From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:38:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.170030.15194@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.215419.18243@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan5.181623.11348@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>>>>Incorrect, as well as irrelevant.
>
>>>>In your opinion.
>
>>>Wrong.  
>
>>	NO, right.  He's 100% on target.  You think he's wrong, he think's
>>	he's right.  What is your basis?  Some pathetic argument on animals.
>
>It's incorrect because all the scientific evidence points to homosexuality
>arising either from a genetic trait or from early-childhood experiences.  

	Sigh.  The tired old genetics argument.

	Let me propose a reason why gays should be hoping that it is *NOT*
	genetic:  If it's genetic, it can be detected prenatally.  

	You know what happens to fetuses that have unwanted genetic 
	traits, don't you?
]
	Although, I suppose then they'll make it illegal to abort for
	sexulity selection (didn't they already try to make it illegal
	for male/female sex selection and fail?).  Abortion is a right
	except when it might abort a future gay person.

	No, I'm hoping quite a bit that it's not genetic but that it IS
	bilogical.  Exposure of the fetus to some hormones or drugs can
	have a profound and lifelong effect on behavior.  This way, 
	you could pin it on the mother (or the father, less likely).  



>As
>I understand it, the weight of evidence seems to be tilting towards genetics,


	The weight of *what* evidence?  The thalamus study that didn't
	even bother to check if the men it was assuming were gay were
	indeed gay (not to mention the fact that as a control they were using
	the brains of men who died of natural causes, while the "gay male"
	brains were solely from people who died of AIDS).  The others 
	(especially the lesbian one) were even worse.

	Political science at it's height.  No thanks.


>though it may not be a settled issue.  Either way, it's not a choice.  


	If it's behavioral, it--like many behavioral problems--can be 
	cured.  Some advertisements and ex-gay-men groups claim that 
	cures work (though most are heavily xtian).  

	Choice is irrelavent.  

	(Besides, anyone arguing that it is a choice at any concious level
	is rooty.  I don't like sports, but I didn't "choose" not to like them)


>The
>only choice is, do gays continue to torture themselves by pretending not to
>be gay, or do they come out of the closet and live the way they are meant to
>live?


	Or, if it's behavioral, do they stand up to their animalistic
	desires and get a modicum of self control?  The "natural" reaction
	to frustration or irritation is a violent one, yet most adults
	learn to control this (parents, especially).  There are *countless*
	examples of people getting a grip and denying desires or 
	controlling them.  


>It's irrelevant, because it really doesn't matter whether or not gays choose
>to be gay.  It's entirely an individual's decision, and any attempt to judge
>a person for choosing a lifestyle that doesn't infringe on the rights of
>others is irrational, bigoted, and just plain small-minded.  


	Not necessarily.  You see, if people *truly* believe that gays
	are sick, and those people are spiritual, they feel it is their
	job to help the sick.  Gays, in their minds, are in denial.  If
	you have to look at what they're doing objectively--trying
	to help someone who doesn't accept that they have a problem 
	(i.e. an alcoholic who denies that it's a problem)--it's 
	almost admirable.  


>I'll forgive
>some people, maybe, for genuinely not having the mental capacity to distinguish
>between reasoning and prejudice, but I won't condone it.


	They are reasoning quite well.  You do not agree with their
	beliefs--and neither, for that matter, do I.  My strongest 
	value is privacy--if the drunk wants to drink himself to
	death, fine.  Suicidal teen needs help and some caring words?
	Tough.  

	I'm only postingthis because I see a lot of people pretending
	to be open minded, but basing their narrow-minded views
	on false beliefs and faulty, inconsistent logic.

	And criticizing others for doing the same.



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.