Gay parents influence on kids

[GernBlansten]

You're right Ed. I don't know you from Adam. But you did tell us you don't look good in a dress!

 

My comments to you were more general to anyone who dogmatically believes the choice arguement. I just can't believe that anyone who holds that POV has ever discussed it with a gay aquaintance. I'm not saying they hate the sinner, but their hate of the sin clouds their reason.

 

You are absolutely correct that if the hard-wired arguement was proven, BSA would have a very difficult time justifying the discrimination. Perhaps someday, we will be able to scientically demonstrate this, however, I would bet that some would still reject the evidence.

[NJCubScouter]

Gern says:

 

You are absolutely correct that if the hard-wired arguement was proven, BSA would have a very difficult time justifying the discrimination. Perhaps someday, we will be able to scientically demonstrate this, however, I would bet that some would still reject the evidence.

 

Some would still reject the evidence? I have no doubt about that. It probably would be many of the same people who reject the evidence for evolution because it does not conform to their literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Some people are not interested in science if it does not agree with their religious beliefs.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, if we're going to wait for overwhelming scientific evidence that gays are indeed "hard-wired", we could be in for a long wait. Religions, and I'd have to say especially western religions, have a history of ignoring plain scientific fact, and indeed, have killed and imprisoned those who didn't "toe the party line". When you're pointing out something that is part of religious dictate, scientific evidence doesn't easily come into play. For example, there is overwhelming evidence that the universe took a bit more than 6 days to come into being, and yet there are those who continue to believe this. Could they be right? Sure, anything is possible, but the science says otherwise pretty convincingly. Conclusive evidence supporting the "hard-wire" position would, as someone said, make BSA's position harder to support, but that doesn't mean they'd change it. I think what you have in BSA right now is a particular religious belief holding sway over the organization, and that is difficult to fight against because it is pervasive in the national organization. I don't think you'll be seeing them appointing board members who disapprove of this position, and so it becomes self-perpetuating. But, I continue to have hope.

[Trevorum]

As I posted above, mathematical models have proven that "allowing" individuals to choose their own sexual orientation would result in the entire species going extinct within short order (geologically speaking). Sooner or later, randomness or short-term clustering (ie., "fashion") would cause group fecundity to drop below critical levels. However, when sexual orientation is pre-set, extinction is easily avoided.

 

Indeed, same-sex orientation has been postulated as an actual adaptive advantage for hunter-gather hominids (comprising 99% of human history) in that a certain number of adult males would contribute to the food supply for their neices and nephews but would not increase population pressure within the foraging band.

 

And this is completely separate from the ongoing biochemical, hormonal, and genetic research.

[GernBlansten]

Yes, no matter the evidence, many religous folk will never accept scientific evidence if it contradicts their faith. I'm a scientist by trade, trained in the scientific method. When evidence indicates an alternative answer to my faith, I examine it, verify its validity and make a personal judgement. Evolution is just that. I don't accept the biblical version of creationism, it simply doesn't hold up to my analysis of the evidence. But it doesn't exclude my belief that a higher being had something to do with evolution and the creation of the universe.

 

Same goes for the choice/hard-wired argument. I have never met, spoken to or read a gay person who says it is a choice. They are the experts here. Not me. They all claim it is just the way they are. I am aware of some religous groups that claim to "convert" gays into straights, but I also am aware the recidivism rate of those converted is pretty high.

 

I personally believe that homosexuality is an anomoly in human beings, like diabetes or any number of birth defects. An imbalance in brain and body chemistry. When those chemical markers are identified, perhaps a "cure" will be found. Until then, I will accept them as they are.

[Trevorum]

Gern, I have a very, very hard time accepting the proposition that something as critical to the success of a species as sex could be an "anomaly" or a "defect". It is much more reasonable to suspect that a "gene" for same-gender orientation conferred some type of adaptive advantage, roughly similar to the way that the gene for sickle cell anemia is adaptive.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

As perfect as we like to think we are, nature sometimes throws us a curve, even at birth. I have seen infants with 6 fingers, I have seen babies born without a skull (Aencephally). I have seen otherwise normal looking adults have their organs in the wrong place, the heart on the right side, the liver on the left (citus inversus). I have seen (my son) a child whose brain reverses some letters making reading near impossible (dyslexia), I know of children being born without sight or without the ability to hear.

 

Extrophy (also my son) covers an entire gamut of physical appearances.

 

So, if someone were to ask me does it make sense that a male could be born "liking males" and a woman born "liking females" I have to think that as the reproduction of human beings is far from perfect, why couldn't it happen?

 

I have heard the argument that being born gay is impossible because its not natural. Its not natural that people are born blind or without hearing. Its not natural not to be born without a bladder, its not natural to be born with a brain that transposes figures, its not natural to be born with 6 fingers on one hand, its not natural to be born without a skull, but all these things happen. Why can't it happen that there are those born same sex oriented? People dont choose to be dyslexic, or blind, or deaf either.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[evmori]

So, OGE, you are saying being gay is the same as being deaf or blind? Interesting. Deaf & blind people usually have something genetic that went haywire & is usually inherited. Is being gay genetic?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Ah Ed, I beleive you are not considering the whole picture. Something could be genetic, but doesnt have to manifest itself in each generation.

 

What about Aencephaly? Those babies die almost immediately, but it still happens, how is that possible?

[evmori]

Actually, OGE, I did take that into consideration. Aencephaly can be either genetic or caused by medication taken by the mother or exposure to radiation. So, it isn't necessarily genetic. As far as I know, blindness & deafness are genetic. Is being gay genetic?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not a geneticist nor do I play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn.

 

I don't know if being gay is genetic, then again I don't know if its a choice either. I

[packsaddle]

One look at Richard Boone was all it took to make me hetero..

Folks, the genetics of development is way beyond simple traits - the way this discussion has gone. Anyone seriously interested in learning about it needs to take a university course or two. Gern, if Ed wants to treat his view (choice) as the null hypothesis, the twin studies offer ample evidence to reject. Fact is, this discussion is flawed by a strong presence of prejudice. And THAT is what needs to be addressed by BSA.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Richard Boone? Yikes!

 

While I agree with Pack's comments, I'd like to explore the "genetic" issue a bit more, since Ed has asked it twice now as a part of a discussion that OGE initiated, I think. For sake of discussion, what would it mean to the various religious belief systems that view homosexuality as a "sin" (or, at least, their behavior), if it turned out that homosexuality was a genetic trait, just like being "male" or "female"? Could it be viewed, then, as a "natural state", or would it still be something that needed to be "fixed"?

[tjhammer]

The whole discussion of choice versus innate quality versus genetic "defect" is troublesome to me. I understand why the topic is proffered, but I think it could ultimately push the discussion in the wrong direction.

 

This discussion should simply be about whether gays can be good role models for Scouting. The larger discussion should simply be about whether gays are the same as everyone else, and undeserving of social prejudice. Ultimately, the answer to these questions should be answered regardless of whether I'm gay by "choice", by "defect" or "other".

 

Some people choose to argue the "choice" issue as a way to overcome the teachings of specific religions. The argument seeks to show incongruence between a literal interpretation of the Bible and the fact that God made some people homosexual. That's a fine discussion to have, but it's only really relevant if you're holding the discussion with people who subscribe to those specific religions and take the Bible as accurate and literal.

 

If you can only ultimately accept that I am a moral creature if you learn I was born gay, then might I suggest you're still judging the wrong thing in determining my morality?

 

OGE raises the issue of "genetic defect", as a way to better explain how it might be possible that God would create someone gay, and also explain how it's occurrence might jump around from generation to generation.

 

But the more we advance this specific argument ("genetic defect") the more we ultimately play right into the hands of the prejudice. If we argue that homosexuality is a defect (like being blind or deaf or whatever), then it's a logical step to suggest we should try to "fix the defect". "Fixing the defect" was at the core of atrocity to eradicate Jews and gays and anyone else the Third Reich was prejudiced against, and using that mindset (no matter how innocuous) is a very slippery slope.

 

The "defect" argument also tries to develop sympathy (even empathy) for gays, because somehow they are powerless over their situation. It argues not that gays are victims of man, but that gays are victims of God or Nature. I prefer to not view myself as a victim of any thing.

 

Why I am gay is not at all clear to me -- I just am. I never chose to be gay. For quite a while I chose to pretend I wasn't gay.

 

I don't believe I'm defective. I don't believe gays are handicapped, by anything more than prejudice.

 

I do believe being gay is an innate state, and I believe some percentage of people are "wired" to be homosexual. I also believe sexuality is a "sliding scale" (i.e. Kinsey), and I believe a loving God made the world that way for reasons I accept on faith.

 

I do believe I should be judged -- not prejudged -- for who I am and how I behave.

[OldGreyEagle]

I know on the topic of genetics and homosexuality there has been am argument that if it was genetic, then why does it continue, as one would think it should "die out" as gays are loath to participate in the reproductive cycle.

 

But many things that are genetic dont manifest themselves in every generation. For example, the native americans of the great plains had the legend of the white buffalo, and indeed they do exist, its called albinoism (see Edgar and Johhny Winter, loved Frankenstein). One white buffalo may appear once every 100 years. The White buffalo may not reproduce another white. The fact anecephaly (I got the spelling wrong the first time, my bad) continues even though those born with it never reproduce that way tells me it doesnt take those manifesting the genes to pass them along.

 

What determines temperment? Families knw of relatives that seemd to be born anrgy and are angey the rest of their lives, others are quite placid in temperment and rarely show anger, all in the same family. What determines right or left handedness, dominant eye (for shooters)

 

So, the quesiton is, why cant sexual orientation be genetic, I can't prove it is, but what is the proof it is not?