Subject:
|
Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:38:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
283 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Kirby Warden writes:
> > The answers, however, do not; sometimes they seem rather desperate.
>
> I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty
> evenhanded treatment to me.
Gotta agree with Chris - the desperation seems a bit more on the other side.
>
> > Also, futher down, he states that he will not argue hypothetical questions,
> > yet clings to gay by birth, an unproven theory.
>
> You and this hound person (or is that you?) repeat the fact that the gay gene
> is an uproven theory as if it reduces the credibility of the idea. It does
> not. All theories are unproven. The question is whether or not there is
> support for the notion. And I'm not willing to speculate because I haven't
> read whatever studies exist.
A propensity for "gayness" may be in someone's gene, it may not. I don't
discount it, but I don't accept it out of hand, either. I've been more of
the opinion that it is something that is formed very early in a person's
development, and not a particularly conscious thing at that. But I'm
prepared to modify that opinion. I'm also leery of those who take one side
or another on "the gay gene" for political reasons - dogmatic views get in
the way of science.
>
> I have a close friend who is a transsexual. She was raised as a boy but never
> felt right about it. When she had sexual fantasies (even during sex as a man)
> she imagined herself as a woman. She spent a lot of time as a deviant and then
> decided that she was actually a woman. She's had the operations and lives the
> life of a woman. She is marrying another friend of mine this summer. I am
> familiar with some transsexual research because of this association and they
> are pretty clearly finding through postmortem analysis of the brain, that
> transsexuals have brain structures that resemble the sex that they identified
> with, not the sex that they were raised with, or that their sex genes suggest.
I was called over by a former boss of mine and introduced to a woman named
Jessica. She said it was good to see me again. Again? Long pause while I
assessed her (6'3", huge feet and hands, big adam's apple)...and I
absolutely blurted out, "Richard!?! How are you doing?"
I understand gays a lot more than transsexuals. No matter how much you
change your physical appearance, your genes still identify you as what you
were. In the case of Richard/Jessica, he/she is still a good person that I
like.
>
> It came up in coversation only, I have no cites, that similar studies showed
> differences in the brains of homosexual men. If that is so, then what makes it
> so hard to buy into "gay by birth?" It needn't even _be_ a genetic thing for
> it to still be physiological.
>
> But for all that, aside from pure science curiosity, who cares if it's a choice
> or not? It doesn't affect my one bit where you prefer put your dick.
A bit earthy for Lugnet, but I agree.
>
> > For those who may be quick to judge, I am not anti-gay.
> >
> > I believe people choose their sexual orientation.
>
> Based on what? Could you choose to be gay?
>
> Not me -- I've tried. I decided at one point that my sexual aversion to men
> was a result of silly societal conditioning and started trying to convince
> myself that I was attracted to men. But I couldn't do it. It just didn't
> work.
Yup, I'm just not interested in men. But at the same time, if I was raised
in ancient Greece, would I hold the same opinion? Dunno.
>
> > Several gay participants of the debate adamantly refused to accept that I
> > could be anything but anti-gay.
>
> Well, your unwillingness to consider one theory does seem a bit odd.
"Anti-gay" could come in a different number of packages. It seems to me
that you (Kirby) have some kind of agenda that is other that accepting of
people being gay. At least that is the impression I get.
> > Is the gay community really so against the idea of choosing ones sexual
> > orientation?
Here would be an example of what I just mentioned above.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ • --
> >
> > (I just know this is going to set off a whole new line of arguments, but...)
> > Yes, most of us are, primarily because that concept is used by religious
> > ultra-conservatives to:
> > 1) Deride the way that we are
> > 2) Label us as "sinners"
> > 3) Try to pass legislation to further limit our rights (relative to those of
> > straight people)
> > 4) Try to prevent the passing of legislation that would allow us rights
> > equal to those of straight people
>
> That's an understandable stance given their persecution, but a dumb reason to
> reject a theory.
As I said, accepting or rejecting a scientific theory based on religion or
politics is a waste.
> > Gay at birth simply goes against nature, a species cannot thrive without
> > procreation of opposite sexes.
>
> Not at all. In rats, hormonal changes in utero change the fecundity of the
> adults born into overcrowded situations. There is all kind of biological
> impetus to produce homosexuality as population density increases. I am wildly
> hypothesizing here, but it _could_ be. And if I can point to even _one_ (which
> I just did) plausible reason for the "natural" occurance of homosexuality then
> this whole 'homos are going against nature' train is derailed...as it should
> be.
Being gay doesn't necessarily stop procreation, so it is not necessarily
self-defeating to a species.
>
> > What if the gay gene is someday found? What if you have yourself tested for
> > it and the results are negative. Would you change your lifestyle to support
> > "who you are" or would you accept the label of "deviant" and continue to
> > live gay?
>
> Of course he would continue to live gay as long as that's what felt right.
> Such a set of findings would only indicate that it is more complicated than a
> strinctly simple genetic relationship. Most things that are demonstrably
> genetic involve several genes, not just one. And I'm sure that
> psychological issues aren't only genetic.
>
> The more we know about our genetic predispositions, the more we can understand
> our urges and decide whether or not following them is the best choice. Knowing
> what they are and where they come from _does not_ mean that we are somehow
> supposed to obey them. That way leads to darkness.
Well noted!
>
> > ... If the gay gene is found and people are tested and filed at
> > birth, would that be ok with the gay community?
>
> Of course not. That wouldn't be "ok" with any good person, much less those who
> would be victimized by it.
I have to agree, but can't make my point about who would have loved to have
access to labels like that (if I mention his name, I lose the argument). :-)
>
> > Is it "anti-gay" to disbelieve the gay-at-birth theory?
>
> No. It is anti-intellectual. It is hiding in the crevaces of your irrational
> fears instead of shining a light and exploring them to find that there are no
> bogeymen. When we have evidence to either support or refute the notion, then
> make a decision. Until then, you can't.
>
> > It is just a theory until proven otherwise.
>
> Just like gravity!
>
> Chris
Again, well noted.
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: gay by birth vs. gay by choice
|
| (...) website. 'Cause we just don't have enough trouble of our own? ;-) (...) How can a question be logical or not? (...) I think you are looking through a tinted lense. It seems like a pretty evenhanded treatment to me. (...) You and this hound (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
