ram at mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>The question is, is human sexuality pre-determined, or is it a result
>of the environment. For example, the colour of your eyes is
>pre-determined the moment you're conceived. Is this the case for
I submit that as long as our questions are so dichotomous, we will suffer
under the delusion that we can be in complete control of the universe.
I doubt that the "either/or" categorization of homosexuals into
"either" nurture "or" nature will serve any better function than to
continue our delusion that we as humans are "either" heterosexual "or"
homosexual. What we have is a classic case here of the tail wagging the
dog. Rather than using language to describe reality, we are using a
constraining dualism in an attempt to determine reality. In Western
culture there is such a strong reaction formation to our universal
homoerotic inclinations that, when we THINK about our condition, confined
as it is within a Cartisian dualistic paradigm, our fear drives us to
pigeon-hole sexual phenomena to some distant taboo island, where "either"
"those" people are homosexual "or" not, "either" genetically determined
"or" not, "either" free to choose "or" not, "either" oriented "or" not,
"or" "either" preferenced "or" not.
>>My belief, however, is that sexuality is a complex process involving
>many genes and that it is evolutionarily disadvantageous to have it
>pre-determined. And since we really don't have proof either way (and
>as far as I know, the only convincing genetic (non-statistical) study
>has been Hamer's)... I think this is as good as any other theory out