________________________________________________
Once again, Royce put up several thoughtful comments on my earlier post that should be addressed outside the Haloscan boxes:
Question - do you see a similar connection between human evolution/culture and homosexuality?
When humans' secondary survival directive (after staying alive) was to make more humans, I suspect that homosexuals lived a "normal" life - making babies - and got their fun on the side. Even “casting your seed on the ground” was frowned upon. This taboo only began to dissolve about 30 or so years ago.
. . .
Another question - do you see homosexuals pushing themselves into a genetic dead end by ceasing to live facade lives as "breeders"?
As I understand it, you're asking: 1) Whether the repression of the past years was actually a genetic benefit to the homosexual community by protecing the procreation of the gene; and 2) Whether now that the stigma has been removed, it is possible that homosexuality will naturally die out.
To plunge right in and political correctness be damned: I think it all depends on the nature, nurture, and technology, but I doubt that homosexuality will be "Darwined" out. (There I go again making up that same verb. I think it's been permanently grafted into my vocabulary. I think I'll just officially adopt it and take the quotes off. It's just too handy when compared with "removed from existance via the process of natural selection as outlined by Darwin.")
If homosexuality is a genetic mandate hard-wired into the genetic DNA, then logically as society's values change to accept the practice, leading those with homosexual genes to forego child-producing sexual encounters with the opposite sex, the gene would naturally die out. That is one argument in favor of your first point; that the stigma that made it necessary to engage in sham marriages protected the gene from extinction. As far as the future is concerned, it is another matter. We're not constricted by nature anymore. It is quite probable that gay men would choose to donate semen for artificial insemination, in order to acquire a child of their own genetic makeup. That would perpetuate even a strictly inherited gene despite the lack of heterosexual intercourse.
If homosexuality is a genetic mutation of sorts created by conditions in the womb, i.e. temperature, exposure to certain substances, etc., then the gene will not die out even if homosexuality is accepted to the point that the gay population feels no compulsion to have genetic offspring, so long as unborn children are exposed to that condition. Then the stigmas of the past and sham marriages logically made no difference in the homosexual population, and no stigma or lack thereof will change the future population rates.
Finally, if homosexuality is a product of nurture rather than nature, you would expect the converse: it would multiply as the practice became more accepted and more children were raised in openly gay households. In societies that discourage homosexuality, there is great pressure to keep it hidden. Sham marriages such as you cite above are one result of that pressure, but even that requires a self-realization of homosexuality. If I recall correctly, I believe denial is another result: the inability to recognize one's own sexual proclivity. The upshot is that there would be a limited, highly restricted and selective amount of "nurturing" going on in a state of repression. Finally, in areas in which homosexuality can be openly expressed, the exposure to it would range beyond the home, making the statistical likelihood of some exposure to it more likely. Of course, these are the primary arguments used by those who oppose any support for the homosexual lifestyle. The gay community has fought for years against the idea that it is somehow contagious. I've not followed the research closely, but if there are any long-range studies that support the contagion theory, I'm not aware of them. I believe there are some that negate the theory. I'd say if we had a difinitive long-range study on gay population fluctuations that could be said to accurately reflect past trends, we might be able to provide at least a theoretical answer to the nature/nurture side of the debate. But I'm not certain how one would get an accurate head count of an insular trait, during a time when no one wants to admit to possessing it.
Finally, it could be that homosexuality is simply a choice. Another option in the spectrum of sexual behavior. Then it wouldn't be affected at all.
So, the conclusion is that no matter what the source of homosexuality, it's unlikely to be Darwinized. (Hah, NOW I'm getting creative).
How is making a value judgment against obesity different from making one against homosexuality? If homosexuality becomes "curable" through biotechnology, would you support, encourage (force?) gays to be cured? Do you see gays countering this by screaming for the survival of “gay culture” as the deaf community has? Hey, I can't get that cochlear implant and hear the f*&$ing world; it will rip me away from my "culture"!
I am utterly pro-freedom on this, as I am the deaf issue, obesity and just about everything else. I mean, I understand the theory. If there is a certain trait that society views as detrimental, and if that trait is difficult to change, then the logical alternative is to change society's attitude from condemnation to acceptance. But to do so requires you to condemn those who are able to alter the trait, whether it be obesity or deafness or homosexuality or whatever, and to portray the act of changing it as a capitulation to societal repression akin to brainwashing. The problem I see with this is that it infringes on a person's right to make a self-determining decision.
In the case of obesity, could you imagine the kind of backlash against dieting and excercise that is seen in the cochlear implant issue? Parents openly confronted for placing their children on programs that infringe on the "natural" obesity of their offspring, by members of the obese community who feel their culture is threatened by that? I'd resent the h*ll out of being told that I have a moral duty to be a size 16 instead of a 2. Similarly, I'd have a few words for anyone who tried to prevent me from hearing again if I were deaf, seeing if I were blind, or walking if I were paralyzed. Presuming there was a safe surgical way to do so, I'd change my metabolism in a heartbeat. Then watch me eat a gourmet pizza for lunch with a real, classic Coca-Cola and chocolate cake for dessert, instead of a salad with no calorically-rich toppings, baked Lays and a diet soft drink. I don't think I'd vote any differently for homosexuality. If it were detemined once and for all it was some sort of medical condition and if there were a simple safe procedure to change one's switch from hetero to homo or back again, I think it's up to the individual what they want to be.
A passing thought: I wonder how many heteros would go the opposite way just to avoid having to deal with the opposite sex.
Finally, Ampersand has follow-up posts on the issue here and here.
The first equates discrimination against obesity and homosexuality with repression:
"I've never heard anybody defend quite so passionately the notion that employers ought have a "right" to screen job candidates for blood pressure and cholesterol levels before deciding whether or not to employ them. But suggest, even in the mildest of tones, that perhaps discriminating against a fat applicant might be inappropriate, and people get very passionate indeed! Why? Why is that?
. . . .
It strikes me as intrinsically connected to both misogyny and homophobia, this. The terror that fat seems to inspire, the moral terror, seems rooted in the same fear and loathing that has traditionally been reserved for the promiscuous woman. She is not obeying. She is "out of bounds"--much like the fat that oozes over the sides of the airplane seat. Her problem is a surfeit of appetite--which is the reason that no matter what medical studies might actually show, people will continue to frame the problem of obesity wholly in terms of eating and of appetite.
It is also very much the way the religious right views those who dare to break gender boundaries. Queers are disobedient, they are in "moral rebellion." They are encroaching on our public life. Those who support them must have a "recruitment agenda." They lack the will-power to restrain their nasty urges. They are not only weak, but also insatiable.
As it becomes less and less socially acceptable to try to regulate sexual behavior, we turn to the subject of eating instead. Whether eating habits really have all that much to do with obesity is irrelevant. We must define obesity in terms of voluntary appetite for it to serve the same social function that sex once served.
Eating is the new sex. Anti-fat hysteria is the new Puritanism."
I find it ironic that a trait that is discriminated against as being unappealing sexually - and across the board, hetero and homosexual - is touted as the "new sex". It sounds more like the "new sexual substitute".
I don't have a problem with people who choose to be obese. The fat oozing over the line of the airport seat is another matter, as a gross infringement on my personal space. I'd probably change seats.
Listen, just because we find obesity unappealing now doesn't mean we always will. You can cling to your Rubens paintings for the comforting thought that all is cyclical. But similarly, remember that there will always be a certain look that is considered unattractive or out of style. For those who have it, particuarly if it's not easy to change, it really sucks. But that doesn't make the fashion itself somehow evil or conspiratorial, or even personal. My grandmother always wanted to be petite - five foot two, eyes of blue. I always wanted to be taller than my five four. I also wanted be built with the odd juxtaposition of c to d-cup breasts with a size 2 body. In the end, it was one or the other, unless I want implants. I also wanted higher cheekbones and hair that was a kind of shiny copper brown with gold highlights. Does that mean I have some evil prejudice against natural blondes? Okay, maybe. (Just kidding, Deone).
And, in the end, that's the difference between obesity and homosexuality. The last time I am aware of homosexuality being embraced by a culture as a lifestyle choice is the ancient Greek society. Since then, not so much. In fact, lots of people have been tortured or killed because of the practice over the centuries. I don't recall to many fat people being dragged out for public execution. Thinness is a fad, nothing more. We're already trending more toward larger behinds since J-Lo. As I'm so often told, Marilyn Monroe would have never made it as a model these days, though it's only an urban legend that she's a modern size 16.
The second discusses the genetic component of homosexuality:
"Is being gay a choice? I guess that's going to depend on individuals and exactly what is meant by "choice." But in the end -- why should it matter? Should the woman who makes a concious decision to become a "political lesbian" be deemed more worthy of discrimination than the girl who "knew she was a lesbian" at the age of 5? Should the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with another woman be less worthy of protection from discrimination than the bi-sexual who "chooses" to fall in love with a man?
In the end, we may never know if there is some sort of "gay gene" -- and even if there is, there will still be people who may "choose" to live a "straight" lifestyle even with the "gay gene," and those who may "choose" to live a "gay" lifestyle even without the "gay gene." It really doesn't matter.
The same goes for fat people. There are, without a doubt, some people who are fat because of a genetic predisposition to being fat. There are some who are fat because they eat too much. There are some who are fat because they've "dieted" their way up to their current weight (oh yes, they do exist). There are extremely unhealthy fat people and there are extremely healthy fat people -- and you cannot tell just by looking at the person which one s/he is."
On that issue, I think the only reason it is being discussed is to refute the idea that homosexuality is somehow contagious, and the corresponding implication that if you let "them" mingle freely with the rest of society we'll somehow catch it.
Conversely, if the homosexual community can claim it as an immutable characteristic (unchangeable, overt, and historically discriminated against) they've got a much stronger argument for protection under the Equal Protection Clause than they would have if it were simply a choice. Employers are allowed to discriminate - choose - what types of people they hire, for example, so long as they don't discriminate against a protected class. An employer can require employees not have piercings, not dye their hair blue or even have naturally blue hair. So long as it isn't a handicap, a race or color, gender, etc., it is generally okay to discriminate. It's a doubly hard argument for homosexuals, because homosexuality isn't even an appearance thing. It's an action, a behavior. Arguably, the employer isn't discriminating against the person for who they are, it's how they act. Much like they could refuse to hire someone who picks their nose compulsively or strips on the countertops.
Having gayness be considered trait, and an immutable one, is a constitutional necessity for the homosexual community. The alternative is to argue that no one can ever discriminate against anyone for a behavior or "choice." Yeah, sure. The NAACP has to hire that sheet-wearing Klan member. That kid with seventy tatoos, nineteen piercings (that you know of) a meth habit and the personal goal to get laid every half hour no matter where or with whom? She's going to be babysitting your kids. That'll fly.
So there are my utterly politically incorrect views, with a bit of legal, logical and historical background. Feel free to discuss. I promise not to post anything of this length on the issue again unless a truly revolutionary theory is brought up.
No comments:
Post a Comment