05-23-2009, 09:47 AM
I agree with Marshy, there's nothing new in Tatchell's article. He seems to have to basic points, first, that biological factors are only part of the story and, second, that claiming that they are does not advance gay rights.
If you use a definition of homosexuality based on observable and measurable behaviours (as all scientists must), rather than some 'psychological' concept a 'true' underlying sexual orientation, then clearly social factors must come into play. As Tatchell points out homosexuality is quite variable across cultures. This is nothing new.
Even the strongest advocates of the existance of a gay gene(s) have never claimed that it negates the existence of free will, i.e. that carriers of this gene do not have the choice not act on the desires this gene gives them. Anti-gay activities have always talked about the wrongness/sinfulness of acts rather than feelings, they have defined homosexuality by behaviour, and by that measure people do choose whether to be gay or straight. It has always been clear that biological explanations do not answer moral questions.
All that said, with the exception of his belief in the flexibility of the sexual orientation of many individuals, I do not disagree with his arguement, he just tries to present it as new thinking, it isn't.
If you use a definition of homosexuality based on observable and measurable behaviours (as all scientists must), rather than some 'psychological' concept a 'true' underlying sexual orientation, then clearly social factors must come into play. As Tatchell points out homosexuality is quite variable across cultures. This is nothing new.
Even the strongest advocates of the existance of a gay gene(s) have never claimed that it negates the existence of free will, i.e. that carriers of this gene do not have the choice not act on the desires this gene gives them. Anti-gay activities have always talked about the wrongness/sinfulness of acts rather than feelings, they have defined homosexuality by behaviour, and by that measure people do choose whether to be gay or straight. It has always been clear that biological explanations do not answer moral questions.
All that said, with the exception of his belief in the flexibility of the sexual orientation of many individuals, I do not disagree with his arguement, he just tries to present it as new thinking, it isn't.
Fred
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
