Plato,
As a person that spent time studying animal studies I realized that they do not extrapolate to human experience. Nice Try however in consideration that food and water helped the mice I suggest that at least no attempt be made to deprive same sex people of food and water.
I am not saying same sex attraction comes about as the result of deprivation of food and water, what I am suggesting is that it is a response to psycho-social stresses on the human physiology that play a role akin to that of deprivation of food, water, etc. does to mice. The stressors are much more complex but the overwhelming nature of an anxiety producing and despair ridden future could be the underlying “cause” of sexual behavior that has “gone off the rails” in terms of its natural purpose. Those factors are not so easy to reintroduce to the “mice” in this case.
Why would human beings engage in behavior that is non-productive, highly stimulating and contrary to an incredibly powerful normal urge to produce and protect young if no “significant” reason for that departure exists? Biology does not work that way in terms of attempting to explain behavior. It seems to me that genetics and choice have been presented as possible causes, but are both inadequate. That leaves the field open for other possibilities. I don’t think we can be content with, “it’s just that way.” That has never been a justification to leave off attempting to understand any condition.
This third possibility exists to explain same sex attraction and behavior: that it is a response to conditions in the environment. In this case, I am proposing that it is an overwhelming despair or anxiety about the future existence of the human species, but it may be something else or in combination. That would mean this behavior is in some sense a “normal” response to abnormal conditions, and that premise changes how we attempt to understand the atypical nature of the behavior. What does it tell us about the human psyche, why it is being affected by these factors and why it is responding, sexually, in a manner that diverges from the expected and natural biological goal of procreation?
As such it should be regarded, not as a condition to be treated or accepted, but as a symptom arising from other, more troubling factors. After all, if any biological species started to demonstrate behaviors that were contrary to normal survival mechanisms we would begin to ask why.
I realize some will add that homosexual behavior has occurred in the past among animals, so therefore it is normal. However, that is beside the point. The behavior may have been a coping mechanism in the face of extreme stress, so while normal in the sense that it is a mechanism that shows up with some frequency, its connection to abnormal environmental conditions should not be left unexplored. If abnormal sexual behavior serves as a red flag warning that environmental factors have been determined by the biological species to be beyond its ability to cope normally, we ought not disregard that flag and just accept it as normal. That would be imprudent, given that its purpose might very well be to wake us up about what is happening in the human social, political or natural environment.
We may very well be shortsighted in how we are looking at this issue. If that is the case, merely listening to those encountering or been afflicted with the symptoms may not be the way to build an accurate profile because those afflicted would not be in a position to provide a balanced perspective about their symptoms since they are the very individuals so afflicted.
A alien researchers from another planet, witnessing that the sexual behavior of some humans diverges from the normal procreative and survival purpose to which it has evolved would surely ask why some individuals do not behave as expected with regard to sexual matters. Wouldn’t they ask, “Why?” to be rigorous in their method and inquiry? Yet here we are dismissing the question completely. Possibly to our peril as a species.
To those, like Julia Mae, who continue to cite anthropological sources to prove the normalcy of same sex behavior, the overriding question would be to ask if anthropologists can provide important data in terms of why this behavior keeps occurring in human history and in response to what common factors.
Treating same sex behavior as “normal” may be analogous to closing one’s ears and singing, “la la la.” The same-sex “patient” should not be considered authoritative in terms of providing his own diagnosis of the problem, just as an alcoholic should not be trusted when they deny having an addiction to their drink of choice.
This issue needs to be treated with scientific neutrality and thoroughness, not turning a blind eye. Alcoholism, pedophilia and addiction to sexual urges are all properly considered manifestations of deeper psycho social issues. Same sex attraction has not proven itself not to be a similar “kind” of condition regardless of what those so “afflicted” declare. We would not accept that as a justification for alcoholism, why should we accept it here?
Giant, I am, therefore, putting your question back to you. Perhaps it isn’t only a question of proving that same sex behavior is harmful or beneficial to human survival, but rather one of demonstrating that it is not a symptom and response to deeper psycho-social issues. Your stance may be ignoring that possibility by putting the onus in the wrong place. The reason we shouldn’t just “tolerate” same sex behavior and legalize a redefinition of marriage is precisely because we don’t understand the root causes and we may be ignoring those to our peril as a species. Legalizing it is the equivalent of pretending “everything is fine” with our social structure when in fact, everything is not fine and here is the symptom that demonstrates that.
