posted
CT, with all due respect, because of homosexuality's controversial implications of the culture of reproduction, that level of proof is required.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's fine. I just couldn't believe it for a moment - I'm glad to know my shock was justified.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(((CT))) Did you see I was also killed (in the Little House RPG) today? Now there's some poetic justice for you.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BrianM: It is possible to be scientifically certain of something being genetic without knowing the particular gene involved. Witness skin pigmentation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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... Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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 ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
posted
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.
Posts: 4350 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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".
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.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.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
or something.
