h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think in the scale of what has gone before, you're pretty safe with that observation.

Well, that's what I meant as well, Mort. Just didn't feel a need to emphasize that most important point since most people here already know what I think.


az

Ah yes az, but sometimes you need to be a little less obscure about your viewpoints and say what you really feel

A case of me stating the obviuos there then

I thought that someone would have posted this, by now: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041210.wxruling1210/BNStory/Front/

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the legality of same-sex unions.

<>





Meanwhile, Mudhooks, I *had* planned on posting this link earlier this morning whilst having my coffee but thought it might be, well, maybe a bit too *obvious* . . .

"Canadian court backs same-sex marriages"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1370516,00.html

"Landmark ruling paves the way for legislation to to force conservative provinces to recognise unions"


az

Mudhooks, az - I officially love your wonderful nation

Moi aussi!

" I officially love your wonderful nation"
er, they might be up for same sex marriage but I doubt they're ready multiple marriage partners on that scale quite yet
Course my personal opinion is that there are some who are agin this who are worried that successful gay marriage may outstrip successful straight marriage. Which directly calls into question the supposed whole point of marriage.

>>There is a valid interest from a purely scientific point of view, in the same way it's possible to wonder why someone has eyes of a certain colour, or is a particular height, without actually valuing one colour or height over another. << (Potholer).

This makes sense up to the point that we understand that alot of science is not value free (in terms of who does it and why, and how it gets subsequently used). I doubt that scientists have to disclose their feelings about homosexuality when they apply for funding.

Also I'm not sure the comparison of eye colour etc with homosexuality is particularly accurate. It implies that homosexuality is a fixed, single state of sexuality. My own view is that human sexuality is a range of experiences that are influenced by all sorts of things (gender, inherited traits, uterine experiences, social experiences, cultural influences etc etc).

Some of these are homosexual in a strict sense of only ever being attracted to the same gender. But I don't think this is a very useful way of understanding homosexuality, or any sexuality for that matter.

I'd be interested to know how the slimming pill research defined homosexuality. Was it self identification? Did they exclude gays who had had heterosexual experiences? Did they exclude people who had previously been heterosexual but were currently gay? Did they include men who had sex with other men but who didn't consider themselves homosexual? Did they include women who had chosen to have relationships with women exclusively?

Ditto heterosexuality.

The whole idea that there is the state of being that is biologically homosexual, that is inherently distinct from this other state that is biologically heterosexual, with the possiblity of this other state called bisexuality being in between, strikes me as fundamentally heterosexist (i.e. the human norm is this thing called heterosexuality, which is what everyone is unless they have a genetic or environmental difference that makes them homosexual or unless they choose homosexuality).

A comparison here might be with gender distinction. We have the idea >culturally< that there are only 2 genders and that they are emphatically distinct. Whereas in fact there is no such distinction biologically (at least not in the way we are taught to believe).

I tend to think at the moment that the reason we have terms such as homosexuality and debates like this one, is because of the prevalence of homophobia and heterosexism. Like az I don't really care why someone has the sexuality that they do in terms of a 'reason' (although I am interested in human sexuality in general and the ways it gets expressed and what influences it).

For me this is because I doubt that there is any one reason, and I think that sexuality is a complex human experience that can't be reduced to having been caused by such things as slimming pills.

>>"I tend to think at the moment that the reason we have terms such as homosexuality and debates like this one, is because of the prevalence of homophobia and heterosexism."

That does seem rather like saying in an unsexist society, there would be no need for the terms 'man' or 'woman'.

Even in an entirely unprejudiced society, there are times when in a local sense, it can be handy to know the likely bounds of one person's interest in another person, particularly if one *is* that second person
Just because there are terms that classify people into groups doesn't mean the members of those groups need necessarily be treated in a better or worse manner.
Equally, when it comes to people one knows, it can aid understanding to have an idea abouit their sexuality.

However, going beyond the local sphere where information might be of practical use, I have little or no interest in the sexuality of people I don't know. I really can't understand all the media interest in the leanings of various celebrities.

I'll probably get this wrong on (e)paper but here goes.
There is theory about evolution and survival of the fitest. That works on a basis of replication. Successful replication, be that by numbers (ie bacteria) or fitness for purpose and surmounting of external forces (say elephants, although we are doing a good job of getting rid of them) .
But homosexuality is nothing new, many , and indeed ancient, societies have foudn nothing wrong with it. So how come we are so successful as a species, especially given how extremely young we are as a species, when a large part of our makeup as a species does not allow for genetic replication of the individual? I want to know the answer. Surely, if only those who are especially fit to reproduce get to reproduce, there are still people whose makeup and preference is for a life which precludes, for whatever reason, the replication of their genetic material? It begs a question that needs to be answered.
And, as stated, it isn't just homosexuality but all the many and varied degrees inbetween. I don;t see homosexuality as wrong, or aberrant. There are many people who claim this for themselves, and it isn;t confined to the humanworld but exists in creatures which traditionally we are told have no self awareness, no ability to choose such a thing. So how come it exists? What is its purpose? If it has no purpose, fine. But then why hasn't it died out? Is it just a very common mutation? But surely not since the ability to replicate has to be one of the most fundamental and basic parts of our being? If such a part of us is so open to mutation why do we not see fantastic mutations of the sexual nature? Why only one method of procreating? Surely if such a part of us is so open to modification on e should expect to see many and varied means of procreation, different methods of sperm and egg production and unification? When it comes down to it, look at all the different means of procreation and reproduction in the animal world. Our male on female is but one and by no means the most popular.
But it can;t be studied in isolation. I believe that the evolution of society and mind is as much a part of existence as the evolution of physical being. One sees too often heterosexual coupings which result in a replication but which abandon the offspring. There is no passing on of societal or personal mind based constructs to the new being. But equally there are homosexual couples who have no offspring of their own but take on the offspring of others and pass on the mind/beliefs of theirs. So whilst one may not have the evolution and survival of the physical being, one does have the survival of the societal beliefs and teachings. And that is as important I think.
I've probably made a complete hash of explaining that, so if you read it and find it offensive, please assume I lack the knowledge to convey my thoughts and ask rather than assuming I am having a go at anyone!
On the other hand it could be complete cobblers, in which case I am all ears!

"when a large part of our makeup as a species does not allow for genetic replication of the individual"

The problem with that statement is that homosexuality doesn't preclude having offspring. In fact, since homosexual parents do not necessarily produce homosexual children, so the likelihood of an increasing preponderance of homosexuality which would eventually obliterate the human race just wouldn't happen. Therefore, this isn't some natural (not that it isn't natural) method of population control.

well said Kea
mostly heterosexual would be an awfully clumsy way of descibing myself so I don't
(and no, in case anyone is wondering, I didn't go to a public school)

<>

Not at all, Ictoan, but some spacing between paragraphs would have helped.


az

hi kea,

I definitely agree with you that human sexuality is a far more complex experience than perhaps most people would like to believe.

It seems absurd to me that personal sexual inclinations should ever have become a political issue. Of course, I blame Christianity for this.


az

>>>
>>"I tend to think at the moment that the reason we have terms such as homosexuality and debates like this one, is because of the prevalence of homophobia and heterosexism." (kea)

That does seem rather like saying in an unsexist society, there would be no need for the terms 'man' or 'woman'.

Even in an entirely unprejudiced society, there are times when in a local sense, it can be handy to know the likely bounds of one person's interest in another person, particularly if one *is* that second person

Just because there are terms that classify people into groups doesn't mean the members of those groups need necessarily be treated in a better or worse manner. (Potholer)
>>>

Yes, I see what you mean. It's not so much the word, it's the concept I suppose (I could have said this clearer in my last post). I just think the word 'homosexual' means different things to different people, and that in straight culture it's not a particularly accurate term.

And I agree that there are times when the term or categorisation can be useful. I think that the queer communities have done amazing work in redefining terms and concepts and getting the straight communities to acknowledge this. Some of that has been in direct response to homophobia (the reclaiming of the word queer for instance). To what extent this would happen in an unbigotted culture I don't know. It's such a hard thing to know because we don't have that experience.

I suppose I don't like the attempt to categorise other people's sexuality (which is what the research looks like it is doing). I think people have the right to define their own sexuality, including what if any cause there is for it. Or to not have to define it. This is especially important in cultures where people are still actively persecuted for their sexuality if it doesn't fit someone's idea of the norm.

Ictoan, I thought you brought up some interesting points/questions (and like az I'd appreciate some paragraphs )

While I think the theory of evolution is valid, it still has it's limitations and I don't believe it explains all of life (the survival of the fittest idea I find particularly limiting). However in evolutionary terms homosexuality makes sense to me because humans are social, tribal creatures and affection between people ensures the continuation of the species. Because our survival is dependant on varied interrelationships (the nuclear family is a fairly recent invention), it's not so much a question of why would homosexuality 'develop' as why wouldn't it?

Personally I think humans are generally naturally altrusitic, and that this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective too. We evolved to co-operate with each other, so it makes sense to me that we would have diverse capacities for affection and attachment.

I wonder if this is similar to what you are saying at the end of your post - that there are social evolutionary reasons for human sexuality, not just purely biological ones?


>>Why only one method of procreating? Surely if such a part of us is so open to modification on e should expect to see many and varied means of procreation, different methods of sperm and egg production and unification?<<

Well, I know quite a few women who love the idea of parthenogenesis

>>mostly heterosexual would be an awfully clumsy way of descibing myself so I don't<<

Oh, I don't know BC - it's got a nice, familiar ring to it as a description, in a Douglas Adams kind of way


>>It seems absurd to me that personal sexual inclinations should ever have become a political issue. Of course, I blame Christianity for this. <<

az, I was trying to think yesterday about why homophobia and fundamentalist christianity go so well together - in the sense of how (some) non-christians who dislike homosexuality don't seem so rabid about it, and was wondering why. Didn't get too far though, and it's far to late at night now for me to try any further

Regarding evolution, a lot comes down to not carrying too much baggage from language in general when interpreting words like 'fittest'.

One thing that is definitely worth noting is that if a significant fraction of people have been other than essentially heterosexual, there is some reason, and quite probably at least partly a biological one.
Assuming evolution has been in operation, there has to be some reason why it hasn't maintained a 100% hetero (or at least 100% breeding) population.
If it's down to a population-wide pacakage of genes, it may be that those genes just aren't alterable without some possibly unobvious side effect (e.g. It may be that non-breeding offspring have a balancing usefulness to their siblings).
It might be developmental in other ways (e.g. maybe tinkering with mother/embryo biochemistry to reduce the number of male homosexual offspring would result in a disproportionate damage to the fertility of female offspring).

Whatever the case is, assuming that there *are* reasons for the maintenance of a significant number of homosexual offspring, then especially if we aren't sure what the reasons are, it rather indcates that messing around with possible processes might not be an awfully good idea, *even* for those who might otherwise think it *would* be a good idea.