Civilized Discussion and Debate (spam not permitted)

[boo's daddy]

Hi. Been here rather long and not posted in this forum, so here goes.

First, congratulations on a very sensible thread dedicated to avoiding the "willy-waving" that typifies most internet discussions.

Second, some points about the Co-op bank thing.

People may already know that the Co-operative Bank bases its entire business plan on its ethical stance. This encompasses fair trade, human rights, environment, animal welfare, etc. Because they're a co-operative, they're run by their customers effectively, and customers vote on their policies.

They won't do business with people who don't share those principles, basically, and as said, that is entirely their choice.

As a result, many, especially charitable organisations, use the Co-op Bank. Some charities won't do business with anyone who DOESN'T use the Co-op Bank!

So, Christian Voice may be screwed in their financial dealings with other charitable agencies.

EDITORIAL: In which case, serves them right. It seems as if the progress made in the past few decades towards equality is being eroded and it's good someone is taking a stand.

I agree with Fiona, in that it's irrelevant whether or not sexuality is a "choice" (whatever that means). I would go further and say that scientific studies of it are so primitive that we are much better using the evidence of our experience.

Though I did laugh at the documentary "Middle Sex", shown recently in the UK. This was a really interesting review of various strands of research and I'd recommend it.

In it, they reported a study in which a bunch (about 50) of heterosexual men were classified, using an attitude questionnaire, as "homophobic" or "non-homophobic". They then showed them gay porn and measured their sexual arousal using a thing attached to their bits.

The "homophobes" were significantly more aroused than the "non-homophobes", even though they claimed not to have been afterwards. HA HA HA!

File under suspicions confirmed: homophobia is a case of "the lady doth protest too much methinks..."

[Dottie]

My mentioning of homosexuality not being a choice was in respons to Athenas comment about homosexuality not being "Natural". Allthough I am not entirely sure about what she ment by natural I have mostly heard the word as some kind of religous mantra that is to suggest something is created by human depravity.

@Athena: Editing your post to say it is not "a way of evolution" instead of "not natural" doesn't really answer the question either. What do you mean by a way of evolution? Whether or not homosexuality is evolutionally adaptive is not known, and is also not an indication on whether it is moraly correct or not.

I also think it is poor internet etiquette to edit your post without telling as a respons to other peoples criticism. It is easy to overlook for the other person, especially so if there are quite a few posts comming after so that the discussion have changed page.

[Chanak]

As an aside, homosexuality has been observed both in the wild and within controlled environments by scientists observing animal populations. Since this phenomemon has been observed by so many in various parts of the globe, it is accepted as fact that there are "natural" causes at work which lead to its emergence. Most scientists involved in this research are hard at work looking into discovering the "wiring" which impacts sexual mechanics. In my opinion, any delving into the "why" and "how does it work" of DNA and genetics can only benefit the human race as a whole, since historically one thing leads to another (to borrow from an old pop song). Discovering the genetic coding which might be responsible for sexual activity and responses might also lead to other, useful discoveries. This is usually how it goes.

I would also like to point out one of the conditions for posting in this thread: you accept that your opinions will be questioned by others and statements will be reviewed critically. This also means that part of the discussion will entail answering those questions. If you're crunched for time or will be unable to answer in a timely manner, please inform the questioner(s) of this so they will not be left hanging, so to speak.

EDIT - I also feel that Dottie has a valid point in his post above (I just read his edit after posting this). This ties in to the previous paragraph. People will respond to the content of a post. While I understand that editing for typos of formatting is a part of the posting process, changing the content of a post in a discussion without some form of notification beyond the "edited" message in small print is destructive to the discussion.

[C Elegans]

For argument's sake, how can it be proven that sexuality/gender gender are not a choice? Even if they are not choices, how could that be proven? I do not disagree, but I want to know more.

The evidence comes from several lines of reseach that converge at the same point. First, there have been many sociological studies of homo- and heterosexuality demostrating there are no significant differences in social background between the two groups. If there is no social differences between two groups that differ in some aspect (in this case sexual orientation), it means that the differences cannot be explained by social factors. Second, epidemiological studies have shown that homosexuality is equally frequent (about 3-4% of the population) in all cultures and over time. If a phenomenon is equally present in many different human cultures and the frequence does not chance if you take measurements at different time points, it means sociocultural factors have no influence on this phenomena. For instance, some countries homosexuality is associated with severe punishment, even death penality. Still, in anonymous interviews and polls, the same % of the population report they are homosexual. This is strong evidence that is not a choice.

So, if sociocultural factors have no influence on homosexuality, what is left then that have an influence? Let's consider the alternatives. Athena suggests:

If homosexuality is not a way of evolution, it would mean that all life on earth has evolved except homosexual individuals. If homosexual individuals did not evolve, they must have been created by other means. They could have been created as they are by a god or another mystical being, or they could have been places here by extraterrestrial beings. Is this what you mean?

Ok, so one alternative would be that homosexuals were created by a god or similar.

Another alternative is presented by Fiona, who writes:

If you start from the position that sexuality is bipolar, then I suppose any innate predictor which unfailingly distinguished homosexuals from herterosexuals would serve as proof. I take it this is what the tedious search for the Gay Gene is all about. However I see no evidence that sexuality is that kind of phenomenon.

It is well known that sexual orientation is not bipolar, homo-, hetero- and bi-sexual orientations exist.
Who do you mean are searching for a Gay gene? The media? The public? Not the scientists in any case. It is already known from twin and adption studies that genetic factors only contribute to at the most 50-60% of the variance in sexual orientation. It is also well known that a "this or that" gene will not be found since the highest contribution of a single gene that has been found for a certain behaviour, is 1%.

Ok, so we now have several alternatives. Homosexuality could be something mystical, created by a god. It could be something that does not exist, it's just that some people committ homosexual acts (this we have evidence against). It could be genetically determined (evidence say it's only partly genetical though). It could be a concsious choice some individuals make for unknown reasons (this we have evidence against since social factors have very little influence and a choice is a social factor).

I propose another alternative, the alternative that is consistent with scientific evidence. It's often called the neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation and I will explain what it is and what the evidence is.

When we are embryos, we are at firest sexless (although more resembling a female). Our sex is determined by our genes, that trigger off a set of events that result in release of sex hormones that influence the development of the embryo. The neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation propose that homosexual individuals are prenatally exposed to a hormonal environment that is similar to that of the other sex, and that this is an important factor in the development of homosexual orientation.

Animal studies have shown that sexual preferences can be altered by exposing the animals to hormones when they are young. One early famous experiment showed that Drosophilia (fruit flies) choose same-sex parters when flooded with sex hormones as young. Later on, studies have been performed on other species and studies of wild animals who have sexual relationship with partners of the same sex have confirmed the role of hormonal exposure in partner selection. However, for ethical reasons human embryos can obviously not be flooded with one or the other hormone prenatally in order to determine the influence on later sexual orientation. Thus, we have to study this another way in humans. By studying other biological markers that are influenced by prenatal hormone exposure, such as olfactory responses to phermones and other sex hormones, and anatomical/biological features, it has been shown that such markers do indeed differ between homo and heterosexual individuals. A recent brain imaging study demonstated that homosexual mens' brains showa similar response patterns as heterosexual womens' brains when exposed to the smell of testosterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one but not to other odours. The brain pattern response to olfactory (smell) stimuli is something that cannot be choosen volontarily. It's a very basic and very biological thing. Thus, this study and many similar studies of markers related to sexual orientation, provide evidence that sexual orientation is partly genetically determined and partly determined by prenatal hormonal environment. What you do after you have been born, has very little influence.

Individuals who committ homosexual acts without having a homosexual orientation, will always exists though, just as individuals with a homosexual orientation may committ heterosexual acts. Many heterosexual individuals experiment with same-sex partners just to try, or engage in group sex with partners of both genders. Occational sex does not however change your orientation, ie who you fall in love with and who you desire as a romantic sexual partner.

Personally I don't think it's a waste of money and research resources to do research about homosexuality since it's still illegal and punishable even with death in many countries due to religious beliefs. Thus it is a question human rights.

Here at SYM several people have demonstrated the belief that homosexuality is a "choice" and not a sexual orientation like heterosexuality. The view that is a choice supports the religious view that homosexuality is a "sin", since if it's a choice by free will, the homosexual individual chooses to committ sin. If science can demonstrate homosexual orientation is equal to heterosexual in all aspects, ie it is equally "natural", equally functional and equally not a choice but a biological disposition, I believe that with time, scientific evidence will help modernise the view of homosexuality. In fact, this has already happened in most of Western Europe.

[C Elegans]

Hey, I'm writing up and article I have to finish before my holiday in 1.5 weeks, and my students are killing me

Like Fiona, I would not describe ancient Greek as a homosexual society, no more than I would describe the US, Germany or Denmark as homosexual societites. The social life in ancient Greek was based on the extended core-family. Homosexuality among men was more accepted than it became later when christiantiy took its long and hard grip of Europe, but just because homosexuality was more accepted it wouldn't call it a homosexual society. A homosexual society would in my opinion be a society where homosexual relationships was the norm.

As an aside, homosexuality has been observed both in the wild and within controlled environments by scientists observing animal populations. Since this phenomemon has been observed by so many in various parts of the globe, it is accepted as fact that there are "natural" causes at work which lead to its emergence.

Precisely. It must also be noted that especially in animals with complex social systems, such as primates, sexual behaviour is not only for reproduction but also for strenghtening group bonds, for communication and for stress relieve. The famous macaces in Japan is a perfect example of this. The females live in groups, and the males only join them during the mating periods. The females have sexual relationships with each other all year around, and when the males arrive, they often have to fight with other females in order to be able to mate since a majority of the females actually prefer their female partners before the males.

It should also be noted that the survival value of adult individuals who do not create offspring but can contribute to the group in terms of food gathering, would be very high in harsh times.

[boo's daddy]

Personally I don't think it's a waste of money and research resources to do research about homosexuality since it's still illegal and punishable even with death in many countries due to religious beliefs. Thus it is a question human rights.

Pardon the butting in, and I agree 100%, however...

Many GLB people I know are ambivalent about this because, if "gayness" is identified as a biologically determined phenomenon, isn't there a danger that it detracts from the "equality" argument?

In the one hand, a biological basis feeds the "disease" argument; on the other, what if we find that it IS a choice?

Wouldn't it be better to sort the politics out separately and argue strongly that this is a matter of equality and not cause?

Regarding the research you cite, we should not be surprised at all that, for example, the patterns we see on some machine looking at gay men's brains show similarities to the patterns on straight womens' brains when they smell men. After all, they both fancy men!

First, there have been many sociological studies of homo- and heterosexuality demostrating there are no significant differences in social background between the two groups.

This is news to me; any chance of a link/references?

Thanks

[Cuchulain82]

A little polite sparring

The evidence comes from several lines of reseach that converge at the same point. First, there have been many sociological studies of homo- and heterosexuality demostrating there are no significant differences in social background <snip> So, if sociocultural factors have no influence on homosexuality, what is left then that have an influence?

Doesn't this only mean that no significant differences that the study identified as significant were confirmed? It is difficult to criticize a study that I haven't read, but studies of social factors are notoriously spotty. I would be interested to see exactly how homosexuality was defined for this study- was homosexuality a long term relationship? Or was it sexual urges? Was it something else?

CE, this is not a sound conditional statement. If homosexuality is not a way of evolution, it means that homosexual individuals do not further the evolutionary process, not that they are not a result of an evolutionary process. Play fair

neurohormonal theory of sexual orientation[/b]...

I have heard about this theory before, but I've never had it explained to me. I can not deny that it sounds, to me at least, to be one of the best explanations of homo/heterosexual inclinations. However, I cannot discount completely the possible influence of society/social factors. Let me explain a little...

Individuals who committ homosexual acts without having a homosexual orientation, will always exists though, just as individuals with a homosexual orientation may committ heterosexual acts. Many heterosexual individuals experiment with same-sex partners just to try, or engage in group sex with partners of both genders.

How can one definitively tell the difference? I do not mean homosexual "experimentation" equates to homosexuality. IMO, homosexuality manifests itself throughout a person's life- love/attraction for a person of the same gender. The same is true for heterosexuality. However, I do wonder about cases of people who might be inclined towards homosexuality but live heterosexual lives. In our society, homosexuality is not widely accepted, and I think this encourages heterosexual lifestyles.

Let's consider again the example of ancient Athens. I would like to expand this to ancient Greece generally, so as to include Sparta as well. I said before that ancient Athens was a homosexual society. That was a mischaracterization and was not what I meant. What I meant was that within Athens there was an definite and identifiable homosexual niche. Yes, the society functioned, practically speaking, because of the family structure. However, men in the aristocracy are portrayed as marrying and maintaining families because of duty to state, not love. In fact, according to Plato "true" love (as in divine love- agape) could only be experienced via a homosexual relationship. As was mentioned, in Athens a mentor structure was in integral part of this, and agape did not include physical love (the Greek for that is eros). However, my understanding is that physical relationships between men or men and boys were not only common (relative to today) but were also considered by some (not Plato) to be natural.

In Sparta the situation was, from the little I know, similar. There was a mentor system between older soldiers and young boys. This was in part a militaristic function, and the boy acted as a squire. However, this was also a sexual relationship. The boy took the role of the "woman" in the sexual relationship, just as the older soldier had when he was a young boy.

Much of the above is inductive. However, another example occured to me- what about those darn female macaces? From your example CE, it seems fair to say that the macac (sp?) societal structure is such that a female macac has no chance to know a heterosexual lifestyle. They are raised in a society where homosexual relationships between females are a way of life, and procreation does not result from heterosexual relations. Is it too much of a stretch to say that they feel their survival is tied into this way of life? Could a female macac survive if she didn't become part of that homosexual society?There seem to be similarities, at least in my mind, between these macaces and the Greek example above.

The whole point of this is to say that I believe social factors can have a discernable effect on sexual orientation. In societies where homosexual lifestyles are encouraged, homosexuality seems to be more common. While hormones probably have something to do with sexual orientation, and may indeed be the main causal factor, is it possible to say they are the only factor?

Edit- @Boo

Welcome to SYM! Watch out though- this place will take over your spare time almost as quickly as BGII

[fable]

Let's consider again the example of ancient Athens. I would like to expand this to ancient Greece generally, so as to include Sparta as well. I said before that ancient Athens was a homosexual society. That was a mischaracterization and was not what I meant. What I meant was that within Athens there was an definite and identifiable homosexual niche. Yes, the society functioned, practically speaking, because of the family structure. However, men in the aristocracy are portrayed as marrying and maintaining families because of duty to state, not love. In fact, according to Plato "true" love (as in divine love- agape) could only be experienced via a homosexual relationship. As was mentioned, in Athens a mentor structure was in integral part of this, and agape did not include physical love (the Greek for that is eros). However, my understanding is that physical relationships between men or men and boys were not only common (relative to today) but were also considered by some (not Plato) to be natural.

I wonder to what extent this emphasis in Greek culture of the Athenian Empire period towards male homosexuality came from their Doric bias against women? With most women unschooled and without political power (there were a few impressive exceptions, but almost all occurred in the courtesan class, so outside the standard familial structure), women were thus felt to be "below" close friendship. This view would naturally tend to foster close relationships, sexual and otherwise, among the same sex. Interestingly, the same situation arose during the Italian Renaissance, in the upper classes. Women were kept secluded, often unlettered and regarded as little better than household custodians and child producers. The sexes were extremely segregated, and the incident of homosexuality among young, wealthy men in Florence grew so high at one point that the Council took alarm. It actually paid for, and maintained, several establishments of prostitutes to encourage young males of the financial aristocracy to fool around with women. No one evidently wanted to face the cultural fact that if you keep men and women completely split in society and give all power and training to one sex and very little to the other, you're going to find the sexes--again--spending time with their own.

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=fable]I wonder to what extent this emphasis in Greek culture of the Athenian Empire period towards male homosexuality came from their Doric bias against women? <snip> This view would naturally tend to foster close relationships, sexual and otherwise, among the same sex.[/quote]
This is a good question, and one for which I have no answer. It seems like a chicken-and-egg question to some extent- did the philosophy of the society keep women down, or did the opression of women spawn the philosophy? I honestly have no idea. It could very well be that there is another option all together.

[QUOTE=fable]Interestingly, the same situation arose during the Italian Renaissance, in the upper classes. <snip> you're going to find the sexes--again--spending time with their own.[/QUOTE]
This is very interesting. I didn't know of this example. It does seem to bolster the societal argument. It could be that that humans are just generally horny and want sexual release, and in societies where the genders are seperated, homosexual relationships are a more viable option.

[C Elegans]

Doesn't this only mean that no significant differences that the study identified as significant were confirmed? It is difficult to criticize a study that I haven't read, but studies of social factors are notoriously spotty. I would be interested to see exactly how homosexuality was defined for this study- was homosexuality a long term relationship? Or was it sexual urges? Was it something else?

Which study are you referring to here? There are thousands of studies made on the genetic, biological and social influence on homosexuality. Which one do you wish to read? The highest quality of data regarding the influence of social factors, is usually found in the large cohort studies of twins. You can find many such studies in Pubmed or Psychlit. I would also like to know what your basis is for claiming that studies of social factors are "notoriously spotty". The models used in epidemiological studies for calculating effect size of genetic and environmental factors have been shown to be extremly reliable over the many years they have been used. If you wish to critisise the results of these studies, I suggest that you first learn how such studies are conducted and how data are analysed. For copyright reasons I cannot post scientific articles here at SYM. However, a good start to learn more about this type of studies is to read about the facts and the theories behind. Try this site, it contains some basic information:
http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/default.htm

CE, this is not a sound conditional statement. If homosexuality is not a way of evolution, it means that homosexual individuals do not further the evolutionary process, not that they are not a result of an evolutionary process. Play fair

I am playing it very fair by addressing the underlying assumption of what it means that something "do not further the evolutionary process". First, what does it mean to "further the evolutionary process"? It should mean that something has a survival value, otherwise it is discontinued in the process of evolution. So, if something does not have a functional survival value, how come it has survived during phylogeneis? In many species including birds and mammals? Why do homosexuals exist today, not as some random mutations but consistently as 3-4% of the population in all cultures, if they have no functional evolutionary value? Claiming that homosexuality "does not further the evolutionary process" is thus equal to claiming it is not a result of evolution.

How can one definitively tell the difference? I do not mean homosexual "experimentation" equates to homosexuality. IMO, homosexuality manifests itself throughout a person's life- love/attraction for a person of the same gender. The same is true for heterosexuality.

The difference is that sexual orientation is a multifaceted construct including consistenly and enduring falling in love with and directing romatic love towards another person as well as feeling physically and sexually attracted to this person. When you measure sexual orientation, you measure it much the same way as you measure whether people are right or left handed: you ask a set of questions regarding the persons preference in many different situations. Typically, such interviews or forms include questions about behaviours, feelings, desires and the frequency and duration of those. Thus, if I report that I have never fallen in love with a woman, I would like to share my life romantically with a man and not a women, and I feel strongly sexually attracted only to men and not to women, I would be rated as heterosexual even if I also reported a few incidents with sexual acts including other women.

An explanation of what sexual orientation is can be found here:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications ... cts.html#1

However, another example occured to me- what about those darn female macaces? From your example CE, it seems fair to say that the macac (sp?) societal structure is such that a female macac has no chance to know a heterosexual lifestyle. They are raised in a society where homosexual relationships between females are a way of life, and procreation does not result from heterosexual relations. Is it too much of a stretch to say that they feel their survival is tied into this way of life? Could a female macac survive if she didn't become part of that homosexual society?There seem to be similarities, at least in my mind, between these macaces and the Greek example above.

I am not sure how you reason here. The female Japanse macaces are genetically predisposed, just as we are, to live in groups. Just like us, they can probably survive on their own, but the group offers benefits that are not easily compensated for if you live alone. All female macaces show same-sex sexual behaviour. Not all Greek men showed same sex sexual behaviour, only a few. So I am not sure what similarities you are referring to. The "agape" Plato wrote about was a divine, brotherly love only possible between men since only men and not women could have such godlike features in their patriarchal society.

The whole point of this is to say that I believe social factors can have a discernable effect on sexual orientation. In societies where homosexual lifestyles are encouraged, homosexuality seems to be more common. While hormones probably have something to do with sexual orientation, and may indeed be the main causal factor, is it possible to say they are the only factor?

I strongly disagree, and scientific evidence demonstrate that homosexual orientation is the same regarding if you live in San Franscico or in Teheran, where there is death penalty on homosexual acts. I think you fail to make the crucial distinction between sexual orientation and having sex, committing a sexual act. I could live like a nun all my life, but my sexual orientation would still be heterosexual. I could get imprisoned in a woman's prison and have sex with women since there are no other people around to have sex with, but my sexual orientation would not change, I would not suddenly start falling in love in women. What you are saying is that homosexual acts are more common in societies where homosexuality is encouraged. Of course it is. Using narcotic drugs is more common in societies where it's not associated with death penalty than in countres where it is. This thus however not change people's genetic disposition to become addicted or not.

As I wrote above, sexual orientation is a mulitfacted behaviour pattern that include a wide range of behaviours. Apart from feelings of love and attraction, it also includes arousal patterns, hormonal response patterns and choice of sexual partner. Simply having sex with somebody does not mean that is part of your sexual orientation. In some cultures, adults teach the kids how to have sex as soon as the kids reach puberty. This does not make people in those cultures having a pedophilic sexual orientation.

In Iran, you have 3-4% homosexual people. Since they don't want to get executed and get their families punished, they live either alone or in heterosexual marriages. In Sweden, homosexual people have equal rights to heterosexual people in all aspects bar marriage (homosexual couples have an equivalent called "registered partnership"). Thus, the 3-4% of the population who are homosexual, can live openly with their same sex partners.

If homosexual orientation is influenced by social factors, why is the incidence of homosexual orientation the same regardless of whether it's legal and accepted or associated with death penality?

[fable]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]This is very interesting. I didn't know of this example. It does seem to bolster the societal argument. It could be that that humans are just generally horny and want sexual release, and in societies where the genders are seperated, homosexual relationships are a more viable option.[/QUOTE]

I have a well-researched history of the Florentine nobility drawing from source documents, and if I can find the damn thing , I'll post from it. The author does not attempt to draw any conclusions from his material, but the material itself is pretty audacious. My conclusions are yours: whatever one's personal (biological) orientation, development factors within the environment add another layer to both the self-perception of sexual identity, and the way this is acted out. In Florence at the time, the elders were alarmed at the sheer numbers of homosexuals among the male children of the ruling elite (which consisted of roughly 200 middle to elderly male citizens, all of prominent families). The proportion of young men engaged in homosexual activity if accurate would be way out of line with modern sexual research, leading one to suspect cultural overwriting of biological conditioning. That's never good, and may also be a contributing factor via psychological stress to the large recorded incident of wife beating in the culture.

[Audace]

Just to add a little extra information:

Homosexual:

2. A person who is sexually or romantically attracted only to people of the same gender .
ETYMOLOGY: Coined in 1869 by a Hungarian physician named Karoly Maria Benkert from the Greek homos and the Latin sexus, meaning same sex . It entered the English language in 1892.

Rather a disastrous year for gay people, 1869. This social discussion about homsexuality has not been going on very long considering the time frame of human history.

Nice thread BTW, and I hope this isn't considered spam, I'll go back top lurking now.

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]

Who do you mean are searching for a Gay gene? The media? The public? Not the scientists in any case. [/quote]

I find it difficult to agree with this statement. For example a google search for "gay gene" produces a lot of sites, some of which seem to be scientifically respectable. The research into this area is mentioned in "the language of genes" a book intended for lay people by Steve Jones, although it is only a passing reference. Steven Rose also refers to such research in Lifelines, again a book for lay people. Admittedly these studies seem to have been conducted in the 1990's, but that is hardly prehistoric. You probably have more up-to-date information, since you seem to have access to current scientific periodicals, and if the question has been settled so there are no studies going on at present, I apologise.

I'm afraid I don't know how to quote separate bits from a forum on the same reply so I will have to come back to other points in another post. I hope that is not against the rules

[Fiona]

That was not really the point I was making. It was more about the value of a person, independent of their orientation. This is more humanist than scientific. I was wondering why we pay so much attention to this aspect of life.

While I accept that this is true if your definition of orientation is accepted, I don't think I am entirely convinced that "falling in love" and "who you desire as a sexual partner" are not separable. Many people live in long term relationships with people they do not sexually desire; and many others have affairs outside the love relationship. Surely that makes some difference to the concept of sexual orientation you are proposing ?

Personally I don't think it's waste of money and research resources to do research about homosexuality since it's still illegal and punishable even with death in many countries due to religious beliefs. Thus it is a question human rights.

Here at SYM several people have demonstrated the belief that homosexuality is a "choice" and not a sexual orientation like heterosexuality. The view that is a choice supports the religious view that homosexuality is a "sin", since if it's a choice by free will, the homosexual individual chooses to committ sin. If science can demonstrate homosexual orientation is equal to heterosexual in all aspects, ie it is equally "natural", equally functional and equally not a choice but a biological dispstion, I believe that with time, scientific evidence will help modernise the view of homosexuality. In fact, this has already happened in most of Westen Europe.

I wish I could share your optimistic view of the effect of such research, but I don't. It is possible that establishing that homosexuality is not a choice (which I wholeheartedly accept) would lead to a "modernise(d)"view of it. It is at least as likely that proof that it was innate and not amenable to change would lead to persecution. I can imagine many people, finally convinced that the "choice" argument was wrong, taking the view that there is nothing to be done but to exterminate these people who so offend them. Sorry if that is cynical but people can be awfully wicked.

It is a matter of human rights, as you say. Rights do not depend on causes and it really make no difference where sexuality comes from. Trying to find out gives the issue an inflated importance and supports the view that it is a problem. It isn't.

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
I. First, what does it mean to "further the evolutionary process"? It should mean that something has a survival value, otherwise it is discontinued in the process of evolution. So, if something does not have a functional survival value, how come it has survived during phylogeneis? In many species including birds and mammals? Why do homosexuals exist today, not as some random mutations but consistently as 3-4% of the population in all cultures, if they have no functional evolutionary value? Claiming that homosexuality "does not further the evolutionary process" is thus equal to claiming it is not a result of evolution. [/quote]

I am a bit puzzled by this approach to evolution. You say that if something does not have a functional survival value it is discontinued in the process of evolution. Why? If something is actively damaging evolution will probably weed it out: but if the thing is neutral in terms of survival nothing will happen, surely. Evolution selects against things rather than for them.

Equally, homosexuality might be so much a part of being human that it could not be weeded out without taking out the species. Evolution has to work with what we have, and many traits are associated with others. Sometimes we have to live with features which are undesirable (I am not saying homosexuality is that, but it illustrates the point) because they co-exist with others which are essential. I suppose what I am trying to say is that this is not a purposeful process ad not all options are open.

[Dottie]

[QUOTE=Fiona]Rights do not depend on causes and it really make no difference where sexuality comes from.[/QUOTE]

I certainly agree with this part, however I remember there was a survey done in sweden a couple of years ago witch showed that atleast here people who viewed homosexuality as pre-determined was generarly more positive towards homosexuality and homosexuals.

edit: After a quick search in pubmed I found several studies that says people who view homosexuality as a choice have generarly more negative attitudes towards it. So while I still agree that in principle there should be no difference the fact seems to be that there are.

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
The difference is that sexual orientation is a multifaceted construct including consistenly and enduring falling in love with and directing romatic love towards another person as well as feeling physically and sexually attracted to this person. <snip> What you are saying is that homosexual acts are more common in societies where homosexuality is encouraged. Of course it is. <snip> sexual orientation is a mulitfacted behaviour pattern that include a wide range of behaviours. Apart from feelings of love and attraction, it also includes arousal patterns, hormonal response patterns and choice of sexual partner. Simply having sex with somebody does not mean that is part of your sexual orientation. <snip> If homosexual orientation is influenced by social factors, why is the incidence of homosexual orientation the same regardless of whether it's legal and accepted or associated with death penality?[/QUOTE]
I guess that we've isolated the difference. We've eached defined homosexuality in different ways. Yours, CE, involves romantic connection. Mine involved instances of sexual acts. As I said before, all my examples are unfortunately historical, and therefore inductive. You, as always, are relying on a deductive process. However, I would say that we have each have acceptable answers for our respective definitions of "homosexuality" or "homosexual relations".

As for those macaces... you said above that:
[QUOTE=CE]The female Japanse macaces are genetically predisposed, just as we are, to live in groups. Just like us, they can probably survive on their own, but the group offers benefits that are not easily compensated for if you live alone. All female macaces show same-sex sexual behaviour. Not all Greek men showed same sex sexual behaviour, only a few. So I am not sure what similarities you are referring to. [/QUOTE]
By saying that they are genetically predisposed, are you assuming the question? Let me ask another way- how can you know the predisposition is genetic? One thoroughly observes the macaces, and then draws a conclusion, right? Because 100% of females show homosexual traits, genetics do seem to come into play. However, just imagine for a sec that a non-homosexual female were born. The only society it would know, and therefore the only traits or mode of acting, would theoretically be homosexual... you see where I'm going with this.

As for similarities to my Greek example, think of it this way- 100% of female macaces observed demonstrated homosexual traits, not unlike the vast majority (approaching 100% as far as I know) of a particular segement of society in ancient Athens and Sparta.

@Fiona nicely done

[C Elegans]

I find it difficult to agree with this statement. For example a google search for "gay gene" produces a lot of sites, some of which seem to be scientifically respectable. The research into this area is mentioned in "the language of genes" a book intended for lay people by Steve Jones, although it is only a passing reference. Steven Rose also refers to such research in Lifelines, again a book for lay people. Admittedly these studies seem to have been conducted in the 1990's, but that is hardly prehistoric.

Hehe, when we are talking genetics, the early 1990's is almost prehistoric, but that's a side issue. Would you care to link to the scientifically respectable sites that talk about a "gay gene"? The reason I ask for this is that my Pubmed search on "homosexuality" and "sexual orientation" did not render one single result that mentioned a "gay gene" and it is also not consistent with current scientific thinking. The only mentioning of "gay genes" I have found was in Newsweek and similar popular media.
I work with behavioural genetics myself, and one of my close collaborators is an internationally renowed specialist in the area of sexual orientation and gender identity, and I have never heard anyone talk about a search for the "gay gene". Many people though are working with the area of researching what determines sexual behaviour, sexual orientation and sexual identity.

Oh, I agree that human rights are not dependent on causes, and I also agree that falsifying the "choice" argument may have negative consequences, but I do believe that science can provide facts that can often lead to positive development for minorities. Look back in history, it's only 100 years ago Europeans really believed black people were more primitive and less intelligent. Or women. Also, look back at the times where people with neuropsychiatiatric conditions where burned at the stake. Scientific knowledge has contributed to these changes in social views, just as it has contributed to understanding of how life on earth developed or how humans have developed.

Regarding "inflated" importance, I would not say reseach on sexual orientation in inflated in any way, except that the media likes to report about that kind of stuff. Looking at size of research grants and number of active scientists in the field, it is a very small area of research at human behaviour.

"Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a way of survival and reproduction, or evolution.[/b]

This I interpret as "homosexuality is not a way of survival or evolution", which I in turn take as meaning "it's not the way evolution or survival works". Obviously, homosexuality is not a way to reproduce, but to claim that evolution does not work so that it can include homosexuality and survival value because it does not mean reproduction, is an incorrect statement and it was that statement I was trying to critise.

Cuchulain interpreted Athena's statement as meaning "homosexuality does not further evolution". I am not sure what "further evolution" is supposed to mean, since I interpret it as meaning "being beneficial to the devepment of developement". I mean, there are no traits in any species that "further evolution", evolution is the consequence of selection from a variance due to environmental pressure.

Also, it is entirely correct that traits that are "neutral" and not destructive to the organism and the species may not change during evolution, but it must be noted that what is not harmful to the organism or the species in the short run, will be harmful in the long run if it has no function. Body parts that are not used consume unnecessary energy. Behaviours that are not used also consume unnecessary energy. In harsh times, the evolutionary pressure will be stern towards "spare" features. Homo sapiens is a very young species, but seeing homosexual mating behaviour exist naturally also in birds and mice, we can conclude that evolution likely has had tenths of millions of years to discontinue this behaviour in these species.

Equally, homosexuality might be so much a part of being human that it could not be weeded out without taking out the species.

I don't understand what you mean with this. Do you mean homosexuality is a genetic trade off?

[giles337]

I think the point being made CE, with regards to your last comment, is that Homosexuality is a feature of the Human race, and will always be there, unless the human race is wiped out.

Just my two penn'th, but surely if there was a "gay gene" which, IMO is highly doubtful; surely it would be exceeddingly difficult to be passed on through generations?

[C Elegans]

We've eached defined homosexuality in different ways. Yours, CE, involves romantic connection. Mine involved instances of sexual acts.

Yes, since I'm in behavioural science my definition is the standard "professional" definition, the same as is used by APA (American Psychological Association) who set the definitions of terms, ethics code, golden standard for treatment and diagnostic definitions internationally. You definition corresponds to what professionals in the field would referr to as "homosexual acts" in humans and "same-sex mating behaviour" in other species.

However, I would say that we have each have acceptable answers for our respective definitions of "homosexuality" or "homosexual relations".

Yes, if you define "homosexuality" as "conducting homosexual acts", then I agree with you that social factors have a lot more influence. Just as if we were to define pedophilia as "conducting sexual acts with underage people" we would find cultural factors (such as the initiation habits I described in an earlier post) had an influence pedophilia. Personally I do however think that it is very useful to distinguish between sexual acts and sexual orientation since it contributes to a more nuanced understanding of human behaviour, and it has a point that acts can be choosen but orientation cannot.

By saying that they are genetically predisposed, are you assuming the question? Let me ask another way- how can you know the predisposition is genetic? One thoroughly observes the macaces, and then draws a conclusion, right?

Ah, no. Macaces is often used in animal experiments, so we know that altering the flooding of sex hormones prenatally will change their sexual behaviours, and part (but probably not all) of this prenatal flooding is genetically determined. We also know that the female macaces of this type (Macaca Fuscata) exhibit same sex mating behaviours even when born and raised in captivity. Different separate population both in the wild and in captivity have been observed behaving the same way, so it is very unlikely that they do not have a genetic disposition for this behaviour.

As for similarities to my Greek example, think of it this way- 100% of female macaces observed demonstrated homosexual traits, not unlike the vast majority (approaching 100% as far as I know) of a particular segement of society in ancient Athens and Sparta.

Ok, but macaces likely do not have a moral assessment of their own behaviour like humans have. And as I wrote above, also captive populations of macaces born in captivity exhibit the same behaviour. So I really do not think the macaces and Athens/Sparta are parellell.