[Base] [Index]
In Article Gene Ward Smith writes: Alt.philosophy.objectivism still included so that Roger will have a better chance of seeing this.

On 22 Apr 1995, Roger Lustig wrote:

In article <3n25ud$6sg@news.nd.edu>
anon1d6e@nyx.cs.du.edu (Leprechaun) writes:
>I agree with you, but want to point out an article I read about >2 weeks ago in USA Today that presented the hypothesis of >scientific study that homosexuality is not genetic but >rather a product of environment. So, if USA Today reports a hypothesis, that makes it true?

In any case, this is pretty feeble stuff in the light of the Hamer study, not to mention various studies before that one which showed a heritable component in sexual orientation. The Hamer study pretty well iced the idea that genetics does not play a major role, since it was a very solid result, without any real wiggle room. It pretty nearly proves that there is a gene on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome which has a strong positive correlation with male homosexuality.

>Sayings like "Oh, I >was born queer" or "I can't help it- it's my genes" >are bullshit if that article is to be believed. I was Do you know the meaning of "hypothesis"? There's plenty of evidence both ways. Perhaps you need to read the article again.

Not really. I think the idea that there is no genetic component in homosexuality is pretty well dead scientifically, it just seems that the news hasn't quite sunk in. On the other hand, it also seems clear that it is not simply something which is in all cases genetically determined.

The results of LeVay, Allen et al, and Swaab et al have made it extremely likely that a great deal of the reason

quite likely the major reason
that people develop as (at least, male) homosexuals has to do with the constitution of the brain. This is probably not something "learned", unless you are willing to count the development of the brain in left-handed pattern as "learning". It is much more likely something either genetic, and/or connected to the development of the fetus in the womb, and expressed in the early stages of brain organization, analogously to handedness.

The idea that human sexuality is a sort of tabula rasa and that sexuality is entirely something learned, perhaps in a crudely behavioristic or Freudian way, is pretty well dead. This does not mean there is no role played by the "social construction" of homosexuality, etc, but that the tide is against it and it is probably not the big deal it was thought until relatively recently to be.

Anyone who wants to understand how things have been going should read Tripp's "The Homosexual Matrix" (1975), Money's "Gay, Straight, and In-Between" (1988), LeVay's "The Sexual Brain" (1993), and Hamer's "The Science of Desire" (1994) in order of publication date. You will grasp that you don't need a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing in this field.

People reading this from one of the religion groups should take note of the fact that condemning people because they "chose" a "homosexual life-style" is very similar to, and makes about as much sense as, condemning someone because they "chose" a "left-handed life-style". Nor does it improve your moral position to reject the science involved in order to continue in your prejudices. This amounts to lying in order to justify hatred, and and in that respect bears comparison to the unhappy history of Christian anti-Semitism.

>raised in such a way not to believe in homosexuality >and hence will never subscribe to the idea. How sad. You'll always believe all the things you were raised to believe? Sad commentary on your sense of self.

He just hasn't yet run across truly unnatural acts yet

like writing about Beethoven's late quartets, for instance. Not much evolutional merit in that.

Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/University of Toledo

gsmith@lab1.utoledo.edu