Why do you consider that so?
I'm interested because I read a really good article in a book of a number of major contrary opinions which was written by someone who was opposed to "naturalistic" explanations of sexual orientation such as this as reductive or restrictive of human freedom, this was someone writing from the perspective of a Kersey style idea that the limits of human sexuality, including orientation, is actually imagination, as a consequence of the enlarged cerebal cortext in human beings meaning that they do not find themselves entirely compelled to conform to instinctual drives. That author described how they thought that perhaps the "naturalistic" or "normative" arguments about sexual orientation mattered to isolated or young homosexuals possibly in contexts likely to be discouraging or inhibiting but that in the greater scheme of things it was a blind alley.
I'm not sure that I support his perspective, I actually do not like the idea of homosexuality being or becoming a cultural war or cultural struggle, for a bunch of reasons I've mentioned before, I dont think it would be good for homosexuals, embattled or not, or heterosexuals or anyone else. I'm also not sure that either the cultural or the genetic explanation for homosexual behaviour really are useful intrinsically, I would question why this is still going on, what purpose it all serves.
I'm not convinced that this is not still part of a wider dilemma following the sexual revolutions of the sixties and seventies, to what extent can or should there be an expectation that strangers be validating and accepting of individuals personal choices, whether they are sexual or anything else, to what extent can or should "society" be expected to seek to engender the norms and customs and practices of minorities or outsiders within the mainstream? At what point is there a mainstream anymore?
I'd like to think there is a way to harmonise diversity and disparity which accepts the need for often unacknowledged and under valued norms, social institutions and values in reproducing society one generation after another, that there's hopes for an inclusive society to which individuals who dont conform to the norm dont feel alienated, but also to recognise that this may be a personal journey or reckoning or adjustment and adaptation, the implicit other directedness of seeking to set up constant other-validating norms is pretty unhealthy.
To be honest I'm not sure its possible at present, there's no need to be melodramatic about it or catastrophise about it, as I think I once did, but there's nothing but a spirit of enmity about this topic, I think there's people on all sides of the debate who need that and want it, Lowtechredneck when he visited used the analogy of a '80s highschool and I dont think they were wrong about that.
