I don't believe homosexuality is determined genetically to a large degree, because due to its very nature, it has a very negative selection value (gays seldom have children) and should have vanished unless it offers a very large adaptive advantage (I can see none).
Therefore, it seems to be soft-coded somewhere in the way the brain is wired. As I have a gay brother, I know that many gays never "chose" to be gay (contrary to christian mythology), he and others grow up and at some point in personal development begin to feel they are attracted to the same sex.
So, if it is neither overwhelmingly genetically determined nor free will, it has to be ontogenetic, a variation in the sexual attraction pattern, maybe like a personal preference for big vs. small tits, redheads vs. blondes, only on a bigger scale.
I doubt we can learn too much from studying intersex children and their sexual behavior. Most of them are quite likely hets (their sexual preference is clear) but their body is in-between. "Real" gays have both a more-or-less clear sexual preference and a clearly masculine or feminine body.
I don't believe homosexuality is determined genetically to a large degree, because due to its very nature, it has a very negative selection value (gays seldom have children) and should have vanished unless it offers a very large adaptive advantage (I can see none).
First of all, most homosexuals do have kids. The desire to reproduce is seperable from the desire to have sex. Second, this is why I emphasized a quick review of the "bees" portion of the birds and the bees. The vast majority of bees never reproduce and yet they are a very successful species. Your brother may not reproduce, but assuming your brother loves you he can assist in your welfare and, therefore, aide in your ability to have kids (maybe he gives you a loan or a kidney or something). Since you and your brother share a lot of your genes he is effectively facilitating the spread of his genes. In a more demanding environment his added help in hunting and gathering without imposing the burden of caring for his kids would actually be a plus in spreading your genes as opposed to a heterosexual brother.
Quote:
So, if it is neither overwhelmingly genetically determined nor free will, it has to be ontogenetic, a variation in the sexual attraction pattern, maybe like a personal preference for big vs. small tits, redheads vs. blondes, only on a bigger scale.
I prefer big tits, myself.
Quote:
I doubt we can learn too much from studying intersex children and their sexual behavior. Most of them are quite likely hets (their sexual preference is clear) but their body is in-between. "Real" gays have both a more-or-less clear sexual preference and a clearly masculine or feminine body.
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference. It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference. It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
I find this fairly offensive. I am a gay male. A male. I am not female, I do not want to be female, if given a choice, I would not be female. I would rather be a gay male than a straight female any day of the week. I have nothing against women -- I'm just not one.
Kickaha, I've heard your spectrum idea before, and you run into the same problems as other people who've used it to philosophize, mebbe we'll get to that.
As for the rationale around how you get 2-3% to fit the 10% figure (under your relaxed criteria, or expanded spectrum) well, that's intriguiging that you would do that for philosophical reasons, but it doesn't hold with the studies. Where the criteria were very strict, ie, people that have had exclusively homosexual relations, numbers are nearly always under 1%, the highest figure I've seen is 1.1%. Where the criteria broaden to include any sort of homosexual encounter in the persons lives, the highest figures I've seen, from France and England respectively, are 4.1 and 3.6 (1992, I forget all the names)
Anything more than a carefully considered set of behaviors (sexual, courting, relationships) and responses (arousal) gets you onto specious qualitative ground. Is the ability to identify attractive same sex people indicative of a degree of homosexuality? Or, is it representative of certain instincts that deal with dominance, hormones and social hierachy?
It is a not too uncommon event that people are born with what is called ambiguous or indeterminate gender. Here the person may have both a vagina and a penis, or a penis + ovaries, or be XY but look like a girl, or XXY, etc..
That's why you always gotta pull a Croc Dundee on the first date.
Kickaha, I've heard your spectrum idea before, and you run into the same problems as other people who've used it to philosophize, mebbe we'll get to that.
Yeah I don't think most people who study this stuff seriously buy the spectrum idea. It just doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence.
Even in Nordstrodamus's examples of the people born with ambiguous gender, there's almost always a very clear preference for one or the other. It's almost as if the hormones are 50.1% one way, it's total heterosexual, and if it's 50.1% the other way, it's total homosexual. At least for males that seems to be the case, but it seems that male sexual orientation is more clearly biologically determined than female sexual orientation.
I tend to think we're talking about two separate continua: 1) sexual orientation, which is pretty much either homo or hetero, and 2) maybe call it "inhibition." If you're hetero but uninhibited, you might go both ways. If you're hetero but prudish, there's no chance in hell you're going to have gay sex. But I think even a very uninhibited and bi person is probably either homo or hetero.
With the issue of homosexuality I was simply suggesting that if a catholic (or any person) argues that homosexuality is wrong then they should be able to clearly identify a homosexual and I believe the example of ambiguous gender suggests that it's not so easy. Not just in the case of ambiguous gender, but the mere existence of ambiguous gender implies that gender itself is not clearly definable.
Knowing several nurses who work in maternity I can tell you that they rarely if ever see these births. If you have the source study I'd love to see their conclusions and testing methods.
Oh and do you have a link where you saw this from? I've only found this article on www.ntac.org. And I would consider this a slightly biased source on this topic.
First of all, most homosexuals do have kids. The desire to reproduce is seperable from the desire to have sex.
Up until very recently, this was not the case. You had to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. This has somewhat changed, but I was talking about selective pressures that shaped our genomes for millions of years. And from the limited sample of gays I know, I'd debate whether the most homosexuals have kids.
Quote:
Second, this is why I emphasized a quick review of the "bees" portion of the birds and the bees. The vast majority of bees never reproduce and yet they are a very successful species.
But all worker bees in a hive are clones, they can easily give up reproducing on their own, because it doesn't hurt the reproductive success of their genes. This is not true for human homosexuals.
Quote:
In a more demanding environment his added help in hunting and gathering without imposing the burden of caring for his kids would actually be a plus in spreading your genes as opposed to a heterosexual brother.
He would be helping me to spread my genes. Since we only share about 50% of our genome, the other 50% of his drew a blank in the genetic lottery. They won't be around next time to be altruistic.
Quote:
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference.
Strictly by probability. The majority of the population is heterosexual, so the majority of intersex children would be expected to be hets too.
Quote:
It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
Well that might help some christians with overcoming their hatred towards gays, but I otherwise don't see any merit in re-interpreting the definition of gender (besides, defining gays as hets to avoid prejudice is a concept that is bound to fail, imho. Much better to argumentatively bitch-slap them whenever they talk about perversion, birth defect, divine will or deviance).
I have over the course of my life met some people which were transsexual to some degree or other (that's when your body is clearly male or female, but you feel your mind is the other gender). Most of them have insisted on softening the gender definition to the point where you belong to the sex you feel you belong. I can see some point in this, since we in the west have somewhat of a tradition to emphasize mind over body, but I must say, I never fully subscribed to it.
Now, basing gender on sexual preference seems even more strange to me, since we would have to have a third gender, the bisexuals (not the intersex people), maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
Maybe I got lost in the rapid fire postings, but I thought you were refering to homosexuals as deviants. Forgive me if I mixed it up.
Well, my primary concern is with keeping theological based judgements out of public policy, but I am taking Catholics to task a bit. As related to the condoms issue, if a catholic (not you, any catholic) wants to argue that something is wrong (either on a societal level or a moral level) I want to make sure they have their facts right and their definitions established. I'm not going to fire up the condoms issue, you seemed to be at a standoff with some over exactly whether the church said condoms caused aides or not or if they had research to support it.
With the issue of homosexuality I was simply suggesting that if a catholic (or any person) argues that homosexuality is wrong then they should be able to clearly identify a homosexual and I believe the example of ambiguous gender suggests that it's not so easy. Not just in the case of ambiguous gender, but the mere existence of ambiguous gender implies that gender itself is not clearly definable.
Yeah, I agree. I really think that faith is a personal thing. The church needs to issue its moral guidelines and let people regulate themselves. Its just such an absurd notion that, if someone misses the main message of a religion, to then go and try to take away their freedom of choice. Its not going to solve anything, its just going to segregate and cause hatred.
First question- Is anyone here who is against homosexuality for religious reasons prepared to state that such people are definately sinners? (Sinners for engaging in the homosexual act, not just sinners in general, that is).
I'll have at it. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin and those committing it sinners. It also says that everyone sins. All have fallen short and that even if saved you will continue to sin.
Quote:
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
I don't see how the two are necessarily connected. If as you mentioned the need to reproduce and the need to have sex for pleasure are seperate why would ambigious genetilia denote ambigious sexuality? If what you were saying were true, they would be more likely to be bisexual, not homosexual. Instead what it appears is that in their attempt to treat the physical problem the attempted to just assign a gender when it is clear gender is more than a hole or a pole as you so put it.
Quote:
Third question- If you actually believe you made a conscious decision at some point to be a heterosexual, skip this question. OTOH, if you think your sexuality was innate then is there any reasonable argument by which we cannot judge someone's gender by their mental state.
I do think there is a percentage of people who are likely to be genetically programmed as homosexuals. I say this because I have seen it even from an early age in children I have taught and people I have known growing up.
However on the otherhand I have also seen people who appeared to make a choice. They fall in with a new crowd and suddenly a bit later, they declare themselves homosexuals.
Quote:
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state (someone attracted to females is a male) then do any theological arguments against supposed homosexuality remain? After all, if we define people this way, then there are no homosexuals (bisexuals being a different matter).
Sure they remain. If anything the Christian God tell you to fight your nature. It declares everyone's initial natural state to be sinful, selfish, etc. Christianity basically forgives you for your nature and then asks you through the grace and assistance of God to attempt to work against and improvev on your nature, even while knowing you will never perfect it.
Now some questions to the peanut gallery.
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
Smircle gave the example of the bees. No drone could sue declaring that they are treated differently than the queen. It is a genetic jackpot and the drone lost.
Science does not declare the entire human species to be equal to one another. If anything it declares the true nature of our genes to be that of pressing for reproductive advantage over one another. If we see these results in our society and attempt to correct for them, aren't we just fighting our own nature instead of being true to it?
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
As I have a gay brother, I know that many gays never "chose" to be gay (contrary to christian mythology), he and others grow up and at some point in personal development begin to feel they are attracted to the same sex.
Watch your step. Christianity doesn't have any assumptions with regards to why a person is Gay.
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
Nick
This is where the whole argument of "punishment" falls apart in my eyes. Our primary goal should be to protect the innocent, and to teach. Leave the punishment aspect to God. I'm not suggesting more TVs in prison or anything stupid like that. I'm just saying that when people talk of punishment, they are clearly overstepping the bounds as set forth in Christianity.
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
This is slippery terrain. To argue based on evolution is always dangerous, since the effects of evolution cannot be predicted. It is easy to see in hindsight, that a larger brain allows you to create a civilization which in turn allows you to happily overpopulate the planet. It would have taken a genius to predict this outcome some 200.000 years back.
One can find arguments that the very existance of civilization is proof that cooperation is better than selfishnes and one could infer from that that compassion is better than mercylessness (not based on morals or ethics, just arguing from the result side). However, it is hard to prove or disprove, so the point is basically moot (or up to everyones belief).
Quote:
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
I'd very strongly disagree with the assumption in the first place. Building computers and space ships is not genetically determined, the same goes for democracy. So, fundamental aspects of our life like civilization, speech, human rights are not encoded in our genes, but are human achievements.
I don't see why our genetic basis should be taboo either. If we have the means to get rid of genetic determinism, I say: go for it.
Quote:
Science does not declare the entire human species to be equal to one another. If anything it declares the true nature of our genes to be that of pressing for reproductive advantage over one another. If we see these results in our society and attempt to correct for them, aren't we just fighting our own nature instead of being true to it?
Moralists of all time have tried to find an axiomatic basis for human rights, laws, ethics and morals, and have either turned to religion (the word of god needs no reasons) or to nature (nature just is as it is, it is justified by existance).
I am not sure why it should be necessary or relevant to base decisions of a modern society on biological traits that have evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.
It is not hard to see that someone who cheats and kills whenever he believes to get away with it is more true to our nature (since cheating can give you a genetic advantage over your victim) than someone who believes in values and has some self-restraint. However, I can hardly see why we would be better off in a dog eats dog world.
The fact that people in this day and age are asking WHY people are gay is a direct insult to any human being who happens to be gay. Why speak of homosexuality as a bad thing? Why even entertain thoughts of and give into hideous religious rules, regulations and hypocrisies?
Whenever you hear a politician, a religious person, or your average homophobe discuss gay people and what they can or can not do and how they should live you need to realize what they are talking about - human beings who are being themselves. The best way to do this is to re-read things and replace the word 'gay' with 'black', 'latino' or 'asian' and see how completely ridiculous, racist, and biased it would sound.
People ARE born with their sexual preference. No one 'decides' they are gay later on in life. Their surroundings, friends and family would sway whether they 'came out' now or later, they wouldn't decide their sexuality. If someone you know 'decided' to be gay at the age of 35, that means he gave up living a lie to appease his family and perhaps his religion, and finally just 'came out'. To think otherwise is completely absurd and ignorant.
MANY people are deeply closeted for YEARS before they come out - some never do and die never having what they truly wanted thanks to our society. It's the people that you'd never expect that are really suppressed homosexuals. The ones who sneak out of the house and go cruising for sex late at night. Or those who sneak downstairs, turn on the computer and cruise for sex while their wives and children are upstairs sleeping. That's another reason why the % of homosexuals in the population posted here is a complete joke. Obviously all the closet cases around the world aren't thrown into that equation, nor are the ones who refuse to have to define or announce their sexuality - just like heterosexuals don't have to. Yes, it is a shame to mislead people when you marry them while living a lie and have children, but don't blame the person, blame society and various religions who spew fear and ignorance.
The irony of the catholic church is simply blinding. Here you have a religion that states that murderers, rapists AND homosexuals will go to 'hell' (and don't even get me started on their forced, hypocritical and dictating beliefs in general), and at the very same time you have a church filled with gays and lesbians hiding from their sexuality that the very church condemned them for. So, many priests and nuns (no, not all) preach that homosexuality is bad due to the church they are married to, when many of them are severely repressed homosexuals themselves. How TRULY sad.
I find this fairly offensive. I am a gay male. A male. I am not female, I do not want to be female, if given a choice, I would not be female. I would rather be a gay male than a straight female any day of the week. I have nothing against women -- I'm just not one.
Even though I put a disclaimer about this very interpretation in my original post I suspected I would have to defend this quite a bit. To clarify, again, I certainly don't believe that gay males are better classified as females, but I don't have any religious hang-ups that require me to classify people positvely or negatively based on their sexual preference. For those that are compelled to make a moral judgement based upon their religion's advocation against homosexuality I am suggesting that they first have to consider how they identify a homosexual (by there reasoning).
The ambiguous gender examples first illustrate that defining gender is not as clear as it sounds. Once someone accepts this reality they must necessarily question whether or not it is fair to judge someone's gender strictly by their physical appearance even if appearantly non-ambiguous.
Now personally, I would hope that these conclusions alone would compel a rational person to reject black and white judgements about sex, sexual preference, or gender, but I suspect that those still compelled to match reality with scripture would be inclined to conclude that homosexuals might just as well be considered heterosexuals in the "wrong" bodies.
Once again, I'm not arguing that homosexual men are really women, but by raising that as a POSSIBLE interpretation to scripture you can at least introduce reasonable doubt into the mind of a theist about the moral status of homosexuals. Not that doubt prevents most theists from adding the weight of God behind their personal judgements, but it tends to soften the more thoughtful among them.
I'll have at it. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin and those committing it sinners. It also says that everyone sins. All have fallen short and that even if saved you will continue to sin.
But with respect to those born with ambiguous gender and corrected surgically to one sex are you prepared to say definatively that their sexual engagment with the "same" sex is, itself, a sinful act?
Quote:
...why would ambigious genetilia denote ambigious sexuality? If what you were saying were true, they would be more likely to be bisexual, not homosexual. Instead what it appears is that in their attempt to treat the physical problem the attempted to just assign a gender when it is clear gender is more than a hole or a pole as you so put it.
I do not suggest that it necessarily denotes ambiguous sexualtiy (although in some cases it might). For those that believe the physical sexual characteristics dictate the "proper" (biblically speaking- always heterosexual) orientation they must accept that they cannot make such judgements with respect to those born with ambiguous gender.
Quote:
However on the otherhand I have also seen people who appeared to make a choice. They fall in with a new crowd and suddenly a bit later, they declare themselves homosexuals.
Certainly people can make choices that go against their "nature." And even after a theist begrudgingly accepts the idea that homosexuality may be inborn, many will suggest that it is no different from any other affliction which God wishes us to struggle against. But, if you inerpret gender with emphasis on the mental rather than the physical then this argument melts away. Homosexuals become morally equivalent (with respect to a biblical interpretation) to the infertile, the disabled, or those with ambiguous gender.
Quote:
Now some questions to the peanut gallery.
Sounds like these deserve a new thread, but I'll reply a little.
Quote:
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
I don't know if this qualifies as an "evolutionary" argument, but the existence of love and compassion and the self-evident realities of society (killing is bad, golden rule, etc) necessitate the same priorities. Whether the source of love and compassion and social concern as mental qualities arose by divine plan or through the simple evolutionary pressure to ensure the survival of our young, our tribe, and ourselves makes no difference.
Quote:
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
Definately requires a new thread. Such a question requires a lot of information about what kind of society you want.
Quote:
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
This question seems to be more about the fact that the law is a blunt instrument. Personally, I believe information is good and if the burden of bueacracy isn't so prohibitive as to preclude it's application it should be made use of. Issues of discrimination obviously follow, but that is a whole other discussion.
Up until very recently, this was not the case. You had to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. This has somewhat changed, but I was talking about selective pressures that shaped our genomes for millions of years. And from the limited sample of gays I know, I'd debate whether the most homosexuals have kids.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I definately recall that most homosexuals do have kids. As for your conclusion about the history of this phenomenom I have heard exactly the opposite reasoning. Namely, in the past since homosexuality was so taboo, most homosexuals would get mairred and have kids because they were taught to treat their preference as abberant.
Quote:
But all worker bees in a hive are clones, they can easily give up reproducing on their own, because it doesn't hurt the reproductive success of their genes. This is not true for human homosexuals.
Yes, good, worker bees work to ensure the success of the hive which ensures the perpetuation of the their genes.
Quote:
He would be helping me to spread my genes. Since we only share about 50% of our genome, the other 50% of his drew a blank in the genetic lottery. They won't be around next time to be altruistic.
50% is enough. Especially when there are multiple siblings (increasing the odds that more than 50% of the genes are ultimately shared) and when the alternative may be 0% transmitted. As I mentioned, in a harsh environment a child may require many adults to ensure it's survival. A non-reproducing sibling then becomes an asset.
Quote:
Strictly by probability. The majority of the population is heterosexual, so the majority of intersex children would be expected to be hets too.
Your still not escaping the fact that you are defining them as heterosexuals by their preference, not their genetalia.
Quote:
Well that might help some christians with overcoming their hatred towards gays, but I otherwise don't see any merit in re-interpreting the definition of gender (besides, defining gays as hets to avoid prejudice is a concept that is bound to fail, imho. Much better to argumentatively bitch-slap them whenever they talk about perversion, birth defect, divine will or deviance).
As a non-Xian I agree that it is a silly and unnecessary exercise. But for those that think a magnificent, all knowing deity really was so obsessed with where people put their gentials it is a very significant issue. I think the merit of the argument isn't so much in advocating for such a re-definition, but simply in pointing out it's validity as another interpretation of scripture. It's effect can be to nuetralize the witch-hunts by getting Xians to admit they can't identify their witches.
Quote:
Now, basing gender on sexual preference seems even more strange to me, since we would have to have a third gender, the bisexuals (not the intersex people), maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
Here again the ambiguous gender examples are usefull. If theists have to face the reality that there are people who are neither clearly male or female then they cannot apply their harsh judgements. Combined with detaching the physical from the mental qualities of gender it is no big leap to accept that some people are both genders (bisexuals) mentally and are, therefore, not in conflict with the bible whether they have sex with men or woman.
Quote:
maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
As your brother will likely tell you, equating homosexuality with beastiality is a lame argument. Their is good evidence (and reason) to suggest that sexual attraction for one's own species is hardwired into our brains, but there is no evidence, AFAIK, that attraction to another species is. A common red herring argument for theists is to equate homosexuality with beastiality, pedophilia, and other demonstrably unhealthy practices.
That's another reason why the % of homosexuals in the population posted here is a complete joke. Obviously all the closet cases around the world aren't thrown into that equation, nor are the ones who refuse to have to define or announce their sexuality - just like heterosexuals don't have to.
The samples are huge, the correction methods and peer review are substantial, and the meta studies that analyze the general trends (in the west) bear out and refine the research all the time. Steps are taken to account for "closetted" respondents, read a third or fourth year psyc textbook for those.
Basically, when, after 40+ years of research, Kinsey and the like tell you that they think roughly 2.3% of people are gay, that's far from being pie in the sky. Ironically, the pie in the sky number, 10%, has persisted because (A) people are lazy and 1-in-10 is a very neat mental heuristic, and (B) because certain elements of the gay rights movement seek legitimacy through numbers.
Pretty stupid, because whether we're talking 10 or 2%, that's still a lot of people, but also, does the question of basic rights change if we're dealing with a few million less or more? If it's an ethical concern, then it's an ethical concern at any level.
To me then, we get a neat look into the psychology of propaganda, and we see that gays (like just about everybody else) don't exactly fight the battle they claim. Really, it's a populists movement, and alternative-mainstream fusion thats going on, rather than a straight out fight for rights, or a forced evolution of ethical concerns. This itself is neither good nor bad, just they way the game is played, but it points to sticking issues between both sides. The churches and the conservatives are not the only ones advancing dogmatic claims at the expense of reason.
You go so far as to question the validity of scientific inquiry into this area of sexuality. Why would it be fundamentally uninteresting and unworthy to try and understand what makes us hetero/homo, masculine/feminine, bi, fetishistic, philiac, phobic, etc etc ??? Working out the exact numbers may be a little unimportant to you, but the scientist should not be interested in the political agenda that may be helped or harmed by a pure clarification of knowledge. Most secular-agnostic scientists would, I believe, make absolutely no link between the number of homosexuals and the question of their legal rights.
Comments
Therefore, it seems to be soft-coded somewhere in the way the brain is wired. As I have a gay brother, I know that many gays never "chose" to be gay (contrary to christian mythology), he and others grow up and at some point in personal development begin to feel they are attracted to the same sex.
So, if it is neither overwhelmingly genetically determined nor free will, it has to be ontogenetic, a variation in the sexual attraction pattern, maybe like a personal preference for big vs. small tits, redheads vs. blondes, only on a bigger scale.
I doubt we can learn too much from studying intersex children and their sexual behavior. Most of them are quite likely hets (their sexual preference is clear) but their body is in-between. "Real" gays have both a more-or-less clear sexual preference and a clearly masculine or feminine body.
Originally posted by Smircle
I don't believe homosexuality is determined genetically to a large degree, because due to its very nature, it has a very negative selection value (gays seldom have children) and should have vanished unless it offers a very large adaptive advantage (I can see none).
First of all, most homosexuals do have kids. The desire to reproduce is seperable from the desire to have sex. Second, this is why I emphasized a quick review of the "bees" portion of the birds and the bees. The vast majority of bees never reproduce and yet they are a very successful species. Your brother may not reproduce, but assuming your brother loves you he can assist in your welfare and, therefore, aide in your ability to have kids (maybe he gives you a loan or a kidney or something). Since you and your brother share a lot of your genes he is effectively facilitating the spread of his genes. In a more demanding environment his added help in hunting and gathering without imposing the burden of caring for his kids would actually be a plus in spreading your genes as opposed to a heterosexual brother.
So, if it is neither overwhelmingly genetically determined nor free will, it has to be ontogenetic, a variation in the sexual attraction pattern, maybe like a personal preference for big vs. small tits, redheads vs. blondes, only on a bigger scale.
I prefer big tits, myself.
I doubt we can learn too much from studying intersex children and their sexual behavior. Most of them are quite likely hets (their sexual preference is clear) but their body is in-between. "Real" gays have both a more-or-less clear sexual preference and a clearly masculine or feminine body.
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference. It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Amorph? What happened to your post?
Amorph doesn't post in AO...you must be hallucinating.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference. It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
I find this fairly offensive. I am a gay male. A male. I am not female, I do not want to be female, if given a choice, I would not be female. I would rather be a gay male than a straight female any day of the week. I have nothing against women -- I'm just not one.
As for the rationale around how you get 2-3% to fit the 10% figure (under your relaxed criteria, or expanded spectrum) well, that's intriguiging that you would do that for philosophical reasons, but it doesn't hold with the studies. Where the criteria were very strict, ie, people that have had exclusively homosexual relations, numbers are nearly always under 1%, the highest figure I've seen is 1.1%. Where the criteria broaden to include any sort of homosexual encounter in the persons lives, the highest figures I've seen, from France and England respectively, are 4.1 and 3.6 (1992, I forget all the names)
Anything more than a carefully considered set of behaviors (sexual, courting, relationships) and responses (arousal) gets you onto specious qualitative ground. Is the ability to identify attractive same sex people indicative of a degree of homosexuality? Or, is it representative of certain instincts that deal with dominance, hormones and social hierachy?
It is a not too uncommon event that people are born with what is called ambiguous or indeterminate gender. Here the person may have both a vagina and a penis, or a penis + ovaries, or be XY but look like a girl, or XXY, etc..
That's why you always gotta pull a Croc Dundee on the first date.
Originally posted by Matsu
Kickaha, I've heard your spectrum idea before, and you run into the same problems as other people who've used it to philosophize, mebbe we'll get to that.
Yeah I don't think most people who study this stuff seriously buy the spectrum idea. It just doesn't seem to be consistent with the evidence.
Even in Nordstrodamus's examples of the people born with ambiguous gender, there's almost always a very clear preference for one or the other. It's almost as if the hormones are 50.1% one way, it's total heterosexual, and if it's 50.1% the other way, it's total homosexual. At least for males that seems to be the case, but it seems that male sexual orientation is more clearly biologically determined than female sexual orientation.
I tend to think we're talking about two separate continua: 1) sexual orientation, which is pretty much either homo or hetero, and 2) maybe call it "inhibition." If you're hetero but uninhibited, you might go both ways. If you're hetero but prudish, there's no chance in hell you're going to have gay sex. But I think even a very uninhibited and bi person is probably either homo or hetero.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
With the issue of homosexuality I was simply suggesting that if a catholic (or any person) argues that homosexuality is wrong then they should be able to clearly identify a homosexual and I believe the example of ambiguous gender suggests that it's not so easy. Not just in the case of ambiguous gender, but the mere existence of ambiguous gender implies that gender itself is not clearly definable.
Knowing several nurses who work in maternity I can tell you that they rarely if ever see these births. If you have the source study I'd love to see their conclusions and testing methods.
Oh and do you have a link where you saw this from? I've only found this article on www.ntac.org. And I would consider this a slightly biased source on this topic.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
First of all, most homosexuals do have kids. The desire to reproduce is seperable from the desire to have sex.
Up until very recently, this was not the case. You had to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. This has somewhat changed, but I was talking about selective pressures that shaped our genomes for millions of years. And from the limited sample of gays I know, I'd debate whether the most homosexuals have kids.
Second, this is why I emphasized a quick review of the "bees" portion of the birds and the bees. The vast majority of bees never reproduce and yet they are a very successful species.
But all worker bees in a hive are clones, they can easily give up reproducing on their own, because it doesn't hurt the reproductive success of their genes. This is not true for human homosexuals.
In a more demanding environment his added help in hunting and gathering without imposing the burden of caring for his kids would actually be a plus in spreading your genes as opposed to a heterosexual brother.
He would be helping me to spread my genes. Since we only share about 50% of our genome, the other 50% of his drew a blank in the genetic lottery. They won't be around next time to be altruistic.
But as evidenced in your response you are suggesting that it is clear that they are "hets" because of their clear sexual preference.
Strictly by probability. The majority of the population is heterosexual, so the majority of intersex children would be expected to be hets too.
It is by this very reasoning that one can argue that homosexuals are not in fact homosexuals by a biblical interpretation because they're gender is actually defined by their preference.
Well that might help some christians with overcoming their hatred towards gays, but I otherwise don't see any merit in re-interpreting the definition of gender (besides, defining gays as hets to avoid prejudice is a concept that is bound to fail, imho. Much better to argumentatively bitch-slap them whenever they talk about perversion, birth defect, divine will or deviance).
I have over the course of my life met some people which were transsexual to some degree or other (that's when your body is clearly male or female, but you feel your mind is the other gender). Most of them have insisted on softening the gender definition to the point where you belong to the sex you feel you belong. I can see some point in this, since we in the west have somewhat of a tradition to emphasize mind over body, but I must say, I never fully subscribed to it.
Now, basing gender on sexual preference seems even more strange to me, since we would have to have a third gender, the bisexuals (not the intersex people), maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Maybe I got lost in the rapid fire postings, but I thought you were refering to homosexuals as deviants. Forgive me if I mixed it up.
Well, my primary concern is with keeping theological based judgements out of public policy, but I am taking Catholics to task a bit. As related to the condoms issue, if a catholic (not you, any catholic) wants to argue that something is wrong (either on a societal level or a moral level) I want to make sure they have their facts right and their definitions established. I'm not going to fire up the condoms issue, you seemed to be at a standoff with some over exactly whether the church said condoms caused aides or not or if they had research to support it.
With the issue of homosexuality I was simply suggesting that if a catholic (or any person) argues that homosexuality is wrong then they should be able to clearly identify a homosexual and I believe the example of ambiguous gender suggests that it's not so easy. Not just in the case of ambiguous gender, but the mere existence of ambiguous gender implies that gender itself is not clearly definable.
Yeah, I agree. I really think that faith is a personal thing. The church needs to issue its moral guidelines and let people regulate themselves. Its just such an absurd notion that, if someone misses the main message of a religion, to then go and try to take away their freedom of choice. Its not going to solve anything, its just going to segregate and cause hatred.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
First question- Is anyone here who is against homosexuality for religious reasons prepared to state that such people are definately sinners? (Sinners for engaging in the homosexual act, not just sinners in general, that is).
I'll have at it. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin and those committing it sinners. It also says that everyone sins. All have fallen short and that even if saved you will continue to sin.
Second question- Since the physical aspects of gender can be mixed at birth, is there any logical reason why the mental aspects of gender absolutely cannot? IOW, are physical and mental charactistics of gender the ONLY genetic traits which segregate together perfectly?
I don't see how the two are necessarily connected. If as you mentioned the need to reproduce and the need to have sex for pleasure are seperate why would ambigious genetilia denote ambigious sexuality? If what you were saying were true, they would be more likely to be bisexual, not homosexual. Instead what it appears is that in their attempt to treat the physical problem the attempted to just assign a gender when it is clear gender is more than a hole or a pole as you so put it.
Third question- If you actually believe you made a conscious decision at some point to be a heterosexual, skip this question. OTOH, if you think your sexuality was innate then is there any reasonable argument by which we cannot judge someone's gender by their mental state.
I do think there is a percentage of people who are likely to be genetically programmed as homosexuals. I say this because I have seen it even from an early age in children I have taught and people I have known growing up.
However on the otherhand I have also seen people who appeared to make a choice. They fall in with a new crowd and suddenly a bit later, they declare themselves homosexuals.
Last question- If we define someone's gender by their mental state (someone attracted to females is a male) then do any theological arguments against supposed homosexuality remain? After all, if we define people this way, then there are no homosexuals (bisexuals being a different matter).
Sure they remain. If anything the Christian God tell you to fight your nature. It declares everyone's initial natural state to be sinful, selfish, etc. Christianity basically forgives you for your nature and then asks you through the grace and assistance of God to attempt to work against and improvev on your nature, even while knowing you will never perfect it.
Now some questions to the peanut gallery.
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
Smircle gave the example of the bees. No drone could sue declaring that they are treated differently than the queen. It is a genetic jackpot and the drone lost.
Science does not declare the entire human species to be equal to one another. If anything it declares the true nature of our genes to be that of pressing for reproductive advantage over one another. If we see these results in our society and attempt to correct for them, aren't we just fighting our own nature instead of being true to it?
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
Nick
Originally posted by Smircle
As I have a gay brother, I know that many gays never "chose" to be gay (contrary to christian mythology), he and others grow up and at some point in personal development begin to feel they are attracted to the same sex.
Watch your step. Christianity doesn't have any assumptions with regards to why a person is Gay.
Originally posted by trumptman
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
Nick
This is where the whole argument of "punishment" falls apart in my eyes. Our primary goal should be to protect the innocent, and to teach. Leave the punishment aspect to God. I'm not suggesting more TVs in prison or anything stupid like that. I'm just saying that when people talk of punishment, they are clearly overstepping the bounds as set forth in Christianity.
Originally posted by trumptman
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
This is slippery terrain. To argue based on evolution is always dangerous, since the effects of evolution cannot be predicted. It is easy to see in hindsight, that a larger brain allows you to create a civilization which in turn allows you to happily overpopulate the planet. It would have taken a genius to predict this outcome some 200.000 years back.
One can find arguments that the very existance of civilization is proof that cooperation is better than selfishnes and one could infer from that that compassion is better than mercylessness (not based on morals or ethics, just arguing from the result side). However, it is hard to prove or disprove, so the point is basically moot (or up to everyones belief).
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
I'd very strongly disagree with the assumption in the first place. Building computers and space ships is not genetically determined, the same goes for democracy. So, fundamental aspects of our life like civilization, speech, human rights are not encoded in our genes, but are human achievements.
I don't see why our genetic basis should be taboo either. If we have the means to get rid of genetic determinism, I say: go for it.
Science does not declare the entire human species to be equal to one another. If anything it declares the true nature of our genes to be that of pressing for reproductive advantage over one another. If we see these results in our society and attempt to correct for them, aren't we just fighting our own nature instead of being true to it?
Moralists of all time have tried to find an axiomatic basis for human rights, laws, ethics and morals, and have either turned to religion (the word of god needs no reasons) or to nature (nature just is as it is, it is justified by existance).
I am not sure why it should be necessary or relevant to base decisions of a modern society on biological traits that have evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.
It is not hard to see that someone who cheats and kills whenever he believes to get away with it is more true to our nature (since cheating can give you a genetic advantage over your victim) than someone who believes in values and has some self-restraint. However, I can hardly see why we would be better off in a dog eats dog world.
Whenever you hear a politician, a religious person, or your average homophobe discuss gay people and what they can or can not do and how they should live you need to realize what they are talking about - human beings who are being themselves. The best way to do this is to re-read things and replace the word 'gay' with 'black', 'latino' or 'asian' and see how completely ridiculous, racist, and biased it would sound.
People ARE born with their sexual preference. No one 'decides' they are gay later on in life. Their surroundings, friends and family would sway whether they 'came out' now or later, they wouldn't decide their sexuality. If someone you know 'decided' to be gay at the age of 35, that means he gave up living a lie to appease his family and perhaps his religion, and finally just 'came out'. To think otherwise is completely absurd and ignorant.
MANY people are deeply closeted for YEARS before they come out - some never do and die never having what they truly wanted thanks to our society. It's the people that you'd never expect that are really suppressed homosexuals. The ones who sneak out of the house and go cruising for sex late at night. Or those who sneak downstairs, turn on the computer and cruise for sex while their wives and children are upstairs sleeping. That's another reason why the % of homosexuals in the population posted here is a complete joke. Obviously all the closet cases around the world aren't thrown into that equation, nor are the ones who refuse to have to define or announce their sexuality - just like heterosexuals don't have to. Yes, it is a shame to mislead people when you marry them while living a lie and have children, but don't blame the person, blame society and various religions who spew fear and ignorance.
The irony of the catholic church is simply blinding. Here you have a religion that states that murderers, rapists AND homosexuals will go to 'hell' (and don't even get me started on their forced, hypocritical and dictating beliefs in general), and at the very same time you have a church filled with gays and lesbians hiding from their sexuality that the very church condemned them for. So, many priests and nuns (no, not all) preach that homosexuality is bad due to the church they are married to, when many of them are severely repressed homosexuals themselves. How TRULY sad.
Originally posted by Kirkland
I find this fairly offensive. I am a gay male. A male. I am not female, I do not want to be female, if given a choice, I would not be female. I would rather be a gay male than a straight female any day of the week. I have nothing against women -- I'm just not one.
Even though I put a disclaimer about this very interpretation in my original post I suspected I would have to defend this quite a bit. To clarify, again, I certainly don't believe that gay males are better classified as females, but I don't have any religious hang-ups that require me to classify people positvely or negatively based on their sexual preference. For those that are compelled to make a moral judgement based upon their religion's advocation against homosexuality I am suggesting that they first have to consider how they identify a homosexual (by there reasoning).
The ambiguous gender examples first illustrate that defining gender is not as clear as it sounds. Once someone accepts this reality they must necessarily question whether or not it is fair to judge someone's gender strictly by their physical appearance even if appearantly non-ambiguous.
Now personally, I would hope that these conclusions alone would compel a rational person to reject black and white judgements about sex, sexual preference, or gender, but I suspect that those still compelled to match reality with scripture would be inclined to conclude that homosexuals might just as well be considered heterosexuals in the "wrong" bodies.
Once again, I'm not arguing that homosexual men are really women, but by raising that as a POSSIBLE interpretation to scripture you can at least introduce reasonable doubt into the mind of a theist about the moral status of homosexuals. Not that doubt prevents most theists from adding the weight of God behind their personal judgements, but it tends to soften the more thoughtful among them.
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll have at it. The Bible says homosexuality is a sin and those committing it sinners. It also says that everyone sins. All have fallen short and that even if saved you will continue to sin.
But with respect to those born with ambiguous gender and corrected surgically to one sex are you prepared to say definatively that their sexual engagment with the "same" sex is, itself, a sinful act?
...why would ambigious genetilia denote ambigious sexuality? If what you were saying were true, they would be more likely to be bisexual, not homosexual. Instead what it appears is that in their attempt to treat the physical problem the attempted to just assign a gender when it is clear gender is more than a hole or a pole as you so put it.
I do not suggest that it necessarily denotes ambiguous sexualtiy (although in some cases it might). For those that believe the physical sexual characteristics dictate the "proper" (biblically speaking- always heterosexual) orientation they must accept that they cannot make such judgements with respect to those born with ambiguous gender.
However on the otherhand I have also seen people who appeared to make a choice. They fall in with a new crowd and suddenly a bit later, they declare themselves homosexuals.
Certainly people can make choices that go against their "nature." And even after a theist begrudgingly accepts the idea that homosexuality may be inborn, many will suggest that it is no different from any other affliction which God wishes us to struggle against. But, if you inerpret gender with emphasis on the mental rather than the physical then this argument melts away. Homosexuals become morally equivalent (with respect to a biblical interpretation) to the infertile, the disabled, or those with ambiguous gender.
Now some questions to the peanut gallery.
Sounds like these deserve a new thread, but I'll reply a little.
Our equal rights are "endowed by our creator" according to the Declaration of Independence. If there is no creator, is there really an evolutionary argument for compassion, and equality of treatment regarding rights for all?
I don't know if this qualifies as an "evolutionary" argument, but the existence of love and compassion and the self-evident realities of society (killing is bad, golden rule, etc) necessitate the same priorities. Whether the source of love and compassion and social concern as mental qualities arose by divine plan or through the simple evolutionary pressure to ensure the survival of our young, our tribe, and ourselves makes no difference.
If were believe large aspects of our lives are genetically predetermined, do we have a right to take resources or direct the government to do so to fight against this genetic determinism?
Definately requires a new thread.
Lastly if genetic predetermism controls aspects of our behavior, at what point do you draw the responsibility line of choice?
Should there really be laws against driving intoxicated since alcohol does not affect all people the same way? How can I be responsible for my actions when I get more buzz off two drinks than someone else and we acted equally with different outcomes determined by our genetics?
This question seems to be more about the fact that the law is a blunt instrument. Personally, I believe information is good and if the burden of bueacracy isn't so prohibitive as to preclude it's application it should be made use of. Issues of discrimination obviously follow, but that is a whole other discussion.
Originally posted by Smircle
Up until very recently, this was not the case. You had to have heterosexual sex to reproduce. This has somewhat changed, but I was talking about selective pressures that shaped our genomes for millions of years. And from the limited sample of gays I know, I'd debate whether the most homosexuals have kids.
I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I definately recall that most homosexuals do have kids. As for your conclusion about the history of this phenomenom I have heard exactly the opposite reasoning. Namely, in the past since homosexuality was so taboo, most homosexuals would get mairred and have kids because they were taught to treat their preference as abberant.
But all worker bees in a hive are clones, they can easily give up reproducing on their own, because it doesn't hurt the reproductive success of their genes. This is not true for human homosexuals.
Yes, good, worker bees work to ensure the success of the hive which ensures the perpetuation of the their genes.
He would be helping me to spread my genes. Since we only share about 50% of our genome, the other 50% of his drew a blank in the genetic lottery. They won't be around next time to be altruistic.
50% is enough. Especially when there are multiple siblings (increasing the odds that more than 50% of the genes are ultimately shared) and when the alternative may be 0% transmitted. As I mentioned, in a harsh environment a child may require many adults to ensure it's survival. A non-reproducing sibling then becomes an asset.
Strictly by probability. The majority of the population is heterosexual, so the majority of intersex children would be expected to be hets too.
Your still not escaping the fact that you are defining them as heterosexuals by their preference, not their genetalia.
Well that might help some christians with overcoming their hatred towards gays, but I otherwise don't see any merit in re-interpreting the definition of gender (besides, defining gays as hets to avoid prejudice is a concept that is bound to fail, imho. Much better to argumentatively bitch-slap them whenever they talk about perversion, birth defect, divine will or deviance).
As a non-Xian I agree that it is a silly and unnecessary exercise. But for those that think a magnificent, all knowing deity really was so obsessed with where people put their gentials it is a very significant issue. I think the merit of the argument isn't so much in advocating for such a re-definition, but simply in pointing out it's validity as another interpretation of scripture. It's effect can be to nuetralize the witch-hunts by getting Xians to admit they can't identify their witches.
Now, basing gender on sexual preference seems even more strange to me, since we would have to have a third gender, the bisexuals (not the intersex people), maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
Here again the ambiguous gender examples are usefull. If theists have to face the reality that there are people who are neither clearly male or female then they cannot apply their harsh judgements. Combined with detaching the physical from the mental qualities of gender it is no big leap to accept that some people are both genders (bisexuals) mentally and are, therefore, not in conflict with the bible whether they have sex with men or woman.
maybe a fourth for those who are sexually attracted to animals. Just feels overly complicated to me.
As your brother will likely tell you, equating homosexuality with beastiality is a lame argument. Their is good evidence (and reason) to suggest that sexual attraction for one's own species is hardwired into our brains, but there is no evidence, AFAIK, that attraction to another species is. A common red herring argument for theists is to equate homosexuality with beastiality, pedophilia, and other demonstrably unhealthy practices.
Originally posted by Patchouli
That's another reason why the % of homosexuals in the population posted here is a complete joke. Obviously all the closet cases around the world aren't thrown into that equation, nor are the ones who refuse to have to define or announce their sexuality - just like heterosexuals don't have to.
The samples are huge, the correction methods and peer review are substantial, and the meta studies that analyze the general trends (in the west) bear out and refine the research all the time. Steps are taken to account for "closetted" respondents, read a third or fourth year psyc textbook for those.
Basically, when, after 40+ years of research, Kinsey and the like tell you that they think roughly 2.3% of people are gay, that's far from being pie in the sky. Ironically, the pie in the sky number, 10%, has persisted because (A) people are lazy and 1-in-10 is a very neat mental heuristic, and (B) because certain elements of the gay rights movement seek legitimacy through numbers.
Pretty stupid, because whether we're talking 10 or 2%, that's still a lot of people, but also, does the question of basic rights change if we're dealing with a few million less or more? If it's an ethical concern, then it's an ethical concern at any level.
To me then, we get a neat look into the psychology of propaganda, and we see that gays (like just about everybody else) don't exactly fight the battle they claim. Really, it's a populists movement, and alternative-mainstream fusion thats going on, rather than a straight out fight for rights, or a forced evolution of ethical concerns. This itself is neither good nor bad, just they way the game is played, but it points to sticking issues between both sides. The churches and the conservatives are not the only ones advancing dogmatic claims at the expense of reason.
You go so far as to question the validity of scientific inquiry into this area of sexuality. Why would it be fundamentally uninteresting and unworthy to try and understand what makes us hetero/homo, masculine/feminine, bi, fetishistic, philiac, phobic, etc etc ??? Working out the exact numbers may be a little unimportant to you, but the scientist should not be interested in the political agenda that may be helped or harmed by a pure clarification of knowledge. Most secular-agnostic scientists would, I believe, make absolutely no link between the number of homosexuals and the question of their legal rights.