From: radams@crchh404.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Rodney Adams)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Geneticism
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:11:36 GMT
Reply-To: "Rodney Adams" <RADAMS@BNR.CA>
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ltd.

In article <01GPILTT38K28WXA4U@ccfvx3.draper.com>, seb@draper.com (Steve Bacher) writes:
|> Rodney Adams writes:
|> 
|> >I am e[sic]nclined to believe, as some researchers have suggested, that homosex
|> uality
|> >is caused by a genetic defect.  After all, it definitely does not contribute
|> >to the survival of the species.
|> 
|> Whoa there.  Genetic mutations, whatever their cause, are not "defects" or
|> "improvements" except by virtue of their aiding or detracting from the
|> survivability of the species.  Therefore, if a genetic mutation helps the
|> species survive, it's an enhancement or whatever you want to call it;
|> if it does not aid in the survival of the species, it's pretty much
|> nothing; if it has a negative impact on survival, then it is a defect.
|> 
First off, let me apologize for my article being rushed, as evidenced by the
above spelling mistake and at least one other of which I am aware.

Second, I realized after I had posted the article that "defect" was perhaps
more "loaded" of a word than I had intended.  "Abnormality" would have been
more appropriate.  However, it could be considered a defect in the sense that
homosexuals are inclined to forbear reproduction, thus preventing society 
from the genetic benefits that would accrue from the other traits these 
individuals might have.

|> So, your statement is untrue, since a mutation which is not detrimental 
|> cannot be considered a "defect" - unless, perhaps, the time and energy 
|> spent on seeking out members of the same sex is taken from time and energy 
|> that would otherwise be spent on finding partners capable of reproduction.
|> 
|> You can't cast aspersions upon an attribute of a creature's makeup by 
|> calling it "defective", unless you mean to imply that any activity
|> or property of a being that isn't actively involved in species survival is
|> "defective".  Thus, you could say that the presence of the appendix in 
|> humans is a "defect" since it does not contribute to survival and in some 
|> cases has a negative impact thereon.
|> 
|> I am also troubled by the implied content of your argument.  You may be
|> attempting to demonstrate "defectness" (though it is done fatuously),
|> but you certainly have not made the case that it is "genetic" by stating
|> that it does not contribute to species survival.  Plus, I sense that you
|> are attempting to use "defect" as a value judgment.
 
I meant only to state my current beliefs on the issue.  As I said (and you saw
fit to delete), I seek understanding.  While somewhat stubborn, I am not
blind or deaf to opposing arguments.  However, though I have come to respect
some homosexual individuals, I have not felt comfortable in discussing the 
matter with them.  I cannot just expect them 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).  I had hoped that, as open as Eric seemed to be, he could help
me to understand something so alien to my mind.

|> I fear that your comments, while no doubt sincere and honest in your appraisal
|> of your belief system, betray a fundamental lack of understanding
|> of genetics and evolution.  The notion of identifying a genetic trait as
|> "defective" is either a moral judgment - which makes little sense from the
|> genetic point of view, or when trying to understand the nature of a
|> process - or devoid of significance, since outside of species survival,
|> who really cares what a genetic mutation is about? Evolution
|> is a process whereby random changes are introduced into a population, some
|> increasing the population, some decreasing it, and some having no effect.
|> You appear to believe that these random changes can be assigned
|> values on some scale of morality or "disgustingness", or at least to think
|> that a genetic mutation's purpose in existence is to improve 
|> survivability, and if it fails to do so it is marked "defective" by some
|> all-powerful Inspector.

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.

|> Even if you demonstrate that homosexuality is genetic in origin, you prove
|> nothing by calling it a "defect", since it is one merely by definition of
|> the evolutionary process.  You are left with a personal moral and aesthetic
|> value judgment.  There is no way that can be argued with; your opinions are
|> clearly your own.  But don't try to pin the rap on Mother Nature.
|> 
|>  - seb
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rodney G. Adams
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of my employer.
As if you didn't already know that....
"Things are known in the knower after the manner of the knower, not 
after their own manner of existence."                 - Thomas Aquinas
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa