From: fogarty@sir-c.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Fogarty)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: JPL, Space Imaging Radar Software Group
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 01:30:59 GMT


In article <1992Dec31.000514.21542@anasazi.com>, 
briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
|>
|>In 1981, there was published a study by 3 psychologists.  The interviewed
|>approximately 1500 homosexuals (male), 1000 lesbians.  The purpose of there
|>interviewing was to determine, what if any, evironmental circumstance
|>caused homosexuality in either gender.  They looked at the obvious one,
|>dominate mother, weak father, homosexual encounter at an early age, etc.
|>What they found was that none of the popular theories of environmental
|>causes to homosexuality had any statistical validity.  A domineering mother
|>was the most common factor they found, but only in 17% of the interviewee.
|>
|>Their conclusion, was that the likilihood of an environmental cause was
|>now very small, and biological causes should be investigated.  The
|>homosexual community was outraged.  They decried the study as "homophobic",

Please remember that there is no such thing as the homosexual community.
Gays and lesbians do not speak with a single voice.  Gays and lesbians have
many points off view.  Heck, some of them are even Republicans.  Some people
may have been offended by this study, others, including myself (at age 22), 
found it a relief.  I could show it to my mom and say "See, its not your fault."
(no, she was not a domineering mother, just the opposite)

|>biased, and prejudicial.  At the time, the battle cry was that it was a
|>lifestyle choice and if it were to be found to be biological, employers may
|>require a test for employment possibly discriminate, doctors would develop 
|>"cures", etc.

It is certainly understandable how some people could fear tests and "treatment",
but I dont think that the majority of homosexuals thought this way.  And I
dont remember any such battle cry.

|>
|>Now, over 10 years later, more and more evidence is appearing to support
|>the biological factor, and the battle cry has changed.  Not completely,
|>many activists continue to promote it as a lifestyle choice.  But now,
|>instead of the fear of discrimination in the work-place, homosexuality
|>testing, "cures", etc, the feeling is leaning towards protected minority
|>status, anti-discrimination laws, perhaps even affirmative action.  And it

Do you have any evidence of a gay organization promoting affirmative action ?

|>seems that many activists will take which ever side is convenient,
|>lifestyle or biological, depending on the issue of the moment.
|>
|>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
|>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.  

How about that its not a 0,1 type of thing, but instead a spectrum.  People
are born with a sexual orientation.  This orientation can not be changed.  It
is a biological orientation.  When a person is exposed to certain stimulus,
such as visual images, etc., the body reacts.  Hormones are released into
the body.

Some people are born with a completely heterosexual orientation (call it
a Kinsey-0), some people are born with a completely homosexual orientation
(a Kinsey-6).  Everyone else is born with an orientation somewhere inbetween
(Kinsey-1 through 5).  Kinsey-0s biologically react to members of the opposite
sex.  Kinsey-6s only react to members of the same sex.  Kinsey-1 to 5 react
to varying degrees to members of both sexes.  K-0 can only be straight,
K-6 can only be gay, and K-1 to 5 can choose to be gay, straight, or bi.

So to argue one side
|>or the other is just an exercise in futility, as there is no right or wrong
|>answer.

The right answer is that all people deserve equal protection under the law.

--
Tim Fogarty
Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
FOGARTY@SIR-C.JPL.NASA.GOV
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality