Homosexuality and Social Policy

by Perry 42 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Perry

  Post JW life requires us to think as members of the larger society as we look at issues from the perspective of a member of a participatory government. Unlike JW life, we get to have a say in what kind of life we experience for ourselves and our children. I will present a series of issues that require our judgment, that we as former Jehovah’s Witnesses were prevented in having a say in and may not have ever given much thought to.

  Issue #1

  I might as well jump into the frying pan with the issue of homosexuality.

  Recent studies done with identical twins have been offered by some as evidence that the origins of homosexuality are the genes. In one study, Dr. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University examined 110 pairs of identical twins who had been separated at birth and raised in different environments. He found that if one was gay there was a 52% chance the other was also. But among fraternal twins, the chance fell to 22%. Because the ratio was higher among twins who are genetically identical, this study has been referred to by many as evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin.
  The reason why identical twins are such fascinating subjects of scientific study is because they ARE 100% alike genetically. Therefore, if homosexuality is solely genetic in origin, then if one twin is gay, you would expect the chances of the other twin being gay to be 100%. The fact that only 52% of those who were identical in genetic makeup to their homosexual twin were gay themselves would strongly indicate that genes and socialization play roughly equal roles in sexual orientation.
  In light of this and similar studies, should society:
  (a) give the same status of gay relationships to that of married couples because of an evidently strong genetic link? - (rights of the individual)
  (b) Deny gays the same social status as heterosexuals because homosexuality can evidently be socialized or not socialized in many cases? – (will of the majority)
  (c) Protect every individual right of the gay person but fall short of equating the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heteosexuals? – (constitutional/legal interpretation)

  What do you think?

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Abaddon

  I'm sure this discussion has been had before... I remember quoting the same stats! But it's always fun to have again... homosexuality is, like gun control, one of the boomerang topics in DB's like this.

  First of all the study. It's important to clarify (unless my memory is playing tricks on me - I'm doing this from memory) that this study concerned twins who were raised SEPERATELY.

  This is very important, as without this information, the results can be given a different interpretation.

  Essentially, siblings, raised seperately, will be gay 11% of the time if their sibling is gay.

  A fraternal twins raised seperately from their twin will be gay 22% of the time if their twin is gay.

  An identical twin will be gay 52% of the time if their seperately raised identical twin is gay.

  As these stats are based on being raised seperately, there is NO environmental link in the figures; the kids grew up in different houses and lead different lives. The only cause for the stats IS genetic influence.

  Obviously, the stats also imply that socialisation is also important, as with an identical set of genes there's still only a 50% chance of being gay.

  But they indicate that it's fairly likely that gayness is to a large extent geneticly determined, even if socialisation plays an equal part.

  However, it's unlikely that socialisation plays the whole of the other 48% part. There are two specific periods during featl development where an excess or deficit of hormones in the fetal blood supply can result in parts of the brain of the fetus developing in a more male or female manner than the gender of the fetus would indicate.

  So, it would seem there is strong scientific evidence to support that while some gay people may 'decide' to be gay, most gay people ARE gay, along with the poor troubled souls who ARE gay, and have to fight their natural inclinations as they have been taught that it's bad.

  On this basis I think that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

  In fact, I cannot think of one logical arguement why they are not accorded these rights. Homosexuality is demonstrably part of natural variation.

  This might be counter-intuative at first glance; how can a trait that seemingly would NOT lead to the passing of genes be kept in the gene pool?

  Because sexyuality and desire to procreate are DIFFERENT things. You can be as gay as a pink tent with its flaps open and still want kids.

  Excuses as to why gays shouldn;t be alowed to have equal relationship rights to heterosexuals include the oft cited 'gays don't have kids, so it's not a proper marriage', which is irrelevent and innacurate.

  Some married couples don't have kids; yet they have the same rights as those that do.

  Also, as mentioned above, being gay has NOTHING to do with not having children. Gay people have been having children for as long as there have been gay people, which would seem to pre-date the dawn of humanity as our closest relatives have been observed to form same-sex sexual bonds, and this behaviour is observed outside of the Primate family too.

  Nowadays social conditions are such that gay people don't have to be in fake relationship with a heterosexual to have kids, or be in deep denial over their sexuality, act like a hetero all their ;life, and have kids, or have a marriage of convenience with a homosexual of the opposite sex and maybe have kids.

  Adam and Steve can push their stroller through the park with their little bundle of joy in it (given a surrogate mother), and, with a little help from a turkey baster and a close friend or anonymous donor, Lucy and Dru can do the same.

  Thus creating any differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual relationships is a flagrant denial of equality.
• 

  Frenchy

  I will answer the questions posed by the originator of the post first then I will post my views on homosexuality:

  (a) give the same status of gay relationships to that of married couples because of an evidently strong genetic link? - (rights of the individual)
  (b) Deny gays the same social status as heterosexuals because homosexuality can evidently be socialized or not socialized in many cases? – (will of the majority)
  (c) Protect every individual right of the gay person but fall short of equating the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heterosexuals? – (constitutional/legal interpretation)

  a) : Legal status should be given to homosexual relationships. This has nothing to do with genetic links, just human rights.
  b) : Social status cannot be dictated, at least not in a free society. You cannot legislate acceptance of certain lifestyles, races, creeds, cultures in people’s minds.
  c):Everyone’s rights should be protected. Homosexuals should not be persecuted (or ridiculed) anymore than they should persecute (or ridicule) others.
• 

  Frenchy

  Ah, this can get very sticky. I will offer my opinions but no judgments. (Some people cannot differentiate between the two!)

  I believe that homosexuality is, like most other things, not a simple matter. I think that it is, in most cases, partly genetic and partly environment, and partly personal preference.

  I don’t believe that any intelligent person today would seriously argue that some males are born with very effeminate qualities and that some females are born with very masculine qualities, emotional, mental, and physical. I know several men who might be mistaken for homosexuals but they lead heterosexual lives and, to my knowledge, would not have it any other way. I know a few women (we used to call them tom boys) who lead (and apparently seem very content) heterosexual lives. I’m speaking of individuals who walk, talk, and gesture in a manner attributable to the ‘other’ gender.

  Would environment have ‘swung’ them the other way? I don’t know. What I am led to believe is that they prefer being of the gender of their physical bodies. To what extent they work at this, if at all, is not known to me.

  I know of one family where there are at least two homosexual men and one lesbian. That would lead one to believe that genetics are at play here. There is not the slightest indication of any of the others (this is a large family) being so. As a matter of fact, the family seems to have a very high sex drive, the women in particular. One member of the family (arrested several times for indecent exposure and lewd acts) was convicted of child molestation, including at least one of his daughters. Is this genetic? I think partly so given the heightened sexual drive of the rest of the family. Was this also due to the promiscuous activity of his sisters and brothers and cousins? I think that had some bearing on it as well. Could that…desire, drive, craving…been worked out of him by therapy? I don’t think so. He did this all his life. (He died in an accident some time back) Please note that I am NOT equating this person’s behavior with homosexuality but merely pointing out that the heightened sex drive may have been a contributing factor to his acting on his desires.

  We are told that there are those born with a desire to steal. (Kleptomania) Do all who are born with that desire do so? I would think not. But if that person is in an environment where stealing is common, then I should think that this person would find it virtually impossible to resist doing what he or she is bent toward doing. The same would be true for those who are prone to be alcoholics, etc.

  We must also remember that there are those who are not genetically inclined to steal or to gamble or to drink alcohol and yet they do so. Why? Personal preference…they just like it. They do it not because of a natural inclination to do so or because of social pressure but because they simply like to do so. Again, I am not equating homosexuality with those specific behaviors anymore than I equate the alcoholic with the pedofile. I am citing behaviors that are outside what generally considered ‘normal’. The following will elaborate on this.

  I believe that homosexuality is very similar to the situations mentioned above in that (1) It falls outside what we call normal behavior (most people are NOT so inclined) and that (2) It can be attributable to one or all three (perhaps even something else which has not been mentioned) of the factors noted previously.

  By stating what I have please believe me when I say that it is not with the intent to demean or in any way insult homosexuals per se. If you have a specific question for me or wish a clarification of something I have said here, I would be happy to accommodate.

  I do not consider homosexuality normal behavior. I do not view it as a disease or necessarily a perversion (although it certainly can be, in my opinion) but rather an aberration. Some might take offense at that last word but please be assured that I do not use it in a demeaning manner. The primary function of sex is for reproduction. Homosexuality is a dead end there. For those who would argue that this type of behavior is normal I would submit to them that if all of society practiced it, humanity would end in one generation. It is NECESSARY for the survival of the species that heterosexual relationships exist. Homosexual relationships are NOT necessary for the survival of the species. They mimic what the bulk of mankind practice. Does that make homosexuals bad people? Certainly not.

  I’ll stop here because I’m sure there will be a bombardment of questions (which I welcome) as well as a barrage of attacks (which I will ignore).
• 

  ThiChi

  On the Origins of Homosexuality:
  Is a Person "Born that Way"?
  The best overall summary of most respected researchers is that homosexuality (like most other psychological conditions) is due to a combination of social, biological, and psychological factors.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  (1) Byne, a psychiatrist with a doctorate in biology, and Parsons (1993) carefully analyzed all the major biological studies of homosexuality. They found none that definitively supported a biological theory of causation.

  --W. Byne and B. Parsons, "Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised." Archives of General Psychiatry 50, no.3.)

  (2) From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:

  "Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development."

  --J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

  (3) When "gay gene" researcher Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he himself replied, "Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."

  --"Gay Genes, Revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality," Scientific American, November 1995, P. 26.

  (4) Also from Dean Hamer, the "gay gene" researcher:

  "Genes are hardware...the data of life's experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what's installed at the factory and what's added by the user."
  ---P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire. New York: Simon and Schuster.

  (5) Psychiatrists Friedman and Downey state that "a biopsychosocial model" best fits our knowledge of causation, with various combinations of temperament and environmental events leading to homosexuality. They say:

  "Despite recent neurobiological findings suggesting homosexuality is genetically-biologically determined, credible evidence is lacking for a biological model of homosexuality."
  --R. Friedman, M.D. and J. Downey, M.D., Journal of Neuropsychiatry, vol. 5, No. 2, Spring l993.

  (6) From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.:

  "Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."
  Goldberg adds: "Gay criticism has not addressed the classic family configuration"; it has merely "asserted away the considerable evidence" for the existence of family factors. Studies which attempt to disprove the existence of the classic family pattern in homosexuality are "convincing only to those with a need to believe."

  --S. Goldberg (1994) When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

  7) An article on genes and behavior in Science magazine says:

  ...the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press. Indeed, renewed appreciation of environmental factors is one of the chief effects of the increased belief in genetics' effects on behavior. The same data that show the effects of genes also point to the enormous influence of non-genetic factors.
  --C. Mann, "Genes and behavior," Science 264:1687 (1994), pp. 1686-1689.

  8) Among Jeffrey Satinover's conclusions in "The Gay Gene":

  (1) There is a genetic component to homosexuality, but "component" is just a loose way of indicating genetic associations and linkages. "Linkage" and "association" do not mean "causation."

  (2) There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic--and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

  ---Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, p.8.

  9. The American Psychological Association says:

  "Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
  --From "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"

  10) Says brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay:

  "At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.
  "In 1988, PFLAG member Tinkle Hake surveyed a number of well-known figures in the field about their views on homosexuality. She asked: 'Many observers believe that a person's sexual orientation is determined by one of more of the following factors: genetic, hormonal, psychological, or social. Based on today's state-of-the-art-science, what is your opinion?'
  "The answers included the following: 'all of the above in concert' (Alan Bell), 'all of these variables' (Richard Green), 'multiple factors' (Gilbert Herdt), 'a combination of all the factors named' (Evelyn Hooker), 'all of these factors' (Judd Marmor), 'a combination of causes' (Richard Pillard), 'possibly genetic and hormonal, but juvenile sexual rehearsal play is particularly important' (John Money), and 'genetic and hormonal factors, and perhaps also some early childhood experiences' (James Weinrich)." (Page 273)
  --Simon LeVay (1996), in Queer Science, published by MIT Press.

  11) P-FLAG ("Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays") offers a booklet on the biological research into the origins of homosexuality.

  Prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association, this 1995 publication is entitled, "Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology."

  This pamphlet says:

  "To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date...sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors."
• 

  joelbear

  (a) give the same status of gay relationships to that of married couples because of an evidently strong genetic link? - (rights of the individual)
  (b) Deny gays the same social status as heterosexuals because homosexuality can evidently be socialized or not socialized in many cases? – (will of the majority)
  (c) Protect every individual right of the gay person but fall short of equating the gay relationship as an equal societal ideal to that of married heteosexuals? – (constitutional/legal interpretation)

  You cant legislate status. The status of gay relationships will be determined according to social norms which are changing. I think we should be provided the same legal protections from tax, home ownership and health benefits points of view.
• 

  joelbear

  As far as whether homosexuality is a choice.

  I remember in 6th grade we had a sexual orientation seminar at T. G Ritch elementary school in Jesup Georgia when I was 11.

  We received a one hour lecture on the pros and cons of heterosexuality and a one hour lecture on the pros and cons of homosexuality.

  The subject matter ranged from how to enjoy a breast to PMS to having to share clothes with your life partner to the joy of testicles. I remember taking an exhaustive amount of notes.

  We were then each given a sign up form where we made our lifestyle choice. This was notarized and put in our permanent record.

  Wasn't this how it was handled everywhere?

  Joel
• 

  Perry

  Abaddon,

  I am assuming that from your post that view (A) from my post most accurately describes your opinion?

  Frenchy,

  I am assuming that view (C) most accurately discribes yours?

  Of course anyone is welcome to (and I'm sure will) challenge the reasoning of posts. But, I'd like to ask every one a favor:

  If you so feel inclined, Please pick a view from my list, a, b, or c, that most accurately describes your opinion, and then qualify your answer.

  This is important so views can be identified and quantified.

  Thank You.

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America
• 

  Abaddon

  good comment joel; you can't legislate status. Oh, I must have missed the lecture you went too...

  Frenchy - first of all, I'm not having a go at you, I'm addressing your post, and you know I'm excitable, but mostly harmless... I realise you are discussing the thread, and you're perfectly entitled to your opinion.

  I'm not arguing that genetic traits or fetal development is the ONLY influence on a person's sexuality.

  But the theories about fetal development I mentioned are so close to describing what people are like they are pretty convincing.

  The theory (backed up by structural differences in brain structure (from memory again)) states there are two phases of brain development that can be pertinant to sexual identity.

  In one the areas of the brain that determine sexual attraction are formed. If the hormone level is wrong, then a developing boy will get a brain that is more likely to make him like other boys, and a developing girl would be more likely to be attracted to women.

  In the second areas more linked to behaviour are formed. Again, if the hormonal levels are wrong, a boy will be more likely to behave in a feminine way, and a girl will be more likely to behave in a masculine way.

  Note, I say MORE likely! Probably in the region of HALF our sexuality is determined by environment, if not more.

  But this theory explains your straight acting gay guys, your effeminate gay guys, your straight acting lesbians, your butch lesbians, your straight straight acting people, your camp straight guys and your tom-boys, as the hormonal imbalance is not neccesarily present during BOTH phases, and you can have non-normal attractive centres and normal behavioural centres, or any of the possible combinations.

  To me, this mirrors life. Doesn't mean it's true, but I definately don;t agree with your statement;

  I don’t believe that any intelligent person today would seriously argue that some males are born with very effeminate qualities and that some females are born with very masculine qualities, emotional, mental, and physical.

  ... as I don't think it's true, from my experience of meeting people and listening to their stories.

  Now, I would say more, but I'm leaving work and don't have the time.

  Apologies if I misunderstood your point.
• 

  Perry

  Sorry Frenchy,

  I mis-read your post. Your view is an (a)

  UADNA-TX
  Unseen Apostate Directorate of North America