One of the more contentious obstacles in the same-sex marriage debate is what makes someone homosexual. Whether sexual attraction is an immutable genetic trait, a product of environment, or a mixture of the two. There are examples of men and women who self-identified as gay at one point in their life no longer do, and vice versa (See: Injured That Way). Even the American Psychological Association recognizes that, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
Despite there being no genetic or biological discovery to which anyone can point to conclude definitively that homosexuality is an immutable trait, LGBT activists militantly propagate this fiction. In fact, this is a foundational presumption that is used in order to argue for “marriage equity” and other such legal recognition for sexual desires. If the link to genetics fails, so do arguments supporting same-sex marriage.
This being the case, I’m confused (not really) about the LGBT community’s support of DC Comics recent announcement that one of its existing straight characters will be changed to gay.
(Bleedingcool.com) — One question asked at the DC panel today at the Kapow comic convention in London, was about DC co-publisher Dan DiDio’s interview with The Advocate. Specifically over the decision not to change any character’s sexual orientation when relaunching the DC Universe. At the time Dan stated they would introduce new LGBT characters rather than switch orientation, but the question asked why DC would switch race, size, age, all sorts of identifying features, but not orientation.
Surprisingly, Dan stated that they had changed DC’s policy in this regard. And they ae about to reintroduce a previously existing DC character who was previously straight and now will be “one of our most prominent gay characters.”
What an interesting turn of events that the LGBT community would throw its support and advocacy for such a move. Activists are usually prone to protesting this kind of idea and lobby for legislation prohibiting attempts to “convert” self-identifying homosexuals into heterosexuals. They say it’s dangerous and, if they are right about the genetic root, cannot be done. But I’d bet all the money I could borrow that if this “conversion” were going in the opposite direction — gay to straight — we could expect protests, boycotts, and charges of hate and bigotry.
I realize these are just comic book characters we’re talking about. I just thought it bemusing (and amusing) that this move by DC Comics is supported by the LGBT community considering their views on the nature of orientation. Holy hell would be raised if this kind of transformation were suggested as possible the other way whether in fiction or reality.
Sifting Reality 
Is it possible to find out who voted for genetics on the poll and get them to share why they think sexual orientation is determined by genetics? I’m dying of curiosity.
Well, those who argue for pure genetic reasons will point to studies showing corrolation between sexuality and some brain or social function. Of course they are not definitive, but they like to latch on to them.
Gosh, I hope it’s not Batman!
Though I voted for genetics AND environment, my basic belief is that biology determines everything, just not in the manner that the activists hope it does.
That’s my vote too, Marshall. Genetic predisposition is not the same as genetic predetermination. In the same way some other behaviors we are predisposed to desire, so is sexual desire. But genetics of behavior proclivity is not fate, in my opinion.
But if it is Batman, think of the school yard names which will be invented for kids with the Batman backpacks and lunch-boxes. Do I need to say it?
I think that will be the worst aspect of changing an existing character. Kids already like the characters they do, and this will I believe, alienate them.
The way you’ve pulled that APA quote implies some confusion or controversy in your favor. You’re just lying. You’ve dishonestly ignored the relevant 1998 resolution and 2007 APA study concluding, “efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm”
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation.aspx
Sexual orientation, gay or straight, isn’t subject to ‘cure’ and isn’t a disorder to be cured in the first place.
As for DC Comics, I think in their fictional, magical comic book universe, they do have the power to change sexual orientation. And if they do it for race, then they’re not exactly implying that this is something associated with reality.
More importantly, let’s not worry about the fiction writers. The experts – the APA – who have have supported sexual orientation (and gender identity) in all their forms, without fear or ridicule.
Well, Jason,
What you’ve done is change the focus of my point. It wasn’t whether one can change their orientation, rather that there was no concensus as to its origin, which is why I quoted what I did.
But thanks for trying to manipulate my post, and imply that unless I or anyone who does not champion orientation diversity as imposing fear or ridicule.
I know the DC Comic producers can do whatever they wish with their characters, and I don’t really are what they do; I’m not a comic book fan. My only point was thet the LGBT activist community is usually leery of endorsing any concept which undermines their plight. This move by DC does just that. They will magically turn one of their straight characters gay, which is said by LGBT advocates to be impossible. Or perhaps they don’t care because they are transforming in the “correct” direction. Do you at least agree that if a comic series took a gay character and made him straight, there would be backlash, even though it’s in the fictional realm?
” The experts – the APA – who have have supported sexual orientation (and gender identity) in all their forms, without fear or ridicule.”
Well… except for the fact that they were protested by the gay community for having homosexuality as a mental problem in the DSM. How many other mental diseases were protested off of the books?
And as it turns out, Dr. John P. Spiegel, the Psychiatrist instrumental in removing it from the DSM, was himself gay.
http://www.mindofmodernity.com/not-sick-the-1973-removal-of-homosexuality-from-the-dsm
Morg
This is a little known fact, or if it is known, it’s denied and dismissed. yes, it was due to protests by the gay community that turned the vote — which was close — to remove it from the dsm. It’s not as though it was due to medical research and methodology, as we would be led to believe. Thanks for reminding us of this.
I couldn’t vote. There was no category for individual choice. I don’t believe either genetics or environment has much to do with it, although certainly abusive childhoods and absentee fathers and mothers probably contribute. But in the end. it is always a choice. Many people who have experienced abusive childhoods, including sexual abuse, and in spite of all those seemingly overwhelming traumatic experiences, have gone on to enjoy stress-free normal heterosexual lives. Why? Because they chose to be normal and straight. Environment and genetic arguments are simply excuses. Nothing more.
I haven’t read a comic book in years (actually funded and worked at the comic shop owned by my brother-in-law about twenty years ago). But I recall some characters changing race or gender, but they weren’t the same person. They were black dudes or women taking over the uniform to become the new incarnation of that superhero. It was usually the result of the death or retirement of the original and someone else taking the wheel.
But for a standing character to “come out” serves no purpose but to further the cause of the agenda that doesn’t exist. Such things don’t reflect reality so much as reflect the reality the author would like to see. I would suspect there are homosexual people working in the comic book industry these days and they demand a homosexual superhero.
I hadn’t thought of John’s point regarding the impact on kids who were fans of whatever character is so altered for the sake of political correctness. I can’t imagine such fans being giddy over the prospect (unless the child has come to believe, by virtue of the corruptness of today’s culture, that he is homosexual).
I also wonder what the reaction would be if comic writers decided to out the Joker, or some other malevolent villain. I doubt they’d sit quietly for that.
JB, by affirming Morg’s post, you’ve confirmed my post at the same time.
You want to pick and choose your expert analysis. When they choose your way, it’s expert advice. When they choose another way, it’s due to pressure from the community.
If you read the link I sent, the APA provides the science behind their expert positions just as you provide the religious beliefs behind your attitudes. They even spent extra time to study the issue and get it right. With the gay community historically vilified and entirely closeted until only recently, it’s unsurprising that it took them until the late 70s to even start moving in the right direction.
The gay community saw in the DC Comics decision outreach to both recognize the diversity of society and to affirm the plight of those so often subject to undeserved ridicule from society. That deserves a thank-you.
If DC Comics had a gay character and removed him due to pressure from the anti-gay lobby, then the gay community would be rightfully angry. If it was some other reason, then maybe not, but that’s just hypothetical.
The most appropriate reference is that Romney fired a gay staffer. That was probably the right decision since Romney is responsible to his powerful religious and anti-gay voting bloc, as well as his own prejudices. It only makes sense that he would carry out sexual orientation discrimination in his workplace. (It may not be strictly legal or ethical, but it does make sense.)
Jason
Just because I agree with Morg’s comment doesn’t mean your comment somehow becomes relevant to my original post.
I chose “not sure.” I don’t think there’s any one thing or one reason for all self-defined gays.
1. from birth: I know people who, right from childhood, knew they were “different” somehow, and claim they know no other way to be. They are often also at odds with themselves, wish they could change, or have tried to change, into someone who is straight but failed.
2. by choice/culture: I know a couple of people personally who had never had same sex attractions throughout their lives, but chose to become gay later in life. In other examples, a former mortgage broker I know worked with a number of lesbian couples. In conversation, it came out that all of them (and she did not ask them herself; they volunteered this information) had left disfunctional heterosexual marriages and swore off men. I know of at least a couple of cases where heterosexual people who had gay social circles eventually chose to become gay basically in support of their friends, and others who experiments with same sex relations to “see what it was like”, only to decide they weren’t gay after all. Basically, the more accepting of same-sex activities within their culture, the more likely people were to experimenting or choosing to be gay.
3. by trauma: as mentioned above, there is a high correlation between childhood trauma and sexual abuse and being gay. More investigation needs to be made into this correlation, but it would be taboo to do so.
4. by design: this would be the “recruitment” theory, and there are far too many people who have rather bluntly described their own grooming as children by adult gays into the gay lifestile. There are even a few gay activists that openly state that their goal is to “convert” children to become gay, and their greatest weapon is the public school system. I thorough reading of some of the “gay friendly” curriculums that have come out in Canada demonstrate this.
So why are people gay? I don’t think there’s a general answer for that. I think the answers are different for different people.
Jason,
The APA is a biased organization. I’d believe the people who HAVE BEEN changed to be a much better indicator of the truth. The whole psych industry is based on fraud and not science. It was founded by atheists and so presents only a secular, materialist viewpoint.
They will magically turn one of their straight characters gay, which is said by LGBT advocates to be impossible. Or perhaps they don’t care because they are transforming in the “correct” direction.
Gays do not want to curtail the rights of heterosexuals or to convert them. The reverse, however, is the case. The LGBT community just wants to be recognized as equals and things like this will ultimately help. The backward hillbillies who seek to cast them as villains usually consider anything outside their view of “the norm” to be morally deviant. They need to become more “the norm,” so the hillbillies emotions can settle in with the reality of the situation.
No offense intended for any backward hillbillies commenting here.
As for “why” gays are gay, the question is totally irrelevant, and implies that there is something wrong with being gay, which is an absurd suggestion.
Jmyste
It doesn’t follow that asking why someone has the sexual orientation they do somehow implies they are “broken”. Why are some flowers purple? What does that imply?
jmyste:
Gays do not want to curtail the rights of heterosexuals or to convert them
This is simply false. The rights of normal people (who you call “heterosexuals”) are being curtailed by homosexualists almost daily, and by forcing acceptance of same-sex behavior through gov’t sanction of it, our rights are being severely violated. And too many homosexualists are indeed trying to convert normal people, which is why they have gotten the school system on their side promoting homosexual behavior as ok, and why NAMBLA is even in existence!
The alphabet community doesn’t want equality – they want acceptance of their perversions. And there certainly is “something wrong with being gay”: It is against God’s design, it is against the natural use of human sexuality, it is medically and psychologically damaging, and a whole raft-load of other reasons destructive to society as a whole.
And there certainly is “something wrong with being gay”: It is against God’s design, it is against the natural use of human sexuality, it is medically and psychologically damaging, and a whole raft-load of other reasons destructive to society as a whole.
Glenn, the truth comes out. My God has no problem with homosexuality. Eating nutty bars is destructive to society as a whole, and perhaps you think it should be outlawed. I don’t see the same for homosexuality. Human sexuality should be used for things where it serves a purpose, gay sex among them, if gay sex brings pleasure of happiness to the people doing it.
I don’t have to practice your religion or to honor your backward concept of God to be healthy or spiritual. That is what this is all about in reality. The other arguments are justifications.
No one is asking the government to make you gay. They only ask that gays enjoy the same legal rights you do.
jmyste,
God was only ONE reason for what is wrong with homosexual behavior. You can deny the rest all you want, but they have been proven to be reasons that such behavior is wrong.
If bringing pleasure to someone determines what is right and moral, then you are unable to deny polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or any other sexual behavior.
No one is even considering denying “gays” the same rights as normal people. What we object to are the special rights being demanded.
It doesn’t follow that asking why someone has the sexual orientation they do somehow implies they are “broken”. Why are some flowers purple? What does that imply?
Not sure what your point it, but it sounds like we agree that why someone is gay is a completely irrelevant question.
Jmyste
What do you mean you’re not sure of my point. You said that asking “why” a person is gay implies they are broken, which is why I illustrated for you why thay is a nonsensical conclusion for you to make by asking “why” some flowers are purple. Asking why a flower has a certain characteristic doesn’t imply the flower is “broken”.
I’ll chime in.
I’m gay, but I’m definitely NOT one of those people says that sexual orientation is “definitely” determined by genetics. It might be, I suppose, but you are correct in saying that there isn’t conclusive evidence.
There are a number of theoretical mechanisms through which genetics COULD be a factor in triggering homosexuality in a percentage of the population. One popular view, for example, is that everyone has genes that could lean you toward being gay, and whether those genes are expressed depend on environmental factors that only tend to be triggered a relatively small percentage of the time. This kind of mechanism would mean that being gay is a combination of a gene mechanism interacting with pre-natal (in utero) biochemical influences on gene expression. It would easily be passed on and there would be no way to “remove” gayness because there isn’t a “gay gene”: there is a gene that everyone has that simply is only expressed in certain cases.
Some people take the theory even further, saying that this trait may even be desirable as a form of population control: any group that only has (for example) 80% of its member actively participating in reproduction will not have population growth as high, which means less competition WITHIN the group for scarce resources, and it means a higher parent-to-child ratio which improves caregiving quality.
But all this is just theory.
As an openly and happily gay person, I want to add that I HATE HATE HATE the fact that so many LGBT people have latched on to the idea that being gay “must” be genetic and that gay people should be accepted “because” being gay is genetic. This argument is both incorrect, and misguided.
The fact is, being gay SHOULD be accepted whether it’s genetic or not. I can state with certainty that being gay isn’t a choice, but you know what? Even if it WERE a choice… it should still be accepted. The questions of “what causes gay?” and “is gay ok?” are, and should be, completely unrelated to one another.
That’s my opinion, at least.
Greg
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I fully agree that the causes of any desire, sexual or otherwise, is irrelevant to whether it is moral. I really appreciate your input and that you took this post in the spirit with which it was written and did not make presumptions about me or my views on gay people. I always try to distinguish between LGBT activists and the general LGBT community. I know they are a whole different kind of people.
I hope this wont be your last visit!
You can deny the rest all you want, but they have been proven to be reasons that such behavior is wrong.
This is a non-argument, a statement of passionate emotion.
If bringing pleasure to someone determines what is right and moral, then you are unable to deny polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or any other sexual behavior.
I never suggested that pleasure was the correct measure of morality. I instead suggested that pleasure in the absence of immorality was a good thing, and that denying someone pleasure or happiness for no reason is bad.
What we object to are the special rights being demanded.
Such as the right to marry. Discrimination is wrong, despite your God’s bigotry.
Greg,
The fact is, being gay SHOULD be accepted whether it’s genetic or not. I can state with certainty that being gay isn’t a choice, but you know what? Even if it WERE a choice… it should still be accepted. The questions of “what causes gay?” and “is gay ok?” are, and should be, completely unrelated to one another.
That’s my opinion, at least.
That is the only rational opinion I can imagine.
John,
What do you mean you’re not sure of my point. You said that asking “why” a person is gay implies they are broken, which is why I illustrated for you why thay is a nonsensical conclusion for you to make by asking “why” some flowers are purple. Asking why a flower has a certain characteristic doesn’t imply the flower is “broken”.
If you were criticizing the rights of purple flowers, then asking why would. If you opening admit that Gay Marriage is a right as much as heterosexual marriage is, and that homosexuality is not bad, then I will retract my assumption.
John Myste,
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to lay out an argument as to why getting what you want is a right. After all, everyone has the same rights, whether you or anyone else wants to exercise those rights is another story.
I never refer to someone as “being gay” but “behaving homosexually.” I do believe a person can have a predisposition to certain sinful behaviors like lust, alcoholism, murder, pedophilia and homosexuality. But, each is responsible for his own behavior.
Homosexuality is not about “who someone is” but about “how someone behaves.” And if orientation can be changed (Anne Heche, Stephen Bennett, Julie Cypher, etc.) or ignored (Fran Drescher’s ex-husband, Gene Robinson, bisexual, try-sexual etc.) then orientation has no significance unless it means where someone initially looks for sexual gratification.
I argue that very point in this article:
http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/suburbs-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/
John Barron,
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to lay out an argument as to why getting what you want is a right.
Since you are the only one who has suggested that, it is incumbent upon you to provide the argument.
I am saying that people’s rights should not be curtailed, including their right to pleasure or happiness, unless curtailing them serves a greater purpose, such as preventing the violation of the rights of another. People should be able to smoke in private if they want to. They should be able to eat sugary goods. They should be able to have sex.
It is right for people to have the freedom to do as they wish so long as they are not violating the rights of another.
From this, you propose the argument that “getting what you want is by definition right.” Please provide support for your non-intuitive assertion.
I don’t have to argue for your position. You are essentially saying getting what you want is a right, not me.
Nor do you get to choose my position. I cannot argue a position you introduce and that I find silly. Since neither of us agree with your straw man, he finds no representation.
Greg Stevens:
I’ve never cared HOW someone developed homosexual “orientation,” because “orientation” has never been the issue. Behavior is the issue, and behavior is always chosen.
Jmyste:
I would say that if there is a genetic cause for homosexual orientation, it is a genetic defect because homosexuality is not what humans are designed for. Hence, yes, in that regard a “gay” person is “broken” in that they would have a “defect.”
I did not make a “statement of passionate emotion,” rather I made a statement of fact – facts you choose to deny. And you do indeed determine morality based on pleasure when you use THAT as support for homosexual behavior, which by all definitions of the word “immoral” is just that.
The “right” to marry is based on qualifications: you must be of age (discriminatory?), you must not be closely related (bigoted?), and you must be of opposite sex. Same-sex unions are not, and never will be, true marriage. What you want is the special right to redefine marriage so as to destroy it as an institution.
You also say people’s rights should not be curtailed, including their right to pleasure or happiness, unless curtailing them serves a greater purpose, such as preventing the violation of the rights of another. But not allowing those who practice homosexual behavior to redefine a word as well as the institution it defines does indeed serve the greater purpose of protecting society from social mayhem. Gov’t approval of same-sex unions has already violated the rights of many, many people by forcing them to accept these unions or be punished. They should be able to have sex Straw man: No one has attempted to prevent same-sex people from having sex with each other – I could care less what they do in private.
“I could care less what they do in private”
I couldn’t. (Just messin’ wit ya, Glen.)
You’re correct, though, Marshall! So let ME rephrase it: I COULDN’T CARE LESS ABOUT WHAT THEY DO IN PRIVATE!”
OOPS! Sorry. Did the “one ‘n’ thing” again, GlenN. I ask my wife, Lynn, the same question: Whaddya need two n’s for, anyway?
Oh, and people always cut me short – after all, how do you hear an extra “n”? It’s that Welsh background, and even my middle name has two n’s – Elwynn (Welsh for ‘elfin friend’)