Homosexuality

[angus]

This reminds me of the debate about liver.  Isn't it true that the stereotype of young children in america is that they dislike eating livers?  Or is that only certain kinds?  Here in Thailand children are famous and somewhat pigeonholed as chicken-liver-lovers.

My son likes chicken liver.  So did my mother.

I guess it skips a generation.

[angus]

This is not a very good poll. 

They never really are.  Just abstain, that's what I do.  In any case, it has already been pointed out that the dichotomy is false.  (nurturing, for example, or sociological factors beyond one's control were not among the choices.  And combination of factors wasn't a choice.)  But, false dichotomy or not, these polls generate lively and interesting discussion.  And occasionally, if you're lucky, some amusing flame wars.  Learn to enjoy such polls on their merits.

And welcome! 

[angus]

Anyone who thinks about the nature of homosexuality, if not gay themselves must reflect upon the nature of their heterosexuality and the huge variety of genetic (and yes it must have a genetic basis given that we share genes with all species but not all species procreate, or reproduce sexually in the manner in which we do), pre-natal, chemical and environmental factors that shape this.

Then they should consider; what does it matter? Why should it have a bearing on how someone is treated, or what rights they have?

I agree that it should not matter.  Marriage rights, spousal visitation in hospitals, beneficiary advantages, service in the military, etc.  All should be equal under the law. 

But I disagree with you that it should be instinctive to ponder the source of one's heterosexuality.  Really, I'm the product of billions of generations of biological endeavor.  Even before any species capable of pondering the philosophical intricacies of things like liberties had evolved, the phenomena of sexual selection and sexual production were out there.  They'd go unlabeled and unrecognized for hundreds of millions of years, but the physics behind the chemical reactions behind the physiological urges were there.  I'm attracted to folks who are (a) members of my own species, and (b) females for the same reason that I eat:  To survive and pass on my genes.  I don't choose it.  

Now, I didn't vote in this poll for several reasons.  One, the dichotomy is false.  Two, there are other possible reasons to explain homosexuality.  Three, I honestly don't know the answer.  Four, it doesn't really matter one way or the other to me.  But I'd be lying if I said I never wondered about it.  What makes folks gay?  I don't know.  But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

[angus]

But I'm reasonably sure that it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than the physics and physiology behind what makes males lust for females and females lust for males.

It's worth remembering that homosexual behaviour has been documented in animals seperated by as much as, if not more than 200 million years of evolution...and countless generations later it is still here. Indeed it appears to have been around since animal species first started sexual procreation. It seems to go hand in hand.

Fair enough.  And I've been brainwashed by the school system, unquestioning.  But at the moment I have a hard time finding a better explanation for the diversity of plant and animal life, and the former diversity exhibited in the fossil record, than the party line towed by the public schools.  Given the intrinsic drive to reproduce, and the fact that reproduction sexually requires one of each to mate, it only seems natural that heterosexuality is the "default."  And in that line of thought, I thought it an odd comment for you to make.

But I have witnessed homosexual coupling in cats and in dogs.  In fact, we had a cat when I was young that I'm quite sure was gay.  He absolutely preferred to mount other male cats, even when healthy, intact, female cats of reproductive age were abundant in the neighborhood.

[angus]

Well, I have an older brother.  But he's a libertarian, so maybe that doesn't count.

[angus]

Who cares? Live and let live.

when you were young and your heart was an open book...

[angus]

gg (no children)
gs (children)
gs (children)
ss (children)

you're assuming that all straight folks have children.  And that gay folks never do.  Both are demonstrably false.  For example, in my department there are 15 of us, all over 35 and, as far as I can tell, all straight.  Only 11 of us have any children.  Also, of the three closer personal friends I have who are definitely gay, one has had two biological children with his wife of nearly 20 years.  I don't know if these are "average" stats, but it's enough to disprove your assumption.  

[angus]

I'm assuming most gay people don't pass on their genetics (at least in the clan environment Verily suggested).  We could assume a certain percentage of straight people don't procreate, and take that into account.  The the number of people that can procreate within the same gender, however, will be zero.

yes, I understand.  I came into this argument mid-way, and I don't necessarily buy into the pretext of this poll, but I'm checking up on it occasionally, and I just wanted to point out that not only don't straight people always achieve biological success, but also that gay people actually do. Sometimes.  Like I said, one-third of the close personal friends I have that are gay--not that I have many--have procreated in the usual way.  I mean, as long as we're pursuing this Mendel's Pea experiment, we need to keep that in mind.  So your simple model, which assumes zero biological success for homosexuals, must be modified if you're going to realistically carry on with this line of argument.