biology equaling morality
There are two ways of looking at biology in defense of homosexuality, innate trait of animalia and innate trait of homo sapiens.
I dismiss the Animalia Theory out of hand. Animals can teach us about ourselves and the study of animal life has benefited mankind greatly.* In no way, however, should animal behaviors be grafted onto mankind. Tigers kill their young; that doesn’t justify any human behaviors.
The Innate Trait Theory carries a little more credibility. Many people believe that if it can be proven that homosexuality is genetically-based to some extent that homosexuals must be accepted as normal humans. Red hair, ambidextrousness, and homosexuality would each be genetic minorities but human nonetheless.
That only works to a point, however. Man is master of his own destiny. Proving that someone has a propensity to steal does not justify theft. Yes, there will probably be proof that theft is genetically motivated. Everything gets proven eventually once researchers with the right agenda come along.
Society will never accept that anti-social behavior is excusable because of genetics. So what is the true purpose of such findings? To screen and pre-jail the kleptomaniacs? Or to screen a fetus for undesirable traits and eliminate the unborn riffraff? Which is more scary?
The one, true path to acceptance is via the hearts of the members of society at large. We’re everywhere and maybe the straight folks should realize we don’t threaten society. We’ll have to tell them, of course. One by one. One at a time. “We’ve known each other for a long time and I believe I am a good man. You should know I’m gay. I always have been and it hurts when you belittle gays like that.”
Bold advice coming from a closet-case like myself, I know. So go ahead, you first.
*Scientists in England proved that ducks of the same species have regionalized accents. Hooray for scientists.
+++
A few weeks ago I read an opinion piece in a major, weekly news magazine (probably Time or Newsweek) in which the homosexual columnist opined, “A hormone patch that prevented homosexuality in fetuses might not be a bad idea. It means that homosexual children would be raised by mothers that, at the very least, didn’t seek to prevent their existence.”
If anyone knows where that article is, please, let me know. Thank you!
+++
good tune
http://djpretzel.web.aplus.net/songs/Sonic_%26_Knuckles_Lover_Reef_OC_ReMix.mp3
About Me
- playasinmar
- Politically minded and casually dressed, I weathered the storms of adolescent stupidity mostly unscathed. I now seek a better understanding of who and why I am.
5 comments:
The nature/nurture debate has always struck me as odd, for similar reasons. Besides the irrelevance of the biological determination of an action to the morality of that action, the line between nature and nurture is vague and arbitrary and the interplay of causes is often overlooked.
So what is the true purpose of such findings?
To my mind:
Politics: It may be irrational but both sides know, and it is documented that humans leaning towards biological causes are less homophobic and more likely to advocate live and let live than those believing in nurture causes. It’s a bias towards nature we seem to come with and it’s often wrong, but it’s there and both sides use it.
Personal Guilt: Parents of gays and gays often feel guilty for some imagined way they inadvertently caused the orientation, and such research helps clear that up.
Pure Science: Duck linguistics aside :-), the satiation of curiosity regarding how and why we come to be as we are is just plain good stuff and can bring surprising practical benefits. But, you’re right, it can lead to some ugly technologies too, though I don’t think that’s a majority aim here (too optimistic?).
The one, true path to acceptance is via the hearts of the members of society at large.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. A thousand debates and research articles aren’t worth as must as a handshake with your neighbor.
Anyway, interesting post. Thanks.
Interesting thoughts. I read the article you mentioned too (about how 8% of rams end up having sex exclusively with other rams).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html
I think the link got cut off. If you can't find it, just look up the article titled "Yep, They're Gay"
Thank you GBYUS! I'll add it to Mt. Articles.
And scot, have you ever wondered if some researchers just are trying to understand their own existence? Like an orphen growing up to work for the state adoption agency.
Sure. Trouble is, of course, people do gravitate to research that interests them (for personal reasons or for $ :-)), and that interest can lead to bias. Hopefully in their attempt to understand themselves they don't fool themselves but I'm sure it happens.
In this field, I’ve found some researchers who are openly gay, and they should be watched carefully and they know it. I’ve also found those who are openly not gay but just found themselves drift into the area because it coincidentally intersected with their true interest, such as male/female brain differences. But for most of those names on the papers, the motive can’t be known (most are probably just grad students who didn’t know what they were getting into with their advisor :-)).
Post a Comment