"The Divine Sister"
14 years ago
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Quotation Du Jour
"Convictions are prisons. They never see far enough, they do not look down from a sufficient height."
--Fredrick Nietzche
--Fredrick Nietzche
Free and Foolish Speech
If you've read my ". . . Love My Blog!" overview, you know that I try not to get too political so my students are more comfortable in expressing themselves. However, when someone is unethical or irresponsible in crafting their rhetoric and claims that their logic is infallible, them's fightin' words to me! Case in point, this letter appeared in the 9/26/08 edition of my college's student newspaper, the Courier:
Those pro-homosexual people who are interested in the latest research on homosexuality may want to read a recent article in Psychology Today, at least if they want to base their position on science instead of personal opinions and prejudices. According to the article: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between two and six percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range, contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media. We know gayness is not entirely genetic. Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene. There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence. There are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).
So, according to the latest research 50 percent of homosexuals were evidently not born homosexual. Also, if people can be happily homosexual even though they don't have any homosexual genes, then people can be happily heterosexual even though they don't have any
heterosexual genes. In other words, we can logically conclude that people born with homosexual genes (if they even exist) should still be able to satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle according to the latest research. Moreover, there are "different mechanisms...for producing
homosexuality," as well as for producing all the other sexual orientations or preferences" (masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia,
coprophilia, necrophilia, etc.). In other words, no one knows why any particular individual has any particular sexual orientation. Each person is different, is a result of his/her own unique combination of environmental and genetic influences.
So if you hear the "homosexuals are 10 percent of the population" nonsense, you can point the claimer to this Kunzig article. And if you hear someone say that they were "born homosexual" you can point them to this Kunzig article and tell them that science shows that we are not absolute slaves to our genes, that in fact we can be happily heterosexual even if we have no heterosexual genes. All homosexuals should have to do is overcome whatever sexual inhibitions and hang-ups about heterosexual sex they have.
Sincerely,
Wayne Lela
Woodridge, Ill
By the way, Mr. Lela is the leader of an organization called HOME--Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment.
I felt compelled craft a response, which appeared in the 10/10/08 edition of the Courier:
Wayne Lela’s letter to the Courier, published on September 26th, 2008, uses passages from a May/June 2008 Psychology Today article to illustrate the extent of the homosexual population and the ability to overcome genetic and psychological predispositions to homosexuality. As a Professor of Speech Communication who specializes in argumentation and debate, I feel compelled to point out the unethical and irresponsible uses of evidence and faulty development of logic within the letter.
For starters, Mr. Lela correctly quotes the article as saying “The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range--contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media.” Yet Mr. Lela neglects to provide a claim for this statement. What is he trying to argue? Is he arguing that the gay/lesbian community is not as large as we believe and, as a result, should not have as much clout? Using the article’s estimates, the gay/lesbian community numbers between 6 million and 18 million United States citizens (based on population estimates from www.census.gov). Are we to ignore a population so large? Mr. Lela needs to clarify the intent of his argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Lela strings together a variety of separate quotations appearing in various parts of the article. This seems to mislead the reader into believing that the article focuses on devaluing the theories behind why someone is gay. Allow me to provide a completely different impact by stringing together other quotations from the same article: “It turns out that parents of gay men are no better or worse than those of heterosexuals. And homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom, as well--among sheep, for instance. It arises naturally and does not seem to be a matter of aloof rams or overbearing ewes. The consensus now is that people are ‘born gay,’ as the title of a recent book by (Qazi) Rahman and British psychologist Glenn Wilson puts it.” I would encourage readers to find and read the article for themselves, which in my opinion provides a wonderfully balanced overview of the struggle to determine if there is are biological origins for homosexuality (Kunzig, Robert. "Finding the Switch." Psychology Today 41.3 (May 2008): 88-93).
Additionally , to quote Mr. Lela, “ . . . If people can be happily homosexual even though they don't have any homosexual genes, then people can be happily heterosexual even though they don't have any heterosexual genes. In other words, we can logically conclude that people born with homosexual genes (if they even exist) should still be able to satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle according to the latest research.” Let’s extend his reasoning even further--can people be unhappily heterosexual even though they have heterosexual genes? Also, is there a difference between “can be” and “should be”? Mr. Lela’s reasoning is not solid. It is, in fact, an example of the “reductio ad absurdum” fallacy, where an arguer extends a claim to ridiculous lengths. I think the relationship between happiness and sexuality is far more complex than Mr. Lela’s logic suggests.
Moreover, Mr. Lela states that “. . . There are ‘different mechanisms...for producing homosexuality,’ as well as for producing all the other sexual orientations or ‘preferences’ (masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, necrophilia, etc.).” Are all the items on Mr. Lela’s list truly preferences or orientations? He seems to fall victim to the fallacy of “false analogy.” He gives no solid reason for association. If he did, I think we would see that the comparisons are flimsy indeed.
I will absolutely agree with one statement made by Mr. Lela: “In other words, no one knows why any particular individual has any particular sexual orientation. Each person is different, is a result of his/her own unique combination of environmental and genetic influences.” I couldn’t agree more, and unless we truly understand those differences, we have no basis upon which to criticize them.
If Mr. Lela’s letter was presented as an assignment in my Argumentation and Debate class, he would receive a grade of “D” at best. This is not because I am a “pro-homosexual” person (to paraphrase Mr. Lela—although I do consider myself a practitioner of tolerance). This is because Mr. Lela’s logic flies in the face of what is taught in most basic communication, rhetoric, writing, or logic courses.
Yours for responsible argumentation and critical thinking . . .
Steve Schroeder
Professor, Speech Communication
OK, I'll toot my own horn a bit--I am proud of the way that I was able to point out the flaws in his argumentation while at the same time encouraging readers to investigate the issue and their own positions responsibly. The article also did what I hoped--bring out the crazy in Mr. Lela, which is exactly what was demonstrated in his response appearing on 10/17:
If Professor Steve Schroeder's Oct. 10th letter were presented to himself as an assignment in his own Argumentation and Debate class, he would have to give himself a grade of "D" at best. This is because Mr. Schroeder’s logic flies in the face of what is taught in most basic communication, rhetoric, writing, or logic courses (to borrow his own words).
For example, he wrote that there is "no solid reason" for associating masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia and necrophilia. He surely must be joking. They ALL obviously have a "sexual" component. They ALL are about different ways of becoming sexually excited. Some people clearly prefer this type of sexual excitement, others that. Some are oriented toward this, some that. Different people are turned on by different things. Is he in denial or what?
For another example, after he correctly quotes me quoting from a Psychology Today article (in a previous letter of mine) which noted that "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between two and six percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range--contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media," Mr. Schroeder unbelievably goes on to ask: "What is he trying to argue? Is he arguing that the gay/lesbian community is not as large as we believe and, as a result, should not have as much clout?" Did he read my letter? I thought the points my letter was making were obvious. I was debunking homosexual propaganda. They have claimed they are 10 percent of the population (false). They claim they were born homosexual (no proof yet as no one has found a so-called gay
gene---though there is some evidence for its existence). Mr. Schroeder and homosexuals also illogically confuse biological or natural existence with morally acceptable behavior. They want you to think that if there is such a thing as a homosexual gene, then homosexual activity is thereby morally justifiable. But there clearly is no connection. One has nothing to do with the other. There are genes which predispose animals to violence, stealing, promiscuity, probably rape (some animals rape), etc. We are basically sophisticated animals, but that does not mean we should allow or tolerate or legalize all so-called "natural" behaviors. Should we have understanding for people who have abnormal sexual orientations or preferences? Absolutely. Most probably did not choose them. Indeed, we were all born imperfect. We all have immoral desires due to our animal natures. But that does NOT mean we should accept or condone immoral or illegal biologically-based behaviors.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me that there are actually people out there who disagree with the eminently reasonable determination that homosexuality is an objectively disordered phenomenon. I mean, when a homosexual mind is trapped in a heterosexual body, in a body clearly designed for phallic-vaginal sex, how does that not indicate an objective disorder??? (Nature makes mistakes all the time---e.g., cancer genes, heart disease genes, etc.)
I could go on and on (e.g., about exactly why homosexual activity is immoral, which I'll have to save for another time), but have to wrap this letter up sometime. To conclude: Mr. Schroeder, using your own criteria, you have to give your own letter a "D" at best.
-Wayne Lela
I now feel remiss that I have never taught my students one of the most significant and impactful refutational strategies--the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach. Yeesh!
I'll be honest, I was tempted to write another response, but I think Mr Lela's insanity speaks for itself. Plus, I don't want to give him another reason to "go on and on . . ." I'll just look forward to his next visit to campus with his organization and his literature. By the way, I support his right to do so 110 percent. As Winston Churchill once said, "Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech." Plus, it will be another great teaching opportunity for me.
Those pro-homosexual people who are interested in the latest research on homosexuality may want to read a recent article in Psychology Today, at least if they want to base their position on science instead of personal opinions and prejudices. According to the article: "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between two and six percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range, contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media. We know gayness is not entirely genetic. Studies suggest there is a genetic basis for homosexuality in only 50 percent of gay men. No one has yet identified a particular gay gene. There is no all-inclusive explanation for the variation in sexual orientation, at least none supported by actual evidence. There are many different mechanisms, not a single one, for producing homosexuality" (Robert Kunzig, "Finding the Switch," Psychology Today, May/June 2008, pages 90 and 93).
So, according to the latest research 50 percent of homosexuals were evidently not born homosexual. Also, if people can be happily homosexual even though they don't have any homosexual genes, then people can be happily heterosexual even though they don't have any
heterosexual genes. In other words, we can logically conclude that people born with homosexual genes (if they even exist) should still be able to satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle according to the latest research. Moreover, there are "different mechanisms...for producing
homosexuality," as well as for producing all the other sexual orientations or preferences" (masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia,
coprophilia, necrophilia, etc.). In other words, no one knows why any particular individual has any particular sexual orientation. Each person is different, is a result of his/her own unique combination of environmental and genetic influences.
So if you hear the "homosexuals are 10 percent of the population" nonsense, you can point the claimer to this Kunzig article. And if you hear someone say that they were "born homosexual" you can point them to this Kunzig article and tell them that science shows that we are not absolute slaves to our genes, that in fact we can be happily heterosexual even if we have no heterosexual genes. All homosexuals should have to do is overcome whatever sexual inhibitions and hang-ups about heterosexual sex they have.
Sincerely,
Wayne Lela
Woodridge, Ill
By the way, Mr. Lela is the leader of an organization called HOME--Heterosexuals Organized for a Moral Environment.
I felt compelled craft a response, which appeared in the 10/10/08 edition of the Courier:
Wayne Lela’s letter to the Courier, published on September 26th, 2008, uses passages from a May/June 2008 Psychology Today article to illustrate the extent of the homosexual population and the ability to overcome genetic and psychological predispositions to homosexuality. As a Professor of Speech Communication who specializes in argumentation and debate, I feel compelled to point out the unethical and irresponsible uses of evidence and faulty development of logic within the letter.
For starters, Mr. Lela correctly quotes the article as saying “The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between 2 and 6 percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range--contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media.” Yet Mr. Lela neglects to provide a claim for this statement. What is he trying to argue? Is he arguing that the gay/lesbian community is not as large as we believe and, as a result, should not have as much clout? Using the article’s estimates, the gay/lesbian community numbers between 6 million and 18 million United States citizens (based on population estimates from www.census.gov). Are we to ignore a population so large? Mr. Lela needs to clarify the intent of his argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Lela strings together a variety of separate quotations appearing in various parts of the article. This seems to mislead the reader into believing that the article focuses on devaluing the theories behind why someone is gay. Allow me to provide a completely different impact by stringing together other quotations from the same article: “It turns out that parents of gay men are no better or worse than those of heterosexuals. And homosexual behavior is common in the animal kingdom, as well--among sheep, for instance. It arises naturally and does not seem to be a matter of aloof rams or overbearing ewes. The consensus now is that people are ‘born gay,’ as the title of a recent book by (Qazi) Rahman and British psychologist Glenn Wilson puts it.” I would encourage readers to find and read the article for themselves, which in my opinion provides a wonderfully balanced overview of the struggle to determine if there is are biological origins for homosexuality (Kunzig, Robert. "Finding the Switch." Psychology Today 41.3 (May 2008): 88-93).
Additionally , to quote Mr. Lela, “ . . . If people can be happily homosexual even though they don't have any homosexual genes, then people can be happily heterosexual even though they don't have any heterosexual genes. In other words, we can logically conclude that people born with homosexual genes (if they even exist) should still be able to satisfactorily enjoy the heterosexual lifestyle according to the latest research.” Let’s extend his reasoning even further--can people be unhappily heterosexual even though they have heterosexual genes? Also, is there a difference between “can be” and “should be”? Mr. Lela’s reasoning is not solid. It is, in fact, an example of the “reductio ad absurdum” fallacy, where an arguer extends a claim to ridiculous lengths. I think the relationship between happiness and sexuality is far more complex than Mr. Lela’s logic suggests.
Moreover, Mr. Lela states that “. . . There are ‘different mechanisms...for producing homosexuality,’ as well as for producing all the other sexual orientations or ‘preferences’ (masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, necrophilia, etc.).” Are all the items on Mr. Lela’s list truly preferences or orientations? He seems to fall victim to the fallacy of “false analogy.” He gives no solid reason for association. If he did, I think we would see that the comparisons are flimsy indeed.
I will absolutely agree with one statement made by Mr. Lela: “In other words, no one knows why any particular individual has any particular sexual orientation. Each person is different, is a result of his/her own unique combination of environmental and genetic influences.” I couldn’t agree more, and unless we truly understand those differences, we have no basis upon which to criticize them.
If Mr. Lela’s letter was presented as an assignment in my Argumentation and Debate class, he would receive a grade of “D” at best. This is not because I am a “pro-homosexual” person (to paraphrase Mr. Lela—although I do consider myself a practitioner of tolerance). This is because Mr. Lela’s logic flies in the face of what is taught in most basic communication, rhetoric, writing, or logic courses.
Yours for responsible argumentation and critical thinking . . .
Steve Schroeder
Professor, Speech Communication
OK, I'll toot my own horn a bit--I am proud of the way that I was able to point out the flaws in his argumentation while at the same time encouraging readers to investigate the issue and their own positions responsibly. The article also did what I hoped--bring out the crazy in Mr. Lela, which is exactly what was demonstrated in his response appearing on 10/17:
If Professor Steve Schroeder's Oct. 10th letter were presented to himself as an assignment in his own Argumentation and Debate class, he would have to give himself a grade of "D" at best. This is because Mr. Schroeder’s logic flies in the face of what is taught in most basic communication, rhetoric, writing, or logic courses (to borrow his own words).
For example, he wrote that there is "no solid reason" for associating masochism, sadism, fetishism, exhibitionism, bisexuality, homosexuality, pedophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia and necrophilia. He surely must be joking. They ALL obviously have a "sexual" component. They ALL are about different ways of becoming sexually excited. Some people clearly prefer this type of sexual excitement, others that. Some are oriented toward this, some that. Different people are turned on by different things. Is he in denial or what?
For another example, after he correctly quotes me quoting from a Psychology Today article (in a previous letter of mine) which noted that "The best scientific surveys put the number of gays in the general population between two and six percent, with most estimates near the low end of that range--contrary to the 10 percent figure that is often reported in the popular media," Mr. Schroeder unbelievably goes on to ask: "What is he trying to argue? Is he arguing that the gay/lesbian community is not as large as we believe and, as a result, should not have as much clout?" Did he read my letter? I thought the points my letter was making were obvious. I was debunking homosexual propaganda. They have claimed they are 10 percent of the population (false). They claim they were born homosexual (no proof yet as no one has found a so-called gay
gene---though there is some evidence for its existence). Mr. Schroeder and homosexuals also illogically confuse biological or natural existence with morally acceptable behavior. They want you to think that if there is such a thing as a homosexual gene, then homosexual activity is thereby morally justifiable. But there clearly is no connection. One has nothing to do with the other. There are genes which predispose animals to violence, stealing, promiscuity, probably rape (some animals rape), etc. We are basically sophisticated animals, but that does not mean we should allow or tolerate or legalize all so-called "natural" behaviors. Should we have understanding for people who have abnormal sexual orientations or preferences? Absolutely. Most probably did not choose them. Indeed, we were all born imperfect. We all have immoral desires due to our animal natures. But that does NOT mean we should accept or condone immoral or illegal biologically-based behaviors.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me that there are actually people out there who disagree with the eminently reasonable determination that homosexuality is an objectively disordered phenomenon. I mean, when a homosexual mind is trapped in a heterosexual body, in a body clearly designed for phallic-vaginal sex, how does that not indicate an objective disorder??? (Nature makes mistakes all the time---e.g., cancer genes, heart disease genes, etc.)
I could go on and on (e.g., about exactly why homosexual activity is immoral, which I'll have to save for another time), but have to wrap this letter up sometime. To conclude: Mr. Schroeder, using your own criteria, you have to give your own letter a "D" at best.
-Wayne Lela
I now feel remiss that I have never taught my students one of the most significant and impactful refutational strategies--the "I know you are, but what am I?" approach. Yeesh!
I'll be honest, I was tempted to write another response, but I think Mr Lela's insanity speaks for itself. Plus, I don't want to give him another reason to "go on and on . . ." I'll just look forward to his next visit to campus with his organization and his literature. By the way, I support his right to do so 110 percent. As Winston Churchill once said, "Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech." Plus, it will be another great teaching opportunity for me.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Quotation Du Jour
I coach impromptu speaking for my college's forensics (speech and debate) team. The event involves taking a quotation and giving an on-the-spot speech with the quotation as your central point of discussion. As a result, I search for quotations almost every day and frequently come across some that really hit a home run with me. Here is today's discovery, which I found at my favorite quotation web site, QuotationsPage.com:
All is in the hands of man. Therefore wash them often.
Stanislaw J. Lec (1909 - 1966), "Unkempt Thoughts"
All is in the hands of man. Therefore wash them often.
Stanislaw J. Lec (1909 - 1966), "Unkempt Thoughts"
In my own little corner . . .
OK--I need to get this admission out of the way. Not because I'm uncomfortable about it. Not because I feel the need to be honest and/or open with myself and/or anyone else who cares (and who does for the love of whomever?!?). And certainly not because anything is wrong with it. So here goes . . .
I am the gayest straight male alive.
Or at least the gayest straight male I know.
I absolutely adore musical theatre. I have great taste in and ability for interior decorating. I can design and sew my own Elizabethan (that's 16th Century England to you non-historical types) clothing. I drink white wine like it is mother's milk. I use the word "fabulous" way too often. My walls are adorned with over 100 Broadway and/or West End window cards (or posters for those of you not hip with the theater lingo). I have Dancing With The Stars at the top of my DVR priority list. I can come up with a showtune for any occasion.
Oh yeah . . . and I'm heterosexual. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
Why this admission for my first post? Well, to know me is to love my contradictions. And aren't contradictions what make life really interesting?
I have never taken offense to being thought of as homosexual (hey--in many circumstances, it has lulled women into a false sense of complacency!). But I still wonder (and am completely amused by) how, when new acquaintances discover my sexual preference, they have a hard time reconciling the fact that I'm straight with the other aspects of my life. Perhaps it's a different reason for each individual--like most things in life--and again, isn't that what makes life interesting?
I am the gayest straight male alive.
Or at least the gayest straight male I know.
I absolutely adore musical theatre. I have great taste in and ability for interior decorating. I can design and sew my own Elizabethan (that's 16th Century England to you non-historical types) clothing. I drink white wine like it is mother's milk. I use the word "fabulous" way too often. My walls are adorned with over 100 Broadway and/or West End window cards (or posters for those of you not hip with the theater lingo). I have Dancing With The Stars at the top of my DVR priority list. I can come up with a showtune for any occasion.
Oh yeah . . . and I'm heterosexual. Not that there is anything wrong with that!
Why this admission for my first post? Well, to know me is to love my contradictions. And aren't contradictions what make life really interesting?
I have never taken offense to being thought of as homosexual (hey--in many circumstances, it has lulled women into a false sense of complacency!). But I still wonder (and am completely amused by) how, when new acquaintances discover my sexual preference, they have a hard time reconciling the fact that I'm straight with the other aspects of my life. Perhaps it's a different reason for each individual--like most things in life--and again, isn't that what makes life interesting?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)