Update: Please read the comment section.
Last week, the anti-8 lawyers called to the stand an academic psychologist who, under cross-examination, testified that, according to his own surve, 88 percent of gay male and 68 percent of lesbian respondents said they had no choice in their sexual orientation.
This goes to the question of immutability which Ted Olson wrote about in his pro-SSM argument that appeared in Newsweek prior to the start of the trial.
Doubtful rhetoric.
Olson wrote that science has taught us that people "do not choose" to be homosexually orientated. He wrote that sexual orientation is immutable "to a very large extent".
His rhetoric belied uncertainty even as he gave the impression that his assertion rests beyond scientific doubt. However, to say that something is unchangeable "to a very large extent" is like saying that something is very unique. A characteristic is mutable or it is immutable; it is unique or it is not unique; it is a matter of either-or. Olson was deceptively certain; he left room for real doubt.
Extrapolating the extent of Choice.
Back to the plaintiff's witness. Let's put to use the testimony of the academic psychologist who reported to the court the results of his own survey. He suggested that 12% of the homosexual men (100%-88%=12%) and 32% of the homosexual women (100%-68%=32%) responded that they had chosen their orientation.
According to surveys conducted around 2004-2005, the adult homosexual population might represent about 4% of the general adult population in the country. Of that small portion, about 1 in 5 -- or 20% -- would have chosen their sexual orientation, based on extrapolations from the testimony of the plaintiff's expert witness.
[Click here to read the rest of the blogpost.]
* * *
Adult Homosexual Population.
The Williams Institute estimated that there were 8.8 million "gay, lesbian, and bisexual people" in 2005. [1] That year the Census estimated there were 223 million adults (age 18 and older). [2] That would mean that the GLB portion of the adult population was about 4% (8.8 / 222.9 = 3.9%). That is also about the percentage indicated in CNN's national election exit poll of 2004. [3]
According to Black and Gates et al, 1.4% of women and 2.5% of men had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years. [4]
Update: Please read the comment section. Thanks to Ax, RK, and Op-ed.
Taken with the expert testimony of the plaintiff's witness, this would mean that 0.45% of women made the choice to homosexual; and 0.30% of men did so; and that would mean 0.75% of adults made the choice of homosexual orientation. Or 20% of the adult homosexual population.
That's 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
Footnotes:
[1] "Census Snapshot", The Williams Institute, December 2007.
[2] "National Population Estimates", US Census Bureau, 2005.
[3] Presidential Election Exit Poll, CNN.com, 2004
[4] “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources,” Demography, vol 37, No. 2 (May, 2000) 139-154.
Also note that the 2000 Census analysis of the largest gay lobby organization, Human Rights Campaign, settled on 5% as the share of the general adult population which is openly homosexual.
* * *
Return to: "Anti-8 Trial Evidence in a Nutshell."
Wow. That's some very bad math there at the end. 0.45% of women + 0.30% of men does NOT equal 0.75% of adults. You have to weight each percentage by the proportion of adults that are women or men respectively. Assuming a 50-50 sex ratio, that's (0.5)(0.45%) + (0.5)(0.30%) = 0.375%. Which amounts to about 10%, NOT 20%, of the adult homosexual population. 1 chooser in 10, not in 5. Thus undercutting your entire point. Not that 1 in 5 was a large proportion to begin with.
ReplyDeleteUh, read the last paragraph again, ax. It is your math that is wrong, not Chairm's. As should be obvious, since if 32 percent of women and 12 percent of men say they chose to be homosexual there is no way the percentage for both men and women together could be less than 10 percent no matter what the ratio of male to female homosexuals was.
ReplyDeleteThen I invite you to point out my mathematical error. By the logic in Chairm's math, 100% of adult men + 100% of adult women = 200% of adults. Does this strike you as possible?
ReplyDeleteThough I see a source of ax's confusion here, I should add.
ReplyDeleteChairm said:
According to Black and Gates et al, 1.4% of women and 2.5% of men had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years. [4]
Chairm, since 1.4 plus 2.5 equals 3.9, should this have read that of the 3.9 percent (of the adult polulation that is homosexual, 1.4 of this 3.9 is female, and 2.5 of this 3.9 is male? If this is the case, then you are certainly right, we add the 0.45 to the 0.30 and get 0.75 percent, and divide that by the 3.9. Otherwise, what the figures above would be saying is that the Black and Gates estimate of the homosexual percentage is about half of that derived from the Williams Institute estimate.
Nope. The source that Chairm cites clearly refers to 2.5% of men and 1.4% of women, not of adults.
ReplyDeleteIf so, then the confusion comes from the fact that these are two different estimates, probably of two different things.
ReplyDeleteThe Black and Gates estimate would indicate that about 1.95% of men and women together had exclusively same sex sexual partners over the last five years.
While the number derived from the Williams Institute estimate, and the CNN national exit poll, is that about 3.9% of adults are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Assuming both the Black/Gates and Williams/CNN estimates to be equally reliable, this would mean that only half of those who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual have been exclusively homosexual over the last five years.
Applying the figures of 32% and 12% to the 1.4 percent of females and 2.5 percent of males who say they have been exclusively homosexual for five years, we estimate that of the female 1.4 percent, 0.45 of this chose to be homosexual, and of the male 2.5 percent, 0.30 percent chose to be homosexual.
Assuming a 50/50 male/female population as a whole, this means that 0.375 percent of the population that Black and Gates used as their base chose to be homosexual. On that point, you're right.
But you're wrong in dividing this by the Williams/CNN estimate of 3.9 percentage (the percentage of people identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual). You should be dividing it by Black and Gates' percentage of the total population that has been exclusively homosexual for five years, 1.95 percent. When you do that, the percentage comes to more than 19 percent.
ax: 1 chooser in 10, not in 5. Thus undercutting your entire point.
ReplyDeleteHow? It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5. The quote by the anti-vote attorney was:
"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual." [emphasis added]
And while you may say that 19 percent is not a very high percentage, it is likely higher than this as saying that you chose to be gay is not considered politically correct among gays and even lesbians today.
ReplyDeleteI might add, though, that I think that the idea that homosexuality is either a "choice" or that one is "born that way" is fallacious. In between, and probably far more frequent, is that environmental factors, in tandem with some biological tendencies, combine to create a situation where one feels that they were always homosexual and thus "born that way" even if they were not. And a "choice" may be influenced by these same factors as well.
As with so much relating to the issue of homosexuality, the question of its origin is too tainted by politics to be truly reliable at the present time.
Ax, I did make an error. Thanks for raising the point.
ReplyDeleteAs RK noted, I mistakenly used the 2.5% and 1.4% as proxies for self-reported choice.
Those percentages apply to self-reported behavior. It would be more clear to first convert the shares to numbers and then calculate the rate of choice.
My error, by the way, comes from the conventional wisdom (which is really more of a guesstimate with a very loose consensus) that male homosexuality is significantly more common than female homosexuality. Roughly, 1/3rd of the adult homosexual population is female and another 2/3rds male. And some very small fraction is bisexual. But that's freighted with all the problems of estimating the sexual orientation without a crystal clear definition of sexual orientation.
Let's put that aside and convert the shares reported by Black and Gates (Steps 1-3). And then calculate the rate of choice.
RK has covered some of this but I'll take it a step at a time.
Also, Op-ed is quite right. There is evidence that choice is a significant factor in estimating -- whatever criteria are used.
1. Of the general male adult population, 2.5% have been exclusively same-sexed during the past five years. That's 2.7 million men.
ReplyDelete2. Of the general female adult population, 1.4% or 1.6 million women.
3. In total: 4.3 million homosexual men and women as per self-reported behavior.
4. Based on the Williams Institute's estimate of 8.8 million homosexual men and women, about 49% have been exclusively same-sexed.
5. That's 1 chooser in 2 homosexual adults as per self-reported behavior.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteYes, you finally got it. And the errors were Chairm's, not mine.
I do agree that the "choice"/"born that way" dichotomy is flawed. But consider your statement: if one feels that they were born homosexual, how is this meaningfully different from actually being born homosexual?
However, we could take another step and overlay self-reported choice ontop of self-reported behavior.
ReplyDelete1. The adult homosexual population will be estimated using only that set of people who self-reported exclusive same-sex behavior.
2. Based on the witness' testimony, 12% of the male portion and 32% of the female portion self-reported choice of sexual orientation.
3. Of the 4.3 million homosexual adults, 12% of 2.7 million men chose homosexual orientation (324 thousand); and 32% of 1.6 million women chose (512 thousand); for a total of 836 thousand or 19.4%.
4. That's about 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
* * *
The witness' survey may not have been large enough. It may not have used a randomized sample.
So this second extrapolation depends on his survey sample being comprised of men and women who have been exclusively same-sexed during the past five years. But his sample may have been a mix in terms of behavior.
Either way, I don't see SSM supporters making these kinds of distinctions when it comes to claim of 1) purity of sexual orientation and 2) inclusiveness of who is and is not homosexually orientated.
RK hit the nail on the head, I think, when he pointed at the important distinction of gay identity politics. Gay is a socio-political construct and no social-political construct is in-born nor immutable.
A different approach would be to use the conventional wisdom whereby roughly 1/3rd of the homosexual adult population is female, which generally aligns with the Black and Gates survey results based on behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis approach is based on self-reported identification. And the witness' survey was based on self-reported choice or felt lack of choice.
1. The Williams estimate: 8.8 million openly homosexual adults.
(Note that the share of bisexual adults is probably small enough not to greatly distort this extrapolation. We can only get a rough idea and not a precise headcount, afterall.)
2. One-third female: two-thirds male: 5.9 million men; 2.9 million women.
3. Based on the witness' testimony, 708 thousand men and 928 thousand women chose. Total: 1.64 million.
4. That's 18.9% or about 1 chooser in 5 homosexual adults.
So even if a sample of self-reported identification is used rather than self-reported behavior, choice appears to be a significant factor.
I don't think that we can safely assume that there is a clearly identifiable -- or even self-identifiable -- population of homosexual adults whose homosexual orientation has been and continues to be unchangeable.
The changeablity, and the choice factor, appears more common among women; more women than men reside in same-sex households (which is a more inclusive category than registered relationships). This pattern holds as well for licensed SSMs. Add to this the preliminary evidence that more individuals who register partnerships (SSMs, civil unions, domestic partnerships) have been previously married (to the other sex natch) than have never been married. Add also the evidence that most children, by far, living in same-sex households were attained via the old fashioned way -- previous procreative relationships (typically marriages or marriage-like cohabitations). It adds up. Choice is very significant. And choice of behavior stands out most of all.
ax: Yes, you finally got it. And the errors were Chairm's, not mine.
ReplyDeleteBut earlier you said:
Which amounts to about 10%, NOT 20%, of the adult homosexual population.
Your error, ax, was in not seeing the obvious....that if 12 percent of men and 32 percent of women had any particular trait, there is no mathematical way that the percentage of the trait in the population of men and women total could be only 10 percent. Unless you use negative or imaginary numbers. Seeing that you were getting numbers this low should have automatically caused you to see that whatever error Chairm made, this low percentage could not have been the correct conclusion, and that you were thus missing the real problem. Chairm's conclusion about the percentage was in fact correct even if the way he arrived at it was in error.
But consider your statement: if one feels that they were born homosexual, how is this meaningfully different from actually being born homosexual?
Plenty different. I've always hated to eat vegetables, so much so that you could say that I feel like I was born to hate vegetables. Does this mean that I know that I was "born that way"? Does this mean that I should not even bother trying to eat and like vegetables, particularly since I'm at the age where I may have to?
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteNo, actually I saw it right away, before I posted my first comment. I was just waiting to see if anyone else would get it.
If so, that is not the way you presented it in your first comment. You definitely seemed to be saying that the accurate computation of the percentages showed that 10 percent of the total homosexual population chose to be gay (by their own description, that is).
ReplyDeleteWere you hoping that we would not notice that even though the steps were wrong, that the percentage was not? Were you trying to get us to discredit the percentage because the steps were in error?
I was wondering if you would notice. It seemed easier to let you recognize the error than to explain it myself.
ReplyDeleteFor what it is worth, I think all of us have read Olson's assertion the same way.
ReplyDeleteOlson said:
"Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual."
I took this to mean that he was claiming that homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation are both immutable.
In my blogpost I paraphrased:
Olson wrote that science has taught us that people "do not choose" to be homosexually orientated. He wrote that sexual orientation is immutable "to a very large extent".
There is another way to read what Olson asserted -- in light of the testimony of his expert witness.
Does it follow that he would mean that heterosexual adults choose their sexual orientation at the same rate as his expert attributed to homosexual respondents to his survey? One in five.
That is, 12% of heterosexual men (13 million) and 32% of heterosexual women (36 million) for a total of 49 million adults who choose heterosexual orientation.
Taken with the those who choose homosexual orientation, that's 50 million adults across the country.
If so, then, the heterosexual choosers outnumber the homosexual choosers "to a very large extent".
But, I think, Olson's intended meaning is as I, and the rest of us, originally took it. Yet that makes his assertion all the more difficult to stand-by, given his expert witness' survey results.
It is all balderdash, I think. And that's the point I was trying to make regarding Olson's deceptive rhetoric of certainty.
"How? It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
ReplyDeleteThe statistic that "90% of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation" is still pretty compelling. Though Olson may have chosen his words infelicitously, if it's true that 80-90% of homosexuals are possessed of an immutable sexual orientation, the existence of a minority whose orientation is mutable does not somehow disprove the majority's existence.
Put another way: Olson wasn't saying that all swans are white, and his argument doesn't fall apart if a single black swan exists.
Hi Phil,
ReplyDeleteWould it be as compelling if it read 50% as per the observation regarding exclusive same-sex sexual behavior compared with the openly homosexual adult population estimate?
Or, as extrapolated, 20% as per a subjective feeling of choice expressed in the expert's survey?
Or as illustrated by the four plaintiffs of which one chose a heterosexual relationship for 14 years before choosing differently (25%)?
The wide range of possible rates, based on the available evidence, compelling raises the question: by what criteria does the law -- and constitutional jurisprudence -- determine immutability?
Olson seems to assume, as do SSM supporters far and wide, that just showing-up for a license to SSM means the people are classifiable as "gay". That's not in the the anyplace that SSM has been imposed or enacted.
The science on this is inconclusive, contrary to Olson's assertion. He chose his words carefully, to have it both ways, and science did not choose his words for him.
Meanwhile the marriage law has no sexual orientation criterion for ineligiblity nor for eligiblity. Olson has read that into the law but the law did not did not decide that for him.
Olson was saying that sexual orientation is unchosen, except when it is. And that the marriage amendment classifies by sexual orientation, except that it doesn't unles one squints and reads the invisible ink.
Chairm,
ReplyDeleteAre you inferring that if a homosexual person is physically capable of having sex with a member of the opposite sex, then that person has "chosen" their sexual orientation?
For example, a gay man who is married to a woman for 8 years before coming out in 2009 counts in your statistics as someone who has "chosen" their orientation?
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
Phil,
ReplyDeleteWhile you are adamantly defending the premise that orientation is largely not chosen, I think the points being made are very valid. I don't want you to miss them in your effort to prop up your beliefs.
1) If one person who thinks they didn't chose their sexual orientation, then chooses it, does that invalidate everyone who thinks they can't choose it? (Hint: It is the same answer as someone who is happily married for some time only to discover later they are same-sex oriented).
That point, as well as Chairm's goes well beyond questioning physical capacity, it questions the reliability of self-identified traits.
2) While sexual orientation may or may not be a choice (which is a legitimate conclusion concerning the Olson's presentation) marriage is a choice. Are you going to call a marriage a sham because the person is in your mind a homosexual? If so, that shows exactly the harm you wish to do to marriage as an institution, if you ask me.
Marriage is a choice of commitment, and should remain strong even if sexual attraction dies (for accidents which disfigure, getting old and fat, or even discovering a new orientation).
The very fact that Olson (and perhaps you) demand marriage be neutered for the sake of homosexuality --the immutable dominant quality of a person's identity -- shows a underestimation of what marriage really means and should require. And it is exactly where this turns into the same ugly identity politics as was perpetrated by slave owners and racial segregationists.
I've said it before, I'm not going to require gays to marry someone of the other gender. But I'm not going to tell gays they can't get married -- when that marriage means at least integrating with the other gender in some meaningfully marital way. I'm not going to say any one can't do it, to be honest. I think that may keep people from exercising a right that we all have.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't. George Wallace may turn over in his grave with envy that the argument works for you and not for him, but I will not be a part of it.
Phil: The statistic that "90% of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation" is still pretty compelling.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of infelicitous, who are you quoting? You are aware of what quote marks are for, aren't you?
The study was not designed to prove your mistaken quote, above. Self reporting one cannot choose does not prove one cannot. Actually having made a choice, however, does prove one can. That many respondents felt they chose their "orientation" tells us only that some can choose. It does not tell us that some cannot, let alone how many cannot.
The world is full of people who feel they have no choice in a matter but later demonstrate they do. Some people claim they can't stop smoking. Some even try stopping multiple times before they successfully do. Some people fail repeatedly at academics before graduating. Some people fail dieting over and over before finally losing weight. These are all examples of people who thought they could not change but then did. Thinking one cannot choose does not make it so.
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
What do you "contend" about people who cheat on a spouse, like your example above, but with someone of the opposite sex? What does that prove they "cannot choose?"
The fact is, when someone ends a marriage in pursuit of homosexual sex, those trying to advance gay identity politics celebrate the infidelity as ending a sham. What is truly telling is not so much that these advocates find individual marriages less important than their identity politics, but that these are the same people who are trying to neuter marriage for the rest of us.
On Lawn:
ReplyDelete"If one person who thinks they didn't chose their sexual orientation, then chooses it, does that invalidate everyone who thinks they can't choose it?"
No, the existence of a person who changes their mind and/or believes they have chosen their sexual orientation does not necessarily invalidate the stance of people who believe they didn't or can't choose their orientation.
There are several logical possibilities--for example, sexual orientation may occur differently in different individuals, or it may be that it is not a dichotomy. (For example, some humans have brown eyes and some have blue eyes. Others have green, hazel, or grey, and some people have two different-colored eyes.) The existence of a person who is completely capable of being attracted to either sex--what some might call a "bisexual"--does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
"Are you going to call a marriage a sham because the person is in your mind a homosexual?"
I wouldn't say that a marriage is necessarily a sham because a person is a homosexual married to a person of the opposite gender, but it certainly doesn't strike me as an ideal situation for either partner. Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man? Would it bother you at all if you were a man married to a woman who revealed to you that, try as she might, she could not experience physical attraction to any men?
"I've said it before, I'm not going to require gays to marry someone of the other gender."
Yes, but you're fine with preventing them from marrying someone of the same gender. In the same way, anti-miscegeny laws treated everyone equally: everyone was free to marry someone of their own race. Your thinking here actually fits anti-miscegeny even more neatly than it fits anti-SSM laws, because while race and gender are widely accepted to be immutable, far more experts believe in people who are primarily capable of being attracted to their own sex than believe in people who are primarily capable of being attracted to a race other than their own.
op-ed:
ReplyDelete"Speaking of infelicitous, who are you quoting? You are aware of what quote marks are for, aren't you?"
I was using quotation marks to set off a distinct phrase within the sentence, but if my informal punctuation caused confusion, I apologize.
"The study was not designed to prove your mistaken quote, above. Self reporting one cannot choose does not prove one cannot."
Okay. My point was that the following two statements/statistics are similarly compelling:
1. Gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation.
2. Ninety percent of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation.
Since you're arguing with me not about this point but about the makeup of the study itself, it sounds like you agree with the point that I was making: the second statement, if true, is not automatically unpersuasive. If it were true, it would in fact be pretty compelling.
"Some people fail dieting over and over before finally losing weight. These are all examples of people who thought they could not change but then did."
This last example is interesting. Do you believe that the existence of people who can lose weight and keep it off disproves the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to being fat?
"The fact is, when someone ends a marriage in pursuit of homosexual sex, those trying to advance gay identity politics celebrate the infidelity as ending a sham."
Actually, op-ed, in my hypothetical example, I didn't specify either that homosexual sex took place or that the marriage ended. My example was "someone who comes out after years of marriage." You can come out without having sex or cheating on your spouse.
Now, it is possible that if a husband comes out to his wife and tells her that he is gay, the couple will choose to end their marriage. It's possible the two may want to continue the marriage, and I'm sure that happens in some cases, but either way it is irrelevant to my argument. Surely you aren't suggesting that a husband should lie to his wife (if he realizes after some time that he is gay) or continue lying to his wife (if he kept it a secret when they married)?
I think the issue here is that you're quibbling with what a sexual orientation is, or more specifically what a homosexual or heterosexual person is.
In my view, a homosexual man is a male who is attracted to other males in the way that heterosexual males are attracted to women. A man who is attracted to men but is capable of having sex with women is not heterosexual or bisexual, just as a heterosexual man who remains celibate before marriage is not "an asexual." (And a heterosexual man who has sex with a man for money, for example, doesn't become bisexual or homosexual as a result.)
Behavior and orientation are two different things. Handedness is probably the closest correlation to sexual orientation: most humans are right-handed, and a minority of humans are left-handed. It is possible for right-handers to use their left hands and for left-handers to use their right hands, but that does not necessarily mean that handedness is never an innate quality.
Phil: ...if my informal punctuation caused confusion, I apologize.
ReplyDeleteFear not. Just because one is incorrect does not mean that one "caused confusion."
...the following two statements/statistics are similarly compelling:
That is your call, but the first statement is false, according to the research cited at trial, and therefore not compelling.
...it sounds like you agree with the point that I was making...
"Sounds like" is one of those weasel phrases that means whatever comes next really never was heard.
The point with which I was disagreeing was your interpretation of the conclusion of the study. I actually find this other point you claim I "sound like [I] agree with" to be an irrelevant non sequitur. So does that mean I agree with it or disagree with it?
...the second statement, if true, is not automatically unpersuasive.
Unpersuasive of what?
Whatever it is "not...unpersuasive" of, if it is true that would make it more persuasive than the first statement simply because the first statement is false.
If it were true, it would in fact be pretty compelling.
"Pretty compelling?" Is that like being mostly pregnant?
If the number were 50%, would it be less persuasive (of whatever it is supposed to persuade one of)? What about 10%? What about 1%? Finally, what if it were 0%?
This last example is interesting.
I actually thought all three examples were interesting.
Do you believe that the existence of people who can lose weight and keep it off disproves the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to being fat?
No, and that clearly wasn't the point, speaking of non sequiturs. In fact the person who lost the weight and kept it off could be just such a "genetically predisposed" person. How do you propose we tell, anyway?
What it does prove, however, is that just because someone thinks they cannot choose does not prove they actually cannot, which contradicts your reading of the study's results as "Ninety percent of gay and lesbian individuals do not choose their orientation." Pointing out that contradiction was the point.
And what of my other, less "interesting" examples? Like the smoker, for instance, does the fact that someone stops smoking and doesn't start again disprove the very existence of people who are genetically predisposed to smoking? If it does disprove any genetic smoking predisposition, how should that affect policy? If it does not disprove any genetic smoking predisposition, how should that affect policy?
Surely you aren't suggesting that a husband should lie to his wife...
There you go again with another false dichotomy. Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing? You never did answer my question about the husband cheating with another woman. What would that prove the husband "cannot choose?"
(if he realizes after some time that he is gay)
Wait, you mean he didn't "realize" it before? I thought you were arguing that "orientation" was immutable. Now you're saying that someone could be happily married and then suddenly "realize" they have been wrong all this time about their orientation.
Handedness is probably the closest correlation to sexual orientation...
Apparently not, since I don't know anyone who suddenly "realized" they were left handed after years of being right handed.
The point with which I was disagreeing was your interpretation of the conclusion of the study.
ReplyDeleteI did not interpret the study; I was merely responding to your statement that the existence of "1 chooser in 10" would be a "black swan" that disproves the notion that homosexuality can be innate.
It is possible that something else might disprove said notion, but my point is entirely accurate. When I say something that is true, you may choose to agree with it or to ignore it. But contradicting me on the basis of a straw man is unnecessary.
As wrote in my first post in this dicussion, "if it's true that 80-90% of homosexuals are possessed of an immutable sexual orientation, the existence of a minority whose orientation is mutable does not somehow disprove the majority's existence."
The phrase that begins with "if it's true" was my way of being specific about the point that I was making.
You may find my point to be an irrelevant non sequitur, but it was a response to a fallacious argument you made.
Wait, you mean he didn't "realize" it before? I thought you were arguing that "orientation" was immutable. Now you're saying that someone could be happily married and then suddenly "realize" they have been wrong all this time about their orientation.
Sure, why not? Most people assume they are just like everyone else, and it can take years to realize that, in fact, they are different. A person might realize they have a gambling problem after years of telling themselves that most everybody loses a little money at the track. A person might realize they have perfect pitch after years of thinking that most everybody can hit a note on cue.
Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing?
It certainly can be, yes. Especially if she asks him directly.
Now, please answer my question directly: if a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?
What do you "contend" about people who cheat on a spouse, like your example above, but with someone of the opposite sex? What does that prove they "cannot choose?"
I don't contend anything about them; I didn't bring cheaters up. I certainly believe people can choose who they have sex with, but I don't know that it follows that people can choose who they are attracted to, specifically, or that people can choose which gender they are attracted to, generally.
Apparently not, since I don't know anyone who suddenly "realized" they were left handed after years of being right handed.
Yes, but apparently it happens. Paul McCartney thought he was right-handed until he tried to learn to play the guitar.
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/26202678/Paul-Gambaccini-Paul-McCartney-in-His-Own-Words)
More to the point, everyone goes through years where they don't know whether they're left-handed or right-handed: starting from birth and progressing to the point where a parent notices that we are favoring one hand or the other. Similarly, humans are unlikely to know whether they're straight or gay until they start to experience sexual attractions to other humans. Children who are right-handed are right-handed whether they have a word for it or not. Heterosexuals are heterosexuals whether they consider themselves to possess that trait or not.
op-ed: Is it "lying" if a husband does not tell his wife he finds some other woman sexually appealing?
ReplyDeletePhil: It certainly can be, yes. Especially if she asks him directly.
In which case, I will say, she is more responsible for causing damage to the marriage than he is.
And Phil, is it thus your contention that if a husband cannot swear to himself that he does not find some other woman sexually attractive, he should get divorced?
ReplyDeleteIs it your contention that if a couple cannot swear that neither of them will ever find someone else sexually attractive, they should not get married?
Phil: I did not interpret the study
ReplyDeleteNo? Then where did you get the "90%" figure if not from assuming that everyone who claimed they did not choose, in fact, did not?
...your statement that the existence of "1 chooser in 10" would be a "black swan" that disproves the notion that homosexuality can be innate.
Speaking of straw men, that would be akin to arguing the existence of a black swan (or 1 in 10 black swans) disproves that any white swans exist. What I actually said was "It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
You may find my point to be an irrelevant non sequitur,
I do.
...but it was a response to a fallacious argument you made.
I made, or your straw man made. In the future, please carry on conversations with your straw man without involving me, perhaps on your straw man's own blog.
Sure, why not? Most people assume they are just like everyone else...
Wait, so now he only "assumed" a sexual attraction to his wife? We don't even know we're sexually attracted to whom we think we are? You are stretching your argument beyond absurdity.
It certainly can be, yes.
"It certainly can be" is another weasel phrase that means often, at least, it is not.
Now, please answer my question directly: if a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?
Yes. Instead, he should continue to love, honor, and cherish her like he promised her when he married. Now you answer your question "directly."
I didn't bring cheaters up.
Fair enough, let me rephrase. What do you "contend" about a husband who leaves his wife, in pursuit of heterosexual sex? What does that prove he "cannot choose?" Does it prove he was only assuming he was sexually attracted to his wife and that instead he was sexually attracted to this other woman all along?
Paul McCartney thought he was right-handed until he tried to learn to play the guitar.
False. Paul knew he was left handed. What he didn't know was that guitars can be as well.
Similarly, humans are unlikely to know whether they're straight or gay until they start to experience sexual attractions to other humans.
And not similarly, they apparently don't know even then. They might be just "assuming."
Phil: does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. The No true Scotsman defense.
You know, its impossible to disprove that Bigfoot exists also. For no matter how many times people claim there is evidence, and it gets shot down, we don't know exactly what the true Bigfoot is to say that the evidence to the contrary has really ruled it out.
Now my point is not that a true homosexual does or does not exist. My point is simply that the true homosexual is just an ideal, a realm far away and safe from scientific authority.
So if we are going to deal with it as an ideal, then I will happily repeat my aversion to the same as a contradiction to the ideal of free will...
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity. I won't. George Wallace may turn over in his grave with envy that the argument works for you and not for him, but I will not be a part of it.
How that operates contrary to the prospect of free will of choosing marriage is also in that same comment.
I see you chose to say nothing of it, so perhaps it simply needed to be pointed out again.
That is the main point, in case you really need a fine point put on it. Just a few remarks on your other points...
Phil: -for example, sexual orientation may occur differently in different individuals, or it may be that it is not a dichotomy.
ReplyDeleteRarely are these complex issues with many influences as absolute as you are portraying homosexuality. The realm of the bell curve is the antithesis of the extremes and absolutes you are claiming to exist.
Asking me questions is kind of like pulling a gun on a cop, you know what you are going to get...
Would you want your daughter to marry a gay man?
I want my daughter to marry someone who will commit to loving, honoring and cherishing her no matter how much or little they are sexually attracted to her.
I don't care if they are gay or not.
Would it bother you at all if you were a man married to a woman who revealed to you that, try as she might, she could not experience physical attraction to any men?
When I was younger and more immature, that would have bothered me. Now, I find the commitment to love me anyways to be much more beautiful and meaningful. Attraction will always be here today, gone tomorrow. I would be much more bothered if their love and commitment were based on such a fickle hormone.
I know anyone who wants a happy marriage that will last, more then a happy wedding day and honeymoon as long as they are young and attractive, understands this completely.
Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not that unalike, there is a lot of room to understand each other's issues. The reason I am worried about the current homosexual dogma is that these issues for them are excuses to not show love and commitment.
Phil: Yes, but you're fine with preventing them from marrying someone of the same gender
False. I am not keeping them from the relationship they themselves think they have. I am not trying to keep them from getting recognition from the government for the relationship they define for themselves. I just argue with the label they are using to describe it.
Clearly it isn't a marriage, since that expects (and should for everyone's sake continue to expect) love, honor, and commitment for the sake of each spouse and the children they potentially have together.
If we define sweatpants to be seat belts, then what do we do to encourage people to continue to really use seat belts for their protection and others?
Your thinking here actually fits anti-miscegeny even more neatly than it fits anti-SSM laws
Anti-miscegeny laws were found, by the Loving Court, to be a bolstering of a "true scottsman" style identity ideal. They found that it created a class society where whites were not able or meant to mingle with a person of certain races in a marital way.
Your own segregationist arguments (i.e. homosexual dogma) much closer align with the segregationists who prosecuted the Loving marriage, then with the ideal that the court established -- the ability to choose and integrate.
R.K.: In which case, I will say, she is more responsible for causing damage to the marriage than he is.
ReplyDeleteOk. Since it's a hypothetical example based on a hypothetical question, I'm not sure how much value there is in judging the woman in question. It is possible that such a question would damage a marriage; it's possible that a couple could be accustomed to the kind of frank communication such that a question like that wouldn't be a big deal. It really doesn't matter, however, in terms of the topic at hand.
R.K.:
Is it your contention that if a couple cannot swear that neither of them will ever find someone else sexually attractive, they should not get married?
No, but if you are not attracted to the person that you are marrying, you are being deceptive if you allow them to think that you are.
Once married, couples ought to communicate about important things. One way to determine if something is important enough to tell it to your spouse is to try to figure out if it is something they would want to know.
The remaining quoted text is from op-ed:
No? Then where did you get the "90%"[...]
"1 chooser in 10" leaves 9 out of 10, or 90%, remaining.
What I actually said was "It only takes one black swan to disprove the theory that all swans are white, not 1 in 10 or 1 in 5."
My point was that the existence of a person who chooses their sexuality does not disprove the existence of people who do not choose their sexuality. If my point is not in conflict with what you meant earlier, then it sounds like we both agree: the existence of "choosers" does not disprove the existence of people who may be innately homosexual.
In which case, we needn't argue this point, because we both agree.
Wait, so now he only "assumed" a sexual attraction to his wife? We don't even know we're sexually attracted to whom we think we are? You are stretching your argument beyond absurdity.
It's entirely possible that a man who realizes he is gay after years of marriage assumed that he was attracted to his wife in the same way that most men are attracted to their wives. That's not a stretch; in fact, it is the status quo. It happens.
Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel, we all make assumptions about whether we are like or unlike our peers. Most of us never need to question these assumptions, probably because most of us are very similar to the majority.
"It certainly can be" is another weasel phrase that means often, at least, it is not.
I think a better way to describe my response is to call it accurate, not a "weasel phrase." It is not accurate to say (in response to your question) either "it is always lying" or "it is never lying." It _is_ accurate to say, "It can be lying."
You, as an intelligent person, realize this. You are arguing about it for no reason, as if I had claimed "Yes, it's always lying." Accept that there are few absolutes when it comes to interpersonal communication. If that leads to weasel phrases, then so be it.
Now you answer your question "directly."
ReplyDeleteThe question was: "If a man is attracted exclusively to men, and has never been sexually attracted to any woman, is that something he should keep secret from his wife?"
I will answer directly: no. The issue is too important to keep it a secret; it is not the same as the natural waning of physical attraction as a relationship proceeds along its course. To keep such a thing from your spouse is to deceive someone to whom you owe honesty.
This does not mean that you must divorce them, or that they must divorce you, etc. But if you love and honor your spouse, you will not lie to them.
Does it prove he was only assuming he was sexually attracted to his wife and that instead he was sexually attracted to this other woman all along?
No. There's a difference between the capacity to be attracted to someone and the actual attraction toward them. Men cheat on their wives all the time, and for different reasons. It's entirely possible a man might cheat on his wife with a woman to whom he is not attracted. An instance of cheating doesn't really prove much, unless you can get the full story from the man or woman involved.
As is clear from my comments earlier, the state-of-being-gay is not the same as cheating on your wife. I have known men who told their wives they were gay, but who had never had sex with another human being besides their wife.
Paul knew he was left handed.
Very well. The "Times Daily" appears to disagree with Wikipedia on this one (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19840910&id=1gciAAAAIBAJ&sjid=esgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1435,2463740), but the point is that a person can realize that they are left-handed, which is factually correct, whether the person in question is Paul McCartney, Southern Illinois University basketball player Tyrone Green, or a five-year-old who is just learning to write.
And not similarly, they apparently don't know even then. They might be just "assuming."
If your point is that sexuality is complicated, and there are people who assume they are straight but are not, or perhaps who assume they are gay but are not, I agree. Additionally, societal pressures to conform don't help anyone.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteAh, yes. The No true Scotsman defense.
Defense of _what_? What is the statement you seem to think I was defending when I made my perfectly defensible and accurate claim that "The existence of a person who is completely capable of being attracted to either sex--what some might call a "bisexual"--does not disprove the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals."
The "No True Scotsman" fallacy involves shifting ground to narrowly define a target concept based on qualitative or immeasurable assumptions. It requires, as your link indicates, a universal claim that "All x are y" or "no x are y." I am doing the opposite; I'm claiming that _not_ all x are y.
So if we are going to deal with it as an ideal, then I will happily repeat my aversion to the same as a contradiction to the ideal of free will...
Are you claiming here that the existence of homosexuals or heterosexuals would contradict the ideal of free will?
If so, you seem to agree with my stance that there is a difference between sex and sexual orientation.
But if you're claiming that, since homosexuality is an ideal, we must act as if homosexuals don't exist, that's just silly. There's no such thing as a perfect circle, but that doesn't mean we put trapezoidal tires on our cars. You can try to force a square peg into a round hole, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a square peg.
You can tell people that there is some identity that requires they have to segregate with others of that same identity.
I never said that people are _required_ to "segregate" with others of the same identity, though I'll happily assert that it is probably better for all involved if gay people marry other gay people and heterosexuals marry heterosexuals. All marriage is a form of segregation, by your intepretation, wherein a person pledges themselves to exactly one other person for the rest of their life. So if it's wrong (based on your segregation argument) to say that a gay person should marry a gay person it's equally wrong to say that a man should marry a woman: the levels of segregation are equal.
I don't care if they are gay or not.
I wish more SSM opponents shared your honesty. I wish, in fact, that they would put slogans like this in their commercials and advertising.
Ads could depict a woman sitting at home while her attentive, doting husband, perhaps played by Clay Aiken or Johnny Weir, comes home and makes dinner. She could look directly into the camera and say, "He loves me. So what if he's gay?"
And the tag line for the commercial could be something like, "Vote no on Proposition 8. Gay men should marry women."
Now, I find the commitment to love me anyways to be much more beautiful and meaningful.
"Love" means a lot of different things. It sounds like you believe an ideal marriage involves what a social scientist might call "pragma." I'm no expert, but I'm not willing to accept without proof that all marriages can be successful without the presence of any kind of "eros."
I just argue with the label they are using to describe it.
If you mean that you support full state and federal recognition of gay civil unions or domestic partnerships with all of the rights and privileges afforded to married couples, then I can respect that. I don't necessarily agree that the word marriage ought to be withheld from those relationships, but I can respect where you're coming from.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteClearly it isn't a marriage, since that expects (and should for everyone's sake continue to expect) love, honor, and commitment for the sake of each spouse and the children they potentially have together.
How is that "clearly" not marriage? How, based on the sentence I just quoted, is a same-sex couple any different from a completely infertile mixed-sex couple?
the ability to choose and integrate.
If one of us is arguing against the ability to choose, it's not me.
Phil: Ok. Since it's a hypothetical example based on a hypothetical question, I'm not sure how much value there is in judging the woman in question. It is possible that such a question would damage a marriage; it's possible that a couple could be accustomed to the kind of frank communication such that a question like that wouldn't be a big deal. It really doesn't matter, however, in terms of the topic at hand.
ReplyDeleteActually it does, as it relates directly to the issue of whether or not marriage depends on sexual attraction, and more specifically, whether it depends on one being able to swear that they will never find anyone else as or more sexually attractive. By hinting that it is good or at least fair practice for one spouse to badger another about this you are making this relevant.
Being attracted to others is far less of a betrayal of a marriage than acting on that attraction is.
How is that "clearly" not marriage? How, based on the sentence I just quoted, is a same-sex couple any different from a completely infertile mixed-sex couple?
Simple. For one, when we see an infertile heterosexual couple, we have no idea that they cannot have children unless they tell us. They look no different from a fertile couple. And similarly, a couple that married in old age look exactly like a long-married elderly couple that has their own adult children. They do not sever the link between marriage and procreation in the obvious way that a same-sex couple does by being called "marriage".
Also, a same-sex couple can't consummate the marriage. Yes, consummation is more central to marriage than attraction.
Phil, relating to my last comment above, see my last question in the comments after this post.
ReplyDeleteHi Phil -- thanks for commenting further. I feel it is necessary to point out that the phrase "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" is a nonsensical phrase.
ReplyDeleteI believe you are trying to make a distinction even as you are proposing that the intended distinction is one without a relevant difference. So I don't fault you for making that effort, however, perhaps you can restate to add greater clarity to your intended meaning.
Here's one of my older blogposts on the subject of mixed couples or what some SSMers had come to misname "interfertile couples".
Who is "interfertile," anyway?.
If you mean to say 'an infertile couple' there is no need to say such a couple is 'mixed'. No one-sexed scenario is fertile, subfertile, or infertile but is simply non-fertile. The lack of the other sex is not a variation of infertility.
We could discuss the great significance of this fact of humankind if you wish, but I'll await your clarification of your intended meaning.
Phil, your comments strongly suggest that you believe that a woman who has for years behaved and presented herself as homosexually orientated can in fact show she was heterosexually orientated all along by opting out of same-sex sexualized relationships and forming a conjugal relationship with a man.
ReplyDeleteThat would be the inverse of your remark:
I'd contend that someone who comes out after years of marriage is evidence that, despite efforts to the contrary, many people cannot choose their orientation.
Here is the issue that has been raised regarding immutability: either the characteristic is mutable or it is not.
Now, what is that characteristic? A pattern of behavior? A feeling? And how is it determined objectively that a person's sexual orientation has always been this but not that?
By Olson's rhetoric, and by his expert witness's testimony, there are about 50 million Americans whose sexual orientation is chosen, one way or another, rather than unchosen.
Maybe in your view unchosen is not the same as immutable? Or do you think that bisexuality is a defining characteristic of a much larger segment of the adult population than homosexuality? Something on the order of five times larger?
As I said, I think the range of rates that are discernible from the available evidence casts considerable doubt that this can be deemed, scientifically as per Olson, as an immutable classification.
R.K.:
ReplyDeleteBeing attracted to others is far less of a betrayal of a marriage than acting on that attraction is.
Sure. But lying is also a betrayal of a marriage, however minor. And if your wife asks you if you are attracted to someone--her sister, your waitress, a famous actress--and you tell her "no" when you actually are, that is lying, whether or not it was a good idea for your wife to ask it. So the concept of "whether or not it was a good idea to ask it" is irrelevant, because we both agree that lying is lying.
Now, it may be that you believe there are times when it is good or important to lie to one's spouse. So be it. Just admit that, instead of casting aspersions on a hypothetical woman's hypothetical decision to ask her husband a non-hypothetical question.
They look no different from a fertile couple.
Wow. I really, really wish that more SSM opponents had your honesty. That's your argument, huh? They "look" like a fertile couple, and therefore they are different from couples who don't "look" right to you.
Wow. I sincerely hope that they put that argument front and center in the next anti-marriage-equality campaign.
Yes, consummation is more central to marriage than attraction.
What is the purpose of consummation, for couples who cannot conceive children?
Chairm:
I feel it is necessary to point out that the phrase "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" is a nonsensical phrase.
If your politics cause you to have a pet peeve with a phrase that I used, that's your own issue. The truth is, you knew exactly what I meant. I try to use overly-specific terms like "a completely infertile mixed-sex couple" to mean mixed-sex couples who cannot possibly conceive children because in the past, whenever I bring up "infertile couples," some well-intentioned person with poor reasoning ability counters with "Infertile couples can still conceive children! It happens all the time!"--as if I were talking about the _word_ infertile, and not the class of mixed-sex couples who cannot conceive children.
If I had used the phrase "an infertile heterosexual couple," you might have jumped down my throat for implying that all mixed-sex couples are possessed of heterosexual orientation, as you have done in the past.
So I used a carefully-worded phrase, and the result was that, while you knew exactly what I meant, you take umbrage with what you view as redundancy.
If you want to argue the semantics of the difference between "infertile" and "non-fertile," I guess that's your prerogative. My point is that there is no meaningful difference between a same-sex couple and an infertile (mixed-sex) couple.
If two consenting adults are incapable of conceiving a child together, the number of children that they can conceive is zero. Mathematically, zero equals zero.
Except, as R.K. points out: They "look" different.
Here is the issue that has been raised regarding immutability: either the characteristic is mutable or it is not.
ReplyDeleteThat is a false dichotomy. It is possible for a characteristic to be mutable in some persons and immutable in others. There are people who are right-handed, people who are left-handed, and people who are ambidextrous, for example. Some people can learn music quickly, others can never sing two notes in sequence.
The flimsiest of science supports the notion that sexual orientation, generally, can be changed. Yet opponents of same-sex marriage--and gay rights in general--cling to it, because it's the only way to make their positions seem remotely reasonable.
And yet, we know darn well that gay people exist. I used to cite Clay Aiken as an example: Look at Clay Aiken, I would say. Even though he has never publicly acknowledged his homosexuality, I am damn sure he's gay. And if you weren't trying to prove a political point, you would acknowledge that you know damn well he's gay, too. If you tried to be a matchmaker and set your sister up with Clay Aiken, unless she's incredibly naive, she would slap you and say, "#$%^@ you, Chairm! I don't want to marry a gay guy!"
Unfortunately, I can no longer cite Clay Aiken as my celebrity example of a man we all know damn well is gay even though he hasn't said so. Why? Because he said so, acknowledging that I was correct.
So how about Olympic figure skater Johnny Weir? He has never publicly acknowledged that he's gay. But I am quite certain that his sexual orientation is homosexual. If you like, you can fax him a copy of this blog comment and invite him to sue me for libel. But he won't. Because he's gay. And I know it, and if you are at all familiar with him, you know it. And we're not even scientists!
This is not to say that all gay people are alike, or that they all share the same traits. But some gay people seem to possess intrinsic qualities that differ from straight people. To ignore this is to cling to a position that defies common sense.
By Olson's rhetoric, and by his expert witness's testimony, there are about 50 million Americans whose sexual orientation is chosen, one way or another, rather than unchosen.
You're citing statistics about people whose sexual _behavior_ is chosen as if it implies that their sexual _orientation_ is chosen. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what sexual orientation is. Virtually _all_ people's sexual behavior is chosen; it does not follow that all people are bisexual or that all people have a mutable sexual orientation.
Phil, your comments strongly suggest that you believe that a woman who has for years behaved and presented herself as homosexually orientated can in fact show she was heterosexually orientated all along by opting out of same-sex sexualized relationships and forming a conjugal relationship with a man.
ReplyDeleteYes, if a straight woman were in a same-sex relationship for years, that wouldn't change the fact that she's straight.
On the other hand, neither being in a same-sex relationship nor having sex with a man would "prove" what her orientation was, one way or the other. Sexual behavior and sexual orientation are two different things, and humans are perfectly capable of performing physical acts that are contrary to their nature.
If we lived in a world where women faced incredible societal pressure to enter into relationships with other women, and after years, a woman "came out" as heterosexual, I'd say that serves as evidence that heterosexuality can be innate.
Wow. I sincerely hope that they put that argument front and center in the next anti-marriage-equality campaign.
ReplyDeleteOh, so do I, Phil. And with it, the corollary question I was getting at, which is, of course: if we legalize same-sex "marriage" and declare it equal to opposite-sex marriage, are we not also declaring that non-creative forms of "sexual" contact are thus equal to the one type of sexual contact that is potentially creative (even when the couples are infertile)? Believe it or not, really putting this question out in the open is going to be much more effective for our side than yours.
And, yes, seeing a same-sex couple and calling them "married" will be saying to the whole culture, "All sexual contact is equal, and procreation is irrelevant to it."
Phil, do you believe that at least sexual contact is what marriage is defined around?
Also, can you answer the questions related to consummation that I asked at the end of the post I linked to?
Phil: ...does not disprove the existence...
Of bigfoot, aliens, witches, etc., etc. I am not here to argue your religiously held beliefs, particularly when you have so carefully crafted them to be outside the realm of scientific observation.
If my point is not in conflict with what you meant earlier,...
It is irrelevant.
...then it sounds like we both agree
"Sounds like" is a weasel phrase that means what follows was never actually said. It "sounds like" you believe in little green moon men because your statements don't contradict them.
...we needn't argue this point, because we both agree.
The point on which we both agree is that the plaintiff's statement was wrong, period.
It's entirely possible that a man who realizes he is gay after years of marriage assumed that he was attracted to his wife...
It's entirely possible that he is only "assuming" he is attracted to men now. Your "only assuming" refuge cuts both ways.
That's not a stretch
Yes, it is. Saying people don't know who they are attracted to is quite the stretch, an absurd stretch. It twists the definition of attraction from something real that we can feel to some ethereal and unobservable concept which we can only make guesses about. You have simply carefully concocted another unobservable concept to support the first.
...in fact, it is the status quo. It happens.
No. What "happens" is that men leave their wives in pursuit of homosexual sex. This bit about being sexually attracted but not really is just your unfalsifiable conjecture.
Since there is no way to compare your feelings of attraction to the feelings that other people feel...
Convenient for someone looking to remove his tenet of faith from the realm of scientific observ