Product Description

Many conservative religious groups insist that homosexuality is a plague on society, that AIDS is the result of unnatural behaviour, and that organised homosexual movements have some grand scheme to spread ungodly ways throughout all areas of society, thus subverting moral values and the family. In this book, columnist Jack Nichols sets fundamentalists on the run, exposing their lies, threats, and the misunderstandings fostered and multiplied by the hosts of the religious right.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #2283468 in Books
• Published on: 1996-10-19
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 228 pages

From the Author
A Reply to Two Reviewers of The Gay Agenda
A REPLY TO TWO REVIEWERS OF THE GAY AGENDA By Jack Nichols Both current-reader-critics of my book seem not to focus on anything other than my approach to the nature-nurture controversy that erupts in the final two chapters of The Gay Agenda: Talking Back to the Fundamentalists. One of these two critics I'd label-because of word-choices-anti-gay. The other, who has a much better grasp on how to present his ideas clearly, is-on the whole--on my side except for the genetic feud. I hope these two will take note-in my reply-- of recent developments, namely the findings of a major six-year study of gay males and lesbians. This study includes interviews with 4,900 twins, which has concluded that homosexuality is as much a product of social conditioning and environment as it is of genetics. These findings were formally presented at a Brisbane seminar in September, 1997 as joint research by senior lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, Dr. Michael Dunne and Dr. Michael Bailey, of Northwestern University. The seminar was titled "The Social and Ethical Implications of Recent Research into the Genetic Basis of Psychological Diversity." Similar instances in interdisciplinary struggles erupted in the 19th century with like studies on twins and other gay males utilized as "proofs" of one view or another, just as occurs today. For an extended period-until 1991-social constructionist views prevailed. This prevalence was temporarily interrupted by assertions advanced by biologists. Now, with the release of the Australian/American research, constructionist views are once again being reasserted. The new study challenges the biological, or genetic assumptions launched in 1991 after a gay-identified researcher, Simon LeVay, resurrected the century-old struggle between biological and psychological theorists by advancing biological perspectives concerning homosexual origins based mainly on autopsies he'd completed on 19-AIDS-felled corpses. He'd found, he said, a larger hypothalamus in heterosexually-identified males than in homosexual males. Mainstream media and a great number of gay activists who lacked awareness of long-existing interdisciplinary battles, quickly seized upon LeVay's research as a strategy needed to fell religious fundamentalist propaganda about homosexual contagion in the general population. As a matter of strategy, they thought, the "inborn" argument might help quell fundamentalist claims that the lifting of the homosexual taboo would lead to "perverse" mass conversions to same-sex love. Thus, many gay activists became enthusiastic purveyors of the theory of genetic causation. George Weinberg, Ph.D. a heterosexually-inclined psychotherapist who coined the word "homophobia" and author of the groundbreaking work, Society and the Healthy Homosexual, critiqued the validity of LeVay's biological research shortly after its release. He pointed out in 1991 that the school of psychobiologists that LeVay represents are "forever trying to reassert dominion over human behavioral patterns." The latest Australian/American research, which calls LeVay's findings into question, seems to back up Weinberg's contention. Weinberg referred to LeVay's research as "garbage", explaining that these theoretical wars or "psychobiological binges" are forever erupting and getting front page play, and that later they "fade into the backdrop of our collective memory, and are never again reconsidered as they move on into the limbo of perpetual non-importance." When asked what lies behind biological research such as LeVay's, Weinberg replied, "These theories will be propounded as long as conventional citizens want to explain human differences rather than celebrate them." Dr. Weinberg presented me with this quote: "We come into this world with no innate selection preferences or knowledge of the outside world. To assert a preference for one sex-object would be to assert a much larger "first" for human beings, namely the discovery that we are born with ANY knowledge of this world." Biology, as feminist scholarship has long contended, is not, therefore, necessarily destiny. If it were, human social evolution would remain stymied by biological fiat. The Australian researcher, Dr. Dunne, believes his new studies show "it's pretty clear that the expression of something like sexuality really depends upon the time in which you live." He said that evidence of sexuality in women was much less certain, but that nurture as well as nature was a factor with both sexes. Studies show that women, far more so than men, tend to be changeable and fluid in their sexual responses, that is that many respond homosexually or bisexually with greater ease. Whether or not this fluidity signals social or biological impetus is part of the ongoing interdisciplinary debate. About genetic influences, Dr. Dunne said that "it looks like, for most human traits, it's very unlikely that there is any single gene influence, so it might be the case that you're going to need a number of genes, and also particular types of environment for that trait (of homosexuality) to express itself." The fears voiced by activists that nurture arguments open the door to fundamentalist demands for "therapeutic" changeovers to heterosexuality are either cancelled or balanced in the long run-by the new research, as Dr. Dunne explains. Explanations of homosexual origins based on biological arguments also have their downside: namely, genetic manipulation, or "selecting against gay babies while they are still in the womb." In 1951 Edward Sagarin, writing under the pseudonym Donald Webster Cory, argued that once intense pleasure has been derived from same-sex contact, no therapy could eliminate the pleasured individual's recognition of the source of his or her pleasure. Therefore, he argued, homosexuality cannot be eliminated. The research conducted by Dr. Alfred Kinsey posited homosexuality as one side of the natural sexual continuum. The 1948 Kinsey studies indicated that 37.5 percent of all males (heterosexual or homosexual) reach at least one orgasm homosexually in adulthood. Clearly, in sexually repressive societies, there are fewer overt same-sex lovers. As taboos are lifted, some now believe the natural homosexual component in human beings becomes increasingly expressive. This view challenges old theories and brings into focus what both psychologist William James and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud taught about the human psyche, namely that it is, at birth, bisexual. Two Nineteenth Century gay pioneers, poets Walt Whitman and Edward Carpenter, reflected parallel perspectives. "The germ (i.e. seed) is in everyone," said Whitman, while Carpenter reflected in 1896: It is possible that the Uranian (gay) spirit may lead to something like a general enthusiasm of Humanity, and that the Uranian people may be destined to form the advance guard of that great movement, which will one day transform the common life by substituting the bond of personal affection and compassion for the monetary, legal, and other external ties which now control and confine society. Such a part, of course, we cannot expect the Uranians to play unless the capacity for their kind of attachment also exists, though in a germinal and undeveloped state, in the breast of mankind at large. And modern thought and investigation are clearly tending that way-to confirm that it does so exist."

Customer Reviews

Bill errs: homosexuality still controversial for cause...
While this reader can agree with Bill's enthusiasm, there are other reasons to object to the books third part. First, the research Chandler Burr hass conducted (or else relies on) is problematic: either the gay gene studies haven't been reproduced, or else its author's are being investigated by the federal government for science fraud! These alarms were sounded not by mainstream press (except in San Francisco), but came to my attention in a well documented critical neswpaper-magazine review that appeared in Forbes (quarterly) MediaCritic (last year, or earlier..). Furthermore, there is rampant evidence that the gay gene hypothesis has been popularized because of a political agenda, both left-wing and pro-gay! Hence the inflated numbers of homosexuality Bill accepts, 9% instead of a more likely less than 5% (i.e., 3-4% gay, and 1-2% lesbian). Even the perverted agenda of that old noble standby, the founder of sexology, Alfred Kinsey, has been exposed as a pederast, a child molester! If the there is no "gay gene," then the floodgates of morality are indeed opened, or at least moralism. And here, of course, is where moralists of faith (whether religious or secular) put there money down, draw a line in the sand, proclaiming differences and objections. I support their right to do so, well knowing that I disagree with them. Why? Because I realize the great universal relgions, such as Chritianity, imposed strict moral codes because they sanctified the human requirements for sustaining the (once fragile) agricultural revolution. Today we're still accomodating such old moral codes to the social and political requirements of much more recent urban and industrial revolutions, historic changes that have made much of them, if not exactly obsolete, then seriously challenged (e.g., Islam's codes, such as the sharia -- full covering of women in public, etc.). Belief has declined in most industrialized countries, and one can well read Nichols' third part as indicative of the very "gay threat" to families many Chritians already perceive. Why? Because procreation does involve delayed gratification (spending), self-discipline (work whatever one has to for the money, no mater how dirty or dangerous), (sexual and social )compromise, an almost selfless investment in the spiritual future (for one's offspring) -- things which few homosexuals either participate in or grasp. Thus, a lifestyle of decadent pleasure seeking (whether "gay," or straight bachelorhood),is easy enough to denigrate, and plausible enough to hold rational moral objections about. To both sides, this skeptical puritan counsels toloerance: sexuality, like identity itself, is a great mystery -- we simply don't know much with any definiteness. What I can fault both Bill and Nichols for, however, is not taking their opponents position seriously enough. This is a disservice to constructive dialog. Remember: while it seems unthinkable today, civilization once did die out in Europe. It's called the middle ages, and within that period was another called the Dark Ages. I could happen again; civilization has already proved fragile, and could be again if only because we forget why we want, or else need, to form real families; it's not clear gays can or even will do the job alone. And finally, there is one sense in which procreative straights, which traditional religions strive mightily to reward with, remain (in some important ways) superior to nonprocrative-homosexuals: family people invest themselves in raising future generations, lengthening the time horizons of their concern, and thereby retain or conserve usefull traditions, e.g., faithfulness, leaving them substantially untouched by AIDS -- which, as Michael Fumento showed, favored the promiscuous environments of "liberated" gay culture.

Excellent
The Gay Agenda by Jack Nichols provides an excellent rebuttal to the myriad propaganda tracts published by the religious right. Nichols, a long time activist and advocate for equal rights for gay people, provides as well a unique historical perspective for this subject.

The book effectively explodes the myth of a monolithic gay cabal by providing evidence of the great diversity of opinion, lifestyle, philosophy and theology among gay and lesbian people. At the same time the book traces the history of the opportunistic conservative attacks on gay and lesbian people. The book provides overwhelming documentation of the abuse of political power by conservative and right wing religious groups who use gay and lesbian people as scapegoats in order to achieve political power and raise funds for their divisive political agenda. More importantly, the book states and then exposes as deception all of the major propaganda of the right, ranging from same gender marriage to AIDS to employment.

Mr. Nichols also analyzes the basic belief system of the right and especially the religious right. He not only points out the contradictions in this belief system, but goes on to show how many of the philosophical and theological tenets of fundamentalism are destructive to social order. For example, Mr. Nichols discusses in detail the fundamentalist notion of atonement, demonstrating how this doctrine discourages self reflection and contemplation. Mr. Nichols points out fundamentalists want believers not thinkers, and goes on to argue effectively that this is largely due to the fundamentalist notion of atonement. Mr. Nichols dissects other fundamentalist doctrines, from Biblical literlaism (which is actually selectively applied, as Mr. Nichols shows by example), to Armageddon, to evangalism.

I found my head nodding in agreement at nearly every paragraph through the first two thirds of this book, often stopping to read entire sections out loud to my spouse. After such an auspicious start, I must confess that I was disappointed in the final third of the book. The basis for much of the discussion at the end of the book deals with the author's views on the origins of sexual orientation and his apparent belief that everyone, or at least very large segments of the population, would be gay or lesbian if only society were less repressive and homophobic. This premise is disturbing on two counts.

The first reason this premise is disturbing is that it is almost certainly incorrect. The review of the scientific literature in Chandler Burr's recent book "A Separate Creation" clearly shows that the percentage of persons who are gay or lesbian in orientation is fairly constant across cultures (about 6% of the male population and about 3% of the female population). It is certainly true that the percentage of a population exhibiting gay or lesbian behavior - as opposed to orientation -- varies according to cultural tolerance of diversity, with intolerant societies showing a lower incidence of behavior. However, contrary to Mr. Nichol's assertion, there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that increasing cultural tolerance would result in the gay/lesbian population ever exceeding the 3-6% range. Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that sexual orientation is not culturally instilled but is biological in character.

The second reason that the premise that sexual orientation is somehow a learned behavior is that it repeats, in different form, the erroneous argument of the right that sexual orientation can be changed if we only "want" to change badly enough. If a less repressive society would result in a vast increase in the number of gays and lesbians, as Mr. Nichols argues, then the right must be correct in its argument that a more repressive society would result in fewer gays and lesbians. The fact of the matter is that there will always be a relatively fixed and small minority who are gay or lesbian. A less repressive society liberates this minority, with all the positive social consequences Mr. Nichols records in the first two thirds of his book. A more repressive society not only destroys unnecessarily the lives of this minority but is also destructive of the fundamental social fabric, again as Mr. Nichols so cogently argues in the first two thirds of his book.

On balance, however, I highly recommend this book. The expose of the right, the insightful dissection of the fundamentalist belief system, the carefully crafted rebuttal of the propaganda of the right, and the author's writing style, which is often humorous and is always clear and concise, make this book a worthwhile read.

---Bill Ray, Norman, Oklahoma