Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Sexual Orientation, a Biological Trait or a Learned Trait?

Grandpa, grandma and I went to a church sponsored gathering one weekend. The purpose of this gathering was to discuss the controversial issue surrounding marriage and the role of the homosexual within the community. Grandpa had this to say on the subject.

“The biggest controversy in regards to the issue of marriage is whether or not homosexuality is biological or learned. And this is where I am going to have to depend upon my friends in the field of science to correct me if I am wrong. I’ll have to admit that here I am using my memory mostly to present my case on this topic and my memory has been known to have a lapse now and then. LOL.

When homosexuality was first determined to be biological, science used an outdated method of making that determination. Science considered it a biological attribute by the universality of it rather than it being a cultural trait. In today’s science, DNA is used to determine biological traits.

This has a big bearing on the issue of marriage and whether or not the laws are discriminating against homosexuals. Apparently, it is a given, that heterosexuality is a biological trait in animal kingdom. My one question would be, if we lived in a perfect world would we have but a single sexual preference? And if we did which sexual preference would it be?

I think we can all agree that if it was the homosexual trait that would exist in the perfect world the animal kingdom would become extinct before it ever had a chance to have a history. This leads us to another question.

The survival instinct is interconnected to heterosexuality. This has to be a given. Would that mean that the homosexual does not possess the instinctive trait of self-survival along with the instinctive trait of survival of the species? This would seem to be unlikely to me.

Another question that must be answered is what exactly is meant by the term sexual orientation? If it is a biological trait, do we or don’t we have a choice? Will heterosexuals only have sex with the opposite gender? Will the homosexual only have sex with the same gender?

In a singular gender collective will only the homosexual engage in sex or will the so-called heterosexual engage in sexual activities in this collective also? If it is just a preference then how can we say that it is a biological trait? For the word itself is recognition of the need to make choices or decisions.

Speaking of choices brings up another aspect of the subject, morality. For as human being we are not only sexual beings we are also beings of morality. And this brings the concepts of free will and determinism into play. Man has always considered those things as determined not subject to the laws or principles of morality and those things as chosen subject to be determined as moral or immoral in this society. Biological traits have been considered as falling under the principle of determinism.

In this society we have made a determination that certain sexual activities are to be considered as immoral, even in some cases illegal, and that sexual activities are considered as moral under certain circumstances only. Marriage is and has been the most predominant factor of the determination of the morality of sexual behavior within every collective and history of man. The consequences, not only to the individual but also to the collective, of not abiding by this moral principle have been documented extensively by science.

In conclusion, it would appear to be imperative that we determine not whether homosexuality is a biological trait but whether any sexual orientation is a biological/determined trait or if it is a trait of free will or a chosen trait. Until we do then any decision that involves making a judgment upon any sexual activities of any individuals of a collective can only be based on presumptions not facts. 

And as long as we use presumptuous ideas then we need to take religious ideas into consideration and not relegate them to the closet by calling them bigoted ideas.  Not doing so because of a particular political ideological belief in regards to religious ideas in politics is bigotry in itself”

With these words said, grandpa stood silently at the podium awaiting any comments or questions to his words.


Im Not Anonymous said...

You should really think about re-naming your blog to "Just a Idiot with his Thoughts"

The Griper said...

he just grins at the emotional outburst.

then says ..

"not a bad idea, may just do that someday. i have never considered myself as the wisest of men. in fact, i have often considered myself as the biggest of fools at times."

Gorges Smythe said...

I'm fascinated that gays say that they "can't help the way they are" since they are that way by instinct or whatever. Yet junkies often drop their habit, drunks often give up the bottle, and not all men who are tempted to stray give in to that temptation like Tiger Woods, Barrack Obama (Notice how that disappeared from the headlines?)and others we've heard of lately. Instead, they want to blame it on God (who calls it an abomination).

BB-Idaho said...

Science has no concrete answer (as yet), although much interesting genetic and physiological study
(the hypothalmus of the brain is a focus) is ongoing. Wiki has an updated summary of interest. Recent work by
Steven Pinker et. al. complicates the free will-determinism paradigm. It is thought that genetics
(heredity) predisposes an individual, but that life experience from an early age through various choices
leads to much variation in individuals with similar genetic make up (that mean sister or over-achieving brother, for expample :)) So,
the nature-nurture leads to a statistical dilemma:
What % of folks with child molesting tendency, or criminal parents succeed in escaping their genetic
(deterministic) fate? How?
So that is a muddy area at present, argued between various 'experts' in each
field. It appears, IMO that religion in most civilized society frowns
on homosexual behavior (which likely also has sociological roots), but
oddly, such behavior is
accepted by smaller primitive socities such as several American Indian tribes. Although some Christian groups seem to embrace the gays in their midst, they are anathema in others [which says more about religion than homosexuality].. IMO, legislating
such would be about as successful as prohibition:
..and one wonders whether
the marriage issue should be local, religious, state or federal. Griper, your Grandpa waded in...wade back out! :)

The Griper said...

Ahhhhh, BB, wading in is not a problem if you have someone who is holding the lifeline and for me that is you, old friend. you don't realize just how much i rely upon you. i actually consider you as a silent partner of this blog even tho we may disagree politically.

besides as my profile says, i'm not out to convince anyone only hope to influence them to think deeper in regards to their own thoughts.

i mean how can they not think a little deeper with my posts along with your comments on them.

and in order to do that a person has to be willing to go where angels fear at times.

buddeshepherd said...

Any attempt at a rational argument is pointless. Nor is the issue about fairness or right vs wrong. The issue is a transfer of power and the political capital and financial capital to me gained from change.
The argument will be framed in emotions and lessons gained from the advertising age.
That is just my opinion. I find it all quite depressing.

The Griper said...

i'll grant you that the issue, as determined, will result in a transfer of power to the federal gov't from the State gov't. but whether or not any attempt at a rational argument in regards to this issue is pointless is debatable. i hope not. for, if as you say, the argument will be framed in emotions then the Constitution no longer has any meaning or purpose in the governing of the people.

buddeshepherd said...

Well, I think the whole point of the clever folks who go to the important colleges is to make the Constitution irrelevant. Or, perhaps as they say, "a living document" which means open to what ever cultural relevant view that those that tell us what to believe can hang onto it.
They have already pretty much killed the mainstream Christian church so what is next?

The Griper said...

"They have already pretty much killed the mainstream Christian church so what is next?"

whatever they want as long as good men remain silent or attempt to fight them on their terms.

and fighting them on their own terms is by allowing them to define the message in collective terms rather then on individualistic terms. for in doing so you justify their claim of collective rights rather than individual rights.

that was the gist of this series wasn't it, to show that marriage denies no individual of his rights?


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster