The "trends" issue thread has morphed now that the election is over. One of the biggest drivers of that morphing is the fact that "moral issues" was the number one issue in exit polls, and those voters largely voted for Bush. (Security was the number 2 issue). I in turn challenged the thinking of some from the Blue states, asking them to listen to and understand the thinking of the Red state voters. Naturally there is no one position in the Red states, but we do see some interesting groups popping up.
In the GLBT issues, the Red states have libertarians and strict Christians sharing the same vote. Go figure... In some ways, they are on opposite ends of the spectrum. But both have BIG problems with what they PERCEIVE to be government acting as an advocate for lifestyle (or a lifestyle that they do not agree with).
I wanted to use this new thread to challenge some thinking. Consider this question. Let's assume within the next few years that science got to the bottom of the whole GLB issue. Would your position change given what science discovered? What would you feel now if we knew that being gay was due:
* 100% to nature. You are born that way, and that's the way you are. Nothing can change it, and no environmental factors caused or will cause it. (Note: This could be due either to DNA, or to factors affecting the fetus in the womb. But once born, orientation is determined and immutable)
* 100% to nurture. Your upbringing makes you that way. The world around you can change your sexual orientation.
* Part nature, part nurture. It depends
- Bill
GLBT issues continued
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
You know Bill it's interesting you should frame it this way. I've seen several op ed pieces that talk about if science finds a gene or similar cause of homosexuality then the next course of action for science is to find a way to cure than "problem". Develop a test and a treatment and...voila...no more gays.
Did you show compassion today?
although... I wish some of the tax laws would help out us single straight guys...
check out:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P82377.asp
or
http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_st ... 00119.html
I especially like the line in this one
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/main.htm
but this may be a thread for another time
cheers,
ljr
check out:
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P82377.asp
or
http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_st ... 00119.html
I especially like the line in this one
orThe workplace is also a problem, according to “Unmarried America.” The group says single people wind up making an average of 25 percent less than married colleagues because of health care, retirement and benefits.
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/main.htm
but this may be a thread for another time
cheers,
ljr
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I'm glad you "went there," Dana.
Folks may not know that the American Psychological Association (or whatever the name of the professional group) only recently decided NOT to consider GLB orientation as pathology. That being the case, you might find it interesting that a health plan (e.g. your HMO) would likely NOT pay for person A to change their sexual orientation, because it isn't pathology so it wouldn't be deemed medically necessary. It would have to come out of your own pocket, like those botox shots, a face lift, or breast augmentation. Go figure...
IF they found the "cause" and if a "cure" was devised (and I use those terms with great trepidation), then would the average GLB individual ever consider seeking the "cure"? Food for thought.
This does however bring up legal issues, does it not? And I would think the religious who ascribed to some "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy might adjust their thinking based on the nature/nurture arguement.
- Bill
Folks may not know that the American Psychological Association (or whatever the name of the professional group) only recently decided NOT to consider GLB orientation as pathology. That being the case, you might find it interesting that a health plan (e.g. your HMO) would likely NOT pay for person A to change their sexual orientation, because it isn't pathology so it wouldn't be deemed medically necessary. It would have to come out of your own pocket, like those botox shots, a face lift, or breast augmentation. Go figure...
IF they found the "cause" and if a "cure" was devised (and I use those terms with great trepidation), then would the average GLB individual ever consider seeking the "cure"? Food for thought.
This does however bring up legal issues, does it not? And I would think the religious who ascribed to some "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy might adjust their thinking based on the nature/nurture arguement.
- Bill
Bill, depends on what you mean by "recent;" my house was built in 1973, the year of the change, and the seashell sinks and ugly prism chandelier in the stairs are reminders of the passing times 
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness
My thought on nature nurture is that things aren't as simple as 100% either way makes them seem. A lot of genes determine medical fates, yet we have a great ability to make our health worse or better despite our genetic hand of cards. And just if upbringing seals orientation, things may not be mutable beyond a certain age. In this way, native american groups whose infants rested their heads on boards had skull shape permanently altered. Differences in brain structure have been noted in gay people, as well as transexuals; these changes are likely permanent, yet its not proven that they're not the result of, rather than the cause, of thoughts and behaviors.
Beyond that, LGB issues compare somewhat to religion. Religion is taught; no one raised by wolves knows a star of david from a buddhist shrine from a crucifix. Religious ranks are mutable as well--people leave and enter, believe fervently then not, and vice versa. No one would ever suggest that the value of a religion, the mental health of its adherents, or their worth and rights should depend on this matter. And rightly so.
One of my concerns surrounding the establishment of a "nature," explanation of sexual orientation (notice the difference from "the cause of homosexuality") is that insurance and privacy issues would result, or that some would undertake selective abortion (as do, pardon my blunt terminology, sexist and discriminatory societies of today). Surveys have revealed some Americans have a willingness to do this. Somehow these people have been taught that difference is wrong in this case--whereas selective abortion of leftie kids seems unthinkable. Even for survivors, this would create an awful suggestion that their lives are not worth living. This suggestion is something that people with clear disease states (huntington's, spina bifida) already experience and something that affects the culture of questionable disease states (people born deaf who do not feel abnormal, etc).
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness
My thought on nature nurture is that things aren't as simple as 100% either way makes them seem. A lot of genes determine medical fates, yet we have a great ability to make our health worse or better despite our genetic hand of cards. And just if upbringing seals orientation, things may not be mutable beyond a certain age. In this way, native american groups whose infants rested their heads on boards had skull shape permanently altered. Differences in brain structure have been noted in gay people, as well as transexuals; these changes are likely permanent, yet its not proven that they're not the result of, rather than the cause, of thoughts and behaviors.
Beyond that, LGB issues compare somewhat to religion. Religion is taught; no one raised by wolves knows a star of david from a buddhist shrine from a crucifix. Religious ranks are mutable as well--people leave and enter, believe fervently then not, and vice versa. No one would ever suggest that the value of a religion, the mental health of its adherents, or their worth and rights should depend on this matter. And rightly so.
One of my concerns surrounding the establishment of a "nature," explanation of sexual orientation (notice the difference from "the cause of homosexuality") is that insurance and privacy issues would result, or that some would undertake selective abortion (as do, pardon my blunt terminology, sexist and discriminatory societies of today). Surveys have revealed some Americans have a willingness to do this. Somehow these people have been taught that difference is wrong in this case--whereas selective abortion of leftie kids seems unthinkable. Even for survivors, this would create an awful suggestion that their lives are not worth living. This suggestion is something that people with clear disease states (huntington's, spina bifida) already experience and something that affects the culture of questionable disease states (people born deaf who do not feel abnormal, etc).
--Ian
Interesting observation Bill... I for one believe and try to live by "love the sinner, hate the sin" and the depth of my belief follows what I believe to be the truth from scripture.
Here is a little something I found ...
http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/levay.27n.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2
Here is a little something I found ...
http://www.narth.com/docs/fading.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/levay.27n.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS00D2
... small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mttw 7:14
-
Ted Dinwiddie
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Charlottesville,VA,USA
Ian wrote:
Interesting to consider this, since I observe a distinct commonality of anti-gay and anti-abortion...oops, I mean pro-life positions.
some would undertake selective abortion
ted
"There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke
"There's only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - P.J. O'Rourke
Re: GLBT issues continued
Well, if it were proven to be 100% choice, then it means an awful lot of people are lying. That in itself would change my opinion of the GLBT community because it would mean that there really is some kind of massive conspiracy and "Gay Agenda". It would be like stepping into the Twilight Zone where several friends and acquaintences are all part of a grand scheme to lie to me about who they are. In this event, I'd have to seriously reconsider my opinion of them unless there was some strange explanation for this bizarre circumstance.Bill Glasheen wrote:Would your position change given what science discovered? What would you feel now if we knew that being gay was due:
If it's 100% nature then it's no big deal, though I would be slightly surprised. My current impression is that sexual preference is an inherent property of a person for the most part, modified somewhat by choice. For example, I hate liver pate, I think it tastes gross (though it doesn't bother me that other people eat it). But I might be able to learn to like it if I really tried hard. Or it might be that my tastes are too firmly set at this point and no matter how hard I tried I wouldn't enjoy it. I'd guess sexual preference is kinda like that, only harder to change consciously. Also, though Kinsey is substantially outdated and discredited at this point, I think his scale is a decent model.
But aside from the conspiracy aspect, it wouldn't make any difference to me if it were 100% nature or 100% choice, because homosexuality is the moral equivalent of sky-diving or stamp-collecting. I wouldn't try to ban sky-divers or philatalists from marrying just because I'm not interested in their hobby, and if sexual preference is purely a matter of choice, then it is little different from a hobby, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Justin, you bring up an interesting variation on the perspective.
I said nature vs. nurture. You said nature vs. choice. Those are two different views.
To imply that something is nurture may or many not imply that choice is involved. In fact that is Skinner's premise in his book Beyond Freedom & Dignity. For example a strict behaviorist might argue that many of our actions are due to environmental influences. We could take our Skinner model and allegedly "create" a gay person who feels he has no choice in terms of sexual preference. This actually goes pretty deep. Research has shown that behavioral therapy can cause changes that are pretty fundamental with respect to synaptic patterns in the brain, neurotransmitter levels, etc.
Your subtle sarcasm indicates you think nature is largely responsible, and this is a view that many gays ascribe to. But I think we need to be careful about rushing to any conclusions without firm evidence one way or another. To the best of my knowledge, nobody really knows anything for sure yet.
I think there's also a subtle gray zone here. For instance one theory about gays (male homosexuals) is that they may be that way due to a lack of availability of testosterone (at the right timing and/or the right level and/or the right location) in the womb when the fetus is turning from the androgenous female to the sexually explicit male. Just as certain things come into play to make the "ovaries" drop down and become testicles, so too are certain things necessary to "wire" or "rewire" the brain to a particular sexual orientation. And this happens on many mental/psychological levels. So strictly speaking it's environment vs. DNA per se, but once wired a certain way the person is going to think that way for the rest of his/her life and there's little we can do about it. So from a practical standpoint, that's "nature" once the person has stepped out of the womb.
Choice really is involved no matter whether it is nature or nurture. Many of us could change orientations and function OK if the norm was different. Most of us on this earth are far from being "average" or "normal" anyway, and we get by and adapt just the same. But choice is also involved in whether or not a nicotine or heroin addict gets his/her next fix. And God knows there's little we can do to change those behaviors, even though we as a society make laws about whether and/or how those individuals are going to execute those choices.
Choice is also involved in how a paraplegic gets in or out of a building. They could go up the stairs just like the rest of us (by one of a number of undignified means). But is it "right" to tell them they can go up the stairs without a ramp just like the rest of us? Is it a conspiracy when we say these people need ramps to have equal access?
Food for thought.
- Bill
I said nature vs. nurture. You said nature vs. choice. Those are two different views.
To imply that something is nurture may or many not imply that choice is involved. In fact that is Skinner's premise in his book Beyond Freedom & Dignity. For example a strict behaviorist might argue that many of our actions are due to environmental influences. We could take our Skinner model and allegedly "create" a gay person who feels he has no choice in terms of sexual preference. This actually goes pretty deep. Research has shown that behavioral therapy can cause changes that are pretty fundamental with respect to synaptic patterns in the brain, neurotransmitter levels, etc.
Your subtle sarcasm indicates you think nature is largely responsible, and this is a view that many gays ascribe to. But I think we need to be careful about rushing to any conclusions without firm evidence one way or another. To the best of my knowledge, nobody really knows anything for sure yet.
I think there's also a subtle gray zone here. For instance one theory about gays (male homosexuals) is that they may be that way due to a lack of availability of testosterone (at the right timing and/or the right level and/or the right location) in the womb when the fetus is turning from the androgenous female to the sexually explicit male. Just as certain things come into play to make the "ovaries" drop down and become testicles, so too are certain things necessary to "wire" or "rewire" the brain to a particular sexual orientation. And this happens on many mental/psychological levels. So strictly speaking it's environment vs. DNA per se, but once wired a certain way the person is going to think that way for the rest of his/her life and there's little we can do about it. So from a practical standpoint, that's "nature" once the person has stepped out of the womb.
Choice really is involved no matter whether it is nature or nurture. Many of us could change orientations and function OK if the norm was different. Most of us on this earth are far from being "average" or "normal" anyway, and we get by and adapt just the same. But choice is also involved in whether or not a nicotine or heroin addict gets his/her next fix. And God knows there's little we can do to change those behaviors, even though we as a society make laws about whether and/or how those individuals are going to execute those choices.
Choice is also involved in how a paraplegic gets in or out of a building. They could go up the stairs just like the rest of us (by one of a number of undignified means). But is it "right" to tell them they can go up the stairs without a ramp just like the rest of us? Is it a conspiracy when we say these people need ramps to have equal access?
Food for thought.
- Bill
Okay, that's a fair distinction (Nurture vs. choice). However, I'm not sure what difference Nature vs. Nurture could make if in either case the GLBT doesn't have choice. All arguments I've heard that rely on homosexuality being purely nature work just as well for any condition in which the individual's sexual preference is not self-determined. If the nurture aspect is beyond the individual's control, isn't it functionaly indistinguishable from nature?
Maybe I failed to understand the behaviorist argument you were making, unless the idea is that someone might conceivably think banning gay marriage would be a behavioral "treatment" for homosexuality. In which case it's clear that barring homosexual marriage fails to create an environment in which nobody is gay.
As far as behaviorism itself goes, I think it's an interestingidea and has been used productively, but becomes absurd at the extremes. For example, some behaviorists would argue that desires and beliefs do not really exist and are just descriptions of behavior. This is taking it too far I think.
Also, while my joking response might subtley indicate that I think it's mostly nature, I would hope my statement to that effect would indicate it a little more clearly.
Maybe I failed to understand the behaviorist argument you were making, unless the idea is that someone might conceivably think banning gay marriage would be a behavioral "treatment" for homosexuality. In which case it's clear that barring homosexual marriage fails to create an environment in which nobody is gay.
As far as behaviorism itself goes, I think it's an interestingidea and has been used productively, but becomes absurd at the extremes. For example, some behaviorists would argue that desires and beliefs do not really exist and are just descriptions of behavior. This is taking it too far I think.
Also, while my joking response might subtley indicate that I think it's mostly nature, I would hope my statement to that effect would indicate it a little more clearly.
http://www.queerbychoice.com/
An interesting link. I'm not implying anything at all, and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just throwing it out there.
An interesting link. I'm not implying anything at all, and I'm not looking for an argument. I'm just throwing it out there.
Worth pointing out that heterosexuals largely feel THEIR feelings aren't a matter of choice, either...
Fascinating to read the story of a set of twins, one of whom had his penis obliterated by a botched circumcision. Doctors then told mom and dad if they removed his testes and fashioned a vulva of sorts, well, he would grow up like a girl, perfectly happy. This idea was proven disastrously wrong and he never identified with his new role. Eventually he learned the truth. He has since gotten hormone injections and married a woman.
More on the choice webpage in a bit...
Fascinating to read the story of a set of twins, one of whom had his penis obliterated by a botched circumcision. Doctors then told mom and dad if they removed his testes and fashioned a vulva of sorts, well, he would grow up like a girl, perfectly happy. This idea was proven disastrously wrong and he never identified with his new role. Eventually he learned the truth. He has since gotten hormone injections and married a woman.
More on the choice webpage in a bit...
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Twin studies are fantastic evidence for the nature vs. nurture argument. The anecdote you chose, Ian, is a great evidence for the nature side of the coin. Too bad (or fortunately, however you want to view it) we only have one data point for this "experiment."
I'll have to check with the MCV twin registry (of which I am a member, believe it or not) to see if they've done any research on the subject of sexual preference. Might be interesting...
The relevance is here, Justin. If there is ANY nurture component, then some heterosexuals who argue against advocacy for (as opposed to tolerance of) homosexuality have a point. Why create conditions for the proliferation of a set of practices that go against their moral beliefs? There are many examples in this world where society has set limits, and - on average - those limits appear to change behavior and preferences.
My gut (and it's a fair thing to consider) tells me the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But let's also consider that this isn't necessarily a binary issue. Some folks fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to preferences (bisexuality). Indeed some argue that individual preferences fall somewhere on a spectrum, with most being far in one or the other direction. Sort of a bimodal distribution if you will, with the genders having overlapping tails. So that clearly complicates the issue. Where peoples' preferences fall on a spectrum but mostly on one end of it, a world that asks you to fish or cut bait is a world most (but not all) can live with. And yet that same world with advocacy of GLB lifestyles is a very, very different world. Where do biological, medical, psychological, ethical, moral, and religious issues come in to play here?
As for the behaviorism, well I'm similarly in general agreement with the premises - particularly the pragmatic aspects of the field. Behaviorism offers the most effective and least expensive nonpharmaceutical therapy to date. But like you, it's not religion to me. However I don't get hung up where you do. To me, it's a matter of math. The field of chaos tells us that we live in a nonlinear mathematical world where causality and linearity are only mostly true. Now and then we have conditions of deterministic unpredictability. We know we cannot predict or affect the future unless we know or can control the initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision. And we know we can never do that. (Sometimes called the butterfly effect.) I have argued that this is the realm of free will. Many biologists insist it is the reason why prey generally cannot be run to extinction by their predators. The fox can't always predict which direction that rabbit will turn.
- Bill
I'll have to check with the MCV twin registry (of which I am a member, believe it or not) to see if they've done any research on the subject of sexual preference. Might be interesting...
The relevance is here, Justin. If there is ANY nurture component, then some heterosexuals who argue against advocacy for (as opposed to tolerance of) homosexuality have a point. Why create conditions for the proliferation of a set of practices that go against their moral beliefs? There are many examples in this world where society has set limits, and - on average - those limits appear to change behavior and preferences.
My gut (and it's a fair thing to consider) tells me the truth is somewhere in the middle.
But let's also consider that this isn't necessarily a binary issue. Some folks fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to preferences (bisexuality). Indeed some argue that individual preferences fall somewhere on a spectrum, with most being far in one or the other direction. Sort of a bimodal distribution if you will, with the genders having overlapping tails. So that clearly complicates the issue. Where peoples' preferences fall on a spectrum but mostly on one end of it, a world that asks you to fish or cut bait is a world most (but not all) can live with. And yet that same world with advocacy of GLB lifestyles is a very, very different world. Where do biological, medical, psychological, ethical, moral, and religious issues come in to play here?
As for the behaviorism, well I'm similarly in general agreement with the premises - particularly the pragmatic aspects of the field. Behaviorism offers the most effective and least expensive nonpharmaceutical therapy to date. But like you, it's not religion to me. However I don't get hung up where you do. To me, it's a matter of math. The field of chaos tells us that we live in a nonlinear mathematical world where causality and linearity are only mostly true. Now and then we have conditions of deterministic unpredictability. We know we cannot predict or affect the future unless we know or can control the initial conditions to an infinite degree of precision. And we know we can never do that. (Sometimes called the butterfly effect.) I have argued that this is the realm of free will. Many biologists insist it is the reason why prey generally cannot be run to extinction by their predators. The fox can't always predict which direction that rabbit will turn.
- Bill
That's fine. When it comes to publicly funded advocacy of practice, I don't think it matters what the nature/nurture ratio is. The fact that a significant number of people think it's morally means advocacy of practice should not be funded. BUt, I have yet to see an instance where the government has funded advocacy of practice. Government recognition of same-sex marriage, or candid information seminars in schools is not advocacy of practice.Bill Glasheen wrote: The relevance is here, Justin. If there is ANY nurture component, then some heterosexuals who argue against advocacy for (as opposed to tolerance of) homosexuality have a point.
Well this is a tougher question, but I think it comes down to rights issues. The government should try to stay out of morality as much as possible. There are practices that go against my moral beliefs that are legal, but I wouldn't want that to change because it's not my right to force other people to live according to my morals. This is the same. If some group thought heterosexual practices were immoral, it would not be valid to ban opposite-sex marriage just because it creates conditions for the proliferation of practices that some people don't like.Why create conditions for the proliferation of a set of practices that go against their moral beliefs? There are many examples in this world where society has set limits, and - on average - those limits appear to change behavior and preferences.
I think the government should act impartially with regards to sexual preference. If schools are going to teach sex education, that means including (with as little bias as possible) information about homosexuality, and it means recognizing marriage regardless of participant gender.
