Is homosexuality unnatural?

[Larv]

One need not know specifically "which genes" are responsible in order to demonstrate the responsibility of genes themselves.

 

That's the larger point, and you're now moving the goal posts. I did adequately demonstrate conclusively that genes are responsible. Asking about which specific genes are responsible is a separate question entirely.

 

 

However, on that specific point, this seems to be one of the more useful studies:

 

 

http://tigger.uic.edu/~bmustans/Mustanski_etal_2005.pdf

Look, IN, you’ve made the claim that the genetic cause of homosexuality has been “conclusively demonstrated.” And you’ve supported your argument with studies like one you quoted:

 

This study reports results from the first full genome scan for male sexual orientation…

 

Two additional regions approached the criteria for suggestive linkage. The region near 8p12 contains several interesting candidate genes, given the hypothesized relationship between prenatal hormones and sexual orientation (Mustanski et al. 2002)…

 

The difference in mlod scores between the full sample and the sample restricted to families without evidence of paternal transmission (with the goal of enriching the sample for families showing maternal transmission) denotes the possibility of etiologic heterogeneity for the proposed Xq28 locus.

I don’t know where you get “conclusively demonstrated” from any of this. I'd suggest instead "tentatively hypothesized."

[InfiniteNow]

Po-tay-toe... Po-tah-to.

 

How about we trade roles for a moment and you present some data that homosexuality results from the environment of the child, not their genetics.

 

As for my word choice, you'll notice that "conclusively demonstrated" was plucked right out of my original reference. Maybe you should write their editors to lodge a complaint if you're so inclined.

 

 

 

Letters to the Editor:

 

Send a letter via e-mail to [email protected], or via regular mail to: Editorial, Discover Magazine, 90 Fifth Ave, New York, NY 10011

 

This is the address for letters to the editor about the content of Discover magazine.

[lemit]

 

Po-tay-toe... Po-tah-to.

 

How about we trade roles for a moment and you present some data that homosexuality results from the environment of the child, not their genetics.

 

Thank you more than I can ever say for reminding me just where the unwillingness to attempt dialogue lies. I don't know how I could have forgotten.

 

So I am back to a conundrum I've been trying to deal with in lots of respects: there are two sides of a question: one that believes both sides should be considered and one that believes the other is an abomination. How does the first side deal with the second? How do you talk to people who refuse to listen?

 

I don't want to distract from your excellent tuber-based argument. I just wanted to apologize for having lost my way.

 

--lemit

 

p.s. If the tuber fails, you might try a fruit-bearing nightshade, but I'm beginning to think that eventually those of us who want to create dialogue will just have to give up and call off all attempts to communicate. (There has to be a catchier way to say that.)

[Pyrotex]

If homosexuality is "natural" because it occurs frequently among the mammals,

would celibacy be "unnatural" because it almost never occurs in healthy mammals?

I think so.

:)

[lemit]

If homosexuality is "natural" because it occurs frequently among the mammals,

would celibacy be "unnatural" because it almost never occurs in healthy mammals?

I think so.

:)

 

Good point.

 

Also, it's a little too easy to fall into the argument best expressed by Frankenstein's monster: "Natural Good; Unnatural Bad." So, since those nightshade plants I referred to earlier are obviously natural, feel free to munch on those tasty leaves.

 

So, is it natural to feel sexual inversion, as it used to be known, is evil and is a threat to society or individuals in that society? Is it natural to think what two adults do in the privacy of their own home endangers anybody? Is that natural?

 

Maybe those of us who aren't afraid of people not like us need to remember the quote from Eugene Debs' statement to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, after he had been convicted of sedition:

 

Your Honor,years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

 

That is our motivation, our cause, our reason to fight. Any form of discrimination is discrimination against each of us. In our need to seek all points of view, we must never forget that we still have a long, difficult climb ahead of us, and we still can't see the summit. We can't permit any roadblocks.

 

We need to remember that hatred is a sin. We need to remember that discrimination is a sin. We too need to love the sinner while we hate the sin. I know I do.

 

--lemit

[enorbet2]

It's interesting how the way in which questions are posed influences the kinds of answers one gets. For example if the thread had been posed as "Should homosexuals be treated differently/oppressed/jailed/lynched (pick one)?" I expect this thread would look quite differently depending on the one picked. At the very least it would be more political, more about rights and/or privileges. Given that "unnatural" has been largely monopolized by codes of morality based on Old Thyme Religion, it can be said that a question posed that way is likely to result in a considerable percentage of the posters being attracted to a science vs/ religion fight. That may create good odds for a long lively thread but just as good odds for no resolution particularly since Faith by definition is not subject to reason and represents someone's cherished beliefs which, by the way, studies have shown tend to grow stronger when presented with evidence to the contrary.

 

In a forum about Science we have both Pure Science and Applied Science. In a Pure Science discussion there may possibly be value in referring to the mounting evidence for genetic cause as "tentatively hypothesized". In Applied Science it's just nit-picking, likely in the interest of maintaining a bias. If "cherished beliefs" or "bias" was all it was we could say "Who gives a rat's *** what anyone thinks of anyone else or their preferences/practices?" However once we factor in politics and the less than perfect separation of Church and State still in existence pretty much everywhere we get scatter-shot, contradictory laws, as well as judges and police, who will use such to oppress others, enforcing prejudice based on trivia.

 

If we can view the concept of Race as meaningless since Neanderthals died out tens of thousands of years ago (and we still don't know with either Pure or Applied the full extent of their differences, ie. whether interbreeding occurred or was even possible though sex certainly was) and all that apparently exists on the planet are Homo Sapiens, why can't we see that just as there is little value at separating Asian, African, European, etc. (merely geographical, possibly cultural) as distinct Races, that similarly there is little to be gained by separating sexual preference?. It's all just sex. There is no need for legalized oppression based in reason let alone Science of any kind but bad.

 

There are already laws against rape and that is not in control of sex but rather of violence, coercion, because that's what it is. The sexual part is incidental. Similarly laws against incest and pedophilia are about consent and legal rights, not sex. In fact it is the very combining of these acts of violence, domination and disregard with sexuality that perpetuates problems. It affects the mindset of nearly everyone when "Get ****ed!" instead of being the equivalent of "Have a REALLY nice day!" implies getting humiliated or harmed against your will.

 

I'm confident some will call this post "off topic" but I contend it is an exploration of the context of how the thread question is posed and it's implications and applications that matters as well as a questioning of the very terminology "unnatural" and "homosexual". Each needs to ask him/her self, "Why should I care?" My answer ? I despise oppressors of any kind and wish to see Science and Reason applied in Politics, and it's application, Government. This thread is nothing if not interesting. It'd be great if it actually did some good.

[lemit]

I'm sorry.

 

I have decided that what I posted here was inappropriate and have withdrawn it. So . . . let's see if I get into trouble for referriing you to this video:

 

YouTube - The Seven Words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

 

Enjoy. Let me take the heat.

 

--lemit

[enorbet2]

Our attitudes and laws concerning sex are not enlightened and probably never will be. Our attitudes about language aren't much better.

 

Sorry, lemit, but I view that as lazy, cowardly complacency with Status Quo if you're willing to just let that go unchallenged, let alone support it. Why even bother to post ideas in a forum if it's impossible to hope for dialogue, to influence and be influenced. to make things any better, to urge ourselves and others to nobility of purpose?

[lemit]

Sorry, lemit, but I view that as lazy, cowardly complacency with Status Quo if you're willing to just let that go unchallenged, let alone support it. Why even bother to post ideas in a forum if it's impossible to hope for dialogue, to influence and be influenced. to make things any better, to urge ourselves and others to nobility of purpose?

 

enorbet2,

 

Thank you.

 

I think I wanted to emphasize that, like Sisyphus, we are stuck in an eternal struggle. I'm surprised that I've adopted the stance of an old leftist, an old advocate, an old fighter, but I suppose that's who I've become.

 

But even if I'm an old fighter, I am still a fighter. I still belong to a bunch of organizations promoting civil rights and would be out in the streets if my legs could hold me up. I'm also in a bunch of groups fighting right-wing control of the press.

 

And I do this stuff on Hypography, sometimes for the purpose of inflaming people, of trying to pass a torch to someone else who might be able to take to the streets. You seem to be the right sort of person for that. If so, please understand that I wish you all the luck in the world.

 

Again, thank you.

 

--lemit

[Michaelangelica]

[Larv]

If only left-handedness could be equated with homosexuality.

[Boerseun]

If only left-handedness could be equated with homosexuality.

The only person here believing it can't, seems to be you.

[Larv]

The only person here believing it can't, seems to be you.

Well, speaking only scientifically, how do you equate left-handedness with homosexuality? How would you equate left-handedness with any kind of sexuality? They don't seem very equatable to me.

 

Added by edit:

 

I know there are good people who want to believe that the cartoon depicts the roots of bigotry, or something like that. But hold on. I would be disappointed if a good scientific forum adheres to the constraining principles of dogma. And that dogma may be operative here in constraining the fresh waters of free thought. Not a good for a scientific forum to do.

 

I am opposed to all forms discrimination against homosexuality, heterosexual, bisexuality, and transexuality. I am equally opposed to all forms of dogma that are in the business of assigning bigotry to philosophers who are in the business of asking hard questions.

[Zythryn]

I am equally opposed to all forms of dogma that are in the business of assigning bigotry to philosophers who are in the business of asking hard questions.

 

Bigotry is not assigned to anyone based on their questions, it is assigned to people based on their answers.

[REASON]

Well, speaking only scientifically, how do you equate left-handedness with homosexuality? How would you equate left-handedness with any kind of sexuality? They don't seem very equatable to me.

 

Well, you might be surprised then to find out that the two are similar in more ways than you may have realized.

 

Scientifically speaking: (See Wiki under Handedness, Sexual Orientation, Homosexuality, and Handedness and Sexuality)

 

• Each represent a similar percentage of the overall population - approximately 10%.
  
• Each is primarily an inherited trait, although both show instances of learned behavior.
  
• Each may be linked to prenatal hormonal exposure.
  
• Each has been stigmatized and repressed in society throughout history.
  

 

According to Wiki regarding the "choice" of sexual orientation, Dr. Angela Pattatucci, a clinical biologist, said "'Lifestyle' is idiotic when applied to sexual orientation – would you refer to lefthandedness as an 'alternative lifestyle"?

 

So the two have been compared in the scientific community in the past.

 

To me, the point of the cartoon is not so much to compare handedness and homosexuality, but to demonstrate how one's biases influence their perception of the social stigmas of biological conditions. Most people will think the discussion is about the social stigma of homosexuality until it is revealed that the stigma in this case is directied at left-handedness. That's the twist. It doesn't occur to most people that left-handedness is, and has been, stigmatized in society.

[Larv]

Bigotry is not assigned to anyone based on their questions, it is assigned to people based on their answers.

Please explain. Your statement suggests, to me at least, that I better have the right answers when it comes down to questions of homosexuality, or otherwise I'm a bigot. And, after all, isn't that what the cartoon implied: left-handedness = homosexuality, and therefore no one should question the implied equality, even if it is bogus?

[Zythryn]

Please explain. Your statement suggests, to me at least, that I better have the right answers when it comes down to questions of homosexuality, or otherwise I'm a bigot. And, after all, isn't that what the cartoon implied: left-handedness = homosexuality, and therefore no one should question the implied equality, even if it is bogus?

 

Not at all. I am sorry if you drew that conclusion as that was not what I was trying to get across.

Read the comic again. Which character comes across as the bigot, and which one is giving the answers?

Also, as mentioned above, the message of the comic is not that left-handedness=homosexuality.

It was that bigotry against left-handedness is no better than bigotry with any other 'target'.

Now, if your 'answers' to questions about homosexuality (or race, or left-handedness, or etc) are intolerant then they MAY be bigotted. Again, I see no difference in a bigot about homosexuality than a bigot about left-handedness. Both are silly and ignorant positions.

Let me put it another way, as I don't want to imply this is any sort of 'test'.

IF a person is bigoted, their answers will reflect this. Their answers do not cause them to be bigoted. The term 'bigot' is a label used to define people who give certain answers. Just as Conservative, Liberal, Profesional, and other descriptions are made based on what people say and do.