Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU (07/24/90)
First, assuming that homosexuality is heriditarly determined, it might still be a recessive gene, and therefore non-homosexuals could breed homosexual kin. Even if homosexuals were required to produce homosexual offspring, then it would still be possible because of social pressures. Most gays have found that because of the immense social pressures involved they had to confront themselves with the facts in a process that has come to be known as "coming out of the closet." Many a time this process hasn't happened until the homosexual is well into a heterosexual relationship, complete with offspring. Indeed, for some people like the dear John Palmer, who posted an excellent example of ignorant homophobia just recently, seem to be able to keep homosexuals afraid of their own sexuality throughout their entire lifetimes. ChristianM
rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) (07/27/90)
In article <4aen4XO00h5KN_0l8P@cs.cmu.edu> Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > >First, assuming that homosexuality is heriditarly determined, it might >still be a recessive gene, and therefore non-homosexuals could breed >homosexual kin. First you'd have to demonstrate that homosexuality is a separate biological phenomenon from heterosexuality. Any concepts or categories that we humans think in is suspect and should be regarded as a culturally-based category until shown otherwise. An example might make my point clear. Not too long ago it might have been considered a separate "type" of sexuality to be attracted to members of a different race. But it would be falacious to try to explain this behavior genetically before showing that this category of behavior was a biological category of behavior. -- Rob Bernardo, Mt. Diablo Software Solutions "If the world were a logical place, men would ride sidesaddle." Rita Mae Brown email: rob@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US phone: (415) 827-4301
Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU (07/28/90)
There have actually been a lot of studies done on the origin of homosexuality. Unfortunately, most of them are tainted by the point of view of the researchers doing the stuies. I believe, though, that there was one very large study done of twins in the Boston area very recently. Their data concluded that identical twins are much more likely to share the same sexuality. I can't give any specific references, though. > Has anyone either conclusively shown or disconfirmed a link between > heredity and sexual desire for members of the opposite sex, in humans? > Any concepts or categories that we humans think is in is suspect and should > be regarded as a culturally-based category until shown otherwise. > (Interacial sexuality example follows) I think the issue is getting confused here. One good reason to believe that homosexuals might be genetically differentiated from heterosexuals is the number of homosexuals who believe that being homosexual is something unseperable from sexuality itself. Of course we shouldn't jump to conclusions on this point, but there is a difference between sex with the same gender and interracial sex. Homosexuality tends to be different because of the anatomical considerations involved, whereas interracial sex need not be in the least different. Speaking in terms of which parts interact with which, that is. > Seeing as how there would be no heredity to spead of WITHOUT the aforementioned > desire, I would think this rather, ahem, conclusive. This is completely untrue. First of all, many homosexuals breed long before they come to realize/admit to themselves their feelings about sexuality. Secondly, homosexuals can still breed, they just don't get pleasure out of the act in the same way that heterosexuals do. ChristainM
daryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough) (07/29/90)
In article <kagPb4G00h5K9VAUs5@cs.cmu.edu>, Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU writes: > > There have actually been a lot of studies done on the origin of > homosexuality. Unfortunately, most of them are tainted by the > point of view of the researchers doing the stuies. I believe, though, > that there was one very large study done of twins in the Boston > area very recently. Their data concluded that identical twins are > much more likely to share the same sexuality. I can't give any > specific references, though. Identical twins are more likely to share almost any given characteristic, of course. However, isn't the fact that there exist a set of identical twins who *don't* share the same sexual preference evidence that homo- or heterosexuality is not (exclusively) genetic? > > > Has anyone either conclusively shown or disconfirmed a link between > > heredity and sexual desire for members of the opposite sex, in humans? > > > Any concepts or categories that we humans think is in is suspect and > > should be regarded as a culturally-based category until shown otherwise. > > (Interacial sexuality example follows) > I think the issue is getting confused here. One good reason to believe > that homosexuals might be genetically differentiated from > heterosexuals is the number of homosexuals who believe that being > homosexual is something unseparable from sexuality itself. I don't see that as evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It seems quite plausible to me that our society forces people to make a choice: they are either heterosexual or homosexual, and once a person has accepted the label, they are no longer free to consider sexuality outside the label. I don't know why you think it was any different when miscegenation (interracial race) was considered a kind of deviant behavior. > ... there is a difference between sex with the same gender and > interracial sex. Homosexuality tends to be different because of the > anatomical considerations involved, whereas interracial sex need not > be in the least different. Speaking in terms of which parts interact > with which, that is. I think it is a mistake to characterize sexuality in terms of interactions between body parts. There can be sexual and romantic attraction between two people without either considering the technical details of having sex. There are also many kinds of sexual interactions (kissing, to name one) where the gender of the two people makes little difference in the way the "parts interact". > ...homosexuals can still breed, they just don't get pleasure ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > out of the act in the same way that heterosexuals do. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What evidence is there for this? Are you counting as "heterosexuals" men who get no pleasure other than the physical sensation of orgasm? I agree with Rob Bernardo, that there is no reason to think that homosexuality and heterosexuality are not culturally-based categories. If men and women dressed exactly alike, and were just as likely to be football players, or nurses, or soldiers, and were just as likely to vote Republican, then would people be still classify themselves as homosexuals or heterosexuals? Daryl McCullough
afsipmh@cid.aes.doe.CA (Patrick Hertel) (07/30/90)
> > >> Seeing as how there would be no heredity to spead of WITHOUT the >aforementioned >> desire, I would think this rather, ahem, conclusive. > >This is completely untrue. First of all, many homosexuals breed long >before they >come to realize/admit to themselves their feelings about sexuality. >Secondly, >homosexuals can still breed, they just don't get pleasure out of the act >in the >same way that heterosexuals do. > >ChristainM While this comment was made "tongue in cheek" to say it is completely untrue is ludicrous. There are always exceptions to rules. Taken another way, if an animal population suddenly became predominantly homosexual its breeding population would soon become sub-critical and poof no more "heredity". As to the reasons for homosexuality I've long thought that (in animal populations at least) that it had something to do with population density. That it was some natural brake on population, maybe hormonal in nature, in reaction to population stress. I have no theories as to how, if at all, this would apply to humans. -- Pat Hertel Canadian Meteorological Centre Analyst/Programmer 2121 N. Service Rd. phertel@cmc.aes.doe.ca Dorval,Quebec Environment Canada CANADA H9P1J3
Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU (07/30/90)
> ... Taken another way, if an animal population suddenly became > predominantly homosexual its breeding population would soon > become sub-critical and poof no more "heridity." Obviously my point got missed. Just because people desire sex within their gender does not render them unable to reproduce. There are many examples of homosexuals using heterosexuality to produce children--it is just not the sexuality that fills their sexual desires, but the sexuality that fills their desire for children. There's another point on which I think your observation is incorrect. Even if most sexuality occurs between members of the same sex in a species, there could concievably be enough heterosexuality happening to keep all females pregnant all the time. The myth here is that homosexuals cannot perform as heterosexuals. They can, and many homosexual humans do because of the desire to breed children of their own. (Ranting: This all gets me very upset because people argue that allowing people to admit homosexuality will lead to the human population going into a tailspin. The key, though, is that the need for sexual fufilment and the need for reproductive fufilment CAN be effectively separated. Furthermore, it should be considered that a major drop in human population might be the one thing that can bring our population back to a managable size. Even the bumper crop of '85 would not have been able to feed everyone if distributed equitably. Our races problem is NOT underpopulation!) ChristianM
al@gtx.com (Alan Filipski) (07/31/90)
In article <cah63tC00h5KED=0kk@cs.cmu.edu> Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
-> This all gets me very upset because people argue that allowing
->people to admit homosexuality will lead to the human population
->going into a tailspin. The key, though, is that the need for sexual
->fufilment and the need for reproductive fufilment CAN be effectively
->separated. Furthermore, it should be considered that a major drop
->in human population might be the one thing that can bring our
->population back to a managable size.
There is a bumper sticker I have not seen since the 60's :
MORE PERVERSION, LESS POPULATION.
[To ward off flames from the homosensitive: I don't consider "perversion"
a pejorative, and I doubt whether users of the above bumper sticker would.
Also, not much "sci.bio" in this, so followups to soc.motss]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
( Alan Filipski, GTX Corp, 8836 N. 23rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85021, USA )
( {decvax,hplabs,uunet!amdahl,nsc}!sun!sunburn!gtx!al (602)870-1696 )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~