« Safari in Iowa? | Main | Viability »
August 18, 2005
What makes a man like girls who like girls?
We've discussed here . A recent article in the Boston Globe explores conditions. It seems there is a growing consensus in the gay rights community that proving that attraction is caused by something other than nurture. They should be careful what they wish for.
Much of the sympathy generated for gay rights flow from the hidden (or quiet) homosexual in many moderate and conservative families. Discovering the biological causes of homosexuality is going to put pressure on developing a prevention. Conservative families will want to buy it, as will countries facing demographic problems from aging populations as "gay men are estimated to produce 80 percent fewer offspring". I hesitate to use the word cure that some would use here. But some people or societies would use a pill that prevented you from having gay children. Then families, even entire societies would be depopulated of homosexuals. Appetite for tolerance could decline precipitously, when no one you know is gay. A cure summons the genie of choice that many hoped buried forever. It would be far better for the causes of homosexuality to end up as those of race have, a combination of genetic leanings, but nevertheless largely socially determined. That mixture seems the perfect combination of innate enough to not be a choice, but constructed enough to be unchangeable by means of nature (few people would eliminate the trait from their children) to ensure protection of the special group's rights.
Posted by OneEyedMan at August 18, 2005 2:23 PM
Comments
I always felt as if the nature vs nurture debate should be split up slightly more aggressively (not just in the case of homosexuality) It appears to me that there are really three natural categories that you can break up influences into...
Nature (genetics)
First Two Years (Nurture 1)
Rest of Life (Nurture 2)
It appears that those early formative years make quite unalterable pasterns in your brain, things that you cannot unlearn. I have a sneaking suspicion that while both genetics and experiences later in life cause leanings, sexual preference is determined in those formative years. (Not that I have any real research to back that up, an for that matter I find it hard to think of a way to test for it unless you had some guess as to what the relevant stimuli would be, which I don't)
I guess the relevant point that I'm trying to make here is that a trait does not need to be genetic in order to be an immutable part of a person. I think that the gay community has been trying to express that sexual pref. is an immutable personality trait, and due to some sloppy conventions in the English language have equated that with a genetic trait.
Posted by: giblfiz ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.belligerati.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 19, 2005 10:50 AM
I'm inclined to agree with your analysis. But if it is clearly learned or inborn, it will someday be prevented, and that would unleash the complications above.
Posted by: TheOneEyedMan at August 19, 2005 1:49 PM
Imagine a world where homosexuals were very rare, and though they were not discriminated against, it was treated as a disease to be cured. Nailing down a specific cause, therby turing it into a parental choic could take us to a world like that.
Posted by: TheOneEyedMan at August 19, 2005 1:54 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)