Lifting Pains Associated with Homosexualism

Spectrum of Sexuality and the Kinsey Scale,” Sex Editorials, downloaded 20 June 2005, http://sexeditorials.com/theory/spectrum.html.

Rhetoric aside, some commenting on my commenting,” by Aaron, tdaxp, 16 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/15/schiavo_case_leads_conservatives_to_support_euthanasia.html#c137831.

Right before I started my temp job, Aaron wrote:

Gays – When someone is chronically ill, it is typically their families they turn to, and usually their families and loved ones that get them through. In some cases, it is the insurance of a husband or wife that gets them through. By denying homosexuals that ability to form lasting legal family units, we’re alienating them and abandoning them to a world of too-expensive medical care and unsupportive society.

Aaron is addressing the use of families in emotionally supporting ill homosexualists. Add into this the national and local status of homosexualists as the predominate vectors for AIDS, and we can look at a utilitarian approach to minimize physical and emotional pain.

All other things being equal, Aaron’s normalization approach would lessen emotional pain in the long-run. If strong families could span homosexualist bonds, the sick would have strong support networks in their bleakest days.

What Aaron ignores is the economic idea of the margin. To give Aaron the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that homosexuality existed in the past and assume the the Kinsey Scale…

0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual
1- Predominately heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2- Predominately heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4- Predominately homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5- Predominately homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6- Exclusively homosexual

…. is true.

The Kinsey Scale can be thought of as a Spectrum, or Rainbow, raining from the “red” exclusively heterosexual to the “violet” exclusively homosexual. Just as the visible rainbow includes an infinite number of colors, the Kinsey Rainbow includes an infinite number of variations.

Nonetheless, the quality of being homosexualist — engaging in homosexual acts — is binary, either TRUE or FALSE. So in this model, active homosexualism is a function of an individual’s Kinsey quotient, the culture he is in, and the societies he is in.

By denormalizing homosexualism in culture and societies you absolutely reduce the number of homosexualists. This reduces the physical and mental pain.

Remember that Aaron supported normalizing homosexualism on the practical grounds that it would reduce pain. But that it theoretical and in the long-term. On the other hand, denormalizing homosexualism would immediately begin reducing pain. And this argument was made by giving him the friendliest assumptions — assuming that policy should be made on pragmatic grounds, that homosexuality is a natural condition of man, and that the Kinsey scale accurately describes homosexualism.

QED.

7 thoughts on “Lifting Pains Associated with Homosexualism”

  1. If your desire was to see an end to human suffering, there are better causes than being anti-homosexual. Outlawing junk food, legal intoxicants, or mandating fitness programs for all Americans would probably increase lifespans and ease the suffering brought on by alcoholism, morbid obesity, or general unhealthiness.

    Is what you're saying that it's fine to be gay as long as you don't have sex?

  2. Aaron,

    I don't know if your first paragraph is sarcastic or not. Using vertical shocks to improve society's “virtue” (outlawing obesity, alcohol, etc) has rarely worked. It generates misery in the short-term and unbelief in the long term. See alcohol-prohibition or marijuana-prohibition of the former, and Iran and Spain for the latter.

    The post was designed to show that denormalizing homosexuality would be advantageous, even if we accept that there are naturally homosexuals. So in that context, the answer to your question is “yes.”

    However, homosexualism is an unnatural and ahistorical state of affairs, so in the long term the question is mute. It is just as meaningful as asking “So, it's fine to be a penguinophile as long as you don't have sex?”

  3. Hi, my name is stacy and i am doing a research paper on homosexuals. I have to give my opinion an pove several poins to a class to let everyone know that i agree with homosexuals. I would love for someone to anwer my questions and ive you opinions to me. That would be greatly appreciated. can be emailed at stacy_0207@yahoo.com or sds_0207@yahoo.com. Thank you so much.

    stacy

  4. Stacy,

    Thanks for the comment. If you wish to contact me, an email can be sent by clicking on “Dan of tdaxp” under “The tdaxp Team” in the first column on the left.

  5. “By denormalizing homosexualism in culture and societies you absolutely reduce the number of homosexualists. This reduces the physical and mental pain.”

    Unless you are refering specifically to the pain of rough anal sex, you are insane. One of the biggest difficulties with applying utilitarian arguments for social policy is predicting weather something will ultimately increase or decrease happiness. You can get around this difficulty somewhat by assuming that people will generally do what will make them happy if given the freedom to do so, ie be gay. While that might not always be the case, the responsibility for providing evidence to the contrary is certainly on the person advocating a reduction in freedoms or marginalization of a minority. You have provided no evidence for your statement that denormalizing homosexuality would reduce pain and while the statement might be true in regards to your own personal discomfort with homosexuality, Im sure the bulk of homosexuals would disagree.

  6. Josh, I certainly hope I am not insane! 🙂

    “the responsibility for providing evidence to the contrary is certainly on the person advocating a reduction in freedoms or marginalization of a minority.”

    Why do these two very different actions — one taking away someone's freedom, the other merely using one's own freedom to chose who to associate with — have the same standard? It seems strange.

    “You have provided no evidence for your statement that denormalizing homosexuality would reduce pain”

    The argument is that homosexualism is partially a learned activity, therefore discouraging such learning would reduce the number of homosexualists. This would increase increase life expectancy and reduce misery.

  7. “Add into this the national and local status of homosexualists as the predominate vectors for AIDS, and we can look at a utilitarian approach to minimize physical and emotional pain … “

    Presumably for Africa you favour the denormalization of heterosexualists? 😉

  8. “Presumably for Africa you favour the denormalization of heterosexualists?”

    No, but I favor the denormalization of dry vaginal sex.

    The physical stress of such increases risk of communication the same way that homosexualism does.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *