From: briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 23:15:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.183701.25574@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Dec31.000514.21542@anasazi.com> briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>
>
>>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
>>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.
>
>This is idiotic.  

Yeah, it's idiotic to state that I don't have a position between 'nature vs
nurture', because there is no conclusive scientific evidence to either side.
You, I'm sure would rather just jump in with a conclusion based on what?
Blue sky thoughts?

>The argument in scientific circles is not between
>biology and "lifestyle choice", it is between biology and
>early childhood experience.  

I think to limit the discussion to childhood experience would be a
disservice to the argument, as there is plenty of ancedotal evidence of
adult experiences influencing sexual preference.

>The study you quoted suggested
>that early childhood experience is not very important, and other
>studies have suggested that biology probably plays some sort of
>role.  

The study I quoted stated of the prevailing nuture theories as
determinants, none had any statistical significance, therefore, further
study into biological determinants is urged.  To take an absolute of "early
childhood experience is not very important" out of that is such a stretch of 
thought as to think you can bungy jump with a rubber band from the morning 
paper.  It is not justified.

>If you have a study claiming that "lifestyle choice" is the
>reason some people are exclusively attracted to the same sex whereas
>others are exclusively attracted to the opposite one, please cite it.
>Otherwise, I shall have to conclude you are talking nonsense.

I conclude you think nonsense, because you cannot produce any evidence that
conclusively or overwhelmingly proves homosexuality is biological.  The
only thing anybody has are INDICATIONS.  Scientific studies and
oberservations that produces arrows of evidence that are pointing towards 
biology as the dominate factor in sexual preference.  The only factual 
evidence I have heard of is a British doctor who claims to have isolated a 
gene that determines sexual prefence, and by inference, it is the cause of the
homosexuality.

So while it may suit your agenda to push a purely biological determinant, I
will remain squarely on the fence until all the facts are in.

>>So to argue one side or the other is just an exercise in futility, as
>>there is no right or wrong answer.
>
>The whole point of arguing something scientific is to evaluate the
>evidence on both sides and eventually come to a conclusion.  

But when the evidence is sparse, ancedotal, subjective, rushing off to the
first obvious conclusion is ill-advised.

>Of
>course, the opinions of outsiders to a particular field is likely to
>have little effect on this process, so you might want to call it
>"irrelevant".  But I don't see why you would want to deride two
>non-astronomers arguing in the 17th century over Galileo's "Two
>Systems", and certainly don't see why you would insist that there is
>no right or wrong answer about heliocentrism, so people should just
>shut up.

Because when the two arguers simply deride one another, and are not focused
on the evidence, a time-out so that both can re-examine all available
information as the strength of that information.

Instead, when both sides seek to sway observers to one side or another
simply by the force of argument, when the evidence leaves the scales
squarely in the middle, it is an exercise in futility.  Until conclusive
evidence, or an deniable preponderance of circumstantial evidence is
presented, the argument can not be concluded into right or wrong.

While this suffices in the general case, in this specific case, I see
nothing in my statements that is "derisive" of either side.  Only an
acknowledgement that both sides have sufficient circumstantial evidence to 
justify their position.   And mores facts should be produced and less
verbage.

As yet, the only other possibly substantial scientific evidence I have
heard any one else mention is something about Kinsey-0 to Kinsey-6 scale of
preference.  However, no verifiable reference has been mentioned by either
side, just "I know someone that...., I remember something.... Think of it
as...", myself included.  

If we ever expect to get anywhere in the discussion, I urge either side to
produce FACTS.

That you find this objectional, I don't really give a sh*t.  (Smile when
ya' say that, pardner. 8-)

>
>
>-- 
>     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
>               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657