Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!oravax!daryl
From: daryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: The persistance of homosexuality
Summary: filler
Message-ID: <1618@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 90 15:23:05 GMT
References: <kagPb4G00h5K9VAUs5@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, Ithaca NY
Lines: 65

In article <kagPb4G00h5K9VAUs5@cs.cmu.edu>, Christian.Molick@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> 
> There have actually been a lot of studies done on the origin of
> homosexuality. Unfortunately, most of them are tainted by the
> point of view of the researchers doing the stuies. I believe, though,
> that there was one very large study done of twins in the Boston
> area very recently. Their data concluded that identical twins are
> much more likely to share the same sexuality. I can't give any
> specific references, though.

Identical twins are more likely to share almost any given
characteristic, of course. However, isn't the fact that there exist a
set of identical twins who *don't* share the same sexual preference
evidence that homo- or heterosexuality is not (exclusively) genetic?

> 
> > Has anyone either conclusively shown or disconfirmed a link between
> > heredity and sexual desire for members of the opposite sex, in humans?
> 
> > Any concepts or categories that we humans think is in is suspect and
> > should be regarded as a culturally-based category until shown otherwise.
> > (Interacial sexuality example follows)

> I think the issue is getting confused here. One good reason to believe
> that homosexuals might be genetically differentiated from
> heterosexuals is the number of homosexuals who believe that being
> homosexual is something unseparable from sexuality itself.

I don't see that as evidence that homosexuality is genetic. It seems
quite plausible to me that our society forces people to make a choice:
they are either heterosexual or homosexual, and once a person has
accepted the label, they are no longer free to consider sexuality
outside the label. I don't know why you think it was any different
when miscegenation (interracial race) was considered a kind of deviant
behavior.

> ... there is a difference between sex with the same gender and
> interracial sex.  Homosexuality tends to be different because of the
> anatomical considerations involved, whereas interracial sex need not
> be in the least different. Speaking in terms of which parts interact
> with which, that is.

I think it is a mistake to characterize sexuality in terms of
interactions between body parts. There can be sexual and romantic
attraction between two people without either considering the technical
details of having sex. There are also many kinds of sexual
interactions (kissing, to name one) where the gender of the two people
makes little difference in the way the "parts interact".

> ...homosexuals can still breed, they just don't get pleasure
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> out of the act in the same way that heterosexuals do.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What evidence is there for this? Are you counting as "heterosexuals"
men who get no pleasure other than the physical sensation of orgasm?

I agree with Rob Bernardo, that there is no reason to think that
homosexuality and heterosexuality are not culturally-based categories.
If men and women dressed exactly alike, and were just as likely to be
football players, or nurses, or soldiers, and were just as likely to
vote Republican, then would people be still classify themselves as
homosexuals or heterosexuals?

Daryl McCullough