People have asked me to explain why I retracted my article on homosexuality and the nature of what I called "sexual values". So let me explain.
In short, I imagined that I had a friend who was gay, and that person read it. I would have no real argument to defend it, because it was purely theoretical. Frankly, I became embarrassed by it. It reminded me of something that I would write in high school, which was based on some theory that "sounded cool", but had little or no basis in observation.
I removed the article because it was essentially a rationalization. There were true observations about what people identify in others as sexually attractive, and I believe the concept of "sexual values" is a legitimate one.
So I don't rescind everything I wrote in that article, but I do reject its central point, which was to "prove" that homosexuality is based on an error, and is therefore a form of neurosis. But for me to make such a point without ever having talked to a single gay person in depth is ridiculous and unjustified. To start spouting about a subject with so little first-hand knowledge is like something straight out of theology school. (Actually, I don't really want first-hand knowledge, but I should at least settle for a little second-hand knowledge.)
There's an extremely intelligent, motivated, and productive gay man at the company I work for, and when I started to imagine him reading my article, I realized how offensive I would sound, and how lame my defense of the statements would be.
I would much prefer to offend him by ripping apart welfare, socialized medicine, God, the NEA, the FDA, environmentalism, or "gay rights". These are things I could argue about.
Signing off,
JR
