|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Not a dead horse - honest guv!
|
fingerdoughnut
Shipmate
# 13822
|
Posted
The time has inevitably come for me to give some serious thought to the homosexuality debate - but wait - don't kill this thread yet Master Moderator! I'm not asking for a debate but recommendations for a balanced study of the issue. So Shipmates, pse could you recommend reading/listening from either side of the debate? No foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol from either side pse - just reasoned, well-researched debate. Ta, fd
Posts: 157 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
You could do worse than read the beginning of the original thread on this in Dead Horses which covers the subject from all different viewpoints
Christianity and Homosexuality
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Birth order may affect homosexuality
One study is not conclusive, but the findings and hypothesis deserve further research. As with most other traits, mothers probably vary in a genetically determined manner as to the probability of this influence occurring. If so, then we have something tantamount to a "gay gene," but it is located in the mother rather than the child.
The zoological study Biological Exuberance reveals the prevalence of homosexual behavior in animals to an extent hitherto unrealized. These facts (in addition to the article above) should strike a dagger into the heart of the old arguments from "natural law," which have been used to call homosexual conduct unnatural, as well as the argument that it can have no evolutionary or survival value.
There are also antholopological studies in such various cultures as ancient Greece, Japan, the American Indians, and even the Muslim world in its "golden age" which challenge the often-heard assertion that homosexuality has always been condemned and never institutionalized or enlisted constructively to sustain social values held in common.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
James Alison's output is worth a read.
[ 13. November 2009, 22:40: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
To have a balanced study of the sort you propose presupposes that the issue is science, not emotion and belief. I question that assumption. Does the "pro-family" side have scientific studies that prove whatever it is they need to prove to support their claims? (presumably proving homosexuality is not genetic, but is freely chosen?) It seems to me they don't depend on such studies at all. Many if not most will say "It doesn't matter if you inherited the impulse, you still must not act on it."
In short, I'm not sure a balanced study of this can be undertaken. (Personally, my hunch is that all of the science points one way, anyway.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
This is not top-quality research, but a poll of some 450 people on the autism spectrum last month revealed that nearly 35% of the men and just about 60% of the women self-identified as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Make of that what you will.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
A website dedicated to this issue is:
Bridges Across
Certainly a more attractive way forward than our own dead horse thread which is far too long to be read, let alone used for any sensible purpose.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Ender you can start a new thread on it in the DH board if the old one has got too unweildy.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
(Ran out of edit time)
I was intending to add, don't if we'de manage to generate more light than heat than usual though.
Re MTs point I guess balanced debate does partly depend on whether you are looking for purely scripture based rationales on whether you are looking for a debate about the science.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
I'm not asking for a debate but recommendations for a balanced study of the issue.
I'm very much in favour of balanced studies - but your remit seems to be very broad.
Mousethief suggests that the nature of such a balanced debate needs to be scientific, but I think it could also be historical. It depends what questions you want to ask. For example:
- Why do some people think they are born gay?
- Why does anyone think that homosexuality is a moral issue?
- What are the behavioural and/or social consequences of people thinking, rightly or wrongly, that they are born gay?
- What are the behavioural and/or social consequences of people thinking, rightly or wrongly, that homosexuality is a moral issue?
- In what way has the perception of what homosexuality actually is varied throughout history, and to what extend does it vary from culture to culture?
I suspect that changing assumptions about the meaning of homosexuality are likely to frame a lot of contemporary scientific debate. For example, whilst there's undoubtedly plenty of surviving homoerotic literature from classical Greek and Roman periods, on the other hand, the idea that a person has a "sexual orientation" and is inherently either gay or straight, seems to me to be a comparatively recent phenomenon. I might be wrong on that, though, although I do have my theories about how the concept of sexual orientation identity might have come about.
But the point is, in order to determine whether any particular theory of development of cultural concepts of homosexuality is true or not, you have to look for the historical precedents of those concepts, and you also have to have an open-minded understanding of the way the matter might be seen differently in different cultural contexts, throughout history and in different regions and language groups of the world today.
That's no small task - but to overlook it is to fail to engaged in well-researched debate. Indeed, the OP says "either side", yet the debate might not be as two-sided as you think. Even people who consider themselves homosexual are not unanimously agreed about the nature of their homosexuality, any more than people who consider themselves heterosexual are unanimously agreed about the nature of heterosexuality.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
This is not top-quality research, but a poll of some 450 people on the autism spectrum last month revealed that nearly 35% of the men and just about 60% of the women self-identified as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Make of that what you will.
This fits with my anecdotal experience, although I wasn't aware the proportion was quite as high as that. Of the four women I know on the spectrum (including me) two are gay (self included) and two are bi.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
This is not top-quality research, but a poll of some 450 people on the autism spectrum last month revealed that nearly 35% of the men and just about 60% of the women self-identified as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Make of that what you will.
This fits with my anecdotal experience, although I wasn't aware the proportion was quite as high as that. Of the four women I know on the spectrum (including me) two are gay (self included) and two are bi.
Indeed ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
So either there is some incredible statistical coincidence going on, or something is linking ASC and alternative sexuality. Something genetic, perhaps.
The Klein grid is a reasonable attempt at showing sexuality as a scale rather than a yes/no fact.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
Hostly Hat ON
Folks keep trying to characterize assigning threads to DH as some kind of punishment. It is not. Just as discussions of passages of scripture belong in Kerygmania and flaming other shipmates belongs in Hell, discussions of homosexuality belong in DH. Get over it.
Hostly Hat OFF
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Ooo, here we are in DH! Thanks.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
<snip>
The Klein grid is a reasonable attempt at showing sexuality as a scale rather than a yes/no fact.
Thanks for the heads up on the Klein Grid, that's interesting.
Part of the reason why I personally am uncomfortable with the thought of research into the medical or genetic basis of sexual orientation is because I feel as though it undermines respect for the self-determination of sexual orientation.
Put simply, I think that if I ever come to believe that I'm gay, I should be allowed to call myself gay. Similarly, if I ever come to believe that I'm straight, I should be allowed to call myself straight. This is something which I feel that many people don't really respect, particularly gay rights activists who feel that it contradicts the belief that people are "born gay".
Having said that, I'd concede that changing your mind about your sexual orientation shouldn't be thought of as an acceptable excuse for breaking off a relationship or marriage. But just because I think I might change my mind about my sexual orientation doesn't mean that I'd like to be labelled "bisexual". Whether we like it or not, I think the concept of bisexuality still has connotations of promiscuity, even among the gay and lesbian community itself.
Some people might see the Klein grid as implying that everyone is bisexual - and I suspect that some people in the gay rights movement might feel that this undermines the cause of gay rights, because it undermines the idea that there's a difference between gay and straight people by which it's meaningful to describe a person as "discriminated against" in the first place. Certainly, when I walk around the street and the park during the day and see people on their own, I can't tell who's gay and who's straight. And I don't assume that everyone who visits a bar with a rainbow flag hanging outside it is gay either.
I realise that it's horrible to question homophobic attacks, but I suspect that this is at least in part what identity politics is based on. Put it this way: can an attack only be described as "homophobic" if the victim is actually gay - or can it still be rightfully thought of as a "homophobic" attack if the victim isn't actually gay, but was mistakenly thought to be gay by the attacker? If so, then how do we judge the motives of the attacker so as to determine the difference between a "homophobic" attack and a "non-homophobic" attack? What do people believe the purpose is of making such a distinction? I suspect that gay rights activists and conservative Christians and Muslims are likely to have very different views on the answer to these questions, to put it mildly.
Indeed - while we're on the subject of horrible things - how has it come to pass that we feel that it's hard to keep vitriol out of this sort of debate? Why is it that people feel so strongly about it, and what is the historical precedent for that sort of thing?
That's why I think that study of the science is only a small part of the story. You need to study the history as well.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
This is not top-quality research, but a poll of some 450 people on the autism spectrum last month revealed that nearly 35% of the men and just about 60% of the women self-identified as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Make of that what you will.
This fits with my anecdotal experience, although I wasn't aware the proportion was quite as high as that. Of the four women I know on the spectrum (including me) two are gay (self included) and two are bi.
Indeed
So either there is some incredible statistical coincidence going on, or something is linking ASC and alternative sexuality. Something genetic, perhaps.
I was resisting the temptation to put an interpretation on it, but since you've started, I guess I can legitimately offer an alternative - though not one you're going to like...
Given the difficulty that people on the autistic spectrum have with relating to people in general, perhaps the propensity to being gay may be because it is easier to relate to your own sex. Therefore the ASC person falls into relating to people of the same sex sexually as an extension of relating to them more easily.
Just a suggestion - and one that is no more or less proven than the genetic hypothesis, which would have some interesting implications if it did prove to be true.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
My Tu'pence on the ASC/ sexuality thing. I take it that at least some normative heterosexual behaviour is learned, frequently subconsciously or uncritically. People who are less susceptible to rote behaviour in accordance with norms, such as people with ASCs, are going to be less likely to fall in with 'cultural heterosexuality' than the rest of the population.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
I'm curious that question E in the Klein grid is "Social preference- Which gender do you socialise with?"
Most of my friends are female, but I don't recognise any sexual component to this at all. They're my friends. Similarly, most of my husband's friends are male. If we socialise with another couple, I tend to chat predominantly to the wife, and my husband predominantly with the husband. This gives my husband and I three "6s" each in the grid, which doesn't accord with my own perceptions.
Does anyone else think that the gender of your friends is irrelevent to your sexual orientation?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Originally posted by amber.:
"This is not top-quality research, but a poll of some 450 people on the autism spectrum last month revealed that nearly 35% of the men and just about 60% of the women self-identified as gay/lesbian or bisexual. Make of that what you will."
I was resisting the temptation to put an interpretation on it, but since you've started, I guess I can legitimately offer an alternative - though not one you're going to like...
Given the difficulty that people on the autistic spectrum have with relating to people in general, perhaps the propensity to being gay may be because it is easier to relate to your own sex...
I have no particular desire to attribute it to genetics vs behaviour, personally.
Looking at the now slightly more up to date figures to hand, 15% of the men with an ASC report as gay, 16% as bisexual. 62% of the men report being heterosexual.
Of the women with an ASC, 10% report as lesbian, 43% as bisexual. Only 35% of the women report as heterosexual.
There are other sexuality choices, in case people are wondering why the figues don't add to 100%.
If there was a bias towards one's own gender simply by them being easier to get along with, I'd say it's less easy to establish from those figures.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
(Just a thought, rather than based on an examination of research:)
I've heard that autism can be like an extreme male brain. Therefore, is it possible that women with autism are more likely to have a more male brain than other women? And is this female 'male brain' more likely to lead to lesbian / bi tendencies?
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
As far as I can remember, the only difference discovered between the male brain and the female brain, other the amount of testosterone / estrogen floating around therein, is the size of the corpus callosum. I've never heard of any studies on the comparative size of the corpus callosum between people on the spectrum and people not on the spectrum. Might be an interesting study.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
(Just a thought, rather than based on an examination of research:)
I've heard that autism can be like an extreme male brain. Therefore, is it possible that women with autism are more likely to have a more male brain than other women? And is this female 'male brain' more likely to lead to lesbian / bi tendencies?
Yup, that's the leading theory so far (Simon Baron-Cohen's work). Mousethief is right that more research needs to be done on which bits of the brain develop differently as a result.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Although the 'extreme male brain' theory is far from uncontroversial.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
so what exactly are we meant to be exploring on this thread??
why are some people gay?
How about 'why is male homosexuality treated as so much more of an issue?'
I notice that the biological component - that birth order affects sexuality - is batted around a lot, but only with regard to boys, and with different reasons: the one mentioned here is supposed to relate to having elder brothers - sharing a mother - but one I read recently says it's to do with a woman's body developing antibodies to the male child (or something) so each subsequent male child becomes more feminine in order to survive. So what about female children, then?
It all feels like nonsense to me.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There is a theory that how male you are is related to the amount of testosterone you are exposed to in utero or in the womb. A theory has been postulated to explain the corelation between the incidence of homosexuality with the number of older brothers based on the mother's body getting better at mopping up any testosterone, so reducing the amount of testosterone that any sons are exposed to in utero.
Why this seems a reasonable postulation is the known pattern of a Rhesus negative mother with a series of pregnancies of Rhesus positive babies. The reaction, before all the antibody injections, was much worse for the later babies.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
