Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality? Message-ID: <1187@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 10:38:06 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1187 Posted: Tue Dec 4 10:38:06 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Dec-84 01:15:34 EST References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> <1184@bbncca.ARPA> <663@amdahl.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 64 Gordon, I think you are being deliberately obtuse in order to post a quick response. In any event, you didn't understand my point at all, which wasn't an attack on abortion rights, nor a plea to avoid scientific investigation. One needn't have to question the rights of women to have abortions if one is to examine societal mores, their effects on individual decisions, and the subsequent cumulative effect of these decisions on society. The fact that one of my examples used an abortion was simply reflecting reality, since that would doubtlessly be one approach towards solving the "problem" of having a child who had a good chance of turning out gay. Since the gay topic seems to be a red flag of sorts, let's examine the situation that you use to buttress your replies: the ability for parents these days to choose the sex of their child. Some feminists are becoming concerned by this, because overall, boys are preferred to girls. Let's say that this choice became the norm, and with the result of all these cumulative decisions on the sex of a child, we begin to see a significant shift in the sex ratio of births in the U.S., and a resulting change in demographics. Is it not appropriate for those concerned to speak out about this, to ask people to examine the underlying reasons for their choices, to ask what this says about "male" and "female" in our society? Doesn't this present an enormous educational problem to those who disagree with this trend? Isn't it appropriate to discuss this BEFORE it becomes reality? I submit that the analogous situation with gay people is even more disturbing and more likely, and homophobia armed with biological means could easily lead towards the eradication of gay people, or more likely, to make a minority even smaller, to vitiate its power and presence in society, and to contribute towards the homogenization of society by removing those who are not like the majority. Your comment comparing finding the "marker" for homosexuality before or at birth with knowing the sex of the child makes sense only in a world without sexism and homophobia. My comments reflected the situation of someone born in a world which is fearful enough of homosexuality that it finds it necessary to measure it during pregnancy. >>=SDyer >> The issue here is not scientific knowledge or technology, but their use as >> tools to implement what society feels is "good", often to the detriment of >> individual variation and freedom. It is incumbent upon people to speak >> against such goals when they are voiced, to question their underlying >> assumptions, and to continue the goal of education, to help persuade people >> otherwise when they describe same-sex sexual orientation as a "problem" >> which needs to be cured. If it was worth saying once, it deserves repeating, especially on USENET. >=Gordon Moffett >The future of humanity is in the hands (wombs) of women, as it always >has been. Your arguments sound surprisingly like those of the "right >to life"-ers, as though homosexual fetuses (?) have a right to life >despite the mother's wishes. Sorry, gam, the future of humanity is in all our hands. Anyone and everyone has the right to question the direction society is moving in, and to attempt to persuade others to come around to their position. I don't weep for "homosexual fetuses", but I do question whether a world without gay people is a good world, or measurably better than what we have now. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA