Log in

No account? Create an account
"In the city of my birth, I had a dream..."
*sharpens hatchet* What, exactly, are you trying to prove? 
27th-Jun-2006 10:34 am
Every time I see another article trying (and failing) to convince me that homosexuality is biologically determined and therefore not a choice, I want to take an axe to someone's stupidity. Yes, yes, I agree that sexuality has a biological component, but so do all complex behaviors...not to mention some severe psychological disorders--like schizophrenia. Now, I'm going to assume that you're not going to argue that schizophrenics should be left untreated and "in peace" with their paranoia, hallucinations, and madness because schizophrenia is biologically determined and therefore not a choice (and remember that most schizophrenics are not a threat to others)...so what does a biological basis for homosexuality prove again?

Look. Whether or not homosexuality is a choice is immaterial. Proving irrefutably that it has a biological basis won't stop some raging homophobe with too much power and/or money from trying to breed or otherwise bioengineer you out of existence or to abridge your rights. Therefore, stop worrying about finding the biological basis for homosexuality and start worrying about the protection of universal human rights and freedoms. Think bigger. Imagine a world that tolerates and respects the widest-possible spectrum of human behavioral variation and establish a set of universal principles to honor and protect that variation, which may then be applied to an infinite number of situations. So that when you're denied the health, tax, and social benefits of marriage because your partner is of the same sex, we know that it's just as wrong as being denied employment as an airline attendant on the basis of your dreadlocks. Sure, you could cut the hair or shack up with the opposite sex, even if doing either makes you desperately unhappy--BUT WHY SHOULD YOU HAVE TO IN THE FIRST PLACE?
27th-Jun-2006 03:06 pm (UTC)
Ah, thank you. That really needed to be said.
27th-Jun-2006 03:14 pm (UTC)
What I don't get is why it needs to be said in the first place! T_T Are people really so myopic?
27th-Jun-2006 03:20 pm (UTC)
I don't think so. But saying that homosexuality is natural and biological is likely better than it being a disease.
27th-Jun-2006 03:22 pm (UTC)
*points to post above* Schizophrenia is "natural and biological," too--but it's still a mental disorder. :P
27th-Jun-2006 03:40 pm (UTC)
When this was being reported on CNN, the way the reporter stated it was that having an older brother was more likely to make one become gay >_<

The problem I have with this study, without looking at the complete thing, is that given the right data I could probably “prove” a correlation between your parents having a blue car and you being gay, or any other such thing.. There just seems to be a big leap between what the results are, and what the ultimate claim in the article is...
27th-Jun-2006 04:04 pm (UTC)
This is a hot button issue and I salute you for having the fearlessness to state your opinion so honestly. Although I agree with you about homosexuality not necessarily having a biological basis (as well as the fact that it's completely irrelevant to the argument in favour of their civil rights), I don't know that I would use the word "choice," to describe it either. I mean, countless very conflicted and/or persecuted LGBT individuals the world over would definitely tell you otherwise.

But I do believe that gays are made, not born, meaning that I lean toward the nurture (over nature) theory. That, in combination with an individual having an underlying component in their personality such that their response to whatever environmental factors were at work would be responsible for taking them further down that particular path.

And, at the risk of being completely vilified, despite the fact that scientists are forever parading out examples of homosexual behaviour in animals, I do not think homosexuality is natural. That's not to say I disapprove of it by any stretch of the imagination. I think flying in airplanes is not natural, wearing high heeled shoes is not natural. Cell phones, hand lotion, calculators, air conditioning and styrofoam coffee cups - all unnatural. But I have no problem with any of them (well, maybe the cups).

I agree that these ludicrous arguments distract from the simple point that all people should be entitled to their civil rights and shouldn't have someone else's archaic religious beliefs federally imposed on.
27th-Jun-2006 04:37 pm (UTC)
Even if homosexuality is a product of both biological and non-biological factors, it doesn't have to be a conscious choice. I've met a lot of really tall people who stand with a perpetual slouch--and I'm sure that's not because they thought to themselves at some point, "I'm going to curl my back just THIS WAY so that people will find me less threatening." It just kind of happened over time due to environmental pressures.

But all of this is such a total waste of time! Choice vs. non-choice isn't going to win gays and lesbians or anyone else the rights, respect, and freedom they crave. What's needed is some serious reevaluation of how we understand socially-enforced conformity and human freedom.
27th-Jun-2006 05:11 pm (UTC)
hm. i'm interested: as there is overwhelming evidence that homosexuality exists in all species, what are your thoughts on it being unnatural?
27th-Jun-2006 05:22 pm (UTC)
Infanticide exists in many animal species, too--is killing your baby right after you give birth to it okay, therefore?

But, in any case, the nature vs. nurture debate is a specious one promulgated by the non-scientific community. The truth of matters is that biology and environment interact on every level.
27th-Jun-2006 05:26 pm (UTC)
I don't think we should go as far as to compare homosexuality to infanticide! Gracious.
27th-Jun-2006 05:42 pm (UTC)
Infanticide exists in many animal species, too--is killing your baby right after you give birth to it okay, therefore?

people now have technology to find out most problems their unborn child will have while they're in the first and early-second trimester. many people choose to abort because of birth defects. so that does happen--just before they are born.

but for rational argument, i agree that it's not wise to compare this with abortion. people need to be careful when they draw comparisons, and the other side that would draw that comparison is of the type that would be dismissed as nuts.
27th-Jun-2006 05:24 pm (UTC)
I knew this was going to get me into trouble! People just don't like the word "unnatural," or the phrase, "not natural." I guess it seems to have negative connotations. Although the computer keyboard is made of plastic, which isn't natural, and I'm not suggesting I hate my keyboard or anything. It certainly wouldn't work as well if it was made of breathable cotton.

I believe, in nature, sex was designed for procreation (this is not a religious diatribe; I'm an atheist). So anything like oral sex, rimming, anal sex, fingering, masturbation, coprophilia, water sports, talking dirty, dressing up in diapers, garter belts or kinky boots, and all that other good stuff, is not particularly natural. Perhaps it's fun and can certainly enhance one's enjoyment of recreational sex but, in nature, sex wasn't designed as recreation it is for procreation alone. So, homosexual sex is not natural. Of course, this is only my opinion and I'm not a scientist but it seems about right. Anyway, apologies if my opinion bugs you.

27th-Jun-2006 05:36 pm (UTC)
you're not in trouble, i'm really just curious! see, i see what you mean about plastic and high heels and the like, but i don't see homosexuality as being in the same category. i see it as literally something that exists in nature. plastic doesn't exist in nature. i don't think the two are comparable.

i'll have to email my friend and find out the name of the monkeys she told me about so i can find the website, but they do all of that: oral, anal, orgy, homosexual sex. all animals masturbate (actually, most human babies masturbate.) it lowers stress levels, and it teaches sexual behavior, which aide procreation. all species have homosexuals (which i believe is part of what you're talking about, because if all species had sex for procreation, and could, then the overpopulation would be out of control--which is part of why i think homosexuality is natural.)

your opinion doesn't bug me, i'm just trying to understand it is all. i'm really interested in sexual behavior, and i think a lot of people think things are "unnatural" that really aren't.
27th-Jun-2006 11:05 pm (UTC)
Almost everything that is worthwhile in life is not natural. Living in a cave and eating raw meat and hunting animals with sharpened sticks is natural.
28th-Jun-2006 01:06 am (UTC)
"I do not think homosexuality is natural."

Although I certainly don't believe that some babies are born inherently more likely to end up gay than any other babies (except within the context of specific cultural environments that interact with the genes), I do think it's awfully natural for a species equipped with sexual organs that are capable of receiving sexual pleasure from friction provided by members of any gender to invent the idea of having sex with members of both sexes. What I think is really very much more extremely unnatural is for such a species to invent the idea of not having sex with members of one of those genders, just because they can't have babies with one of those genders.
This page was loaded May 21st 2018, 11:00 am GMT.