Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[The Gaffer]

Jolly good.

In a genuine spirit of enquiry: as a conservative on this issue, to what extent do you think it matters if we establish a biological cause?

As you probably know, I think it's interesting but irrelevant to the issues of equality.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

As you probably know, I think it's interesting but irrelevant to the issues of equality.

May I say, particularly if none of it applies to females.

One has only to skim myspace to understand that a whole lot of young women don't mind "experimenting." Likewise (although they're a little shyer about being photographed) men, cross culturally, establish different limits for behavior that has nothing to do with emotional attachment. (Proud of my wording for that, lol )

So, at some point, someone is going to wade in to separate "people who engage in x behavior" from "people who show a lifelong inclination".

[inked]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Jolly good.

In a genuine spirit of enquiry: as a conservative on this issue, to what extent do you think it matters if we establish a biological cause?

As you probably know, I think it's interesting but irrelevant to the issues of equality.

If there is a biological cause, there is a biological cause. Right now the data are not at all decisive. Given the history of waxing and waning homosexuality within cultures over time, there is a profound argument to made for social determination.

If it is determined to be biological, should it be treated as, say, Down's syndrome is currently "treated" or Trisomy 18 et cetera, or more on the lines of neural tube defects? kleptomania?

Given the use of modern fertility technology by homosexual couples from Australia and the "selection" of babies on the basis of gender (male or female, I mean, ), it becomes problematic, does it not. See http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...67-421,00.html

With as many howls of "I never would have chosen to be this way", will such determination result in spontaneously lowering the number of affected individuals by parental choice. Specifically by the female parent's choice under current abortion laws? Does such an affected fetus get special consideration or is it merely an embryo or fetus (depending on the gestational age at such determination) to be disposed of as the woman chooses?

The issue of equality certainly becomes paramount. Will the determination (which I seriously doubt, but you knew that) of biological basis interfere with the mother's right-to-choose because of the privileged character of homosexuality or will the mother's autonomy remain sancrosanct since legally society has no voice in current decision making?

You must realize that I am jaded in this matter because when I took ethics classes in Medical School during the early '80s, gender selection as a basis for abortion was pooh-poohed as a fear-mongering and reactionary basis for opposition to genetic screening. It was contended that such would not be ever done. Of course, the residual Christian and Western ethical components which subliminally and socially upheld those arguments have eroded just as those of us who argued against such have feared. There is, as reality repeatedly demonstrates in history, a slippery slope. Feeding tubes and IV fluids were not considered "heroic" measures then, and the very idea of physician-assisted termination of life or suicide would ever occur was pooh-poohed on the same basis. I refer you to the current state of affairs in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Oregon, USA. Each has slid down this slope to greater and lesser degrees.

That equality thing may yet reach up and bite!

Your thoughts?

[The Gaffer]

Well, as I implied, I view it as a red herring.

I hadn't contemplated the abortion/genetic selection issue, though.

But that does plug into my main concern: that a specific genetic cause would be used to further characterise homosexuality as a disorder. Mind you, if no specific cause is found, it would still be characterised thusly, so I don't think it makes any difference.

As you imply, the practicalities of genetic screening will owe more to what can be achieved than to what ought to be achieved. Here, though, I think it likely that no genetic test will be found which is sufficiently sensitive and specific to work as a screening test.

[Insidious Rex]

The interesting thing will be to see how many previously pro-life couples will suddenly have a change of heart about the issue if and when we can determine the gayness probability of an unborn fetus... In other words whats a more important issue? Saving the unborn in general or just how important the "immorality" of homosexuality is?

Of course I just dont see this situation coming to fruition. Its just clearly more complicated than that. Sure theres a genetic aspect but its intertwined with so much more. Of course in our legal system the concept of biological discrimination is a lot easier to win with then the "choice" to be discriminated against so it may help on that front.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Your thoughts?

Everything is a combination of genetics and upbringing. There is not a single thing we think or do as humans that does not have a "biological cause", tempered by our life experience. The only thing in question is whether or not their is any room for "choice" as well. But that's philosophical.

In general, sexual preference is more strongly influenced via upbringing than genetics. If you could put 100 babies on an island and let them grow up by themselves, my guess is that bisexuality would probably be the most prevalent. Upbringing generally teachs you what is "wrong" to do and, without that teaching, people would just do what they enjoy doing.

So, their is no "gay gene", though their might be a "gene that predisposes one to be gay if exposed to certain combinations of experiences throughout their life". Which is much too gray a reality upon which to base equality laws.

[inked]

Data, Columbia University, Twin Studies:

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/resear...ds/2001_04.pdf

[brownjenkins]

So we agree?

One important thing to remember as well is that "upbringing" and "social influences" are really the same thing as genetics for all practical purposes. Unless we would like to institute some kind of moral police state, both are factors largely beyond the control of the individual.

We do not choose who we are born to or what society we are a part of. And, by the age where one is even able to make such a choice, if we ever can, many, if not all of our base behaviors are more or less set in stone.

So, in the end, whether it is genetic or social is a 'moot point.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So, in the end, whether it is genetic or social is a 'moot point.

Not to them, brown jenkins. They'll prosecute parents for "letting it happen."

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So we agree?

One important thing to remember as well is that "upbringing" and "social influences" are really the same thing as genetics for all practical purposes. Unless we would like to institute some kind of moral police state, both are factors largely beyond the control of the individual.

We do not choose who we are born to or what society we are a part of. And, by the age where one is even able to make such a choice, if we ever can, many, if not all of our base behaviors are more or less set in stone.

So, in the end, whether it is genetic or social is a 'moot point.

You've just earned a nobel smarm prize for total confusion, BJ. Please join Al to claim your prize.

I suppose you would like to gloss or elide over the nature vs nurture debate, but your premise is erroneous. You are, of course, free to produce any data you purport to have on the subject that you allege is a moot point. It would seem, however, that there would be no debate nor need for research if the matter were as you state it to be. In which case, there wouldn't be two threads on the 'Moot about it.

But, I suppose, those two threads are just the result of social conditioning and rank materialism which you otherwise deny when it suits your purpose.

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In general, sexual preference is more strongly influenced via upbringing than genetics.

So, their is no "gay gene", though their might be a "gene that predisposes one to be gay if exposed to certain combinations of experiences throughout their life". Which is much too gray a reality upon which to base equality laws.

I'll admit that I may be entirely wrong here, but just speaking from my own experience I think that's complete bullshit.

If my environment had affected my sexual preference, I would be straight. I was told my entire childhood that I would make some woman a wonderful husband, and have lots of kids, and that being gay was evil, weird, and just ultimately damns you to hell.

And yet somehow I turned out homosexual. How does that work?

[Lotesse]

Completely, wholeheartedly agree with Tessar. One isn't influenced to be or not to be gay due to environment or upbringing. It ain't a choice, people. One is born with the predisposition. Of all the people I know who are gay, and even of myself who is bi, we all figured it out about ourselves at a very, very young age - the same median age for sexual self-realisation that all kids figure themselves out at. From age five, seven, nine, twelve, you name it. You don't choose your sexual identity, it is something you're born with.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

One isn't influenced to be or not to be gay due to environment or upbringing. It ain't a choice, people. One is born with the predisposition. Of all the people I know who are gay, and even of myself who is bi, we all figured it out about ourselves at a very, very young age - the same median age for sexual self-realisation that all kids figure themselves out at. From age five, seven, nine, twelve, you name it. You don't choose your sexual identity, it is something you're born with.

True, this. Although I think some people, due to polarizing political debate on this issue, pick a label too young, and then find it constricting.

Nonetheless, I agree with part of what Tessar's parents said, too. I think he'd be a great husband and daddy, and hope he gets an opportunity to fill those roles, in some way. Biology doesn't have to be destiny on that point, anyway.

One of the saddest aspects of our current society's attitude towards gay people is that so much genuine caring is considered suspect if people think or know someone is gay (or bi). It deprives the world of a lot of good connection and, dare I say it, role models for kids, when people are afraid to include gay people in the normal life of a community, including families and teaching.

[Jonathan]

Brownjenkins is still right however that our upbringing strongly influences our sexual preferences - no matter if we're homo- or heterosexual. For instance, in western societies boys are taught to like anorectic girls just like those in the commercials. In other places, the men might prefer more plump ladies. I'm exaggerating a bit here but I hope you all get my point.

However, upbringing might have less power to influence whether we become gay or straight. Here, predisponating factors are likely to play a role. Possibly genetics, but bear in mind that it's highly unlikely that there is a single "gay gene". Such a complex thing as sexual behaviour is prone to be polygenetic - a whole heap of genes are surely involved. If homosexuality is genetic, it probably takes more than one of these genes to be different from the genes of a heterosexual, to "make" the bearer gay.
I'll safeguard myself and say it doesn't have to be like this - homosexuality could in theory be monogenetic. But it would surprise me a lot if it is.

There's a lot of focus on the genes but let's also remember there are many other factors that theoretically can play an important role. For example, hormone levels in a pregnant women. Could certain hormone levels increase the likelihood that a fetus becomes gay later in life? Perhaps.


In any case, I don't see anything wrong with "choosing" homosexuality either. If I wanted to adapt a homosexual lifestyle and feels okay with it, why shouldn't I be able to? Because society says I have to be born gay to live gay?

No, I say let everyone find their own sexual identity and don't point moral fingers depending on choice or genes. Homosexuality isn't less moral (immoral, for those who like) just because you aren't genetically predisposed to be gay.

(Of course, it would be harder to choose to be gay if you don't get sexually aroused by the opposite sex and whatnot, but homosexuality is a lot more than sex - it's also a lifestyle)

[BeardofPants]

Well said, Jonathan.

[Nurvingiel]

Jonathan, I heart you so much. Du är jättehäftigt!!

[Tessar]

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with "choosing" homosexuality either. If I wanted to adapt a homosexual lifestyle and feels okay with it, why shouldn't I be able to? Because society says I have to be born gay to live gay?

Erm, well to quote a friend of mine, "I'm gay because I like the men."

Why would you 'choose' to be homosexual? I understand you're trying to be somewhat hypothetical here, but seriously... If you have to make a choice to be gay, you're either straight and lying to yourself, or a Narnian .

[Jonathan]

Thanks BoP and Nurv!

Originally Posted by Tessar

Why would you 'choose' to be homosexual? I understand you're trying to be somewhat hypothetical here, but seriously... If you have to make a choice to be gay, you're either straight and lying to yourself, or a Narnian .

Indeed Tessar. But bear in mind that being gay is also dependant on the eye of the beholder. Many would say that a person who is "choosing" to be gay is "either straight and lying to yourself, or a Narnian" () but there would still be some who would accept that person as being gay. There isn't a fine line that separates homosexuality from heterosexuality. We all have our own criteria that we use when labeling people as gay or straight.

However, if a person thinks of themselves as gay - then for god's sake let them! Accept their claims of being gay, even though you might still have doubts about their alleged homosexuality

[Tessar]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Indeed Tessar. But bear in mind that being gay is also dependant on the eye of the beholder.

I just have some issues with that mode of thinking. To me it's pretty clear cut: If you are sexually interested in men, you're homosexual (I'm going to leave out bisexuality/asexuality/etc. for simplicity)... how you live your life, who you sleep with... all of that is irrelevant if your 'base' makeup is homosexual.

Rereading your post, I just realized that you may be speaking of gay in this particular paragraph as a lifestyle choice, not as a predisposition of sexual attraction.

I personally am speaking of it purely as what you are... not how you choose to present yourself. I know (or at least am 99% sure, for the nay-sayers ) that I'm gay, however the way that I act on my feelings and urges is different from what some other gay men choose.

I consider myself to be gay because I -am- sexually interested in men. When that stops being true, or if I become sexually interested in women somehow, then I'll reconsider calling myself gay.

However, if a person thinks of themselves as gay - then for god's sake let them! Accept their claims of being gay, even though you might still have doubts about their alleged homosexuality

I'm not even talking about me doubting their sexuality. I'm saying that I think the idea of someone saying, "okay, I've been straight thus far, but I'm going to be gay from now on," is just... bizarre. I mean, why would you?

If someone tells me they're gay, I assume they have some idea what they're talking about and I take them on their word... I don't need them to prove it to me. When I talk about lying to themselves, I really do mean that: Just lying to themselves.



Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. I do agree with the other things you said, but on this particular thing I'm just not understanding what angle you're coming from.

[Jonathan]

I understand all that you're saying but I'll keep my reply short:

Originally Posted by Tessar

To me it's pretty clear cut: If you are sexually interested in men, you're homosexual (I'm going to leave out bisexuality/asexuality/etc. for simplicity)... how you live your life, who you sleep with... all of that is irrelevant if your 'base' makeup is homosexual.

Of course! That's your criteria. And other people have other criteria
We all have unique pictures of what is gay. In your (and many others') opinion, there might not be any room for "chosen homosexuality". But that doesn't mean such a thing couldn't exist in other people's frames of referance.

This all sounds blurry, I know