BLOG HAS BEEN MOVED TO HERE!

06 February 2006

On homosexuality

Listening to some recordings of the Howard Stern show got me thinking about homosexuality. I try not to have any prejudices, so I tried to view this phenomenon from a purely logical point of view with as little external data as possible, so help me if I'm wrong.

Close relationships between two persons are generally understood to contain four separate components: sex, legal matters, social matters and romantic matters.

First of all it is said that, while the percentage of homosexual people is low, many heterosexual people have had some kind of homosexual experience either as an experimentation or as an accidental exposure. It also is believed that if the person in question is not physiologically repulsed by the concept (i.e. homofobic) then they can experience sexual pleasure regardless of the gender of the partner, number of partners or even absence of such. In all we can basically conclude that while homofobia is a sexual disorder (it disorders sexual function), homosexuality is not about sex at all.

The legal perspective is very inconclusive - in some parts of the world even having homosexual relationships can be illegal, but in other parts of the world homosexual marriages are not uncommon. Also all the legal stuff is there to help people that can not help themselves, especially minorities. So the legal part should be all for the equalising homosexuality to heterosexuality unless that does direct and irreparable harm to the society (which it seemingly does not).

From social perspective homosexual couples look to be living the life very similar to the heterosexual couples - there are some that are going wild and there are some that honour strong and stable relationships for decades and love to go to theatre. It could even seem that homosexual people tend to have a higher percentage of creative people and intellectuals.

The only think left is love. Call it a quick romantic encounter or a the love of the lifetime, but that seems to be the major descriptive difference with homosexually oriented people - they just fall in love with types of people that tend to be of same gender as themselves. It could be related to behavioural predispositions or differences in hormonal perception, but ultimately we do not know enough about love to fully understand that difference.

So at this point I can only conclude that until we understand all the hormonal processes and that "love" thingy, we could just as well start counting homosexual males and homosexual females as two additional genders that can not be fully understood by other two genders, just like men can not fully understand women and the other way around. This difference is as real and as effective as the difference between male and female genders or (stretching the analogy a bit too far) like the difference between races and should be honoured just as much as these differences are honoured.

And now I coin the terms "omale" and "ofmale" as the new homosexual male and female gender descriptors and "oman", "omen", "owman" and "owmen" as terms for single homosexual male, multiple homosexual males, single homosexual female and multiple homosexual females respectively.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

what is this doing in planet debian?

your insights, while valid, appear completely out-of-place there.

06 February, 2006 02:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's more complicated than that, though. In general, current thinking is that "gender identity" and "sexual identity", while linked, are seperate concepts. i.e. I know two men whose gender identity was that of a woman, even though they weren't gay. So they got sex change operations to become women and now they are both lesbians.

So you would say they were men that changed into owmen?

I'm not sure thinking about this topic without studying it more is enough to make the claims you're making. I think there's more to sexual identity than you're perhaps aware of (I'm not particuarly knowledgable either, though, so include many grains of salt with what I say).

06 February, 2006 02:30  
Anonymous housetier said...

In his novel Distress, Greg Egan also mentions more than two genders; people can choose to change their gender, or they can become totally genderless.

Quite ahead of time in 1995, but still it was a very exciting novel. The many genders and sexualities made matters more complicated; the way the distressed society dealt with this phenomenon showed just how good Mr. Egan as science-fiction writer is ;-)

I am still amazed how all these science-fiction writers can stay ahead of time, when societies are moving (evolving?) this quick.

ISBN number for the German edition Qual is 3-453-15643-9.

06 February, 2006 04:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ignoring any discussion about the validity of your theory, you appear to be completely forgetting about the existance of bisexual people.

06 February, 2006 06:05  
Anonymous coced said...

Я стараюсь подходить к социальным, культурным, прочим вопросам с как можно более базовых позиций. Пункты следующие:
- человек это животное;
- человек - животное стадное/социальное;
- стада, племены, прочее существует ради защиты от окружающей среды;
- человек образует определённый вид животных;
- инстинкт животных говорит сохранять свой вид;
- сохранение вида происходит с помощью размножения;
- человек - животное двуполое.

Ради защиты от окружающей среды, человек образует группы. Минимальная устойчивая группа - два разнополых существа, способных к размножению.

Гомосексуалисты размножаться не могут, поэтому их существование не логично.

06 February, 2006 14:58  
Blogger webmusicpro said...

to coced - тогда они обречены на вымирание???

04 April, 2007 17:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home