[lbo-talk] Re: Queer Theory/Confusion

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 26 16:52:51 PDT 2004


False dichtomy.

Genetic does not mean natural, unchangeable, fized independent of all circumtances.

All genetic charcateristics are ranges of properties manifested in speficic envirionmental contexts.

Homosexual behavior has a genetic component. That ia because all behavior does -- all our traits comes from genetics and the environment. There is nothing else outside the supernatural.

The genetica spect of homsexual behavior is legitimate subject for scientific study. It will not make that aspect go away to announce taht it is politically incorrect.

Whether homosexual behavior is more like parcting Judaism of speaking Englsih, inw hich the genetic component explains litle of the variance, or like being tall or bein red haired. where it explains a lot. is a subject for scientific inquiry. It is not decided by politics.

It is dumb, however, to study the genetic aspect of homosexuality to prove taht gays can't help being gay.

This is elementary genetics, what I have said here. It is basic philosophy of science.

--- ravi <gadfly at exitleft.org> wrote:


> Carrol Cox wrote:
> >
> > the politics of
> > claiming a given behavior is "genetic" is
> potentially disastrous.
> >
> > Skin color is genetic. That fact didn't stop a
> single lynching.
> >
> > "Jewishness" is not chosen but given; that did not
> stop the holocaust.
> >
> > To claim homosexuality is genetic is to lay the
> "scientific" (or
> > pseudoscientific) basis for the liquidation of all
> homosexuals.
> >
> > For gay/lesbian liberation (as a practical
> political matter) to triumph,
> > it _must_ be based on the claim that gayness is a
> choice, and a choice
> > all humans have a right to.
> >
>
> i am in agreement except for the last point: to
> claim that it is a
> choice, is to choose to be impaled on the other
> horn. further, we
> continue to fall prey to the nature vs environment
> debate. imho, the
> correct argument has already been proposed on this
> thread, by others. to
> wit, there is no justification/rationale to [attempt
> to] restrict (or
> even comment on) the actions of one or more persons
> unless it harms
> others (in a demonstrable way).
>
> --ravi
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>

_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list