Terry Cowgill

6 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. I’m kind of wondering how one is supposed to answer the question of homosexuality as a “choice”. If you say it is, then you get taken down as was Richardson. If you say it isn’t and discuss the science, the conversation inevitably leads to the possibilities surrounding a “cure”. Then you’re really in trouble. So basically it’s a lose/lose proposition even talking about it.

   Personally, I’ve always wondered what would happen if anyone did openly discussed the science. We can see what happened when British farmers started treating homosexual sheep. Wasn’t it Martina Navratilova who proclaimed that the natural extension of such a thing was prenatal “treatment” of “gay” babies (or I guess those would be fetuses)?

   I don’t have the guts to discuss it here, but the science of homosexuality, from what I understand, is pretty well understood. But you don’t ever, ever hear about it in public. So you can’t really blame Richardson et al for being a bit shy about chatting it up on TV.

   Comment by Jake — August 11, 2007 #

2. I’ll take a stab at presenting my understanding of what science has to say about homosexuality. Does science have anything to say about homosexuality? If it does, then what kind of science - hard or social - the old nature vs nurture argument? Almost all science says that the answer is hard science. Homosexuality is the product of genes, hormones, chromosomes, etc. No one is “made” lesbian or gay by their environment. There has been a lot of public discussion of the topic.
   I thought the Etheridge question was a legitimate attempt to try to make sure that Richardson understood her meaning. He did seem discombobulated by the original question.

   Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 12, 2007 #

3. I don’t pretend to know whether it’s a choice or not. My gut tells me it is genetic b’c who would want to choose a lifestyle that makes you a pariah? And if it were entirely elective, that means I could “decide” to be gay tomorrow if I wanted. No matter how much I tried, I don’t think I could do it.

   Still, it also seems presumptuous to argue that environmental factors are completely irrelevant. There are some gays who claim to have been “cured,” and who am I to question their motives to say that publicly? We’ll probably never know the answer for sure.

   I still think Richardson looked like a fool for not being prepared to answer such a question at a GLBT forum. He and his handlers should have seen it coming. He is probably running for sec’y of state in a Hillary admin anyway … foreign leaders won’t ask him those types of questions anyway.

   Comment by Terry — August 12, 2007 #

4. I was actually referring to the research leading to the below described condition. The article from which the paragraph came says that there is inadequate peer review of this explanation… but from what I understand, this is the state of the theory on the subject.

   “Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAM) has been called by Meyer-Bahlburg a “model endocrine syndrome” for examining the effects of abnormal amounts of prenatal sex hormones. CAH, which can affect both males and females, is caused by a simple problem: an enzyme defect makes it impossible for a fetus’s adrenal gland to produce cortisol, an important hormone. In a normal fetus, as the adrenal gland produces cortisol, the brain stands by patiently, waiting for the signals that the cortisol level is appropriately high and production can be shut off. But in CAH fetuses, which lack the enzyme to create cortisol, the brain doesn’t get those signals, and so it orders the adrenal gland to continue production. The adrenal gland continues pumping out what it thinks is cortisol, but it is unknowingly producing masculinizing androgens. It dumps these into the fetus’s system, thereby overexposing it to male hormones.”

   The article is comprehensive, but still a bit shy about addressing the issue directly. And yes, there is some evidence that there is a genetic component to the condition.

   http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology/3

   Comment by Jake — August 13, 2007 #

5. Terry
   It may seem presumptuous to you to argue that environmental factors are completely irrelevant, but that is what most scientists in the field do. Scientists look for a cause and effect relationship or some kind of statistical correlation. None seems to be there. I have no doubt that some people can change their behavior, with or without counseling, but that says nothing about the science.
   I agree that Richardson is not looking good. I was one of his supporters, but now have my doubts.
   Jake
   I don’t get your point. You refer to some very detailed science and then you say “you don’t ever, ever hear about it in public.” Who is trying to keep it secret and to what end?

   Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 13, 2007 #

6. Richardson completely understood the question, he just gave the wrong answer. The whole biological-or-choice argument kind of worries me. Why does it have to be one or the other? I feel that for some people it is biological. Those people usually “come out” when they are younger. I also feel that for others, it is a choice.

   For example: the two 40-ish women, both married with children, become close friends, so close that they fall in love with each other, leave their husbands and move in together. I think that is a choice. Some may argue that they were homosexual all along, but married and had children to “conform to social norms”, but I disagree.

   This is such a sticky topic, I’m not surprised that the Republicans opted out of this “debate”.

   Comment by Amy — August 14, 2007 #

Leave a comment