Wikipedia: Causes of sexual orientation/Talk

Showing revision 6

I think RK, Dmerrill and I may be able to work together on constructing a balanced article. Some points from old talk:

I intend to avoid mentioning Cohen's religious views. I am unaware of his political views. I intend to concentrate exclusively on his psychological views and on genetic research his website and book have brought to my attention.
I think some mention of religious views of causation are appropriate, but they should take a lot less space to describe than the genetic research and psychological theories.
My religion specifically disclaims eternal torment in Hell. In fact, that's one of the reasons I chose to join it.

: Ed Poor

Nice move. Causes of sexual orientation is a much better title.

I agree that this is a better title, but the article now needs to reflect this balance, since right now it just focuses on the causes of homosexuality. My point in creating an article on the causes of heterosexuality was to provide balance. This article should address what causes someone to be either heterosexual or homosexual, not just focus on what causes someone to be homosexual. -- Egern

The following statement in the main entry is very wrong, and needs to be changed. This is largely because heterosexuality was considered the norm and homosexuality an aberration, although this view has been contested and weakened by the results of the research. Heterosexuality is most certainly the norm; there isn't a sane scientist in the world who disputes this. If it were not, the our species would face a demographic disaster that could end in extinction. Being liberal on homosexuality (as I am) does not mean rewriting basic facts about the nature of reality. Homosexuality is an abnormality, and science is begining to uncover the basic causes of it. That does not mean that homosexual people are evil, nor perverted, not "sick". It does not justify hating or murdering homosexuals. It means, in point of fact, nothing beyond the biological facts in of themselves. We don't need to rewrite nature to be tolerant and accepting of people with different sexual orientations. RK

Consider: albinos are certainly abnormal...yet this doesn't imply that they are perverts, or need to be "cured". It just calls a spade, a spade; it just discusses the biological facts. I get the idea that some people think that if something occurs in nature, then it is "normal". If so, then this is a definition of the world "normal" that I was previously unaware of. Having six fingers naturally occurs. Is this also normal? Of course not. It is an exception to the normal rule; i.e. an abnormality. Not evil, not sinful, not sick...but technically abnormal. Having five fingers is the norm. Does that make me overyly judgemental?RK

: Just because the majority of a species has a trait, that doesn't make what the minority have to be "abnormal". If most people have a certain eye color, does that make the other eye colors "abnormal"? The fact that the species needs heterosexuality in order to survive doesn't necessarily imply that homosexuality doesn't serve some evolutionary or other purpose. I would strongly argue in favor of this article making no assumptions whatsoever about what is "normal" or "abnormal", but instead should address the question of what causes humans to have any particular sexuality, be it homo- or hetero- or bi- or whatever. It should make no assumptions about any type of sexuality being the default.