From: seb@draper.com (Steve Bacher)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Geneticism
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:11:59 GMT
Organization: Draper Laboratory

Rodney Adams apologizes for a rushed posting and use of the word "defect"
instead of what he postulates as the "more appropriate" term "abnormality".

OK.  Well, my response was sort of rushed, in that the logic was a bit
confused.  But now you've given me a better opening.  "Abnormality",
indeed, eh?  As I explained at length, genetic mutations are just random
blips in the DNA patterns and are "abnormal" or "normal", if this can
be said at all, only by virtue of their commonness.  Now, it does tend
to be the case that genetic blips will be quite uncommon if they lead to
death and destruction, and pretty common if they lead to survival.  Most
genetic blips fall somewhere in between.  After all, intelligence (however
you care to measure it) in the 98th percentile is certainly "abnormal"
by that definition.  

But, of course, you've picked another loaded term - the 3 words I never
want to hear again from certain people are "normal", "decent" and "culture"
- but it may be difficult to come up with a neutral term.  Remember when
"mentally retarded" was supposed to be a polite term?

The rest of the discussion, about whether you are personally repelled by
the homosexual act, is basically your business.  I'm not here to fight 
for total acceptance of gays (though I wouldn't object to it), nor am I
here to bash homophobes (though I wouldn't embark on a major endeavor
with one).  As with other "hot button" topics, I object mainly to 
illogical or hypocritical arguments on either side.

Rodney goes on to say:

>I cannot just expect [homosexuals] to react rationally if I told 
>them that I thought their sexual orientation was biologically determined
>and could possibly have been "treated" if detected at an early stage (perhaps
>before birth). 

On the contrary, the recent findings by one scientist suggesting that
homosexuality may be determined at birth have bolstered many gays, since
this gives gayness legitimacy on a level similar to race or ethnic origin,
rather than gays suffering for a "choice" they opted to make.

(This should also make straights feel more comfortable, knowing that
it ain't that easy to turn their head around, so to speak.)

But this biological determination in fact makes it difficult if not
impossible to "treat", according to this view, quite apart from your
premise above.

>If homosexuality is genetic, then, while finding the act repulsive, I need
>not (and do not) find the individuals themselves repulsive.  Just as I feel
>that we can take little pride in being born with intelligence, neither do I
>feel that I can blame people for having an undesirable, genetically-determined 
>characteristic.

Whoops, there you go again - "undesirable" - maybe to you, but you really
have to watch your choice of words if you hope to have a reasoned argument.

I actually can understand your point of view, more or less.  I find drinking
milk repulsive, and I don't even like to be around the smell of it, but I
am hardly about to pass judgment on people who do so.  Unlike the woman
who discovered bananas, though, I continue to dislike milk.  Every now and
again I try it to see if I've changed my mind, and every time I remember
why I don't drink it.

 - seb
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa