Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: heterosex
Message-ID: <3087@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Feb-85 11:31:52 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3087
Posted: Fri Feb  8 11:31:52 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 13:31:51 EST
References: <514@hou5g.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 87
Summary: Shows BIG flaws
Followups-to: net.flame

This list of questions contains a basic statistical error, which I will
go into further on in this article.  The intial questions, however, are
flawed because, like most discussion of "sexual preference", they are
too essentialistic.  Let me begin with a question: what is the sexuality
of a nun in a cloister?  (We will assume celebacy is in fact practiced.)
How is it anything other than "celebate" or "abstentious"?

Therefore let us examine the questions.

>1.	What do you think caused your heterosexuality?
>2.	When and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?
>3.	Is it possible that your heterosexuality is just a phase
>	you may grow out of?
>4.	Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic
>	fear of others of the same sex?
>5.	Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

These first five questions are designed to be hostile, and are equally
objectionable when rephrased as accusations of homosexuality.

>6.	Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships.  Do
>	you think you may have turned to heterosexuality in fear of
>        rejection?

This question implies that people of conventional sexuality always begin
with a series of failed homosexual relationships, which is known to be
a fallacy.

>7.	If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how
>	do you know you wouldn't prefer that?
>8.	If your heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate
>	number of mental patients heterosexual?

At this point the statistical fallacies begin.  Let us suppose that (for
the sake of argument) 10% of the population is homosexual, and that 5%
of the mental patient population is homosexual.  What does this prove?
Nothing, really.  All it may prove is that homosexuals are more reluctant
to admit to their mental disorders.  I also have serious doubts as to the
truth of the statement, anyway.

>12.	The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals.  Do you
>       really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual
>       teachers?

Another statistical fallacy.  One would EXPECT most child molesters to be
heterosexual, given its predominance.

>14.	How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit
>	yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and
>	remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural,
>	healthy, God-given homosexual potential?
>15.	Heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to
>	narrowly restricted stereotyped sex roles.
>	Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?
>16.	How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experience or deep
>	emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the
>	obvious physical, biological, and temperamental defferences
>	between you are so vast?  How can a man understand what pleases
>	a woman sexually, or vise-versa?
>17.	Why do heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

In every one of these questions, the word heterosexual could be replaced by
"person".

>19.	How could the human race survive if everyone were a heterosexual like
>	you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

I'll even deign to answer this one.  There are plenty of natural brakes
upon population growth.  Humanity has shown plenty of resistance to
straving to death.

>21.	A disproportionate number of criminals, welfare reccipients,
>	and other irresponsible or anti-social types are heterosexual.
>	Why would anyone want to hire a heterosexual for a responsible
>       position?

Again, a fallacy.  One would (again) expect this to be true merely because
heterosexuals are so much more numerous.

Well, enough of this.  I can only read this "questionnaire" as an attempt
to make people who feel a moral repugnance towards the PRACTICE of 
homosexuality to feel guilty.  By inverting a number of serious questions
concerning homosexuality, the author attempts to make the original questions
look rediculous.  Fortunately for reason, the sheer numerical superiority of
heterosexuality shows the absurdity of the thing for what it is.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe