Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!ihuxm!jtc78 From: jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality? (some ?? to S. Dyer) Message-ID: <1166@ihuxm.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Dec-84 22:27:02 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxm.1166 Posted: Tue Dec 4 22:27:02 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 02:56:36 EST References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> <1184@bbncca.ARPA> <663@amdahl.UUCP>, <1187@bbncca.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 49 > 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. Well, hetero parents will, probably, always prefer a hetero baby; gay parents will ... there aren't too many of those. The reason is not necessarily the dreaded homophobia. The word "eradication" sounds repulsive, sure, but nobody in particular is getting eradicated. Lifestyles, habits, traditions, orientations, if you will, are continuously eradicated ih the course of history. If you want some tradition to continue, you should be able to show that it is a good one. Whatever is your definition of goodness, it must show. To rephrase it: what are the world's merits of having gay population? Why should gay (straight) tradition continue? Yes, it creates charming diversity, own subculture, but is that enough of a merit to make parents upset about having a child that can not fulfill their expectations? Again "homophobia" does not totally account for that attitude. Summary: you want gay tradition to be around forever, to be powerful. But you are not just as concerned with costs of keeping it around, as you are with possible disadvantages of doing away with it. There are usual parallels with ethnic groups (of questional legitimacy) I can understand the concern - you are a member of potentially threatened minority - but most of these are not applicable. Also: effect of changing male/female ratio are far more serious then any possible changes in the percentage of gays. Why? It affects more people more seriously. Mike Cherepov REPLIES to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher