Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Monday, August 16. 2010A bookOur editor recently remind me of Steven Pinker's 2002 book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. From an Amazon review:
Shocking only to those with a Marxist agenda, "the new man" and all that nonsense. Pinker's book reaffirms what everybody's Grandma knows. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I think I'm still on topic when I say that this seems to support the idea that sexual orientation is inborn rather than learned. I know that I can't make myself sexually excited with gay thoughts, so I find myself thinking that gay people generally can't get excited by straight thoughts. However it gets to be our nature, I feel sure it is our nature.
I can also believe that some people live as gay people when they are really primarily straight, as some people live a straight life when they are really mostly gay. It seems to me that some straight-living-as-gay people might well be happier if they discover their real sexuality and thus seem to convert. I'm equally sure some gay-living-as-straight people would be happier turning away from straight sexuality and to their true selves. I don't have research on this. Since I haven't seen any harm inherent in adults sharing the sex they enjoy, I find myself ready to accept people who are gay as they are. If I believed it to be harmful (as a child molester is harmful or any predator), I'd want to see people change and see their behavior controlled. If one believes it to be sinful, I can understand shunning the behavior even if you wish to be accepting of the individual. I think I'm still on topic when I say that this seems to support the idea that sexual orientation is inborn rather than learned.
- - - - - - - - - - - You're on topic in the sense that this "pre-programmed" nonsense is being used by the gay lobby the same way other progressives are using it - to undercut the notions of free will and personal responsibility. Twin studies pretty well bury any genetic or hormonal causation for homosexuality - although the gay lobby wants you to think that being born gay is like being born with blue eyes - 100 percent biological, and therefore not subject to moral scrutiny - the reality is that when one identical twin is gay, the other twin is gay less than 50 percent of the time - in some studies of twins raised apart, that number plummets to 20 percent. So there is no support for the notion that sexual orientation is inborn - and a wealth of data supporting the notion that human sexual behavior is very much a cultural and emotional construct. Given Pinker's pinko - or at least Gramscian - agenda, I am amazed at Dr. Bliss who writes: Shocking only to those with a Marxist agenda, "the new man" and all that nonsense. Pinker's book reaffirms what everybody's Grandma knows. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Well, no. Pinker's book comes to upend what most of our Grandmas took for granted - that free will was the distinguishing characteristic of humans. Pinker bills himself as an "evolutionary biologist" - which should set off the BS meter almost immediately. His book promotes the Marxist/Gramscian undermining of free will - urging all of us to take up the gay-rights lobby slogan, and excuse all our failures and behaviors because we're "born that way" and can't learn to choose any better. Howdy Ben David
Your stats may bear you out less than you think. I've often read estimates that gay men are maybe 3% of the male population. If 20% to 50% of twins of gay men are also gay, that's 7x to 16x the random possibility and seems indicative of a link. It's not dispositive. If there are many factors at work in sexual orientation, you'd expect differences between even identical twins. Identical twins don't behave identically in lots of ways. Sexual behavior is bound to have social construct elements. At the same time, I have grown up in the period when being gay went from shameful to maybe embarrassing to -- well, we don't quite know what to do with it, but the closet sure doesn't fit anymore. I should, by social construct, be open to arousal by gay fantasies. But I'm not. And I didn't grow up in a family that talked down gay people, nor in schools that did. Some of the kids did -- but I had no idea what "smear the queer" was supposed to mean. Anyone can choose to act on one's desires or not to -- that is surely true. If a person desires sex with children, that's a desire that is harmful to its object and therefore any moral person will channel it elsewhere. Since I think consensual adult sex is harmless generally, I can't ask gay people to "become" what I am, nor ask them to be celibate because I think their desires are sinful. I don't demand that vegans eat meat either. I've often read estimates that gay men are maybe 3% of the male population. If 20% to 50% of twins of gay men are also gay, that's 7x to 16x the random possibility and seems indicative of a link.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Nope - because: 1) Most twin studies are forced by reality to sample twins raised together. The ideal would be to study twins adopted out or raised apart, but that is not always possible. So the studies are only partially controlled for environmental influence. 2) Twin studies don't work by comparing to incidence in the general population. They work by comparing the twins - who share genetic material and prenatal influences, but do not have identical life experiences. When one twin has blue eyes, the other has blue eyes 99.999 percent of the time - so we conclude that there is strong genetic determination, and eye color is not affected by environmental factors. In the language of the gay rights folks- blue-eyed people are "born that way". At the other end of the scale - when one twin is divorced, the other twin is divorced 45-65 percent of the time. So we conclude that there's not much genetic determination of divorce. Divorcees are NOT "born that way". In between we have a range of stuff - cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, depression - which have genetic FACTORS but also depend on lifestyle choices. But once correlation falls below 50 percent the trait cannot be said to be strongly determined by genetics. The problem with claiming that sexual orientation is not inborn is that we also can't find any explanation for it anywhere else. There are no signs of environmental influence either. It may be that a person who is gay, raised in a home or community where it's accepted, is more likely to be openly gay. But there's no evidence that family behaviors make anyone gay or not gay.
There are many food tastes that are nearly universal, though cultures may affect hwo they're served. Fatty foods and sweet foods are found in nearly all cultures and often are the foods that share best between cultures. I could learn to like tomatoes and did learn to like broccoli. Culture and nature in combination. I've seen gay porn and it does nothing for me even though I've been raised (successfully, I'd say) to be accepting of homosexuality. If culture drives sexual orientation, I should have at least some kind of response beyond, "huh?".
#1.1.1.1.1
Geoff Brown
on
2010-08-18 09:29
(Reply)
1) The claim that sexual orientation is inborn flies in the face of what we know about genes influencing complex behaviors. It is a claim born of PC pseudo-science. No responsible geneticist will tell you that genes can determine a complex emotional/cognitive/social behavior like human sexuality.
2) The claim is basically put up to sidestep moral evaluation of what was previously an immoral - if not repulsive - act, and mainstream it. Yet this is, if anything, even sloppier thinking. Even if orientation were like having blue eyes - it would not mean that homosexuality was "normal" - or healthy. For example, we know that there ARE heritable factors for a host of physical and mental ailments (such as depression and schizophrenia). But nobody is saying "oh well, since it's genetic we'll just normalize these behaviors". 3) In fact, among out-n-proud homosexuals there are statistically significant patterns of dysfunctional family interactions, missed developmental/relational milestones, and traumatic experiences. For gay men and women, a poor or negative father relationship is more common than in the general population. The "triadic family" is very common in the histories of gay men. There are also recurring patterns of loneliness and non-conformity with same-sex peers during adolescence. Also, gay men are much more likely to have been sexually molested than the general population of men. 7 percent of men were molested - but 17 percent of gay men report molestation. (That number could even be higher, since many gays have reinterpreted their "premature sexualization" as being initiated into the gay world.) A lot of this was documented in a large-scale survey conducted by the Gay Men's Health Crisis in the early 80s. When they realized that researchers were interpreting the data as evidence of dysfunction, they yanked the study. Because it's not about truth, but about advancing the agenda.
#1.1.1.1.1.1
Ben David
on
2010-08-18 14:13
(Reply)
Most humans are attracted to the opposite sex and opposite-sex mating is the normal mammal breeding pattern. That's pretty obvious. And it's true that "naturally occurring" doesn't mean healthy or desirable. And it's true that people who are gay, like people who are straight, can choose whether to act on their desires.
The association of molestation or maternal-paternal roles in families or any other environment influences with the prevalence of homosexual attraction or homosexual behavior seems to be even less persuasive than any genetic component. That puts us back to not knowing where it comes from, as far as I can tell. There's a problem with evaluating dysfunctional behavior for adult gay people of the 1980's -- nearly all of them grew up in communities and often in families where anti-homosexuality feeling was very strong. For that matter, so do a lot of gay people now. Condeming a person's basic sex drive, and maybe acting in hostile or even dangerous ways about the person's sex drive, is likely to produce dysfunctional responses. It is perfectly possible that homosexual attraction among men is also associated with a tendency to defy rules and make dangerous choices. I have no knowledge on that. I've never heard that homosexual attraction among women is associated with molestation or parental behaviors or that it is associated with risky choices. It could be that it is. It could even be that, in some fundamental ways, female homosexuality and male homosexuality are as profoundly different as male and female heterosexuality. As you say, the push to recognize homosexual attraction as in-born gets a lot of support from those wanting to mainstream it, or accept it as normal. If you were gay, I'm sure you'd like the idea that it should be accepted as your "normal". You'd prefer to be not just left alone as a freak, but accepted as someone who lives somewhat differently. Being gay shows no signs of being "contagious" and I've never found a person who was gay who was dangerous or obnoxious because she or he was gay. I've known obnoxious people of gay, straight, tall, short, etc etc types.
#1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Geoff Brown
on
2010-08-18 14:44
(Reply)
Your latest post recycles popular strategems of "pity me" PC victimology politics. Variations of these are used by gays, blacks, and other self-appointed victim classes.
For example, your opening soother: "people who are gay, like people who are straight, can choose whether to act on their desires" - quickly morphs into the narcissistic PC jiu-jitsu of: "Condemning a person's basic sex drive, and maybe acting in hostile or even dangerous ways about the person's sex drive, is likely to produce dysfunctional responses." Which basically translates into: "it's your fault for not agreeing with me" or: "We're dysfunctional because of other people's hatred" Which are the gay equivalents of "if you loved me you'd give me the keys to the liquor cabinet" and "it's a white man's world". Nice try - but nope. Gays have had full social acceptance for almost a generation. Young 30-something gays in Holland and most of the West have experienced far less harassment than I (beanie-wearing Orthodox Jew) have - and far more social affirmation. Gays in Holland have been able to marry for 20 years - yet the patterns of compulsive promiscuity and consequent substance abuse still persist. For almost 2000 years Christendom did not recognize Jewish marriages. That did not mean that Jews built "communities" centered on bars, bathhouses, and other venues for anonymous hookup sex. Nothing is stopping gays from living normally. Legal structures developed for unmarried straight couples allow gays to recreate 99.9 percent of regular married status. Sorry - it is waaay too late to blame the widespread dysfunction of the gay subculture on other people's hatred. You conclude by tossing out straw men that imply things I never said - a nice underhanded way to brand me a rube when you can't answer my cogent, factual statements. Backhanded PC labeling statements like: "Being gay shows no signs of being contagious" Again, nice try. And I've met more than a few people who were "obnoxious because she or he was gay".
#1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Ben David
on
2010-08-19 16:35
(Reply)
|