The genetic basis of homosexuality

By -
Evidence that suggests that homosexuality has a strong genetic component appears to have influenced many people on the issue of whether homosexual should, say, be allowed to marry.

Has this been influential in your opinion on the issue? If it has, consider this:

Let us say we discover that pedophilia has a strong genetic component. With this then influence your opinion on laws against pedophilia?

(I'm not asking because I have in mind certain correct answers to these questions. I'm just curious about what people think about them.)



Comments

  1. Jonathan Finegold Catalán9:30 PM

    You make a good point. Ultimately, it's not genetics that matters; it's the opinion of whether something is "good" or "bad." If we found a gene that explains sexual attraction to animals, most of society still wouldn't find it acceptable.

    Some folks who are opposed to gay marriage really do make the argument, "What's next? Can I marry my goat?" (An uncle of mine, for example, made this argument to me.) The distinction between the two cases is that we know that sex, marriage, dating, whatever between two gay men is consensual; we don't know that between a man and his goat. The same thing applies to pedophilia: the relationship between the pedophile and his/her victim is not consensual (and/or, the victim isn't mature enough to really give consent for that type of activity).

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Goes9:42 PM

    I believe it's also been established that one's political orientation has a (relatively strong) genetic component. What if "homophobia" has a genetic component? It almost surely does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wabulon1:06 AM

      John,

      Here's a something for yours inspired me-- Hypothesis: If a behavior has a strong genetic component, then so do approving of and hating it.

      Delete
  3. Scott11:54 PM

    Would such people be committing the genetic fallacy?

    (Seriously, though, I've never understood why the genetics of the thing should be an issue for people, one way or another, on pretty much all such topics. How about the genetics of sociopathy and violence? I can't see the relevance.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scott11:54 PM

    Would such people be committing the genetic fallacy?

    (Seriously, though, I've never understood why the genetics of the thing should be an issue for people, one way or another, on pretty much all such topics. How about the genetics of sociopathy and violence? I can't see the relevance.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Roman P.1:31 AM

    If homosexualism has a strong genetic component and you want to reduce its occurence, there is a case why you'd be rallying for the right of same-sex couples to marry: it will reduce the rate of different-sex marriages in which homosexuals, conforming to the standards of society, are more likely to propagate their genes. How's that for seen and unseen? My intuition might be messed up, though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Renato C. Drumond11:00 AM

    If you think that homosexual behavior is (1) bad only for homosexuals and (2) spreads by example, you have a good reason to fight against it. If, however, this kind of behavior has a strong genetic base, (2) is largely false and the reason is weak: now you have to consider in (1) the greater pain that trying to cure homosexuals will cause.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unknown9:43 PM

    What if we find that folks that are attracted to their family members are genetically predisposed to it, Jonathan? Would that make incest and marriages between family members moral? If we take these folks to be consenting adults, what would the argument against this be? If we assume that they cannot reproduce, what would the argument against this be?

    I'm not saying that you espouse such views; just that you cannot say that what two consenting adults do all the time is (or should be) moral.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more