Hello all. I just read an article by our beloved OSC that was published in Civilization Watch on Feb. 15th dealing with gay marriage and the like. Before I go into my criticism let me first say how I totally respect OSC. OSC is currently my favorite modern American author, and very much a role model for me in how he combines history and politics into understanding and caring about/for the survival of Civilization. As a non-party member myself, or as I like to say a "romantic-pragmatic-centrist" leaning heavily to the libertarian ideas, I love Card's balanced and educated stories, articles, and insights; how he is a Democrat, but very conservative at the same time. I love that balance. Not that being a Democrat automatically makes you liberal and not that being a Republican makes you conservative, mind you.
However this is the first major point/opinion of OSC that I cannot agree on. Not for the fact that he argues against gay marriage, which I don't totally agree with but can see his compelling arguments for Civilization's sake. The insulting thing is how he says that homosexuality is a choice! I am a gay man and have known what I was since I can remember. (Not that toddlers are very sexual, but in hindsight I can see how I was more attracted to the male form than the female even at that age.) I never even knew that the word homosexual existed till high school and always thought I would fall in love with a girl and have kids. Well… I waited and waited and all of a sudden I started noticing the guys and then… oh no! Something's amiss! It was NOT a choice for me. It was NOT a choice for any of my gay/bi/lesbian friends and acquaintances.
Card, while not completely denying that there is scientific evidence for sexuality being biological, is coming close to it. He also talks about some mysterious force called "The Left" (I hear that it is related to "The Right") that has a propaganda mill that will corrupt the masses. Well… that's why I don't watch TV anymore. It is for the most part a cultural wasteland that has no real point but to help kill time and once in a blue moon entertain. As Card said, the best way to keep yourself from being hoodwinked or corrupted is to educate yourself…especially in history.
He says that homosexual being born that way is a "myth". That is so untrue. Not only from my own life, but from scientific studies. At college we learned from the professors that there was a physical difference in the inner brain between heterosexual males and homosexual males, as one example.
Also sexuality is a basic life function. Just like breathing or hunger or thirst. That is hardwired into your system. It is NOT something you choose. Unless you are bisexual and then you DO have a choice. Lucky them.
Card, it seems, does not recognize the face that bisexuals exist, people who have the biological option to be attracted to either sex. There are also different percentages to which gender that bisexuals are attracted to. Some are 50/50. Some are 20/80. Some are 60/40. Every bisexual is different. And in my own experience bisexuals outnumber gay people. It appears that Card sees bisexuals as proof that homosexuals are made. I must disagree with his analysis.
Homosexuality, while probably Nature's way of controlling the population explosion, does not forbid us gay folk from having children. Adoption of course is a big option and, if like me, you were raised to honor and respect your bloodline you can find a birth-mother to help create your offspring. But I digress…
So that's my point. Sexual orientation is NOT chosen. You are gay, straight, or bi.
It's hard expanding, changing, and/or teaching people's minds… I can come at this by pleading to be heard, but then I will be seen as weak. I can come at this demanding and with force, but people will see me as a tyrant. So I can only state my points. Thanks for reading. Take care!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, OSC wrote an article on this?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Welcome... you might be interested in doing a search through the Hatrack search function and seeing the pages and pages of discussion that that article created. Both sides were argued to death and at the moment it is pretty much a dead horse around here, because we love our fellow Hatrackers, and are sick of arguing about it, and the subsequent hurt feelings.
AJ
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Templ, you are in for a rough time.
This issue, and OSC's article in particular, have been overly debated here for a few weeks. It has left a lot of very friendly people feeling tired and sore.
Worse, some rude and petty people have been logging on Trolls, new names for themselves, just to stir up political debate and make people get mad.
What pathetic pleasure these trolls recieve is beyond me. I guess they think the power to destroy is a power they posess.
Anyway, I am afraid that many will label you a troll immediately, since your first post that I've seen is one guaranteed to start a fight.
I hope you are not, and that you stay to give your voice to this community.
However, if you are a troll, and to the trolls that are out there, there are only three things this community frowns upon--rudeness, pettiness, and pitiable behavior. Trolling (not Homosexuality) is all of those.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thank you for the welcome. The trick to avoid hurt feelings is to attack the subject, not the person. I will in the future do the searches to avoid conflict.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
kat!
Telperion, this has been discussed pretty extensively here already. (See, eg, Lalo's thread as well as many discussions about homosexuality in general.) You'll find that there is a pretty complete spectrum of beliefs and opinions about this here, just as for most topics. Sometimes members here get a little miffy if newcomers don't bother looking for earlier discussions, but kat's just pulling your leg.
( Kat thinks I'm classy. )
Welcome to Hatrack!
[Edit: too late as always. But classy! ]
[ March 15, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I looked at his thread on the other side, and I believe him to be sincere. However, yeah - do a search for "homosexuality" for the last month and find the other threads. It has been a hot topic, and we're a little battle-sore.
Welcome to Hatrack!
CT: I thought it was fairly brave to start with this topic, then it occured to me that it's only brave if you know the history of the controversey.
[ March 15, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Teleperion, I love your screen name.
AJ
[ March 15, 2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I don't see how anyone can claim homosexuality is a choice. This just seems to be factually false.
However, I think Card's point was not that homosexuality itself was a choice, but rather that choosing to engage in homosexual activities to fulfill those desires is a choice.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, well, kat, you know ... I'm classy. *preens
He seems well-intentioned. Telperion, I hope you stick around.
(Did I mention that I was classy? )
I'll bump the latest "FAQ for Newcomers" for you.
[ March 15, 2004, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hehe... never would have imagined such quick replies! I should have known better since I belong to a couple similar message boards. Much apologies.
Thanks for the compliment BannaOJ! Long live Tolkien!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hi to you You do indeed make interesting points involving this article. Welcome.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Welcome to Hatrack Telperion. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Telperion, that giant sucking noise you hear is you being drawn into the vortextual maw that is Hatrack.
Actually, it's more like Callahan's, if you know the reference. There are people here all day, every day, and if you aren't careful, you'll never leave. (Other forums? What other forums?)
Hmmm. Maybe more like the Hotel California.
[ March 15, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Teleperion, you might enjoy Uruk-Haiku We have had an LotR Wenches Tavern in the past but things have been quiet since Wench Con in January.
Feel free to choose an LotR actor and argue about his (or her) sexiness to your hearts content.
My personal favorite is Pippin/Billy Boyd
<grin>
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:I don't see how anyone can claim homosexuality is a choice. This just seems to be factually false.
Wow, a position point that Tres/Xap can't argue just for the heck of it? What is the world coming to? Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
<checks calender>
I thought we had this week blocked off for abortion debate.
Welcome Teleperion
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yes, but that's already been pre-empted by the Spanish attack and election.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hook, line, and sinker.
Well done, AJ. I think you've landed him.
[Mind you, Uruk-Haiku counts as pulling out the big guns, but he does seem to be a worthy catch.]
[ March 15, 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Tres, I've always thought "choice" was a bad word for it. I can't think how anyone would think that it is a choice, but that is not the same as saying it is genetic.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Though to be fair, Tel, I didn't think Card's actual argument on the cause of homosexuality in "Humpty Dumpty Logic" made a lot of sense. Though I had trauma and abuse as a kid, and I'm 60/40, as you say. So I don't know where that puts me.
P.S. I was almost going to dobie this "homosexuality is metaphysical" because in a way, the fact that homosexuality involves biology is fairly obvious...
[ March 15, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I'm actually very excited at being here for the beginning of Telperion's stay. Can I just claim dibs on first mention in his Landmark Post? 'Cause, you know ... I'm so classy. )
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Bigots.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ribbets.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rivets.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
**hiccups**
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I actually WAS wondering what that giant sucking noise was... Feel the love!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
mmmmm Ribletts
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmmmm... Pipin...
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
quote: He says that homosexual being born that way is a "myth". That is so untrue. Not only from my own life, but from scientific studies. At college we learned from the professors that there was a physical difference in the inner brain between heterosexual males and homosexual males, as one example.
There may very well be a lot of biological factors, but this particular study had several flaws:
1. Was the difference in brain structure the cause or the result of the homosexual behavior?
2. And if these are the Levay studies, the most condemning flaw is that all of the homosexual men had died of AIDS.
The twin studies support a possible biological prediliction, but rather than supporting the biological imperitive idea, they actually refute it: only %50 of identical twins of homosexual individuals were also homosexual. The problem is that these twins also grew up in similar environments, so one cannot rule out environmental factors. Fraternal twins come in at %24 and biological brothers come in at %11. Interestingly enough, the adopted, non-biological brother of a homosexual will have the same likelyhood as the biological brother: %11. This is significantly higher than the norm: %1-%4 of the population being homosexual.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Oh yes and, welcome to the forum
Yes, it has been debated extensively. But I like things biological. The causes of homosexuality itself is interesting to me. We shouldn't be afraid of what actually is, for that allows us to understand ourselves better. The scope of human experience is gloriously diverse.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Welcome, Telperion!
BTW, I agrre with you. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Yah, my feeling is that homosexuality/bisexuality is a recessive trait (or whatever the proper term to call it) that all humans carry. It only takes certain forces or combinations to make them express themselves.
Which is not the same thing as saying homosexuality created by how you are raised. I actually disagree with the belief that gays are created by abuse or whatever. I came from a good liberal Catholic family (yes, there is such a thing) with no abuse...and vola! Gay boy popped out.
Ah.. who knows. As long as people don't demand I change something that feels as natural to me as breathing I don't care what they believe. When I choose to mate for life I don't really need the government's or church's approval. We only need each other's.
BUT... it does become much more difficult if my partner and I decide to have children...or dying... or.. well... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Another problem I saw with the twin study is that twin studies in the past failed to predict that OCD is genetic, when at least one pathway has been found that is genetic.
P.S. If you are gay (or do you mean someone else?) I am somewhat more willing to listen to you. A lot of the people here have the attitude "it has to be genetic 'cause I know I could never be turned gay."
By the way, while having some bi tendencies, I am married and hope to remain so permanently. Just for clarity's sake.
[ March 15, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Pooka... asking me? Yes, I am gay. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well welcome, Telperion. Sorry we are so weird about new faces right now.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Until modern biology can show exactly what part of us (be it genes, individual codons or perhaps malfunctory ribosomes) enacts this sexual deviance, it is safer to assume homosexuality is a choice, especially given our culture's current tendency to victimize themselves biologically. "Oh, I can't do anything about it, it's fixed in my biological nature." If you believe that homosexuality being biologically rooted is anywhere near scientifically proven then you are woefully unaware of the actual scientific inquiry into this and you probably have a political agenda for saying such things. Even if biology controls specific aspects of behavior like sexual deviance, which it probably doesn't, there is not a strong enough case to show that it causes homosexuality besides coincidental evidence at best (ie: the whole fallacy of "it's in the animal world so it must be biological."
[ March 15, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Hi, Telperion! Welcome to Hatrack!
Just for the record, I agree with your views on homosexuality. As others have already told you, it has been a hotly debated issue around here.
Hope you'll stick around and enjoy the forum.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Thanks Brian, good to know that I'm just being stupid. I never figured that it would be safer to believe homosexuality is one or the other.
I'm sure Slash will find that fact reassuring
-Bok
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Why does it have to be all one or the other? As far as science has found, it's most likely a mix of both biology and choice. I mean, I can understand the fervent arguing that it is strictly choice, because then those who are against it can just claim direct, intentional antisocial behavior (and, in fact, usually do). However, trying to make it out to be totally biological is stupid. People are born with different levels of predilections as far as their preferences, behaviors, temperments, and cognitive capability. However, we can add to or take away from any of them depending on how we live our lives. There are some things we never get rid of, but can consciously decide to be contrary to. The biological argument is pretty stupid from both sides. And I say this knowing full well that if the biological argument were used by me, I could more emphatically argue against those who wish to deny gays their rights. After all, it wouldn't just be a bigoted outlook toward the lifestyle of homosexuality any more, it'd be flat-out racism.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, BrianM, every single study so far cited shows unambuguously that the likelihood of turning out homosexual is influenced by genetics.
Whether or not its still ultimately a choice is more up in the air (for instance, is it a choice for someone who has a genetic disorder that makes walking very painful to walk? In one sense, yes, but that doesn't mean we should force them to walk instead of use a wheelchair). But it is definitely not true that 'Even if biology controls specific aspects of behavior like sexual deviance, which it probably doesn't, there is not a strong enough case to show that it causes homosexuality besides coincidental evidence at best (ie: the whole fallacy of "it's in the animal world so it must be biological.'
You are the one showing your ignorance, not those you say are.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I'm curious: under the hypothetical situation that modern science figures out just how much the biological elements influence someone's homosexuality, and it turns out to be more than originally thought probable, how would those who are religiously motivated react towards their position? Would they change their outlook on it? Would religious institutions change their dogma on it?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
One way I put it to people who have a hard time imagining my situation as a gay male, is for them to think about their own sex drive. So I talk to a guy and ask them if they choose liking women, or visa versa for the ladies.
I think it comes down the the fundamental diffuculty in understanding the alien. If you can't experiance it then it cannot be... or at least cannot be natural.
Humans have always been afraid of the unknown. It's a survival trait to pay attention and be wary of different things. Such as loud noises, or the dark, or fights, etc, etc...
Since we operate best when we have experiance, the unknown might kill us so we are programed to be extra careful and attentive to it.
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
Here comes the Thnikkaman...
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Fugu if I am showing my ignorance then point me to the study that shows exactly what part of the genetic code carries the information for homosexuality. Until you can do that, saying it's "probably genetic" is not good enough due to the consequences our victimizing culture will incur due to its tendency to rush toward biological victimization. I am not showing ignorance, rather, you are showing a haste for assumption that is dangerous to safe medical, scientific and social progress.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Thnikkaman...
My theory on homosexuality is it's a variation. It's not caused by mothers that are over affectionate towards their sons or abuse. It has nothing to do with masculinity or feminity. It's a variation. Human behaviour is on a spectrum, gender, sexuality, it's not that different. If it's genetic or not, it really doesn't matter. It exists and now the larger society needs to shift for it.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Here is some information on the problems with many of the studies that have attempted to claim the biological link.
This site discusses the flaws and fallacies involved with the hypothalamus, twins, x chromosomes, and hormones studies/approaches.
quote: The first frenzy of this trend erupted in 1991 when Simon LeVay published a study in Science. His study noted a difference in a brain structure called the hypothalamus when evaluating homosexual and heterosexual men. LeVay found that in the specimens he studied, the hypothalamus was generally larger in heterosexual men than in homosexual men. Therefore he concluded that these findings "suggest that sexual orientation has a biologic substrate."6
however...
quote:While LeVay’s study hit the media with a splash that rippled from coast to coast, it was anything but conclusive. An analysis of the study and its methodology reveals some serious flaws. The first problem, which LeVay himself readily admits, is that all 19 of his homosexual subjects had died of complications associated with AIDS. Therefore the difference in the hypothalamus might well be attributed to the AIDS rather than homosexuality. LeVay attempted to compensate for the weakness by including a few heterosexuals who died of AIDS complications in the heterosexual sample. However, LeVay did not know for sure whether all subjects in his heterosexual sample were indeed heterosexual; all of these subjects were simply "presumed heterosexual."
Moreover, Dr. William Byne argued in Scientific American that "[LeVay’s] inclusion of a few brains from heterosexual men with AIDS did not adequately address the fact that at the time of death virtually all men with AIDS have decreased testosterone levels as the result of the disease itself or the side effects of particular treatments. ¼ Thus it is possible that the effects on the size of the INAH3 [hypothalamus] that he attributed to sexual orientation were actually caused by the hormonal abnormalities associated with AIDS."7
Another weakness of LeVay’s study is that even in his sample there were "exceptions"—that is, there were some homosexuals who had larger hypothalamus structures than some of the heterosexuals examined. Even LeVay admits that these exceptions "hint at the possibility that sexual orientation, although an important variable, may not be the sole determinant of INAH3 [hypothalamus] size."8
LeVay is an open homosexual, and his interview with Newsweek suggests he had an agenda from the outset. LeVay lost his gay partner to AIDS, an event that made him re-evaluate what he was doing with his life. As a result, he took on this project. LeVay believes America must be convinced that homosexuality is determined biologically. "It’s important to educate society," he told Newsweek. "I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes."9
Since LeVay released his study, other researchers have found that brain structures can change as a result of life experiences. In 1997, University of California at Berkeley psychologist Marc Breedlove released a study that showed that sexual activities of rats actually structurally changed aspects of the brain at the base of the spinal chord. "These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case—that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it," Breedlove commented. "You can’t assume that because you find a structural difference in the brain, that it was caused by genes. You don’t know how it got there."10
Breedlove is not an activist out to prove homosexuality is not biological. In fact, he does believe a genetic component exists somewhere, but he, unlike LeVay, seems willing to take a more honest approach to research.
On the x chromosome approach
quote:In 1993 a group of medical researchers at the National Cancer Institute, led by Dr. Dean H. Hamer, released a study that linked homosexuality to the X chromosome. While the study won a great deal of media attention, it also offered little proof of a biological link to homosexuality.
However
quote: Hamer’s results are often misunderstood. Many believe that the study found an identical sequence (Xq28) on the X chromosome of all homosexual brothers. In reality, what it found was matching sequences in each set of brothers who were both homosexual. Dr. Byne argues that in order to prove anything by this study, Hamer would have had to examine the Xq28 sequence of gay men’s heterosexual brothers. Hamer insisted that such an inclusion would have confounded his study. Byne responded, "In other words, inclusion of heterosexual brothers might have revealed that something other than genes is responsible for sexual orientation."11
Hamer’s motives are also questionable. Although his research is sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, his work has had little to do with cancer. This study alone took $419,000 of the institute’s taxpayer-backed funds, according to The Washington Times.12
One of Hamer’s researchers told the Times that homosexuality is "not the only thing we study," but it is "a primary focus of study." Hamer reportedly stated he has pushed for an Office of Gay and Lesbian Health inside the National Institutes of Health, and he testified in opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual activists from winning minority class status. Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) accused the doctor of "actively pursu[ing] ¼ a gay agenda."13
Another fact that casts doubt on Hamer’s conclusions is that his study has not been replicated by other researchers, which would help to confirm his theory. In 1999, Drs. George Rice, Neil Risch and George Ebers published their findings in Science after attempting to replicate Hamer’s Xq28 study. Their conclusion: "We were not able to confirm evidence for an Xq28-linked locus underlying male homosexuality." Moreover, they added that when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study, they too failed to find the genetic connection to homosexuality.14
A very important and often cited study, the twins study.
quote:Another study that has advanced the theory that homosexuality is a biological phenomenon is the famed "Twin Study" by J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard. Bailey and Pillard examined identical and fraternal twin brothers and adopted brothers in an effort to establish a genetic link to homosexuality.
However
quote: The study results yielded some statistics that seem to support the hypothesis and other statistics that appear to refute it. Fifty-two percent of the identical twins shared the same homosexual sexual orientation, while only 22 percent of fraternal twins fell into the same category. This finding appears to support the argument for biology, since identical twins share the same genes. However, the rate of non-twin conformity should mirror that of fraternal twins. In the Bailey and Pillard study, the rate was only 9.2 percent. And the rate in adopted—which, if the biological hypothesis were true, should have been even lower than non-twin brothers—was actually higher (11 percent).15
In his analysis of the medical evidence supporting a biological cause of homosexuality, Dr. Byne noted other twin studies. He wrote, "Without knowing what developmental experiences contribute to sexual orientation ¼ the effects of common genes and common environments are difficult to disentangle. Resolving this issue requires studies of twins raised apart."16
Other physicians have also criticized the study for overvaluing the genetic influence.17
Dr. Byne’s arguments might lead some activists to label him a "homophobe." He is, in reality, quite the contrary. Byne readily advocates societal acceptance of homosexuality, but nevertheless concludes, "Most of the links in the chain of reasoning from biology to social policy [regarding homosexuality], do not hold up under scrutiny."18
As a matter of fact, Bailey did conduct another study in 1999, published in the March 2000 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, that revealed the genetic influence on homosexuality he supposedly found earlier may actually be less. He sent a questionnaire to the entire Australian Twin Registry. Only three pairs of identical male twins were both homosexual out of a total of 27 male identical twin pairs in which at least one was homosexual. Of the 16 fraternal male twins, in none of the pairs were both homosexual. Bailey found similar results for lesbians.19
On the hormone debate
quote:In 1998, researchers Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated the auditory systems of heterosexuals and homosexuals. Specifically the study considered differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men, often attributed to the person’s exposure to androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.20
The McFadden study found the level of these waveforms in the ears of self-acknowledged lesbian women ranged between those of men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this evidence suggests that female homosexuality could be a result of increased exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did not show the same variation).21
however
quote: The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon, touting the evidence that homosexuality is indeed biological. But even the researchers themselves are not too quick to draw definitive conclusions. They caution that the results are only tentative. In the published study, they point out that exposure to "intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations" can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. "Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently."22 Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be a far cry away from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality—especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.
In March 2000, yet another study on a biological link to homosexuality hit the media with fanfare. This time researchers weren’t looking at ears, but fingers. Scientists believe finger length indicates how much exposure a person had to androgen while in the womb.
Typically, people’s index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger—a difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand due to exposure to higher levels of androgen while the human is developing in the womb. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the same size, but in men the ring finger is generally shorter.
In this study, Berkeley’s Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how sexual activity can change brain structure, found that homosexual women’s finger length had a tendency to follow the male pattern. But again, the media was more eager than the researcher to draw definitive conclusions as to what this means. In fact, Breedlove told CNN, "There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay. … I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference."23
You can clearly see it is nowhere near the scientific fact that you attempt you tout it is. In fact, it appears that it is more likely a choice given that the studies done to try and prove it wound up doing more to lend results to say that it is not biological.
[ March 15, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: BrianM ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Hey! It's the Thnikkaman!!
Can I have some..? Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Fugu if I am showing my ignorance then point me to the study that shows exactly what part of the genetic code carries the information for homosexuality.
You do realize, Brian, that many commonplace medical disorders are known to have genetic basis before the exact marker is found, right?
Cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Huntington's disease, hemophilia, and literally hundreds of others were known by their heredity patterns to be genetic in nature before their markers were identified. The BRCA gene for breast cancer is present in some, but by no means all, persons with breast cancer -- and we expect to continue to identify more, just as we have continued to identify more genetic mutations that can cause cystic fibrosis.
I'm not saying that homosexuality as a trait (in the medical sense) is at the same level, but surely this cannot be the standard of evidence to accept.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
CT, with all due respect, because of homosexuality's controversial implications of the culture of reproduction, that level of proof is required.
Posted by The Thnikkaman (Member # 6330) on :
Yeah, shut up, kid!
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
What John said.
Most likely it isn't one trait at all, but a combination of genetic, pre-natal hormonal, environmental, and cognitive.
This seems to be what the twins studies bear out.
[ March 15, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:CT, with all due respect, because of homosexuality's controversial implications of the culture of reproduction, that level of proof is required.
By ... you?
Okay.
But I don't think we are having the same discussion anymore. You are, of course, welcome to define your criteria however you choose. I happen to prefer using the standard medical meanings for medical terminology, but then that's just me.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And what John and Amka said. Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
Amka, did you see the problems with the twins studies I cited on the earlier page? There isn;t really any indication that it is biological at all when viewed that it is hardly a recurring phenominon across bounds of all sexual deviance.
It's very politicall correct to say it's a compromise of all controvening positions, unfortunately science is not always nice, fuzzy and non-committal.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Thanks Thnikkaman!
Oh, the things that man does! Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Brian, you may wish to tone it down a little, or people might suspect you of having a political agenda yourself.
(Edit: next time I'll hit the reload button before posting. Whoa!)
-----
Telperion, welcome to the 'rack!
[ March 15, 2004, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're telling him to tone down his opinions? *surprised*
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Sorry, kat, I didn't refresh the page for a while before I actually got around to reading the thread and replying.
*Goes back to read the thread thoroughly.*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, it's fine. I just couldn't believe it for a moment - I'm glad to know my shock was justified.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
John L, since my position derives straight from the Scripture, I really don't have the option to change it unless someone can demonstrate to me that my interpretation is incorrect. (I have seen the Big 8 arguments and to me the problem is that they are disconnected--they demonstrate no common thread between obviously related passages. Therefore it appears that they are ad hoc arguments being used to twist things out of their natural interpretation.)
Basically, if someone demonstrated that homosexuality were biological and unchangeable, I would have three choices:
1) Abandon my faith. I can't help but believe this is an overreaction, given how well it makes sense of the world to me.
2) Become a Calvinist (more or less). Conclude that God determines who to save and who to damn without giving them the slightest choice in the matter. Even if this didn't seem blatantly contrary to Scripture too, the very notion is repugnant to me.
3) Or just revert to the standard--since no one is actually required to have sex, homosexuals are just required to remain celibate. Not pleasant, but that's the deal, and I increasingly expect to do this the rest of my life too, so it's not as though I expect more than I'm willing to give.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
CT, those diseases also all were well known long before the human genome was "decoded". I know "decoded" is a deceptive term, since we certainly do not know what the code means. We can just look at all of it now.
There are other diseases like Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia, and Multiple Sclerosis(sp?) where a mechanism is not clearly understood and folks don't really know whether to treat them chemically, physically, or what.
I in general tend to be skeptical of the attitude (that no clear thinking person will actually admit to but which is more of a cultural zeitgeist) that genetic understanding will some day resolve all human unhappiness.
(edit: addressing Tel now)I wanted to mention that Card's article doesn't actually say homosexuality is a choice or that bisexuality doesn't exist. If one were to agree with his assertion that they all suffer trauma/abuse, this would not be their choice. Also, I am willing to entertain the possibility that gays experience abuse because they are gay. But I don't know for sure.
When he talks about the kidnapping of his grandchildren, he is only talking about those who are not strongly heterosexual (i.e. bisexual). He is against the dogma that if one is attracted to men, one can never be attracted to women and vice versa. It is this mythical "left", and not Mr. Card, that excludes the possibility of bisexuality.
Just clarifying. I imagine the article must have been a very emotional read for you, but I wanted to make sure you understood those parts.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
*attempts to extracate foot from mouth*
However... I stand by my response to Brian's first post in this thread. There is no conclusive proof one way or another, so I take issue with the sentiment that it is safer to assume that homosexuality is not affected by genetics (or biology in general). To my eye it is too much like saying "I am right until you can prove me wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt."
As for me, I'm guessing there's a hefty dose of influence from both genetics and environmental stimuli. Like most human behaviors.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
1990: Butter is bad for you, margarine is good. 1991: Butter is good for you, margarine is bad. 1992, Butter bad, marg good. 1993: Butter good, marg bad....
2004: Nobody freakin' knows. Just eat it.
As a bisexual (with a man leaning), I think it's genetic. I found out my father is a closet bisexual a few years ago, and his youngest brother is gay.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Starla, the butter/marg thing (and various similar issues) are NOT a problem with the science but with the media.
Never use just one study out of context. <-- Can we have that tattooed on all newswriters' foreheads?
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
quote:It's very politicall correct to say it's a compromise of all controvening positions, unfortunately science is not always nice, fuzzy and non-committal.
But what if you believe it all? Science has not proved anything yet, and homosexual people are humans too.
Have they really done anything wrong? And don't give me the religious stuff--because, I respect that, but I won't listen.
Oh, and welcome to the party, Teleprion Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:CT, those diseases also all were well known long before the human genome was "decoded". I know "decoded" is a deceptive term, since we certainly do not know what the code means. We can just look at all of it now.
There are other diseases like Chronic Fatigue, Fibromyalgia, and Multiple Sclerosis(sp?) where a mechanism is not clearly understood and folks don't really know whether to treat them chemically, physically, or what.
I know, pooka. And I certainly owe Brian an apology for getting surly completely unnecessarily. (Sorry, Brian. ) But I wasn't intending to make a claim about homosexuality as a trait, but about whether one could identify genetics as playing a role before one can identify the particular marker.
The answer is yes, you can, and this has been done for years fairly uncontroversially. Heredity patterns can be esablished without gene markers. Again, though, I was quibbling so snarkily about the rules of evidence for genetics in general, not the case of homosexuality in particular. Make more sense?
quote:I in general tend to be skeptical of the attitude (that no clear thinking person will actually admit to but which is more of a cultural zeitgeist) that genetic understanding will some day resolve all human unhappiness.
Oh yes, I'm right with you there. I just like all my little piles of argumentation to be neat and orderly, regardless of whether this is actually helpful or not.
I really annoy myself sometimes, too. Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Teleperion))) Welcome!
You are so very welcome to our community!
Please, ignore the Trolls. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
(((CT))) Did you see I was also killed (in the Little House RPG) today? Now there's some poetic justice for you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I'm just curious as to what effect Brian thinks homosexuality will have on the "culture of reproduction." Brian, whom do you know who's likely to go gay if it becomes more popular (and less of a target of the abuse you're "not sure" occurs?)
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Didn't someone mention some twin studies earlier, that concluded something or other about the role of genetics in determining sexual orientation? I'm wondering because it can be difficult to positively determine that a psychological trait is genetic simply by observing its occurrence in a family line. Family lines are just about as good at passing down environmental influences as they are at passing down genetic markers.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Brian and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I agree with him that the science is more fashionable than it is theoretically strong.
Still, I don't think we can complain when we don't want to fund the research.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Dog, yes we have talked about the twin studies. They break down like this:
Identical twins: If one is homosexual, there is a %50 likelyhood the other will be homosexual as well.
Fraternal twins: %24
Biological brothers: %11
Adopted brothers: %11
Likelyhood of normal population to be homosexual: %1 - %4
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
And these are all twins who have been separated soon after birth? Or twins growing up in the same environment? (I'm mostly curious because of the "adopted brothers" statistic. Without that, I would have assumed we were talking about separated pairs.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BrianM: It is possible to be scientifically certain of something being genetic without knowing the particular gene involved. Witness skin pigmentation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Aw, pooka, I'm sorry.
Are you hanging out in the Ghost Town?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, you weren't talking about getting an absolute level of proof, you were saying there was no real evidence, which is completely untrue:
"there is not a strong enough case to show that it causes homosexuality besides coincidental evidence at best"
[ March 15, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Mostly twins growing up in the same family. It admitted that there could be some environmental influence in the article I read.
And considering the entire article, that was something.
Yes, I too am especially curious by the adopted brothers and biological brothers having the SAME rate of homosexuality. This seems to indicate to me that genetics may not even factor in at all, congenital homosexuality may be caused by hormones in the womb instead. Notice that there is a difference between fraternal twins who have the same genetic relationship as typical brothers. The difference is that the twins shared the same womb.
If this is so, and we find the cause, then homosexuality could very possibly be prevented by monitoring hormonal activity within the womb. On the flip side, it could also be caused.
What are the implications of THAT?
[ March 15, 2004, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Fraternal twins not only share the same womb, but have (by virtue of being the same age) a more-similar environment (especially in early childhood) than siblings of different ages.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Ditto what CT, Amka and John L said.
You know, I could swear I've come across some articles by gays who object to all this "biological causation" research. (I'll see what I can do a quick search tomorrow.)
The reason for opposition? They figure - rightfully, I reckon - that any biological determinants that are found for homosexual orientation will lead to prevention strategies and practices. Anything from prenatal screening and pregnancy termination to in-utero treatments.
Beg pardon if this has been brought up - will look for references.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Almost all diseases have a genetic component, but the importance of that component varies. Disorders where genetics play an important role, so-called genetic diseases, can be classified as single gene defects, chromosomal disorders, or multifactorial. Single-gene defects are also called mendelian disorders.
A single gene disorder is one that is determined by a specific allele at a single locus on one or both members of a chromosome pair. Single gene defects are rare, with a frequency of less than 1 in 500 births, but since there are about 3000 known their combined impact is significant. The incidence of serious single gene disorders is estimated to be about 1 in 300 births.
Single-gene disorders are characterized by the pattern of transmission in families; this is called a pedigree. A kindred includes the relatives outside of the immediate family. The affected individual that initially comes to light or is of immediate interest is called the proband. [emphasis added]
I was thinking of pedigrees and kinship inheritance patterns (again, though, this isn't directly relevant to homosexuality as a trait). There are many ways to tease out possible genetic connections, and the twin studies are only one part. A finely detailed pedigree for a given family can be more useful than generalized twin studies on the same subject.
(I am using the term "pedigree" in the technical sense, but I am aware that it can be emotionally loaded terminology for some. Should it ring anyone's bells, just note it in the thread or an email, and I'll work around that term.)
Genetics is complicated, and most disorders with a genetic component are multifactorial in causation. That isn't fuzzy science, but rather an accurate portayal of the way things are. Sort of like how rocket science can't quite be distilled down onto the back of a bubblegum card.
But as sndrake notes, there is opposition to this approach from both sides. My personal take is that good observation makes for good science, and good critical reflection makes for good observers.
[ March 15, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Hi Telperion!
Welcome to Hatrack.
By now, all the newbies and the more recent additions (well, I am in the 5000s) will be heartily jealous of the attention you've received - even the ever classy CT claiming your landmark.
Just because you're eloquent and have an interesting name... Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
imogen
(one of my favorite Hatrackers )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm curious: under the hypothetical situation that modern science figures out just how much the biological elements influence someone's homosexuality, and it turns out to be more than originally thought probable, how would those who are religiously motivated react towards their position? Would they change their outlook on it? Would religious institutions change their dogma on it?
John, considering there are people who use religion to justify horrible acts against people whose differences clearly are genetic, I fear that the more rabid anti-homosexuals would not change their position at all.
I suspect that some people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would conclude that they are not a sin. I think more people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would not change their minds and conclude that celibacy is the non-sinful approach for people with homosexual tendencies.
I would hope it would help people who continue to believe homosexual actions are sinful to stop being so hysterical about the issue and to stop trying to use the legal system to affect private sexual behavior.
However, since it seems most people tend to position scientific conclusions with pre-determined biases, the evidence would have to be startlingly clear before it would have any effect at all.
quote:The reason for opposition? They figure - rightfully, I reckon - that any biological determinants that are found for homosexual orientation will lead to prevention strategies and practices. Anything from prenatal screening and pregnancy termination to in-utero treatments.
sndrake, I’ve wondered about this too. There’s already a lot of sex-selection abortions going on in this country. If a fairly reliable genetic test for either homosexuality or predilection toward homosexuality were found, there’d be a lot of bioethic issues raised. Some doctors would probably refuse to conduct the test, and some activist groups would try to ban it. Under current abortion law, if the test can be conducted before viability it would be unconstitutional to ban it.
Post-birth “treatment” would raise even more thorny issues, even assuming there were no side effects. Would parents have the right to have their children undergo the “treatment?” Some people would probably want to ban the “treatment,” others would want to make it mandatory. It would be like the cochlear implant controversy multiplied by 10.
Dagonee
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: There’s already a lot of sex-selection abortions going on in this country. If a fairly reliable genetic test for either homosexuality or predilection toward homosexuality were found, there’d be a lot of bioethic issues raised. Some doctors would probably refuse to conduct the test, and some activist groups would try to ban it. Under current abortion law, if the test can be conducted before viability it would be unconstitutional to ban it.
So. . . why isn't anyone protesting the murder of children based on gender?
[ March 16, 2004, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
People who are pro-life protest almost all abortions. People who are pro-choice don't really have a philosophical articulable argument about why someone should be able to have an abortion because they don't think they can afford a baby but not because they want a son.
The middle-ground folks would probably say, "I don't think that's a good reason to have an abortion, but who am I to tell others what to do."
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(*grin
It's a homosexuality thread morphing into a discussion on abortion. What are the odds?)
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Judging from the past couple homosexuality threads that have been around I'd say about 3:1.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Some of us might argue that the notion of aborting children until you find the one you want is oddly similar to the idea that you can force your cultural will upon unconsenting individuals to protect a status quo that is only valuable from your perspective.
But then few of us are able to conclude that the amalgamation of choice and life ought to be the ideal--and not just in the case of abortions--rather than being strongarmed into elevating one over the other.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm a gay man who isn't particularly anxious for a genetic marker for homosexuality to be found. I find the whole idea repugnant from either perspective. I hate the "I'm gay and can't help it" attitude as much as the idea that homosexuality is "curable" or even "treatable". It sickens me that there are people out there who assume that gay people in general inherently need to be treated and it infuriates me to think that someone would think *I* need changing simply because I don't get turned on by their particular fetish.
This arguement should only be about to what degree can the government regulate the bedroom. Whether I am gay, or whether I choose to act that way should make no difference in the answer to that question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:valuable from your perspective.
All value is only from a perspective. We cannot eliminate all actions that derive from information gathered from a perspective - that cuts out all actions of which we are capable. The only debate is over what values and perspectives we sustain and support or leave alone as a society.
[ March 16, 2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:It's a homosexuality thread morphing into a discussion on abortion. What are the odds?
Mea culpa.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before. It's been discussed on at least one email list I'm on that deals with bioethics issues. I think it's been written about in some prolife publications as well.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:All value is only from a perspective. We cannot eliminate all actions that derive from information gathered from a perspective - that cuts out all actions of which we are capable. The only debate is over what values and perspectives we sustain and support or leave alone as a society.
And as I clearly made the argument that we should throw out all perspective , I guess I've been rebutted. Though I specifically recall saying something about an amalgamation of great principles... of course I did mention that few of us were able to come to that conclusion.
[ March 16, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's almost comforting to know some things don't change.
[ March 16, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
John, if there were any way to come to such an amalgamation, I'd be for it, but I am persuaded by this point that it is not possible. Or, to put it another way: "Safe, legal, rare: pick any two."
Xaposert, are you ignoring me or have I just not said anything worth responding to?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: So. . . why isn't anyone protesting the murder of children based on gender?
I wasn't aware that many people were aborting on the basis of gender.
I consider that harmful and horrid eugenics - as much as aborting on the basis of homosexuality would be.
I am firmly pro-choice - but the system I support includes compulsory counselling, and interviews with medical staff (which is what happens in my state). I would like to think that most people, having gone through that process, would rethink, and hopefully rescind, an abortion based on "this baby isn't the exact kind of baby I want".
****
Edit: to CT.
[ March 16, 2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I have to agree with Karl on the need for privacy. I'm not a huge privacy advocate, but I know lots of folks whose idea of "acceptable" I would not want to adhere to. I mean, how would I feel if because I was at one time attracted to a woman, were forced to live the rest of my life as a lesbian?
I was researching sex chromosome abnormalities for the "Is OSC your friend" thread on the other side, and apparently the belief that such abnormalities increase homosexuality and criminal behavior has led to routine screening and abortion in Denmark. So there is a precedent showing how folks amenable to eugenic abortions would respond. And to bring us full circle, such abnormalities are for some reason more common in test tube babies. The kind where the sperm is actually injected into the egg.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Xaposert, are you ignoring me or have I just not said anything worth responding to?
I don't see where you said anything to me... What should I be responding to?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Well, I quoted you twice in this topic, I think, and once in the thread about the bombings in Spain. However, now I am not sure I said anything worth responding to--I was just surprised you hadn't given me a or something.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It's one of the reasons non-democrat feminists have long decried "reproductive rights" because abortion is so commonly used to choose a boy baby instead of a girl. Though occasionally folks want one of each and so are looking for a girl.
Of course, it is really rampant in China. To what degree it is true of American Chinese, I don't know. Usually, male dominant/preferring cultures persist beyond the actual religious beliefs that would tend to be against such frivolous use of abortion.
P.S. since this is the top of a page I'll try to bring it back to the topic. If a genetic test were available for homosexuality, I would not seek it, and if the results came through due to my needing some other test, I wouldn't abort based on that.
P.P.S. To Mabus- folks not replying just means your points stand for themselves. Or don't make any sense. Take your pick.
[ March 16, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Mabus, an amalgamation of pro-life principles and pro-choice principles is certainly possible. You might even say we have something like it already.
But the point is not "find an abortion solution to satisfy the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp all at once"; it is to honor and respect the forces of choice and life as inseparably connected and interdependent entities. One cannot "value life" without making a choice to do so, but neither can you make a choice without a framework of values with which to measure your response. It is the insistence upon crowning one principle above the other that causes both sides of this and many other debates to be drawn towards diametrical opposition.
[ March 16, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
If there is one thing that I have learned, it is that there are things we can not gage in another. We can not feel the intensity of anothers pain, or anothers fear, or anothers love or anothers faith.
These are things felt only in the mind of those who bear them.
So how can anyone so flippantly say that your love is wrong, only my love is right?
Choice 3 mentioned above talks about the only solution bearable to certain Christians--that of Celibacy.
If you find yourself attracted to someone of the same sex, don't sin, but live a life without sex.
That is not a request to live without love--or is it?
If two Christian men were to live together, but in separate bedrooms. If they were to spend all their time together, gaze longingly in each others eyes, walk hand in hand together, even kiss each other in public, but not engage in the forbidden consumation of their love, would they still be sinners? Would you welcome them into your church? If they preached celibacy, and were honest church going, God fearing men, but they held hands and cuddled in public, would you trust them to babysit your children?
Would it be enough to refrain from the sin, or must they also refrain from all semblance of sin in order to be acceptable?
[ March 16, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Dan_raven ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So how can anyone so flippantly say that your love is wrong, only my love is right?
Same with faith.
Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
JK, something is a "value" when someone values it more or less than something else. Saying there should be no hierarchy of values is ridiculous. The hierarchy should also be very responsive to reality and may not always be predictable before one is placed in a situation of choosing.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Is being Jewish biological, or is it just a personal choice?
Because I don't think that Jews should be allowed to marry in this country...Civil Unions, maybe, but not marriage. They have such...weird...sex
[/troll]
--Steve (biologically, I'm Jewish; but Atheist by choice)
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Same with faith.
Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar
Kat: I guess the difference is that not many (if any)homosexuals feel they have to advocate their beliefs to other people.
Thinking about this: I take that as meaning most/if not all homsexual people don't go out on recruiting missions. There is no trying to spread the "message" that one is homosexual (that is put in quotation marks to try and avoid any misunderstanding... ).
The issue of homosexual marriage and rights is, I feel, different from advocating homosexuality. I see it as a non-discrimination issue. And just as I can oppose discrimination agianst various churches without advocating joining that church, I would think people could oppose discrimination against homosexuals without advocating homosexual behaviour.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Imogen, the problem is that we have different views on what constitutes discrimination here. For one thing, we don't agree on what exactly is a marriage, so we differ on whether homosexuals can marry (or rather, marry the people they want to).
I could say that I oppose discrimination against homosexuals, but my list of items that constitute discrimination would be different from yours, and both of ours from several other regulars here.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Mabus, oh-prior monopoly partner - I'm going to bed (1:25 am here).
But before I go - I don't consider the right of a homosexual person to marry someone of the opposite sex a right to marriage.
If that's not what you meant, I apologise. . If it is, then we all know where we stand.
[ March 16, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
quote:Can you see that requesting that someone believe whatever they want but not live or advocate it is requesting them to be either a public or a private liar?
And yet you do not shrink from placing others in the same predicament, though it were wholly possible--and reasonable--to protect that which needs protecting without threatening those who pose no threat.
Or at least that's the way it appears.
quote:Saying there should be no hierarchy of values is ridiculous.
Respecting and honoring both choice and life does not suggest an absence of hierarchy among values. Almalgamtion of these principles does not suggest this, either. At best you could argue that I said there's no point in codifying a hierarchy between these two values specifically, but then you'd be missing the point anyway. In this case you are dealing with values that at their core are inextricably entwined, and to devalue either one with the crowning of the other is simply to devalue them both at once.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
JK - I'm not sure I understand what your advocating with your amalgamation analogy. Could you explain it a little further, including how a particular position does or does not live up to this ideal? (Edit: as an example to help understanding.)
[ March 16, 2004, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I'm back! And WOA! This thread has exploded! And so many nice people! I never would have imagined such a welcome. Thanks guys!!
I'll prepare my comments and hope to post soon.. back to work!
PS> [edit] Two of the reasons I argue for homosexuality being biological is because as a gay man I know what I am and how I feel and have always felt, and secondly because if it is (and there is no doubt in my mind) then goverment and people would not have a valid reason for persecusion. They have every right to not like gays, but they couldn't do anything to us about it.
And one more point... someone was talking about being Jewish is biological? I would argue that being Jewish is the same as bing Catholic. You aren't a certain religion by genetics. You choose it. You have Slovac/Russian Jews, Arab Jews, Euro Jews... lots of different ethinc breeds all the same religion.
[ March 16, 2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Telperion, this kind of result is very common with homosexuality threads. Though I must admit that this one is surprisingly civil.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Telperion, sorry I am late to welcome you, it is good to have you here. That is a wicked cool name.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Lets bring this back to the issue, about biological determinism.
We've gone to the extreme of abortion. But I think the the great majority of the people who would be interested in curing the biological causes of homosexuality would completely reject the abortion solution.
Pooka, you said you would not request such a test but what if the help in such a situation was merely a change in diet, or taking a supplement? If that was a scientifically proven method to prevent genetic or hormonally induced homosexual tendancies? What would you do then?
How would adult homosexuals feel about this? And why?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Telperion, as some of the Jewish folk here will tell you, Judaism is at least as much an ethnicity as a religion (that is, not exactly either--what was it you called it, rivka? Olivet? Ela?). It isn't genetic, but it is in a sense "inherited"; primarily it is passed down through families rather than by acquiring converts. Therefore it isn't usually thought of as a choice in the sense you seem to be thinking of.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Amka, they'd probably feel the same way you would if discovered how to cure heterosexuality and people started doing it.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
In Korea, the gender imbalance is incredibly large. In 1990, the government declared it illegal to tell a woman the gender of her unborn after ultrasound or amniocentesis. The doctor will have their license revoked if caught.
It's hard to catch, of course. But it's really reached a crisis in Korea and the government had to address it. There are 113 males for 100 females, and in certain age groups (I remember reading a few years ago that among middle-school age children, boys outnumber girls 2:1) it is a much larger gap.
I could see genetic counseling coming under very strict regulation in the years to come. I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is the right thing to do. Is it okay to prevent Down's Syndrome? Then why not prevent brown hair? I have no clue how a line would be drawn.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Telperian,
Judaism is a religion, but there is a Jewish race as well, decended from Jacob who was named Israel. Jacob had 12 sons. During a famine they went into Egypt. Their children kept the traditions of their fathers and married only others who believed in the God of Abraham. Thus, they became their own race and then Moses brought them out of Egypt and after a few decades they founded their own nation.
Very condensed. Lots of cool stories in there.
But basically, someone can be Jewish by race but not by religion.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What an interesting possiblility. "Curing" homosexuality as a biological treatment.
If possible, I think it would be immoral. Just imagine if suddenly blacks were condidered to be "out of fashion" and we wanted to "cure" them?
Or the Jews for that matter?
Or to "fix" people who have a "propensity towards violence"? Just imagine... custom make people to the current political fad of the time! How like "Gattaca".
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Amka, they'd probably feel the same way you would if discovered how to cure heterosexuality and people started doing it.
Or the way you would feel if they discovered how to "cure" being religious and people started doing it.
(Edit: silly ubb code and textual browsing)
[ March 16, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Mike ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Bob - herein lies the problem:
Apart from any religious argument, heterosexual behavior is naturally essential to the propegation of the species and homosexual behavior is not. Heterosexual behavior is the norm and homosexual behavior is not. There are no special conditions (meaning conditions outside of what is typical) for heterosexuality to immerge, and there are special conditions (though as we have said in this thread, we do not know what they are) for homosexuality to immerge.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Mike: Kinda like a reverse Path world?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Amka, you're copmletely ignoring my point. I have no interest going down this path with you, I know where it's going to end up. I'll trust someone more eloquent than me to run with it for the benefit of those who haven't seen it before.
All I'm saying is that it really isn't that hard to emphasize with how homosexuals would feel. Horrified, degraded, outraged, depressed and quite a few others that defy words.
*bows out conversation*
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Suneun: actually, now that you mention it, exactly like on Path.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
OK - I knew I'd seen this somewhere!
Schuklenk U, Stein E, Kerin J, Byne W. Hastings Cent Rep. 1997 The ethics of genetic research on sexual orientation. Jul-Aug;27(4):6-13.
Abstract:
quote:Research into the genetic component of some complex behaviors often causes controversy, depending on the social meaning and significance of the behavior under study. Research into sexual orientation-simplistically referred to as "gay gene" research-is an example of research that provokes intense controversy. This research is worrisome for many reasons, including the fact that it has been used to harm lesbians and gay men. Many homosexual people have been forced to undergo "treatments" to change their sexual orientation. Other chose to undergo them to escape discrimination and social disapprobation. But there are other reasons to worry about such research. The very motivation for seeking an "origin" of homosexuality reveals homophobia. Moreover, such research may lead to prenatal tests that claim to predict for homosexuality. For homosexual people who live in countries with no legal protections these dangers are particularly serious.
For those unfamiliar with the Hastings Center Report, it's arguably the most prestigious bioethics publication in existence. (Still manages to publish a fair amount of cr@p, but that's bioethics for you.) Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Ahhh, religion. That is a much better analogy than race. Homosexual behavior follows that pattern more closely than it follows the pattern of racial inheritance.
You see, racial characteristics are always inherited. They can be diluted and strengthened by which mate is chosen.
Homosexuals do not follow that pattern at all.
So, let us get down to that: what if religion could be cured. Answer: it can be.
*points to Soviet Union*
*points to children of atheists*
What are the difference of these two examples? One is mandated by the state, to disasterous results. The other is mandated by the parents upon the children whom they love. With the state, it is propoganda. With the parents, it is the teaching of principles which they themselves believe and, I daresay even for an atheist, hold dear.
So I, as a religious person who believes that my child would by spiritually harmed by being biologically homosexual should have the choice, don't you think? This is MY child, and not the child of other homosexuals.
[ March 16, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think the analogy that Mike was suggesting is something along the lines of:
If believing in religion could be pinpointed as having genetic correlation (lets say, certain personality characteristics), would it be acceptable to allow genetic counseling to choose between affinity-for-religion and affinity-for-no-religion?
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
It's complicated, Dagonee.
You'd have to assume (and I'm willing to do so) that the ultimate goal here is to protect life and the right thereto while ensuring that all life is the result of choice--which is a kind of protection in itself, as well as an integral piece of life's very nature. And again, I don't think this applies just to the ethicality of abortion.
You might take that to mean that I favor approaching the issue from the question: How do we prevent unwanted pregnancies so we do not have to choose between them? But that is far too simple. Despite the fact that human beings are quite capable of solving that question, and could thereby numb the entire debate into uselessness, it would require a level of collective conscience that takes it off the table of immediate solutions.
I do think, however, that our bloodthirsty tendency to give one principle dominion over another--in this and other debates--is perhaps chiefly responsible for holding us back from coming to the conclusions that would serve us all.
None of that is helpful to the just-impregnated teenager who wants to destroy her child before it becomes any more human while her faith demands that she does not, or vice versa. I just maintain that the true moral dilemma lies completely outside of that scene, since any conclusion that you graft upon it will necessarily be flawed.
[ March 16, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: JohnKeats ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Amka you aren't allowing for crossover though.
In your children of atheists example you are assuming they will also be athiests. In reality it isn't that cut and dried. Some stay athiest some become religious. It goes the exactly the same way for children of religious parents. Some stay in their parents religion, some choose a different religion and some become atheists.
AJ
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Pooka, you said you would not request such a test but what if the help in such a situation was merely a change in diet, or taking a supplement? If that was a scientifically proven method to prevent genetic or hormonally induced homosexual tendancies? What would you do then?
I wouldn't take a supplement, even if it became regulated by the government, because that would be relying on the arm of flesh in a matter that I feel involves faith (i.e. the wider question of whether to have a child even though it could have birth defects). I wouldn't do anything extreme, even if it were "just with food". Though I guess my views on food could be seen as extreme by some.
I have been avoiding soy, though it's because I think it is generally unhealthy and not specifically to avoid the estrogenic effects on my baby (baby is nursing now, but I did avoid it when I was pregnant as well). I guess folks drink cider and eat yogurt in the hope of having a baby with more hair. There are theories of using nutritional manipulation to increase chances of having a boy or a girl. Pretty weird if you ask me. It seems they work about half the time
If I thought watching cartoons with violence in them would make my son less likely to be gay, I still wouldn't encourage that. But I also don't believe in buying boys Barbies (I have a cousin who does). I don't believe in buying girls Barbies either. I don't know if that gives you any clearer picture.
P.S. BannaOj, isn't that the case with homosexuals? Some have straight parents? Some straight folks learn their parents were closeted homosexuals?
[ March 16, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But I also don't believe in buying boys Barbies (I have a cousin who does). I don't believe in buying girls Barbies either."
So you're just generally opposed to Barbies in general? What kind of dolls WOULD you buy your son?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
JK - thanks for answering. I'm still not sure I understand it, but I'm going to digest it a while before asking more questions.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
G.I. Joe. DUH.
Telperion, Welcome!
Just for having such a cool name, I make you an Honorary Wench. The Tavern is currently inactive, but we may bring it back up.
I'm one of those who is so sick of the Homosexual Debate on Hatrack that I only post in mockery. My mind is made up, and I'm tired of arguing. And maybe a little worried that I may offend our hosts with my complete inability to find common terminology from which to begin. So I just shrug and feel slightly smug in the belief that we'll eventually come around to being as reasonable as Canada (if not as polite or clean ).
So... welcome.
P.S. I'm so glad this thread has been so civil! I would have given it even odds that a homosexual newbie would have been burned at the stake by the second page. I'm glad I was wrong. It just reminds me of why I like Hatrack.
[ March 16, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
"Honorary Wench"? Hehehe...killer! Yes, I'm quite pleased with everyone too. What a great place.
Canadia is cool. Since I'm from Detroit I get to go there quite often.
[ March 16, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Mabus:
quote:John L, since my position derives straight from the Scripture, I really don't have the option to change it unless someone can demonstrate to me that my interpretation is incorrect.
That's all well and good, but what scripture are you referencing? Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu? Regardless, all scriptures have undergone many doctrinal reinterpretations throughout the years, and I can even cite Christian ones (if I searched, probably the others as well, but I know Christian ones). Simply put, even if you interpret things in a certain way, it's from the results of previous reinterpretations of scripture already. That is, unless you've done your own translating and hunting down of the most original of texts. Everything from dietary practice to marriage practice to what day(s) of the week are holy have been reinterpreted throughout the course of time. I know of no single person who follows any scripture to the very letter of the context it was originally written, and anyone who believes they do are believing a lie. This isn't a mark against religions, either—like I've said elsewhere, this flexibility is an example of a strength.
rivka:
quote:Never use just one study out of context. <-- Can we have that tattooed on all newswriters' foreheads?
Backwards, so they can read it in the mirror.
Geoff:
quote:Didn't someone mention some twin studies earlier, that concluded something or other about the role of genetics in determining sexual orientation? I'm wondering because it can be difficult to positively determine that a psychological trait is genetic simply by observing its occurrence in a family line. Family lines are just about as good at passing down environmental influences as they are at passing down genetic markers.
See rivka's above statement. Also, genetics doesn't work by simply "passing down" traits, and even with identical twins, there are slight divergences in the basic DNA. What things those minute differences are, on the other hand, are largely unknown. I mean, I know of a few cases where one twin contracted a disease that tranferred genetically, requiring the other twin to be tested to see if they actually were identical. One in particular turned out to be completely identical, but the second twin never got the disease. Since as far as modern science is concerned, these two were exact duplicates of each other, why did one get a genetically-contracted disease while the other did not? The only logical answer is that we haven't enough information to determine exactly why yet.
I also find the fact that you're addressing the biological question from the premise of it being strictly psychological only rather against the idea of being open to the possibility.
pooka:
quote:Brian and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I agree with him that the science is more fashionable than it is theoretically strong.
You know what? So is religion. However, there's never any need to completely dismiss a religion because you don't like one aspect of how it has drawn conclusions. However, the study of genetics is just fine to dismiss as a bunch of malarky because while people don't know "for sure," there are conclusions being drawn? You don't see a double-standard there (of course you don't, it's mostly a rhetorical question, but answer if you have a ready one)?
Amka:
quote:Yes, I too am especially curious by the adopted brothers and biological brothers having the SAME rate of homosexuality. This seems to indicate to me that genetics may not even factor in at all, congenital homosexuality may be caused by hormones in the womb instead.
Actually, that seems to indicate that the statistics didn't take a large enough sample to get more accurate numbers, or that these are heavily rounded-off numbers. This is why I usually completely disregard most political question statistics (or take them with a grain of salt), because the sample taken may not be biased, but I have a hard time accepting that 1,000 people who consented to be tallied (and the consent part plays a large role) are that much of an indicator of the general populace. And if regional issues are taken into account, did they consider the concept of repression? (repression is the most difficult to gauge, since it's unreasonable to go accusing people of being gay and not admitting it)
Dagonee:
quote:John, considering there are people who use religion to justify horrible acts against people whose differences clearly are genetic, I fear that the more rabid anti-homosexuals would not change their position at all.
I suspect that some people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would conclude that they are not a sin. I think more people who currently believe homosexual actions are sinful would not change their minds and conclude that celibacy is the non-sinful approach for people with homosexual tendencies.
I agree, but I'm more curious about what people's expectations to scriptural validity would be. I'm more curious from a study perspective, because while I have my own opinions on how culture and religious thought deals with change, this is a chance to have a glimpse of a modern example.
KarlEd:
quote:This arguement should only be about to what degree can the government regulate the bedroom. Whether I am gay, or whether I choose to act that way should make no difference in the answer to that question.
Egg-zactly. I feel the same.
*nervous* Not that I'm gay or anything...
Steve[troll]:
quote:Is being Jewish biological, or is it just a personal choice?
Both. Does that make a good analogy? [/troll]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
John has admitted that science is a religion Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Leto's gay?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
John's admission doesn't make it so. However it looked more to me like an admission that science and religion have some things in common. (Maybe we can invent a pill that'll "cure" scientific curiosity... )
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Mike, either pooka is just kidding, doesn't know how to read, or is delusional, because I admitted no such thing. Science is just a different reason than religion for asking "why" concerning the universe.
Atheism, however, is a religion. It just has no institution.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
John L,
Did you mean
quote:Atheism, however, is a religion
or
quote:Atheism, however, is areligion
And just because we don't have an institution, doesn't mean that we can't (or shouldn't) be institutionalized!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Kat thinks I'm classy. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
But classy! ]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
I thought it was fairly brave to start with this topic, then it occured to me that it's only brave if you know the history of the controversey.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
I think you've landed him.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I actually WAS wondering what that giant sucking noise was... ![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Thnikkaman... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
, I guess I've been rebutted. Though I specifically recall saying something about an amalgamation of great principles... of course I did mention that few of us were able to come to that conclusion.![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
And maybe a little worried that I may offend our hosts with my complete inability to find common terminology from which to begin. So I just shrug and feel slightly smug in the belief that we'll eventually come around to being as reasonable as Canada (if not as polite or clean ![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)