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.