Controversial Issue: A Reply
Well I've been siting here trying to get multiple things done at once, failing to do any properly, so I've decided to write about something that I already have previous knowledge about. Devon wrote a piece titled "Controvercial Issues" and I've decided to respond simply to share my views and my research on this topic. Because most of my opinions are formed in fact and evidence (not religious basis unless they are credible morally) I'm sure my views will change later on when more research is done. But for now, I'd say I'm thoroughly confused.
First argument: Homosexuality must not be a choice because who would choose a lifestyle of discrimination. Therefore it must be part of their biological system.
While this is a classical argument to support the thought that homosexuality must be a genetic trait and thus not a choice, a couple of examples can significantly weaken this argument. An example from the family system theories of psychology illustrates that girls in an enmeshed family (where each member is too greatly involved in the lives of the other members) tend to develop higher rates of eating disorders than the average girl. Of course no one would choose to be bulimic or anorexic, presumably, but simply because that is true does not prove the origins of behaviors are biological. Let me give the simplistic version of each of the systems of psychology which explain behavior:
Biological -- abnormal (deviant) behaviors are the result of incorrect balance of neurotransmitters, the genes have a specific coding for a certain behavior, or structural brain abnormalities exist which cause changes in behavior.
Psychodynamic -- behaviors are influenced to a large extent by the unconscious, mostly formed during our childhood years
Behavioral -- Influences of reinforcements and punishments produce behavior
Cognitive -- Thoughts and beliefs shape our behaviors and the emotions we experience (very complex school of thought)
Humanistic -- Humans have an innate capacity for goodness and self-actualization yet the pressures from society to conform to certain norms interferes with the fulfillment of this capacity.
Social -- Interpersonal relationships shape personality development, family systems shape personality development, and/or social structures of society shape personality development.
Well that was a long list. Sorry about that, but essentially there are hundreds of theories within each of these schools of thought which can each point to a different origin of homosexuality separate from genes. The first argument does not hold enough evidence to point to genes as the origin.
You bring up the point of bisexuality, but do not actually discuss it any further. Interestingly enough, a classic argument against homosexuality is a "slippery slope" style of argument -- if we accept homosexuality, how will we be able to punish other sexual deviant acts (such as beastility, etc.). I do not support this view, but I have read an interesting study in the New York Times titled "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." It suggests the in men at least, there is no hint of bisexual arousal, that they only have sexual preference towards one gender or the other. I do not think this study eliminates bisexuality as a concept, but I think this is the first of much research needed to study this sexual orientation.
Lastly, since this blog is getting quite long, I would like to point out one of my own original thoughts on the subject (it may not be original, but I have never heard it before). In Biology 101, one of the first things we learn is that the sole biological purpose of life is to survive long enough to reproduce and pass your genes further into the gene pool. Now this is not saying this is the purpose of life, but it directly contradicts the biological origins of homosexuality. Considering that Darwin's theories on evolution have been proven time and time again through models and experiments, how is it that homosexuality has come to exist as a gene? It goes against the basis biological function, a homosexual cannot pass on his genes because those genes will do nothing to continue the human race. Thus we arrive at a problem, one which I feel has not be addressed enough nor given enough scientific validity.
Sorry about the length of this blog and sorry that it's not particularly funny or witty. Tis a shame. But I hope it at least presented those who are curious about this topic with more information to make a better educated guess about the origin or homosexuality.
Third blog for ENGL 102 completed.
First argument: Homosexuality must not be a choice because who would choose a lifestyle of discrimination. Therefore it must be part of their biological system.
While this is a classical argument to support the thought that homosexuality must be a genetic trait and thus not a choice, a couple of examples can significantly weaken this argument. An example from the family system theories of psychology illustrates that girls in an enmeshed family (where each member is too greatly involved in the lives of the other members) tend to develop higher rates of eating disorders than the average girl. Of course no one would choose to be bulimic or anorexic, presumably, but simply because that is true does not prove the origins of behaviors are biological. Let me give the simplistic version of each of the systems of psychology which explain behavior:
Biological -- abnormal (deviant) behaviors are the result of incorrect balance of neurotransmitters, the genes have a specific coding for a certain behavior, or structural brain abnormalities exist which cause changes in behavior.
Psychodynamic -- behaviors are influenced to a large extent by the unconscious, mostly formed during our childhood years
Behavioral -- Influences of reinforcements and punishments produce behavior
Cognitive -- Thoughts and beliefs shape our behaviors and the emotions we experience (very complex school of thought)
Humanistic -- Humans have an innate capacity for goodness and self-actualization yet the pressures from society to conform to certain norms interferes with the fulfillment of this capacity.
Social -- Interpersonal relationships shape personality development, family systems shape personality development, and/or social structures of society shape personality development.
Well that was a long list. Sorry about that, but essentially there are hundreds of theories within each of these schools of thought which can each point to a different origin of homosexuality separate from genes. The first argument does not hold enough evidence to point to genes as the origin.
You bring up the point of bisexuality, but do not actually discuss it any further. Interestingly enough, a classic argument against homosexuality is a "slippery slope" style of argument -- if we accept homosexuality, how will we be able to punish other sexual deviant acts (such as beastility, etc.). I do not support this view, but I have read an interesting study in the New York Times titled "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited." It suggests the in men at least, there is no hint of bisexual arousal, that they only have sexual preference towards one gender or the other. I do not think this study eliminates bisexuality as a concept, but I think this is the first of much research needed to study this sexual orientation.
Lastly, since this blog is getting quite long, I would like to point out one of my own original thoughts on the subject (it may not be original, but I have never heard it before). In Biology 101, one of the first things we learn is that the sole biological purpose of life is to survive long enough to reproduce and pass your genes further into the gene pool. Now this is not saying this is the purpose of life, but it directly contradicts the biological origins of homosexuality. Considering that Darwin's theories on evolution have been proven time and time again through models and experiments, how is it that homosexuality has come to exist as a gene? It goes against the basis biological function, a homosexual cannot pass on his genes because those genes will do nothing to continue the human race. Thus we arrive at a problem, one which I feel has not be addressed enough nor given enough scientific validity.
Sorry about the length of this blog and sorry that it's not particularly funny or witty. Tis a shame. But I hope it at least presented those who are curious about this topic with more information to make a better educated guess about the origin or homosexuality.
Third blog for ENGL 102 completed.
Labels: Devon, Homosexuality, Reply
posted by Narcissus at
10:23 AM
3 Comments:
I would like to start off by saying that all of your arguments are realy well thought. I'm gonna take a wild guess here and assume that you did debate in high school, but I could be totally off. Seeing as how the last part of your post was really your own personal opinion, i'm going to spend my time responding to that, as opposed to the first parts, which were more like respones to Devon's post. So the idea that the purpose of biological life is to simply pass on your genes through the gene pool seems correct in theory, but practically simply its self-defeating. The first thing is that people are biologically created sterile. So you can't assert that people are created to reproduce, when some peoplee are created without that ability. Second, is that biological substances (such as marijuana), are naturally created but have been shown to make people sterile. So you can't assert that the purpose of biology is to reproduce, when some biological substances stop a person from doing so. Thats my take on the situation.
By
Anonymous, At
February 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM
You seem to be contradicting the belief that the sole biological function of life is to create other life by saying that everyone has a purpose in life and therefore those who cannot reproduce still must have a purpose in life. I agree, that is true. But people being born sterile is abnormal, it is a defect in a gene and thus was a mutation. Considering that we do not want mutations that do not further human life, being sterile is a biological response to protect life.
Even if biological substances can make people sterile, it is not a valid argument to conclude this disproves biological purpose of life. Respective to the point above, it not proving anything to say that by people using a substance they can destroy their purpose of life, therefore that cannot be the purpose of life. Other things biological substances can kill you as well, hemlock for example, but that does not mean we should digest them. I did not understand the second argument.
By
Narcissus, At
February 7, 2010 at 4:59 PM
So, I don't really know much about the origin of homosexuality (but then again who does), however I was wondering where you fit this theory of yours with the evidence of homosexuality in species such as apes and birds. (I think birds.) Many of these species don't have strong social networks, and with the exception of certain apes, don't have sex for pleasure, and yet homosexuality has been documented. How do you justify the idea that it cannot be a gene with the practices of so called "lower mammals?"
By
Devin ducks, At
February 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home