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!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!bbncca!sdyer From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality? Message-ID: <1189@bbncca.ARPA> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 11:15:55 EST Article-I.D.: bbncca.1189 Posted: Thu Dec 6 11:15:55 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 02:31:29 EST References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> <1184@bbncca.ARPA> <663@amdahl.UUCP> <1187@bbncca.ARPA> <677@amdahl.UUCP> Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 60 > 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. Gordon, a couple of points: you are knocking down an argument which was being assumed for the purposes of this thought experiment, so it isn't strictly relevant. That is, the reasoning goes this way: 1.) IF (big if) researchers found morphological differences between straight and gay people 2.) and IF they found the situation responsible for this difference (to name a few: genes, hormonal variance in utero, during childhood, whatever--it isn't important to the argument) 3.) wouldn't it be possible or even very likely that society would find a "cure" for the situation. You forget, too, that something can be biologically based without being hereditary. Perhaps the Kinsey continuum of 1 (entirely heterosexual) to 6 (entirely homosexual) is based on the level of certain hormones during pregnancy, and that the natural variation and fluxuation in all women "causes" the continuum. Now, stepping outside this discussion, I entirely agree with you, but that's not my point. > 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. > 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. I wasn't arguing against research. I wasn't arguing against this particular research. I think it's fascinating. Really. What I was asserting is that the results of any research can be misused. We all know this, just look at the bomb. In this particular situation, I was presenting a thought experiment of what MIGHT happen, given the history of our society and assuming that current attitudes about gay people don't change significantly, and assuming that a particularly reductive view of sexual preference gains evidence. The points I make now will have to be made soon IF (big if) science can ever point to "causes" for homosexual behavior. It is important to get people thinking EARLY about the consequences of technology and how it can be used or misused. -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbncca.ARPA