Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) Newsgroups: net.motss Subject: Re: Biological basis for homosexuality? (some ?? to S. Dyer) Message-ID: <10205@watmath.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 15:59:38 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.10205 Posted: Fri Dec 7 15:59:38 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 8-Dec-84 03:48:33 EST References: <2159@randvax.UUCP> <1184@bbncca.ARPA> <663@amdahl.UUCP>, <1187@bbncca.ARPA> <1166@ihuxm.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 102 > > 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? I think the answer to that are pretty obvious: 1/ stop in growth of world population (overall) 2/ acceptance of different ways of loving people (and not mere replacement of one kind for the other either. There ARE some bisexuals around too!) > 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. I don't think that Steve is worried about the continuation of gay "tradition" but the impact on the gay population that the ease with which homosexuality could be prevented in utero would have. Another analogy can be drawn with these proposed devlopments and the development of other methods to determine abnorbalities in fetuses. The reason amniocentecis (sp?) is performed is not in order to cure potentially "damaged" fetuses in utero, but rather to give parents of such fetuses the opportunity to have an abortion. Now, of course, retardation, birth deffects, etc, will never be erradicated, but if it becomes a common practice to "cure" such problems by abortion, then society will probably be less compassionate towards people who refuse the "cure" and their offsprings. This issue is apparently causing great concern in groups for disabled people. While I am certainly not in favour of restricting women's right to abortion for any reason (and anybody who reads net.abortion can attest to this) I am worried about the impact of the widespread acceptance of abortion of deformed fetuses. Like many of the pro-lifers, I too am worried that people might abort problem fetuses just because there are no societal structures in place to support disabled people. And it is a vicious circle: it becomes easier to abort those fetuses rather than accept them into our society, and as there are less and less of them, the ones that are there are not as easily accepted or can even be blamed (or their parents can be) for existing in the first place, and thus refused assistance that they might have been given if they were a more visible minority. I think there is a parallel with this situation and the problem of "detecting" people's homosexuality in advance. If homosexuality is seen as undesirable, and can be detected earlier on, and people can "cure" it by aborting would-be homosexuals, and this becomes common-place, then existing homosexuals will certainly not be tolerated as well by society. > > 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, costs of keeping it around? huh? what are you talking about? > 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. That is all a matter of opinion! One possible side-effect of drastic changes in male/female ratios would be an increase in homosexuality so it is all related. ****** FLAME ON ****** How can you DARE say that the problems that heterosexual people might have in finding mates might be more "serious" than problems homosexuals might encounter because of discrimination! Seems to me that food & shelter are much more basic needs than sex and companionship. This kind of attitude really pisses me off!!!! I find it SOOOOO reminiscent of the usual crap that men used to feed women about how men's worries were so much more "serious" than women's worries, and how men's work was so much more "serious" than women's work... etc.. ad infinitum. And usually in this kind of situation, the truth was that those who were concerned about "seriousness" could afford to do so because they had free time on their hands unlike those who were spending all their lives working at less "serious" tasks such as making sure that their families did not starve. Your attitude is so patronising, it is disgusting! Just because a concern is not yours, then immediately it is less serious, and just because a concern is shared by a majority of people, then it happens to be more serious then other concerns minorities might have. Yes, I bet there are more people in the world who are worried about sex than there are who are starving (or are things worse than I think they are?). I guess that makes the problems of the starving people less "serious" too by your definition. ***** FLAME OFF ******* > Mike Cherepov > REPLIES to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher Sophie Quigley ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley