NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12698

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 6.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12698 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11111 alt.politics.clinton:19398 alt.politics.bush:15270 alt.politics.homosexuality:8729
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ennews!anasaz!briand
From: [e-mail] (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 19:49:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News)
Lines: 125

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tim Fogarty) writes:
>
>In article <[e-mail]>,
>[e-mail] (Brian Douglass) writes:
>|>
>|>In 1981, there was published a study by 3 psychologists.  The interviewed
>|>approximately 1500 homosexuals (male), 1000 lesbians.  The purpose of there
>|>interviewing was to determine, what if any, evironmental circumstance
>|>caused homosexuality in either gender.  They looked at the obvious one,
>|>dominate mother, weak father, homosexual encounter at an early age, etc.
>|>What they found was that none of the popular theories of environmental
>|>causes to homosexuality had any statistical validity.  A domineering mother
>|>was the most common factor they found, but only in 17% of the interviewee.
>|>
>|>Their conclusion, was that the likilihood of an environmental cause was
>|>now very small, and biological causes should be investigated.  The
>|>homosexual community was outraged.  They decried the study as "homophobic",
>
>Please remember that there is no such thing as the homosexual community.
>Gays and lesbians do not speak with a single voice.  Gays and lesbians have
>many points off view.

Tell that groups like Queer Nation, and Thom F Turner's Gay and Lesbian
Caucus.  Though they do not speak for all, they clearly organized, have
agendas they wish to see fulfilled (Gays in the military being one), have an
impact on those agendas, often times diproportionate to their size.  This
is a community.  Now while I don't believe any of these groups were in
existence at the time of this study (1981), other forerunners and activists
did come forward to decry the study.

>Heck, some of them are even Republicans.

That's right.

>Some people
>may have been offended by this study, others, including myself (at age 22),
>found it a relief.  I could show it to my mom and say "See, its not your fault."
>(no, she was not a domineering mother, just the opposite)

This is one of the more interesting aspects of the whole
lifestyle/biological questions.  It seems older homosexuals who struggled
for acceptance in society and said "There is nothing wrong with me.  This
is my choice, it's my right, I like it, leave me alone." had the most
problem with this study, as it flew in the face of what they had struggled
for.  Other's, like yourself, that were younger and had not have embraced this
intellectual reasoning, found solace in the biological reasoning.  So when
you say gay's do not speak in a single voice, I completely agree, but at
that time, the voices heard were of the older set.  And the argument
between biological and lifestyle still seems to drawn long age lines.

>
>|>biased, and prejudicial.  At the time, the battle cry was that it was a
>|>lifestyle choice and if it were to be found to be biological, employers may
>|>require a test for employment possibly discriminate, doctors would develop
>|>"cures", etc.
>
>It is certainly understandable how some people could fear tests and "treatment",
>but I dont think that the majority of homosexuals thought this way.  And I
>dont remember any such battle cry.

I don't disagree with you.  We just may have been hearing from two
different segments of the gay community, I hearing a louder section.

>
>|>
>|>Now, over 10 years later, more and more evidence is appearing to support
>|>the biological factor, and the battle cry has changed.  Not completely,
>|>many activists continue to promote it as a lifestyle choice.  But now,
>|>instead of the fear of discrimination in the work-place, homosexuality
>|>testing, "cures", etc, the feeling is leaning towards protected minority
>|>status, anti-discrimination laws, perhaps even affirmative action.  And it
>
>Do you have any evidence of a gay organization promoting affirmative action ?

Do you have any evidence of a gay organization publically stating they will
never ask for affirmative action to right past discriminations that have
prevented them from advancement?

Neither of these arguments are really worthwile to the discussion.  For
every example of discrimination against a homosexual, I can show an example
of discrimination against straights in the Entertainment industry.  And of
course neither example proves anything.

>
>|>seems that many activists will take which ever side is convenient,
>|>lifestyle or biological, depending on the issue of the moment.
>|>
>|>I don't know which is right, lifestyle or biological.  Maybe both, maybe
>|>neither, the evidence is still just too evenly split.
>
>How about that its not a 0,1 type of thing, but instead a spectrum.  People
>are born with a sexual orientation.  This orientation can not be changed.  It
>is a biological orientation.  When a person is exposed to certain stimulus,
>such as visual images, etc., the body reacts.  Hormones are released into
>the body.
>
>Some people are born with a completely heterosexual orientation (call it
>a Kinsey-0), some people are born with a completely homosexual orientation
>(a Kinsey-6).  Everyone else is born with an orientation somewhere inbetween
>(Kinsey-1 through 5).  Kinsey-0s biologically react to members of the opposite
>sex.  Kinsey-6s only react to members of the same sex.  Kinsey-1 to 5 react
>to varying degrees to members of both sexes.  K-0 can only be straight,
>K-6 can only be gay, and K-1 to 5 can choose to be gay, straight, or bi.

This is very interesting.  Could you please provide references to this
theory.  On the surface it seems to embrace most of the ancedotal evidence
on either side.

>
>So to argue one side
>|>or the other is just an exercise in futility, as there is no right or wrong
>|>answer.
>
>The right answer is that all people deserve equal protection under the law.

Again, must we do it piece meal, one group at a time until we are no more
than a society of stereotypes, or can we find a universal answer that views
all people with equal impartiality?

>--
>Tim Fogarty
>Sys Man and Sys Admin for the EGSE in the POCC at JSC for SRL-1, STS-59
>[e-mail]