Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.motss,net.religion Subject: Re: Gay Rights Message-ID: <152@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Tue, 25-Sep-84 10:24:48 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.152 Posted: Tue Sep 25 10:24:48 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Sep-84 04:55:58 EDT References: <135@cybvax0.UUCP> <86@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 42 Wingate writes: > I have three problems with this argument. (BTW, I have reasonable faith in > the truth of evolution.) First of all, I have serious doubts about the > right of sociobiologists to make claims about behavior as complex as > homosexuality. The so-called science is simply to poorly developed; most > of the statements made on its behalf are essentially religion. > > Be that as it may, I do admit that some behavioral disorders have chemical > and/or structural causes in the brain. Schitzophrenia, however, is not > sufficiently like homosexuality to enable me to use it in an analogy. > Schitzophrenia is essentially a breakdown of personality itself, and is > thus fundamentally different from homosexuality or hyperactivity. > > Besides, if homosexuality DOES have organic causes, shouldn't we be trying > to find a cure? (only 1/2 :-)) The first paragraph is a misunderstanding. I did not say that sociobiology has explained homosexuality. I'm sorry if I what I wrote could be construed that way. My purpose was to show that there could be naturalistic explanations for homosexuality, as well as theological ones, and to chide Brunson for being so careless (benefit of the doubt :-)) as to ignore that possibility. However, schizophrenia is not necessarily a "breakdown" of some "normal" condition. "Normal" is an abstraction with no real existence. Allow me to present an analogy. Many of us are familiar with behavioral game theory which shows that there can be an equilibrium between hawks, doves, bluffers and various other strategic behavioral classes. Is any one of those classes abnormal, a breakdown of another, inferior, or bad? No. The most you can say about any one would be that it is a minority. The same MAY be true of various degrees of schizophrenia. Anthropologists have studied schizophrenia in numerous cultures, and have found some societal niches in which schizophrenics perform quite well as people with much status (for example as shamans.) The scientific attitude towards schizophrenia should be descriptive, rather than prescriptive. It may not be right to inflict a cure on what could be an adaptive survival strategy, just as it may not be right to sterilize people who don't fit some other societally determined standards. The same is true of homosexuality. It is neither inherently bad, nor disadvantageous, nor a disease. Nor should "cures" be inflicted without the consent of the individual, either by laws or social pressure from bigots.