Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (Gordon A. Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality?
Message-ID: <677@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 16:28:36 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.677
Posted: Wed Dec  5 16:28:36 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 01:47:50 EST
References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> <1184@bbncca.ARPA> <663@amdahl.UUCP> <1187@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 78

> 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.

If homosexual behavior were hereditary (it isn't) you might have
something to worry about.  The fact that the population of
(exclusive) homosexuals remains fairly constant (~10%, say), combined
with apparently environmental rather than hereditary contributing
factors, suggests that the abortion of "potentially homosexual" fetuses
will have a negligible effect on the total population of homosexuals.
(See also last paragraph).

Even more important is the definition of "homosexual" here.  In the
late 50's Kinsey said "homosexual" should be used to describe BEHAVIOR,
not people.  He also pointed out that sexual orientation is a continuum
rather than a clear division of "straight/gay/bisexual".  To eradicate
"potential homosexual behavior" in males, then, would mean eradication
of approx 1/3 to 1/2 of all males.

> 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.

It is a reasonable scientific endevor to question and investigate why
some people become sexually oriented to the same sex.  First, because
homosexuals are the exception, not the rule.  Second, because the need
for heterosexual behavior is fairly obvious -- ensuring reproduction.
I think you are expressing homophobia-phobia towards anything that
attempts to investigate homosexual behavior.

> >>=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.

The research into the causes/origins of homosexual behavior does not
assume that is something to be cured.  It is an attempt at
understanding HUMAN behavior, in all its various forms.

> >=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.

I do not dictate to women what kinds of babies they should bear.  If
I were the father, I would certainly influence the choice, but I still
realize the choice is not mine.

I doubt that homosexuals can be eradicated any more than
females.  Clearly females are necessary for reproduction, but I also
believe (unfoundedly) that homosexuality exists for some natural reason,
(will you agree with that?)
and that whatever the imbalance -- male/female, homo/hetero --
Nature will restore that balance in time.

I think we are in fundamental agreement, Steve, but I have more confidence
in societal choice and natural controls.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!gam

37 22'50" N / 122 59'12" W	[ This is just me talking. ]