What’s the concensus on the “nature vs. nurture” aspect?
Since homosexuality produces no progeny, it seems logical that it would die out without very intensive breeding programs. (i.e. in vitro with homosexual people of opposite genders). True, some people will, in our current culture, be more likely to “come out of the closet”, but there is still a finite number and it will not affect the eventual outcome. Therefore, if the number of homosexuals remains more or less constant or increases, I propose that it is in fact learned and not innate.
athelas, lots of homosexuals reproduce. Furthermore, almost all homosexuals are born of heterosexual parents. These two facts seriously impair your thesis.
You are also excluding the middle. Not all inborn traits are genetically inherited. A behavior can be neither genetically inherited nor learned.
athelas, what Kelly said. It’s been done before; I don’t have ready references to the threads – but as a quick summation, there may be quite good reasons for any genetic component for being gay to have survived. (I rather like the one that says that it’s a reinforced gene of the set of which the heterozygous allele promotes “male-bonding” with its benefits in things ranging from Paleolithic men joining in the hunt to collaborative production of software. Another version suggests that there is a benefit to society to have some people unimpaired by children.)
The laws banning anal sex make it illegal for two consenting adult men to have sex. The laws banning polygamy make it illegal for people who are already married to take on multiple partners, which has nothing to do with sex from this standpoint. Despite what Santorum’s comments indicate he might like, there is no law banning sex with multiple partners or infidelity.
Akennett, I think you’re also isolating one of Santorum’s comments from the rest of what he said. He went on to say that homosexuality - sorry, gay sex, which is totally different - “undermine[s] the basic structure of our society and the family.” That’s disapproval and I can’t see how it’s not homophobic. What does sex between two men Santorum doesn’t know have to do with him? And when he compares it to “man on child, man on dog, or whatever,” he’s not just making a legal distinction; it’s clear that he feels two men having sex is as bad as a man having sex with a child or a dog morally and in terms of its impact on the American family.
He also goes on to say, and I find this also disturbing, that he doesn’t believe in the idea of a right to privacy, period.
Marley23, you are incorrect. Several states have criminal law prohibiting adultery (sex by a married person with someone other than one’s spouse) and/or fornication (sex between unmarried people). I live in Illinois, which has laws against both.
I’m sorry if what I said was meant to trivialize the discrimination faced by gays. Surely, being sneered at by a campus jock and being beaten to near-death aren’t really comparable. (Of course, I certainly received my share of geekiness-induced beatings when I was growing up.) However, the violent aspect of anti-gay discrimination is really an extreme. I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of people who have anti-gay feelings aren’t going to resort to physical violence. In most cases, anti-gay disrcimination seems to manifest itself as more of a social stigma - affecting career advancement, affecting personal relationships, that sort of thing. Of course, in certain parts of the country, gays are at a higher risk of physical harm than others. However, in pretty much any environment, you always run into the risk of encountering a couple of assholes cruising around to beat up gays. Fortunately for me, the people who cruise around looking to beat up geeks grow out of it by the time they graduate high school.
But you’re right, this is all getting off topic. Bottom line: Anti-gay discrimination is a serious problem, anti-geek discrimination isn’t, and I’m sorry if I offended anyone.
If that was the impression I gave, I apologize. I certainly don’t think gays should just learn to deal with hostility - to suggest that would be ludicrous. My point was simply that, since we can all agree that anti-gay discrimination isn’t going to go away tomorrow, there are ways to go about minimizing the degree to which it will affect you. Don’t move to areas statistically more likely to be hostile towards gays. Try to find companies that are tolerant. But in the mean time, by all means, fight for your rights, and strive to work towards an ever-higher degree of acceptance.
It’s a combination of idealism (demand things change) and realism (until they do, work on damage control). I hope that more clearly expresses my ideas, and I thank you for being understanding and reasonable in this discussion. Open communication is always more productive than open hostility.
Jeff
That violence that you so convincingly deplore does not exist in a vacuum: it exists in a society that, to the minds of the violent, supports and condones it. As long as their societal context is majority-homophobic, the thugs will feel justified in their violence.
So to deplore only physical violence is to, implicitly, condone it: we must deplore the climate that produces the violence, not just the violence itself.
That’s why the “love the sinner hate the sin” bullshit will get exactly the same response from me as a racist remark would: zero tolerance.
Fair enough: I didn’t think about the antiquated laws that are on the books in some places. But I can’t imagine either has been enforced recently, and if it has, let me know: I’m a Northwestern student, and I’d be looking at a lot of jail time.
No akennet… you specifically said that I was intolerant because I can’t accept other people’s views of me as immoral. Check your first post.
Then you shouldn’t post comments - thoughts - and decry them. Attack the actions, don’t condemn (and you are, as the title homophobe carries with it severly negative connotations) people for their thoughts and words.
Interesting. I think this might be the core of our disagreement. You believe that ‘the person’ is separate from a person’s behaviour. Why do you believe this. This point definitely deserves greater elaboration. If all action and behaviour is separate from the person, then behaviour and action can clearly not arise from the person. From what then does our behaviour arise? What makes us behave the way we do?
Actually the whole concept of biological versus environmental/experiential is inherently flawed. All of a person’s characteristics flow from a person’s biology. If you feel like debating this specific point, start a new thread. But be forewarned that I’ve got a degree in biological psychology.
Why is it useful? It seems that the main function it serves is to allow hate without guilt. Separating the sinner from the sin allows you to hate people like me without you seeming like you are a bad person or burdening your conscience with such an intense and exhausting emotion.
I would like you to answer this question as directly as possible: Is it possible to hate black skin but not hate a person who is black?
A simple answer to a simple question. Not sure what the social climate is in Canada. You listed Toronto and Vancouver as your favorite cities. I think these are probably 2 of the nicest cities in N America.
I don’t equate laws passed with social norms because of the extreme diversity in the US. Easiest benchmark for anti-gay mentality is education. You can drive into the hollars of certain states and tell pretty quickly you’re not in Kansas anymore. Old trailers surrounded by dozens of junked cars and a Confederate flag are pretty obvious.
I would consider the political climate before you set up your tent. It varies depending on location. East Coast is more Labor-Democrat and you will have more toll roads and social taxes. I don’t like New Yorks toll roads but they have some of the best secondary roads for biking. Actually a beatiful state. Mid West is more conservative and independent. California is California. You also don’t have taxpayer healthcare so you will need a real job or between $2000 and $7000 for insurance.
I personally don’t like big cities because I hate panhandlers (there, I said it). But you might be a New York kind of guy if you’re looking for bright lights and entertainment. Do a web search for housing costs and it might help your decision.
Jeff, you’re very gratitious. The more I think about it, the more that I think that some people who live entirely nerdish lifestyles (not simply playing D&D) may face daily experiences similar to those of many gay people.
Magiver, thanks for a great reply. Is the trailer park/Confederate flag scenario still very common in the US? I kind of felt it would just be an exagerated stereotype.
I definitely don’t mind paying social taxes of any sort. Although I think toll roads are a bit of a stupid idea. Why not just take the money out of tax revenue, and raise the taxes if you have to?
The healthcare wouldn’t be a problem for me, though I definitely hope you guys get a national health care plan soon, for the sake of those less-well-off.
What is California actually like? Have you been there? Have you been to San Franciso? I’d love to hear more about this part of the country. I’d also love to hear more about the mid-west from anyone who’s lived there. Thanks guys.
>I rather like the one that says that it’s a reinforced gene of the
>set of which the heterozygous allele promotes “male-bonding”
>with its benefits in things ranging from Paleolithic men joining in
>the hunt to collaborative production of software. Another
>version suggests that there is a benefit to society to have some
>people unimpaired by children.)
Yes, but these are guesses developed from the assumption that homosexuality is innate. Never considered if it’s not, eh?
In support of Poly’s point that there is almost certainly an evolutionary advantage overall to human genes containing amongst them a predisposition towards homosexuality:
Does anyone here know anything further about some (preliminary) experimental results which (tentatively) suggested that the genes associated with male homosexuality were similar to the genes associated with early onset of menstruation in females? I heard about this briefly a couple of years ago. If true, this would be a powerful evolutionary advantage overall.
athelas:
Having considered it at great length and as impartially as possible, I have come to the conclusion that the choice aspect must be very small if not nonexistent. I cannot remember choosing heterosexuality. Puberty came, I fancied girls, that simple. In my brother’s case, puberty came, he fancied boys, it was equally as simple. As a thirteen year old boy, he wondered why he had no interest in girls but had no doubt that he did not. Can you remember choosing heterosexuality?
Yeah, all relevant research, anywhere, by anyone, has just been a blatant attempt to advance the Homosexual Agenda: no one anywhere at any time has ever considered the question of whether homosexuality is innate or learned.
One should not forget, as Polycarp implied in passing, that evolution is a complex thing, especially in the case of social creatures. Those species which form tribes, packs, what have you, also form a new creature of sorts. Thus, traits which in a single being would be removed, could have advantages for larger group survival.
A genetic trait, if I remember my high school bio correctly, can be dominant or recessive. It can also have certain “penetration” in a person. Thus, you could see a dominant heterosexual trait and a recessive homosexual. A completely heterosexual person with the recessive for homosexuality could mate with another heterosexual who has the same recessive and produce a homosexual child. The simple fact that they both have the recessive, however, does not mean all their children will be homosexual. Thus the trait could be passed on to the next generation, with sporadic appearances of those in whom the recessive surfaced.
I’m sure I’ve glazed over points, or fumbled other ones, but this isn’t my field of expertise.
Also, athelas, other areas have been studied. I think it was Bell who analyzed the home life and childhood of many gays and lesbians to try and find one common factor. He suceeded in only one, and only for gay men as I recall: many of them reported having distant fathers. However, when one takes into account the fact that parents are often distressed by a child which marches to a different beat, this is not so shocking.
My own hypothesis, Priam, and I stress that it’s totally untested, merely a formulation from observation, is that there is a genetic component potentiating for gayness, but that it requires one of a variety of possible environmental factors to express itself. Suppose, for example, that there is some truth to the old canard about “a boy molested as a child being influenced to ‘go gay’” (and I apologize for bringing it up: I mean it only to construct an example) – it may be true in a few cases, where the “gay gene” (or gene complex, allow the term as shorthand) is present and the molestation relationship was pleasurable rather than guilt/repulsion-inducing, it could act as the potentiating factor. Likewise, a distant father (and my own was one) might be the environmental factor that causes expression of “the gay gene” in someone carrying it but would not in other cases.
Finally, “homosexuality” is a term describing orientation – what stirs one’s libido. I’ve seen several gay men mention having had sex with women on various threads – what made them “gay” was identifying themselves as such on the basis of what their predominant sexual attraction was, not the biology of the person they happened to have sex with at a given time. (IIRC, kirkland, a former member here, mentioned never having had sex with another man but having experimented with girls – but he was sufficiently honest with himself to come out and say that he was gay, his principal interest was in men, not women.)
W/R/T “love the sinner, hate the sin” I think it’s quite possible but a very difficult knife-edge to walk – I know a few people who are Bible-centric Christians who therefore sincerely believe gay sex to be sinful and gay desire to be condemned by “as you lust in your heart, so are you guilty of the act itself,” but who do try to grasp what motivates and hurts gay people and to show love for them, not in the “it’s only loving to warn them that they’re going to Hell if they don’t repent” way, but sincere affectionate friendship.
However, it’s far more often used as code words for an attitude of judgmental condemnation of sinner and sin alike. To those offended by people finding fault with them for using the phrase, I can only say, “If the shoe fits…” If you’re sincere in meaning it, you’ll make an effort to see where it’s used hurtfully by lots of your fellow believers and to let any anger at you roll off your back, and instead show compassion to those who have been hurt by it.
Poly, I think it might be more helpful in understanding this whole issue to think of it from the other side of the coin: ". . . that there is a genetic component potentiating for gayness, but that it requires one of a variety of possible environmental factors to** [repress]*** itself."*
In your wording, the naturalness and truthfulness of accepting who I am is de-emphasized; the paradigm remains one of other-ness.
- “undermine[s] the basic structure of our society and the family.” That’s disapproval and I can’t see how it’s not homophobic. What does sex between two men Santorum doesn’t know have to do with him? And when he compares it to “man on child, man on dog, or whatever,” he’s not just making a legal distinction; it’s clear that he feels two men having sex is as bad as a man having sex with a child or a dog morally and in terms of its impact on the American family.