🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40004.2B5E58F9@puddle.fidonet.org>
   Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org (Jessie Bailey) writes:

>I also feel that it is a choice that people make to become gay or
>straight.  

These sorts of comments always puzzle me.  I'm a male and I've never
been physically attracted to any other male, but I can't say as that
I've ever made a *choice*.  Can you?  Do you look at other people and
think to yourself "I'd like to be attracted to that person," or "I
don't want to be attracted to that person".  I can't imagine thinking
that, so I wonder if you can.

>I do not feel in any way that the desire to be gay is something you
>are born with.  I feel that there are rare cases in which a person's
>chromosomal make-up is messed up, but as I said, these cases, I feel,
>are extremely rare.

This is good, because once again it's a point of departure for a
scientific discussion.  What difference does it make that you "feel"
such cases are rare?  What we need to do is to find objective criteria
(not an easy thing to do in this case) and attempt to *measure* the
rarity of such cases.  Unfortunately it's still too premature for us
to consider this approach--we don't yet understand enough about what
makes one person attracted to another in order to make that
measurement.  So why do I bring it up?  Because in the absence of any
good measure you have no basis on which to pin your feeling that
"these cases... are extremely rare".  

> I also have another strong opinion about what causes a person to
>choose a homosexual lifestyle.  I feel in most cases, if not all, that
>homosexual tendencies stem from a sexually abusive background.  In
>every case that I have heard of, this has been the case.

This is most excellent, because you're actually pursuing the subject
quasi-scientifically.  Your hypothesis is that a sexually abusive
background causes homosexuality.  Now aside from the observation you
made above, what else would your hypothesis predict?  

> I am not saying that every sexually abused person turns to a gay
>lifestyle, but isn't it possible that a sexually abused person could
>be more susceptible to be confused with their own sexual identity?  I
>believe so.

This was good until you added the "I believe so".  What you should do
is seek out statistics--find out if there is a correlation between
sexual abuse and homosexuality.  If there is, then you can say that
you've found support for your theory.  If there isn't, then you are
going to have to do a little bit of rethink.  That's the way science
is supposed to work.

>Jessie Bailey 

>uucp: uunet!m2xenix!puddle!346!14.0!Jessie.Bailey
>Internet: Jessie.Bailey@p0.f14.n346.z1.fidonet.org

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)

 
I've been hesitant to add to these debates, but the recent well-stated
posts from Mickey Rowe and Bill VanHorne have inspired me to add my own
rather  verbose two cents.  So, here it is:
 
I am a scientist by trade, but I grew up in a minister's family, and married
a minister's daughter.  Even so, I haven't been subject to much *personal*
conflict between science and religion.  However, I have had a great deal of
trouble with the discrepency between what many scientists say and what they do,
AND between what many christians say and what they do.
 
Observation #1:  There are lots of unreasonable people in the world, on both
  sides of ANY issue you care to name.  Don't make the mistake of evaluating
  the *validity* of a persons arguments based on whether you LIKE or DISLIKE
  the person, or on whether you agree or disagree with their CONCLUSION!  An
  argument is valid or invalid based only on it's content, not on who
makes it, 
  or what THEY conclude from it.  For any view, you can find someone foolish 
  who holds it, but that doesn't invalidate that view.  For any person, you can
  find something she/he believes that you don't believe, but that doesn't mean
  she/he is foolish.

  Examine each argument based on its merits.
 
Corollary A:  Everyone is human.  Even scientists are influenced by their
  desires, beliefs, and prejudices.  The BEST scientists work very hard at
  keeping their prejudices from interfering with their OBJECTIVITY.  But, in
  general, you have to pay attention to the EVIDENCE from which a scientist
  draws her/his conclusions to understand how valid the conclusions are.  Of
  course, some people are more objective than others, and you do learn that
  Dr. XYZ might be pretty slipshod about his research, so you scrutinize his
  evidence very closely to see if it backs up his conclusions, whereas, after
  scrutinizing Dr. ABC's arguments a few times, you may discover she is usually
  very objective, and can back up her arguments with well documented research
  and facts, so you may start to believe what she says with less doubt.  This
  is often justified, but don't get sloppy yourself about what you take for
  granted, just because so-and-so said so.
 
  Religious personalities are equally subject to all the human weaknesses.
  Sometimes it seems to me that they get away with hyperbole (unsupported
  statements of "FACT", perhaps incendiary), broad generalizations, and unfair
  attacks more often than scientists, because their audience isn't always as 
  critical and analytical. (Please - no flames here - it's just tougher to
  positively shoot down the views of a preacher (or politician) with concrete
  proof than those of a scientists - scientists stick their necks out with
  TESTABLE conclusions, or else their conclusions aren't worth much).  When 
  you find someone who talks sense about religious issues, listen to them,
  question them, debate with them.  You will both learn from the interaction.
  (Same goes for scientists; I'm not so sure about politicians :)
 
Observation #2:  Religion (or at least Christianity, with which I'm most 
  familiar) has some structure to it.  Most of christianity is (or should be
  based on the teachings of the Bible.  I'm not well read in the Bible, but I
  have some idea what's in it.  Most churches have a layer of stuff on top
  of the Bible, (in many cases in conflict with the Bible), putting their own
  spin on things.  This layer includes catechism, doctrine, and creeds.  They
  are usually based on interpretation of the Bible, but are shaped by the
  personalities of the church.  Those that are written down and officially 
  adopted by each "church" organisation constitute the basis of that sect.
  Ideally, the writings discuss the debate that resulted in the doctrines.
  (The Talmud is an example of this, in the Jewish religion - correct me if
  I'm wrong).  The next layer of stuff (less formal) is made up of the
  currently held beliefs and opinions of the clergy and other church leaders 
  (not necessarily self consistent within a sect or even a parish).  
 
  Unfortunately, the last layer of religion is what gets the most press.  That
  layer is made up of the above mentioned (Corollary A) hyperbole and careless
  statements, often made by people expressing their own personal views, without
  substantiation in the core of the religion.  (I know - the church has been
  OFFICIALLY guilty of many serious abuses and crimes over the centuries - and
  perhaps even now).  However, attacking the basic tenets of a religion based
  on the statements or behavior of its less disciplined members is like judging
  science by the statements of the crackpots (I won't say who I consider
  crackpots, for fear of starting another flamefest).
 
  The Bible, and the doctrines of the various religious sects, are a mixed bag.
  They are not a simple, self-evident, self-consistent set of writings.
  (Neither is science).  I must admit, I haven't had enough patience to
  personally wade very far into that morass - but I consider that a personal
  failing rather than a simple indictment of religion.  If you want to be a
  good christian (I'm not one), you need to engage yourself in the study of the
  Bible and the accepted teachings of your church - not just listen to what
  other people say it means, and try to do what they say.  This is not just
  my opinion - the Bible teaches this (I can't give you a reference - sorry).
 
Suggestion #1:  Try to understand, as you write your postings on these
  subjects, which of your statements are:
    a) beliefs you hold because you've heard them frequently from authorities;
    b) beliefs you hold because you've studied them, and formed an independent
        opinion;
    c) things you know because you've studied them a LOT, and it's
impossible to
        concieve that they could be any other way (you should be able to defend
        these);
    d) things you suspect, because you have a little evidence, and/or you
        like the way they sound;
    e) accepted facts, that you can back up with references to reliable
sources,
       preferably at least partially unbiased sources;  (I do not
consider R.J. 
       Reynold's a reliable source IMHO).

  When you've thought about these, try to write your statements in a way that
  conveys to the reader what your confidence level is in your statement, and
  why.  (This does not apply to advertising or political debates - of course.
  Nobody expects these to be honest or true).
 
Reference #1:  If you would like to learn a lot about evolution, take a look
  at any of the books or writings of Stephen J. Gould, professor of
  anthropology (I think) at Harvard.  He writes columns for Natural History,
  and most of these columns have been collected into books.  The most recent
  is "Eight Little Piggies" (?).  I haven't read this one yet, but I've
  read a few others ("The Panda's Thumb", "The Flamingo's Smile").  They
  require a bit of concentration at times, but they are fascinating, thought
  provoking reading.  All his writings are well thought out, well supported,
  and provide accurate information about the confidence level of his sources
  and conclusions.  He also is not perfect.  He has written numerous
  retractions over the years, as he discovers his previous conclusions to have
  been in error for one reason or another.  I take this as evidence of
  exceptional intellectual honesty, both with himself, and with his readers.  
 
Gregory Russell
IBM Research Staff Member