James Dobson's theory (part 1 of 2)
Jonathan A Coats
I tried to send this...and I thought I had counted the number of
lines, but the listserver rejected it....so I have split it up.....I
hope it follows logically after the split....
Druding/Littell <fri...@dogbert.ipa.net> quoted:
> >>Life on the Edge by James Dobson
Okay....points of information....who is James Dobson and what is the
subject of 'Life on the Edge' since the quote you refer to starts on
what would seem to be a fairly advanced page I presume it is not
simply about homosexuality? From what standpoint does he write? Is
he a Christian author trying to explain away modern explanations of
why some things he believes might be erroneous? Is he a geneticist?
And so onward....
> >>Question "Is homosexuality inherited, or is it an acquired trait?
Does it actually have to be one or the other? If it is 'inherited'
(which I would argue need not necessarily be genetic) then is it not
'natural' enough to be an acceptable acquired trait, or, presumably
what the author is trying to say, a choice, whether a conscious one
or not?
> >>
> >> There is controversy surrounding that question, primarily because
> gay-rights activist want people to believe that homosexuality is an
> involuntary, inherited characteristic.
That is not actually true. When the first few suggestions that
homosexual orientation may be genetic in some instances, there were
far more gay people, at least in this country (which is at least less
polarised I would suggest), who did not welcome the idea. Most 'gay
activists' in fact would defend anyone's right to choose their
orientation - a stance which I personally accept, but only on the
basis that I know full well that for me I do not feel that it was
ever a choice. But as with genetics arguments, if it is not a choice
for some, then for others what is the shame in making such a choice
(except again personally I think they would be mad and don't
appreciate what they're in for in the real world). Personally also,
I do not believe that that many people do make such a choice, and I
also think that for those people there probably are factors
psychologically which make it less of an objective choice....
If the impulses toward gay and
> lesbianism are not chosen lifestyles, then those who participate in them are
> not responsible for the way they are. That position is not supportable by
> the facts, however, as I think I can show with this line of reasoning:
I think, in a culture where many people do not like homosexuality,
and would rather be without that little problem, and who also in some
measure support abortion as a means of preventing serious 'ailments'
entering the world, the gay person who actually rejoiced that
genetics was the answer would be mad in my opinion. Apart from
amongst anti-abortion Christians (a stance I need not add that I
wholeheartedly endorse) is there not a good possibility that the
right wing, perfect himan, abortion to prevent later problem crowd
woudl be clamouring for aborting foeti who held such a putative
homosexual gene.
> >> First, if homosexuality were specifically an inherited trait, then
> all identical twins would either have it or not have it. Their genes are
> exact duplicates, so anything deriving specifically from their genetic
> material would express itself identically in the two idividuals. Such is not
> the case. There are thousands of identical twins in whom one is gay and the
> other is straight.
Thousands? Well, I'm not going to dispute Mr Dobson's figures, but I
would suggest to Mr Dobson that even those who claim a genetic cause
for homosexual orientation do acknowledge that there is also a large
measure of 'conditioning' imputed into a person. It may be that for
the gene to 'have effect' in an inherently hostile and majority
heterosexual world, you do not need just the gene, but the gene plus
being the pampered one, or the gene and being the adopted one, or the
gene and x, y, or z. Such a dismissal of the genetic argument misses
the point that it IS hard to be gay, to come out as gay, in an
hostile world. It's not the cool thing to be, especially through
much of one's influence forming part of life in childhood and
adolescence, when sticks and stone are not the only things that may
break mental bones.
> >> Second, inherited characteristics that are not passed on to the
> next generation are eliminated from the gene pool. Since homosexuals and
> lesbians experience parenthood less frequently than heterosexuals, there
> should be a decreasing number of people in the population with homosexual
> tendencies-especially over the many thousands of years mankindhas been on
> the earth.
Genetic mutations which are of no benefit to the species are often
very quickly lost...not passed on. I have no problem that two
parents, neither of whom have the 'gay gene' if such there be, can
produce between them a mutated sexual gene. That would be
spontaneous, and not at all dependent on either or both parents
'passing it on'. Even if Richard Dawkins' theories are complete
balderdash, and I am not saying that they are, just that his idea
that his theories negate a requirement for a God, the idea of a
genetic predisposition to reproduce would seem itself to be genetic,
and a gene which does not want to cause its owner to reproduce would
not be passed on. That does not mean that that gene cannot be
produced spontaneously, especially if one takes into account the
proportion of people who are gay. It is small...yes it is far larger
than many debilitating genetically transmitted diseases, but I would
posit that there is nothing so 'self stopping' than a gene which
actually causes its owner not to want to reproduce - presumably the
'infertility gene' has a similar effect....though we cannot yet be
sure, because many of those with it, if such there is, are not a full
generation away, and we cannot tell whether it has been pased onto
their mechanically assisted children.
> >> Third, Scripture refers to epidemics of homosexuality and
> lesbianism that have occured in specific cultures. For example, Romans
There is little evidence for 'epidemics of homosexuality'. Let's
face it, most of the Old Testament is Hebrew. A religion which by
its own laws with harsh penalties bans the 'practice' (of course i
would content that it does so for dubious reasons, where others would
claim that it does so because it is solely God's will that it should
do). I would posit that in such a religious literature it is little
surprise that it is not spoken about very often.
One of the factors which is known to be favourable for the growth of
confidence amongst gay people in terms of coming out and so on is the
anonymity of urban life. If you are in a village of one hundred
people, and gays are one in a hundred, there is very little chance
that you will meet another one. If you are in the city which is the
centre of the known world, there is quite a possibility that you may
well meet some. There again, there is plenty good arguement to
suggest that Paul was not talking about inherently homosexual people,
but people who, because of their religious rituals placed so much
emphasis on sexual activity that when they couldn't get a woman they
were driven to having sex with men. This does not indicate
homosexuality in a person....just as in a modern day prison, army, or
other single sex institution the male sex drive is very important to
preserve, so people do take to imposing their affections on
whomsoever is 'available'. That is an over emphasis on sex rather
than an inherent homosexuality.
> 1:26-27, quoted earlier, refers to such a time in ancient Rome: "Because of
> this, God gave them over to shameful lust. Even their women exchanged
> natural relations for unnantural ones. In the same way the men also
> abandoned natural relations with women and became inflamed with lust for one
> another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
> themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (That final sentence
> sounds like the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, doesn't it?)
Hmmm....an author of the AIDS is God's judgement on queers school of
thought perhaps? STD's, one need not emphasise are just as prevalent
in heterosexual oversexed parts of society as they are in gay ones.
Just look at the world wide pattern of AIDS spread if you need some
evidence. In countries and cultures where (if it is possible)
homosexuality is less tolerated than in the western industrialised,
urbanised, sex driven world, the vast majority of AIDS transmission
is in respect of heterosexual sexual activity.
> >> Agains, if homosexuality were inherited within the human family,
> it would be a constant over time. There would not be surges and epidemics as
> the apostle Paul referred to and as we are seeing today.
Straw man....by referring only to Paul, who wrote only in the first
century AD, there is no established fact, at least as far as this
author is able to show that there are such 'epidemics'. On the
contrary, it seems that the ability to 'freely vent' ones
homosexuality is the factor that has varied over time, if, for
example, the canons of the church and the progroms against homosexual
people seem to evince. One's sexuality is, largely, an intensely
personal thing. It is not often a thing that needs to be flaunted,
just as many of you here on this list would say that a couple of
heterosexual persuasion need not display their sexual affection in
public on a park bench. Since it is such a personal issue, it is
something which can be (not without pain, as evidenced by the number
of young gay men who commit suicide on account of the fear they
perceive in being gay) 'hidden' if the circumstances of the culture
in which you live are so very hostile to it as they have been in
epidemiological proprtions in different places, times and cultures.
continued in part two to follow....
Jonathan
Marti Scheeringa
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Jonathan A Coats wrote:
>
> Okay....points of information....who is James Dobson and what is the
> subject of 'Life on the Edge' since the quote you refer to starts on
> what would seem to be a fairly advanced page I presume it is not
> simply about homosexuality? From what standpoint does he write? Is
> he a Christian author trying to explain away modern explanations of
> why some things he believes might be erroneous? Is he a geneticist?
He's a christian psycologist. He has an organization called focus on the
Family here in the States. He's basicaly an evangelical. he really does
basicaly know what he's talkimng about.
>
> And so onward....
>
> > >>Question "Is homosexuality inherited, or is it an acquired trait?
>
> Does it actually have to be one or the other? If it is 'inherited'
> (which I would argue need not necessarily be genetic) then is it not
> 'natural' enough to be an acceptable acquired trait, or, presumably
> what the author is trying to say, a choice, whether a conscious one
> or not?
>
> > >> First, if homosexuality were specifically an inherited trait, then
> > all identical twins would either have it or not have it. Their genes are
> > exact duplicates, so anything deriving specifically from their genetic
> > material would express itself identically in the two idividuals. Such is not
> > the case. There are thousands of identical twins in whom one is gay and the
> > other is straight.
>
> Thousands? Well, I'm not going to dispute Mr Dobson's figures, but I
> would suggest to Mr Dobson that even those who claim a genetic cause
> for homosexual orientation do acknowledge that there is also a large
> measure of 'conditioning' imputed into a person. It may be that for
> the gene to 'have effect' in an inherently hostile and majority
Except for most twins, adoptees aside, most of the conditioning would be
the same.
Run well,
Marti (Lafayette, IN., via South Africa)
Liz Knuth
Jonathan A Coats (jac...@brookes.ac.uk) wrote:
: Druding/Littell <fri...@dogbert.ipa.net> quoted:
: > >>Life on the Edge by James Dobson
: Okay....points of information....who is James Dobson and what is the
: subject of 'Life on the Edge' since the quote you refer to starts on
: what would seem to be a fairly advanced page I presume it is not
: simply about homosexuality? From what standpoint does he write? Is
: he a Christian author trying to explain away modern explanations of
: why some things he believes might be erroneous? Is he a geneticist?
James Dobson is an evangelical. Right wing, so close to
fundamentalist. He is a psychologist. He has a radio program
called "Focus on the Family" which often as not is promoting
(surprise!) right-wing politics. He is a raging homophobe.
: > >> Third, Scripture refers to epidemics of homosexuality and
: > >> lesbianism that have occured in specific cultures.
: There is little evidence for 'epidemics of homosexuality'.
I agree, this is ludicrous.
: > >> Agains, if homosexuality were inherited within the human
: > >> family, it would be a constant over time.
Unfortunately for Dr. Dobson's theory, homosexuality does seem to
be constant over time. Never the majority. And why should not it
strike most of the population at some point in history if it is
an epidemic, as he says? It has always been a minority of the
poulation, but a minority present in every culture, whether
persecuted or not.
Liz
--
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth .::7777::-. The only things in the
ekn...@tiny.computing.csbsju.edu /:'////' `::>/|/ middle of the road
Elizabeth T. Knuth .', |||| `/( e\ are yellow stripes
art: Seal; quip: J. Hightower -==~-'`-Xm````-mr' `-_\ and dead armadillos.