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