A Gay Humanist Manifesto, Alan Keslian [best ebook reader android TXT] 📗

we are no longer part of a dubious minority. This may be a nice idea, but do we, when we are out in public with a partner or lover, feel free to hold hands, put our arms round each other, and kiss? In places where we know others of our own kind are present, or where we think the straights are open minded, we may be confident enough to show affection, but when we see very conventional looking people all around us, we may simply decide to quietly do whatever we are there to do without being conspicuous. Straight couples often do not touch each other in public, so this self-restraint may not seem much of a sacrifice. In reality we know displays of affection by us may not be accepted quite so readily as physical contact between heterosexual couples, and that we may even provoke hostility. Much of the time we simply want to get on with our lives.
Advertising images are everywhere. Mixed gender couples are often shown happily being together, but same sex couples only rarely. The arithmetic is against us: adverts will usually be seen by a lot more straights than gays, and the mixed sex couple will appeal to most. That's the way marketing works.
Ever been asked by someone you've recently met about your wife or husband, and had to explain that you have a partner of the same sex? Or been asked by a comparative stranger if you fancy so and so, on the assumption that the opposite sex attracts you? Or been with a group of straights of your own gender who talk about their own hetero experiences in a way that makes you feel left out?
One run of the mill event of this kind may not amount to much, and we get used to dealing with the awkwardness, but the relief that comes from being able to talk and act freely and naturally again in the company of other lesbians and gay men can be enormous. Nor are the difficulties confined to small everyday matters: when we announced our same sex preference to our parents, even if they were supportive and reassuring, were they not likely to have hidden a disappointment that grandchildren were unlikely? We know we are not the same as the straight majority, and must accept that our being different is not always welcome.

Three questions about evolution and how we fit in as a minority are often asked:

does same sex attraction depend on inherited characteristics, or is it due to environment or culture?

if there is an inherited element, since same sex love making does not produce children, how has the trait been passed on, and why is it so common?

how can we fit in with the straight majority?

Some thoughts about these issues are briefly outlined below. The first question, whether nature or nurture plays the major role, is asked about a lot of personality traits. Arguments have raged about whether nature or nurture is primary. Whole books have been written about whether criminal and other antisocial actions arise through intrinsic wickedness, or are caused by deprivation or mistreatment during early childhood, or just social conditioning, e.g. being brought up in a criminal family. If we fall in love, straight or gay we experience an emotional tsunami. Logic and reason struggle to control intense desire, joy, jealousy and despair. Whether this state of mind is ascribed to nature or nurture, the overpowering feelings spring from deep within us. They can not, like a hairstyle, be easily changed.
Though most of us realise early on in our lives that we are gay, and we stay that way to the end, some people find their orientation shifts over time. How and why this happens is little understood, but that orientation occasionally changes does not mean the attraction to a particular individual at any given time is not overwhelming. Many people are, at least to some extent, bisexual. Perhaps we feel strongly attracted to a particular person, and that sways our sexual preference. An unhappy experience may have the opposite effect. Perhaps we know we are capable of making love to the opposite gender, and we meet someone with whom we want to have children, but nevertheless remain very strongly attracted to our own sex. Changes in orientation happen in both directions, straight to gay and gay to straight; the change may be a slight shift in preference, or it may be complete. The causes are complex, a mix of emotion and instinct, and are not determined by logic or reason. Deliberate attempts by others to manipulate our personalities risk causing misery, perhaps clinical depression. Meddling with the human mind in this way can give rise to aberrant behaviour and cause harm, to ourselves or others affected by us.
It may be worth thinking about this issue in relation to a trait other than sexuality, one which has been studied widely: intelligence. Nature and nurture ‒ inheritance and environment - seem to play a part in it. Success in particular types of intelligence test will improve with practice, but an improvement through learning will occur whether an individual scored high or low to start with. We cannot simply will ourselves to be more clever. There are no grounds for thinking sexual orientation can be altered at will either. However much effort we put in, we cannot turn ourselves into something we are not.
To the next question, of how same sex attraction is passed on through generations when same sex love-making cannot produce offspring, again no simple answer can be given. Many genes and influences during upbringing may play a part. We might guess that where populations have been devastated by disease, drought or starvation, a high proportion of people engaging in heterosexual intercourse will help build up numbers. On the other hand, where numbers outgrow the available natural resources, same-sex attraction could help to slow the increase and reduce the strain on supplies of food and water.
Whilst many factors, such as rainfall and efficiency of food production, come into play and make it impossible to calculate the maximum number of people the planet as a whole can sustain, the potential cannot be infinite. Nor is it clear what the optimum number of people might be. In areas of high population density particularly, a growing proportion of gay men and lesbians could be a path to slower rates of population increase.
Sexual relations which do not result in pregnancies may also help to create greater social cohesion. Competition between males and females for the most desirable mates may be advantageous to the species as part of natural selection, but same-sex attraction may benefit communities by reducing aggression between adults of the same sex. Some recent research suggests the probability of a mother giving birth to a gay son increases with second and subsequent sons. This too could help dampen reproductive competition between males.
In human societies, the great majority of genes passed on to the next generation will be shared between straight and gay individuals, so those who do not have children themselves, but who help the community to thrive, are assisting in the continuance of the pool of shared genes. This form of specialisation, in which only some individuals engage in reproductive sex but the rest add to the common good in other ways occurs in many species, for example in packs of hyenas and colonies of bees.
Arguments like these risk falling into the trap of justifying the existence of lesbians and gay men when no justification is necessary. Survival of the fittest may be essential to the evolutionary process, but genetic mutations occur in a random manner. All sorts of traits develop which cannot be explained in terms of obvious benefit to the species as a whole. The peacock's tail is an example. The male's extravaganza of plumage plays a part in attracting peahens, but other bird species like pigeons and finches reproduce very well without being similarly equipped. We might expect that the peacock's investment of bodily resources in growing its huge encumbrance of tail feathers would be a disadvantage, yet the species thrive in their Asian habitat. Another example of a trait of dubious value is the poison produced by some species of fungus. There is little evidence that it protects from predators, and most fungi are not poisonous. Rather than the toxins being there to help poisonous fungi survive, the explanation may simply be that they are useless by-products of the biochemical processes that take place during growth.
Genetic variations occur, sometimes they help a species to survive, sometimes they have the opposite effect, and sometimes they just happen without being of much benefit or much hindrance. Changes in the environment make some traits that are of no present value useful in the future. Variation is an essential part of the evolutionary process. Human personality is wonderfully varied. Multiple occupations and interests are a feature of advanced societies. It is therefore wrong to condemn lesbians and gay men simply because of their sexual preference. We can, and do, make a valuable contribution to communities in which we are made welcome.


Being an identifiable minority, we are vulnerable to discrimination and persecution; we need to stand up for ourselves.


Some people are not open about their sexuality because they fear rejection, being ostracised, or being denied access to other things they want. As the emotions of sexual desire and love fluctuate, and cannot easily be understood or directed using reason and logic, we may find talking to others about them difficult. Should not those with whom we share no sexual interests not mind their own business? Yet unless we constantly and successfully hide it, people who get to know us are likely to realise that we are attracted to our own sex. If we are not in a country where we risk harsh penalties, why deceive? If our experience of life has taught us that we are predominantly lesbian or gay, better surely to accept that some people may dislike us for what we are than to pretend to the world that we want sex with the opposite gender. If the “us” that everyone has come to know is a pretence, how can we have any true friends?
People are often more comfortable with the familiar and suspicious of anything different or unusual. Even in tolerant societies, the majority is likely to have mixed feelings towards us. Our sexual preference is a significant difference, and any identifiable minority is liable to find itself resented, misunderstood or made scapegoats of by disgruntled individuals, or those who seek some benefit for themselves through attacking us.
Imagine a minority who could see extremely well in the ultra-violet part of the spectrum, but had very poor vision in the red, whilst the majority were the opposite. Sometimes vision in the ultraviolet might be useful, but the disadvantages would be likely to outweigh the benefits, for example traffic lights will be the colour that best suits the majority. The ultra-violet seeing minority would be wise to join with others like themselves to influence society to cater for their different eyesight. Minorities learn better how to cope with being different by sharing experiences. We lesbians and gay men live alongside the majority, and are like them in most respects, but we are not the same as them.
Historically, numerous societies have persecuted us. Authoritarian regimes and official state religions have been among the most severe in condemning us, victimising us with severe punishments and mental torture. When those with power declare our sexual urges to be sinful, claim that we corrupt the purity of the race or social structures, they do so to make us wage war against our own natures. Threatened and harassed, we may be left no alternative but to lead a double life, to make a public show of heterosexual love, whilst secretly having