Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (154391)	12/18/2004 1:34:27 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The reason I veered away from my original points was that I thought from your first reply that the discussion was not about homosexuality in the broader sense, but only the marriage issue. (I had told you that I didn't read all the posts between you and Neocon). I personally find bestiality to be disgusting and disturbing, and if was up to me I would classify it as animal abuse. At a minimum I think it is a signal of a seriously unhealthy mind. Just as animal abuse, especially in teens, is invariably a predictor of a violence-prone personality in the making, so do I think bestiality is a big danger signal that warrants intervention by society. I don't see the least conflict in my use of "preference" regarding homosexuals, and the genetic evidence. If one assumes the evidence to be valid (not yet settled) then all that the genes can produce is a ... preference. What else could genes produce? Genes cannot produce behavior, unless you deny that we are born with free will. It is entirely possible that there is a genetic connection to rape. If genetics can explain homosexual attraction, I see no reason at all why they may not explain the compulsive drives of a serial rapist. Do you see any such reason? The genetics of homosexuality cannot be anything new. And I think we know that for all past times many with concealed homosexual leanings have repressed those desires, lived as heterosexuals (or non-sexual "bachelors" or "spinsters"), and never practiced homosexuality. If you are not "one of those people" who believe homosexuality to be a preference ... exactly what DO you believe it to be?

To: epicure who wrote (154391)	12/18/2004 2:19:27 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I few issues back in the Stanford alumni rag, there was an article on a biology prof. there documenting homosexual behaviour in other species (400+ IIRC). There have been several articles (Stanford alumni rag, IEEE Spectrum or maybe EE Times) that talked about Lynn Conway. Her (started life as a he) contributions with Carver Mead to VLSI design as impacted the entire planet IMHO. But she faced many struggles in her carrier as a result of the sexual issues in her life. There was Alan Turing for that matter. What a tale of governmental ingratitude. Lynn Conway runs an organization to provide support of such individuals. While homosexual attraction will someday be explained, it still faces the issue that most "aberrations" also have a scientific explanation. It is possible that sexual attraction to 3 year olds does as well. If we find a genetic basis for homosexual and child attraction, what will we do? Accept one but not the other? On the basis that one is adult behaviour but the other involves children? There are people who argue that children have a sexual component to their lives, and that most of the harm caused by molestation is related to adult reactions . Science will most likely fill in that picture as well. How will we deal with the results? The point is that life is complex enough that a given component might have "good" and "bad" results that are inseparable. So society chooses to restrict a behaviour even though in some cases, the negative consequences of the actions do not seem to warrant the restriction of personal freedom. Most religious codes and taboos also have a scientific basis of sorts. I think marriage is one of them. The emotional aspects and cohesiveness of a family are very useful in raising children, especially when it takes 20+ years to rear and educate a child for the modern world. I appreciate you passionate posts in defense of better treatment for gays, and I also relate to some of neocons posts on the subject. BTW, I was raised fairly homophobic, but for a few years after grad school, I shared a townhouse in the Bay area with a number of roommates, one of whom went through the process of accepting that he was gay during the couple of years we lived together. We were all conservative christians. There is very little support in that community. He was borderline suicidal at times, although he kept up his professional and religious life. Although I was 99% sure of what the issues where at the time, we never discussed it until a few months after I moved out and married. In retrospect, I wish I had been a more empathetic or perhaps simply a decent, human being during those years. It's not like I'm going to become "tainted" by being kind.