MetaChat - Genetic Determinism

About ten words in I got bored and started humming show-tunes from the Hit Musical Annie.
Which says more about me than it does about your argument.
Although, this is good, and explains what I want to say in a much better way.

Plus - No Silliness, Rabbits & Chatting.

posted by seanyboy 21 June | 11:29

"coup de gras" should be "coup de grace".

posted by matildaben 21 June | 11:30

As a defense of homosexuality in the strategic, political realm, genetic determinism (true or false) is a dangerously weak argument, one that gives away crucial territory in exchange for a comforting, short-term gain

Says it all, really.

posted by mediareport 21 June | 11:31

I thought it was a good essay.

posted by delmoi 21 June | 11:52

What is the necessity for the defense of homosexuality? That is, who am I defending it from?

Genetic markers, if they exist, only go so far as to further remove sexual preference from the realm of morality, which is usually where the discussion of the "defense" of or "offense" caused by homosexuality comes in.

Some religious people will find a way to justify their beliefs irrespective of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Still, do left-handed people now need to defend their left-handedness? (They were once considered inferior and were schooled as if disabled, for example, forced to relearn activities with the right hand.)

Genetic determinism (which is a biologically weak platform to walk on, anyway, wrt most behaviors — whole other topic) may help reduce the stigma of homosexuality the same way that left-handed people were gradually left alone to be what they are.

The goal should be to give fewer and fewer reasons to hate someone for their inborn attributes. Long-term, if there are genetic markers, that knowledge would be more useful towards that goal, than if we did not know whether there are markers or not.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 11:59

I believe it's genetic, from family instances of it, and because it's not at all a choice. I don't care if it hurts our fight for rights or helps it--that's not why you should accept arguments about biology, or not.

You have to look at the other options too--if it's not genetic, then what is it? They have absolutely no proof of in-utero forces, and no proof of it being a conscious choice, and no proof of environmental triggers.

I'll accept that people are genetically predisposed to it, and that something else may happen at some point, but until there's evidence, that's as far as i'll go--i truly believe it's genetic, and let the chips fall where they may in terms of advancing or hindering our rights. Our rights are not dependent on it being genetic or not anyway--they're dependent on us being citizens like straight folks, and on equal treatment under the law. Science and genes don't determine who gets rights and who doesn't, so in terms of politics, i think it's a moot point--in terms of social acceptance tho, it's very important. It's also a very commonly held view among younger and educated people, so unless there's clear proof of it not being genetic, people will understand that just as they didn't chooose which sex they were attracted to, we didn't either. (leaving aside Bisexuals).

posted by amberglow 21 June | 12:19

Actually, that Times story bent over backwards to paint those people as decent, when they're wholly motivated by fear and ignorance and hate. Being Christian has incredibly little to do with being gay or straight, and should not be allowed to be something they hide behind. If they hate us and fear us, they're bigots, whether they're Chrisitan or not. And all these so-called Christians should be focusing on the poor and unwashed and the least of us in the society, as Jesus did, not obsessively focusing on us. I'd love to see a reporter ask any of them why it's more important to fight my rights as a citizen, when Jesus never spoke of it, than to actually work towards what that Jesus actually cared about.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 12:23

OK. I read it, and the article at NewDonkey. I think the biggest problem with your response is that it doesn't take enough notice of what the original post says. The original post says (paraphrasing) "we can take g.d. and slap a few christians with it." It doesn't say that g.d. is an argument against anti-homosexuality in general.

for example, you say "Undeniable proof of the genetic basis for homosexuality--even the necessary and sufficient basis of homosexuality--will not faze the religiously-justified anti-gay activist."

What you fail to say is that there is no argument that will faze the ... anti-gay activist. NewDonkey knows this; they just want a few well argued snippets to ridicule these activists with.

There's a wider issue touched on in yours and AlexReynolds post (above). Whether or not something is genetically determined has no relevance at all to potential condemnation. Genetically predisposed sociopaths are rightly condemned for their actions; other genetically influenced behaviours are tolerated, ignored or encouraged. It's a grey area. Even though you argue against it, by being sucked into this dialogue, you're giving credence to the fact that g.d. should be taken into account when talking about gay rights. You talk about g.d. and homosexuality together and to some extent this counteracts the main thrust of your argument.

I'd like to have seen your words written less in the format of an argument, and more in the format of an article. i.e. shortened version of the argument; more detailed argument; conclusion. I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm not the dullest either, and I had a great deal of trouble working out what you were trying to say. Your use of complex vocabulary and grammatical form makes you sound more like you're showing off and less like you're trying to make a point.

amberglow's so right: Get the truth out there and let the chips fall. Gay people have nothing to hide, and they shouldn't act as though they have.

posted by seanyboy 21 June | 12:40

"Our rights are not dependent on it being genetic or not anyway--they're dependent on us being citizens like straight folks, and on equal treatment under the law."

Amen and right on.

posted by hojoki 21 June | 12:46

Thanks for the feedback, and the correction.

I only and frequently hear the gd argument as a defense--it seems to me that the gay rights movement has deliberately and emphatically centered its defense there. If that's true, then I can hardly be increasing the focus on gd, can I?

Don't think that I'm taking an anti-scientific point of view where I am saying political necessity trumps research. I'm agnostic on the gd question, and my main argument is that while it matters, of course, it's ancillary and we (gay rights advocates) are neglecting the real fight.

I'm not sure what AR is getting at above when he asks "what is the necessity for the defense of homosexuality?". It needs to be defended because it's almost universally attacked and it merits defense. Also, my normal formulation of my point of view is that fighting in moralistic territory is more than defense, it's a necessary offense.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 13:08

Seanyboy, you're right that I'm not responding enough to Kilgore's post. I'm really only responding to a portion of it and obviously an idea that's widely shared.

If gd is quite true, then taking the gd stance as a defense and neglecting the moral territory (which, I think, essentially cedes it) will leave the gay rights movement vulnerable to the argument that homosexuality is a birth defect. Worse, in theory, it could be "corrected". True or not, I think this is a very dangerous place to make our stand.

Alternatively, if we succesfully defend homosexuality as an acceptable practice, an act, then everything else becomes moot. There would be no reason to question its acceptability as an identity; the public veil between identity and practice wouldn't exist; we won't have to navigate the murky legal waters of protecting homosexuality on the basis of identity.

That last point is important because I think something else that makes gd attractive to gay rights activists is the notion that the determinism of a trait forms the basis for its legal protection via "rights". But there are a good number of anti-discriminatory rights that don't rely upon determinism. And, again, if gd is true and becomes well-understood, it may no longer be determinist.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 13:08

amberglow and hojoki, amber wrote:

Our rights are not dependent on it being genetic or not anyway--they're dependent on us being citizens like straight folks, and on equal treatment under the law. Science and genes don't determine who gets rights and who doesn't...

I make that point above; but I strongly disagree with you if you're claiming that in many people's minds, this (gd) doesn't form the rock solid basis for the protection of rights. I hear that argument all the time.

Your assertion in the quote is my assertion too and my argument is that we should be claiming and defending that territory, aggressively.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 13:15

I'm not sure what AR is getting at above when he asks "what is the necessity for the defense of homosexuality?". It needs to be defended because it's almost universally attacked and it merits defense.

I guess I was trying to use the Socratic method (thinking out loud) to understand the question, in that trying to defend homosexual behavior to people who've already made up their minds about the immorality of said behavior is a lost cause from the start. Genetic markers will not really convince them otherwise.

Being gay in and of itself demands no defense for its innate qualities, in the same way that the left-handed do not need to justify their existence — but if homosexual behavior needs to be "defended", it is only as a response to the specific hatreds of some others.

I guess what I mean is that I needed to be clear to myself about what "defense" means precisely, before deciding if using genetic determinism as an example of a "defense" is legitimate.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 13:22

I'd also add again that genetic markers may predispose a certain behavior, e.g. alcoholism, but that does not equal "determinism" in any strict sense.

I'd also add that I disagree that the gay civil rights movement as a whole is comfortable using genetic information as a way to legitimize "gayness" in mainstream society.

There is too much potential for eugenics, where this research is headed, and the subject makes a number of gay biologists I know rather nervous.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 13:28

Ah. Comparing it to handedness begs the question, doesn't it?

You write, "...in that trying to defend homosexual behavior to people who've already made up their minds about the immorality of said behavior is a lost cause from the start."

Yes and no. The long-term goal here isn't with these extremists, it's with everyone else. We will never change the extremists' minds, but we have to engage with them because they are influential. And a good number of the non-extremists whom we've won over, I'd wager, still believe that homosexual activity is immoral and they are only open-minded about tolerance because they believe it isn't a choice, but biologically determined. That exactly why the gd argument has gained so much traction. But we'll be in trouble with these people if homosexuality isn't found to be primarily genetic and deterministic; and we'll be in trouble with these people if it is but a "therapy" becomes possible. If the majority has become tolerant out of compassion--which, in truth, I think is the case--then if gd is correct and a genetic screening of embryos becomes possible, this majority will systematically eliminate homosexuals from the population via abortion. None of these things would be possible if the majority accepts homosexuality in the moral context.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 13:38

"I'd also add that I disagree that the gay civil rights movement as a whole is comfortable using genetic information as a way to legitimize 'gayness' in mainstream society."

If so, that discomfort is recent. I didn't just pull my arguments out of a hat yesterday, I've been making these arguments--publicly--for more than ten years. I've mostly felt like a voice in the wilderness, though of course I wasn't. But that a quote from me appears on that page is telling. The community of people who've been making this point, over and over, is not large. And the community of people who've been making this point all seem to believe that it's a vital point to be made that has not been.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 13:44

What is the necessity for the defense of homosexuality? That is, who am I defending it from?

Thousands of years of near-constant propoganda against it. It's be nice if the whole thing didn't necessitate a lot of politicking and debate, but we don't live in a perfect world.

posted by jonmc 21 June | 13:45

I think it's wrong to say that Homosexuality is a birth defect, and it's wrong to say that it isn't a birth defect. In both cases, you're using the word "defect" and opening the argument up for a whupping.

Saying that homosexuality isn't a birth defect is equivalant to saying that you haven't stopped beating your wife. The logic of the argument allows for the option of never having started beating your wife, but on an emotional level saying "It's not a birth defect" is like saying "It's wrong, and we're doing it wilfully."

The correct response for me, and it's the one so skillfully stated by amberglow is "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality." or "I have never beaten my wife."

I know that this is the argument you're trying to make, but you're making it by saying "No. I have not stopped beating my wife."

posted by seanyboy 21 June | 13:51

If we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't define themselves by how or with whom they have sex.

I find it tawdry and intrusive, but then I'm not one to kiss and tell anyway.

posted by Hugh Janus 21 June | 13:52

If we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't define themselves by how or with whom they have sex.

If we lived a perfect world Alyson Hannigan and Audra Mitchell would clone themselves into an army of my very own love slaves, the Mets would win the Series every year, and I'd be able to sprout wings and fly to Spain. But we live in this one.

posted by jonmc 21 June | 14:04

"I know that this is the argument you're trying to make, but you're making it by saying 'No. I have not stopped beating my wife.'"

I don't see that. Let's be clear that there's my argument to fellow gay-rights activists, and there's my proposed argument to everyone else. The argument we're discussing--or at least the argument I was discussing--was directed to fellow gay-rights activists and was claiming that making our stand at biology is a mistake.

Regarding everyone else, I haven't offered any particular tactic for gaining and occupying the moral territory. As it happens, in practice as a gay-rights advocate, I implement my ideas by very clearly saying, when the subject comes up, "there is nothing wrong with homosexuality"...just as you do. (Of course, you realize don't you? that that statement necessarily has the same tactical weakness as "it's not a birth defect"...so I think you're contradicting yourself.)

posted by kmellis 21 June | 14:06

Ah. Comparing it to handedness begs the question, doesn't it?

Compare it with breathing, then. I don't apologize for breathing, and neither does anyone else. It's perfectly natural and hurts no one.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 14:06

If we lived in a perfect world people wouldn't define themselves by how or with whom they have sex.

Sexuality defines me, insofar as I am defined by society's evaluation of my (sexual) behavior around others. Nature of the beast.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 14:10

Compare it with breathing, then. I don't apologize for breathing, and neither does anyone else. It's perfectly natural and hurts no one.

You don't have to convince me, alex. But the thing is there hasn't been years of Anti-Oxygen propoganda pounded into the populace's head.

posted by jonmc 21 June | 14:10

But the thing is there hasn't been years of Anti-Oxygen propoganda pounded into the populace's head.

I was kidnapped by the Cult of Nitrous Whippets as a teenager, forced to make ice cream sundaes on the side to make our Leader extra money. Deprogramming was a total buzz-kill.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 14:16

That's still begging the question because breathing is necessary.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 14:18

Deprogramming was a total buzz-kill.

They brought in that Billy Mays bastard to deprogram you, didn't they? You poor man.

posted by jonmc 21 June | 14:30

...will leave the gay rights movement vulnerable to the argument that homosexuality is a birth defect. Worse, in theory, it could be "corrected". True or not, I think this is a very dangerous place to make our stand.

But that would and will happen anyway. Go see "Twilight of the Golds". Of course there'll be a genetic test for it, and abortion, or gene therapy, for it. Many of us wouldn't have been born had the test already been available, and it will be interesting to see how widely available a test becomes, and what kind of demand there is to "fix" it.

*pictures a world where jonmc is everyone's hairdresser, and interior designer and florist* ; >

I'd also like to throw out that many of the most prominent rightwingers have gay siblings or children--from Newt to Alan Keyes to Schafly to Cheney.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 14:31

*pictures a world where jonmc is everyone's hairdresser, and interior designer and florist* ; >

*gives amberglow a mullet, puts black-light Deep Purple posters on his wall, and plants plastic squirting roses in his windowbox*

posted by jonmc 21 June | 14:33

I think if we have equal rights under the law, there'll be less demand for a "fix", but time will tell.

It could be that in 50 years, no more gay and lesbian children will be born at all, except to the very poor, and to those who refuse to "fix" it. Or--it could be that in 50 years, there'll be no social demand for a "fix" because we will have had equality for so long that it's not an issue.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 14:33

I don't apologize for breathing

When was apologizing brought up?

posted by bugbread 21 June | 14:35

That's still begging the question because breathing is necessary.

Maybe sex could be argued as necessary for mental health. I know my straight friends get cranky without it.

Yeah, yeah, asexuals...

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 14:43

the "fix".
Ahh, there's a derail and a half. On big brother last night, Craig (gay) was talking to Derek (gay). Craig asked Derek if he would take a pill that stopped him being Gay. Derek said no. Craig said that a lot of his gay friends would take it. Anyway, it got me to thinking... "If there was a pill which could switch your sexuality, would I take it." I'd be tempted to (as long as I could switch back), if only to know what it was like to crush after men.

And now I find myself thinking about the difference between a fix and a choice. A lot of moralists are arguing that you should be able to choose the sex of your child. In what we perceive to be a moral and unbiased world, would it be different to allow parents to choose the sexuality of the child?

In this unbiased imaginary world, are the two equivalant, and if they are not then why not?

Anyway, that's me going off on a huge tangent, so I'll let you get back to your scheduled programming.

posted by seanyboy 21 June | 14:47

Or--it could be that in 50 years, there'll be no social demand for a "fix" because we will have had equality for so long that it's not an issue.

I expect there will be demands for a fix. And I expect that there will a demand to "un-fix" people who've been "fixed."

Obviously, too, if the knowledge is there to eliminate a "gay gene," in vitro, it will also be possible to select for, or maybe even, cultivate, the same gene. Genetic determinism is a saw that cuts both ways. There will still be an element of volition somewhere in the process, and I imagine the steps that lead from a specific strand of DNA to falling in love with that person will still be ambigious and poorly understood.

posted by Tacky O. Assis 21 June | 14:54

I think parents can do that, and it's their right, even if i disapprove--they have ultimate power over their kids, and even whether to have them or not. Look at all the parents now that abort when they find out the fetus has one thing wrong or another. If the parents think it's wrong--or for whatever reason--they can abort. I hear that sex-selection is causing lots of abortions in some countries already, so why not orientation selection? (i'm just glad i'm here already)

I think it's something that will be a personal choice--and would make for incredibly interesting results--a vehemently pro-life fundamentalist couple choosing to abort? or would they bear the child?

posted by amberglow 21 June | 14:54

...a vehemently pro-life fundamentalist couple choosing to abort? or would they bear the child?

Oh, they'd bear the child and send it to straight, Christian boot camps during the summer months. Easy.

posted by AlexReynolds 21 June | 14:56

We're getting very GATTACA now anyway with this discussion, so i'm sure there'll be other gigantic problems with gene "fixing"--we won't even be the number one issue, i bet, in the future.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 14:57

We're getting very GATTACA now anyway with this discussion

I'm cultivating the Gore Vidal gene for my progeny.

posted by Tacky O. Assis 21 June | 15:01

I think parents can do that, and it's their right, even if i disapprove--they have ultimate power over their kids

I certainly don't think that parents should have ultimate power over their children. Bespoke children raises very serious and not-easily answered issues regarding both the rights of the child and social policy. I would be inclined to limit the rights of parents in the interests of both--proportionally of course.

And in general, I am not insouciant about any of this. I don't think any particular outcome is inevitable.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 15:03

I'm just going to wade in here and ramble a bit. I apologise in advance.

Alternatively, if we succesfully defend homosexuality as an acceptable practice, an act, then everything else becomes moot.

This is interesting because, as someone who isn't gay, I often perceive homosexuality is about more than having sex with men - in the same way that being jewish is more than just going to the synagogue. Am I wrong? If so, do you think a celibate homosexual would be more accepted by the homophobic?

I think if you speak to homophobes you'll find the prejudice has two very basic sources: distaste for same sex intercourse and distrust of those who find people of the same sex attractive. The gd argument is going to help you with neither of these.

I think parents can do that, and it's their right, even if i disapprove--they have ultimate power over their kids

It's worth bearing in mind that parents could also chose to have gay children. There are some women I can imagine this being popular with, and who knows, maybe some gay parents.

posted by dodgygeezer 21 June | 15:08

I often perceive homosexuality is about more than having sex with men - in the same way that being jewish is more than just going to the synagogue. Am I wrong?

Well, ultimately, that is what homosexuality is, right? You can wear all the couture and eat all the Brie you want, but if you don't feel a romantic and sexual attraction to your own sex, then you're not gay.

posted by jonmc 21 June | 15:11

didn't read a word of that thanks

posted by buttes 21 June | 15:14

That doesn't bear thinking about. I can imagine pretentious Chelsea Cosmo reading socialites.

"oh, and daaarling - I ordered it with the iGay option. Yes, daaarling. I did! I know daarling!"

...and later ...

"I ordered the iGay option, and you know daaarling. He's fat. Yees Daaarling! I know... No, they said they wouldn't take him back... I know daarling"

Those poor, poor children.

posted by seanyboy 21 June | 15:16

Actually, that brings up a really good point--what if the gay gene is inextricably entwined with some other one, and you need both for it to happen? (which reminds me of the fingerlength study, and brain size thing)

posted by amberglow 21 June | 15:27

Am I wrong?

You're right, and I think acceptance of sexual orientation as identity has been driven by the argument of determinism.

Your example of Judaism and being a Jew is very appropriate in ways you might not have intended. The fuzziness of Jewishness as ethnicity and/or faith is something that modern Jewish communities are deeply struggling with.

Imagine a nation that was tolerant of Jews on the basis of ethnicity, but not religious practice. What is implied?

And in general I think tying the acceptability of homosexuality to identity, even without biological determinism, is only one step away from the determinist argument and has the same weaknesses. Perhaps more. In my ideal world, homosexuality might be part of a homosexual's core identity, or it might not, depending upon how that person understands their own identity. That it is not a core part of their identity should in no way make their homosexuality less acceptable.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 15:32

...tying the acceptability of homosexuality to identity...

I can't even see how that would be possible...identifying as gay without being gay? identifying as something that denies you rights?

As long as identity in our society is officially enscribed as heteronormative and gender based--and it is, and our laws are written with the words "husband" "wife" etc, then it doesn't matter if it's a core part of someone's identity or not.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 15:52

From here (abridged):
Behavioral Genetics

Where does diversity of human life come from?
Must be heredity and environment. But . . .

(1)How much does each factor contribute?
(2)How do the two factors work together?

The question of “How much?”

Heritability (genetic factors):
Kinship studies: compares identical to fraternal twins.
· Fraternal twins intelligence: .60 correlated.
· Identical twins intelligence: .86 correlated.

Percentage of instances where twins share traits.
· Depression: Fraternal 13.3%, Identical: 69.2%
· Schizophrenia: Fraternal 6.5%, Identical 30.9%

The Question of “How”

· Maybe heredity and environment cannot be divided?

I'd argue that genetic determinism is a poor position for gay rights advocates to anchor themselves around - because in all likelihood it simply isn't true, and most people I know on both sides of the cultural divide seem to have an intuitive sense of this fact. The religious believe it to be a choice, a failing of character and soul, but most others believe that the answer is 'more complex' in some vague, nebulous fashion.

My own thinking is that it's much more likely that we live in a determinist universe, and that various life experiences are far more responsible than any genetic pre-disposition. The problem with my arguments, and Ethereal Bligh's, is that they're made from a position of ignorance. Without first-hand experience it's impossible to know . . .

Say, EB, are you up for dinner on Friday, sugar? I've gotten off on telling you to shut up for a long time now, and I'd like to try the only guaranteed method of doing so.

posted by Ryvar 21 June | 15:57

Let me put this another way. One thing I often mention in this discussion is that under a biological determinist rationale for the rights of homosexuals, there's no reason to think that the homosexual sex I've experienced would necessarily be protected. I don't make this point because I'm hugely concerned about my right to have homosexual sex; I make this point because it shows that this rationale makes these rights contingent. That this is the case has profound implications for homosexuals. It says "you have the right to be a homosexual only if you are a homosexual". It is a special status where, under this rationale, it would be reasonable that you'd be expected to prove it.

Maybe that implied future is very unlikely. Maybe not. But that this is the case shows how very far this position is from the one governing seanyboy's left-handedness analogy. Left-handedness is acceptable intrinsically, not contingently.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 15:58

kmellis/EB, ordering lunch at a fast food restaurant

posted by Wedge 21 June | 16:03

I can't even see how that would be possible...identifying as gay without being gay?

I had in mind the inverse. Someone could in practice be "gay" but not see that sexual orientation as intrinsic to their identity. I have brown eyes, and I can't change that, but it's not a core part of my identity.

It may seem like I'm asking gays and lesbians to jettison their right to their gayness as acceptable identity only shortly after it was hard won.[1] I'm not. I'm asking that we build the foundation upon which gays and lesbians have a right to be gay on something more expansive than identity. Put another way, in an analogy: surely Jews have a right to be Jews for many more reasons than that it is fundamentally important to (some of) them?

1 Of course we don't yet have those rights and they're not hard won. I think I mean in the socially acceptability sense.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 16:10

Wow. I made it into the funny papers. My life is complete. And it was pretty funny, too.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 16:13

It is a special status where, under this rationale, it would be reasonable that you'd be expected to prove it.
Since when has any straight person ever ever had to prove their straightness to get rights?

And us Jews aren't excluded by law--that's the big difference. If the laws said you had to be Christian to have rights (which some would like) then it'd be comparable. A religion doesn't bestow any rights on you by the government, but your sexual orientation does, and it's codified into law.

You'd have to clarify what you mean by expansiveness--i think we've been very careful in the struggle not to make it unrealistic or utopian--we've been practical, and specific--give us ENDA, and all the same rights straight people have (which includes marriage, etc)--not make this world a paradise. We realize there will always be inequalities, but when you have laws, you can fight them.

posted by amberglow 21 June | 16:23

Wow. I made it into the funny papers.

btw you can make your own at stripcreator.com.

posted by Wedge 21 June | 16:27

KM, I agree that the ultimate defense of same-sex love (among consenting adults) should be "Because we want to," and I agree that a weak genetic determinist argument that says merely "Oh, they can't help themselves" is lame. But I'm not sure where you're going with the rest of this.

In my ideal world, homosexuality might be part of a homosexual's core identity, or it might not, depending upon how that person understands their own identity.

How is this different from today?

posted by Tacky O. Assis 21 June | 16:39

Oh. It's not. Append to that quote "while this would have no bearing on either the legal status or social acceptability of that person". We already argue amongst ourselves about various claims of sexual identity. If the case for the acceptability of minority sexualities is built on the foundation of identity, then those disputes will loom even larger.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 16:48

But our laws and society are built on identity, no?

posted by amberglow 21 June | 17:14

I wouldn't say so.

posted by kmellis 21 June | 17:18

"all men are created equal" ?

I think that started us off right there, and we've continued to define all sorts of things in terms of identity--as an adult, as a criminal, as a married couple, as a family, as a guardian, as a ward of the state, etc...

posted by amberglow 21 June | 17:39

interesting timeline/rundown of tons of research -- from the Advocate

posted by amberglow 23 June | 10:13

21 June 2005