and most human relationships are not and therefore do not carry sexual implications like homosexuality.

Why is homosexuality a sexuality and heterosexuality not? Is it because the partners of the former have the same chromosomal makeup and the latter do not? If that's the justification, please explain how that makes orthogonal-chromosomal-attraction sexually deviant and differential-chromosomal-attraction normal?