[porphy]

Hi, some of my further thoughts on the subject. Not really meant to pick on you Skybird, but you will serve as my stalking horse at the moment.

I do not know about that amygdala thing, but if there is such a hardcoded abnormity, it would make sense. Somehow the switched polarity of reactions to biochemical signals as I tried to describe above, must have a hardcoded origin. The Amygdala (plural, it is two regions) have to do with emotions, fear, the subconsicous assessement of conflicts, threats and dangers, and feelings of pleasure, and sexual arousement.

Sure, heterosexuality and homosexuality can be explained the same way, if one prefer to concentrate on the biology of sexuality.

And if such an abnormity correlates with different sexual orientation, then it is not just a cosmetic thing like different teint of people's skins, but a functional difference indeed, that in this case collides with the general design of survival mechanisms our species that depends on heterosexual reproduction.

I'm not so sure biology teaches that being aroused by the same sex collides with the general survival mechanisms of our species. Of course if everyone did this, it would be true, but that is not the case. Fact is that homosexuality has been around a very long time without, for what it seems, colliding with the species survival. On the contrary, there have been people arguing that a genetic disposition like this must have been selected for as beneficial, through kin selection, and as such it even might be of importance for the species survival in a evolutionary perspective. Population genetics shows how genetic dispositions, which seems to contradict the passing on of the the individual genes, still can be explained as a result of natural selection. The classic example, although different from human reproduction and homosexuality, is the sterile ant workers. I'm not advocating that this is the case with human homosexuality, but just want to point out that biology can give a lot of different answers. In fact, it is my view, that almost any opinion about man and society can be dressed up in biological arguments, and that has already been done to a great extent if you look into the history of politics and biology. As such biology is not the final arbiter.

In Thailand you can find a significantly higher population of hermaphrodites that show both male and female sexual body characteristics. That does not make them a normality in our race. and if it is about "featuzres" that maybe even are man-made, like the proverbial brain-damaged hill-billies in a godforsaken region where a family clan practices incest since generations, it also does not make the imbecile a norm just because he exists.

Of course not. But my point was that a lot of things which deviate from the norm are quite normal in biology. I would guess homosexuality, if indeed it can be reduced to biology, is quite normal in that sense. Hence my warning about using the word abnormal, as it can easily be understood as simply faulty, which isn't that clear according to an evolutionary approach. It's also worth noticing that even if one prefer the same sex, there is nothing wrong with the organs of reproduction. Gay men can produce children just as heterosexual men, and lesbian women can give birth to children. Human hermaphrodites on the other hand are mostly sterile. Incestuous relations usually brings out recessive traits for for genetic diseases, and I can't see that calling homosexuality normal in a certain sense is the same as saying that the "imbecile" resulting from prolonged incestuous relations is the norm just because he exists.

Also norm and normal are concepts that really invites confusion. Norms are generally understood as prescribed things, and saying that homosexuality is normal among humans doesn't imply that it should be the norm. On the other hand being less than normal among humans doesn't by default mean that I can't argue the same rights to what most people find essential in life, like having or raising children, or have the same legal rights from living together in a marriage, or if a Christian be married by a priest. Of course the answers too the questions like, "should gay marriage be allowed?" "Should priests conduct the marriage?" should lesbians be allowed to adopt and raise children?" can't be known by a simple look at how things are now.

In Sweden it is only 88 years since women were allowed to vote. You don't have to dig very deep to find all kinds of bizarre arguments against their right to vote, biological and others (brains and intelligence, giving birth and being mothers, the nature of the family etc.) Might be food for thoughts when anyone find it simply natural that homosexual people should be satisfied with "don't ask don't tell" or living a life without children in their family.

I did not heared of differences in the amygdalas before, but I know that the chemcical differecnes in reaction patterns (homosexual men reacting to male pheromones like heterosexual men react to female pheromones) are real and a proven solid fact.

Maybe it is so, but sexuality, heterosexual or other, obviously involves a lot more than the unconscious smell of male or female pheromones. For example looking at what you find to be an attractive member of the human race, or feeling attracted to a special personality.

I think people here should listen more to what Henry said. I had two gay colleagues at university, too, and although I am not gay, we came along and formed a lose friendship easily, without problem. They said in general the same things , like Henry: "We are different to you, stop trying to make us as "normal" as you are, we are not. We are against gay marriage, for that is not what marriage and family is about. We hate gays and lesbian parading in the streets almost naked on Christopher street days, that is offensive to the cultural norms of our civilisation."

Well, I certainly agree that we should listen more to people who are gay and have a lived experience of what that means in our society. But they are not all saying the same thing though, so I can easily pick and choose something which conforms with my own view of family life, for example. The quote you have from your friends tells me nothing more than that they look at themselves as different and not normal, and I can guess a little about their views of what a family should be, and that they find public nudity offensive. That could have been the opinion of anyone in society being part of a special social group.

Normality is not acchieved by telling different people constantly how normal one considers them to be. Normality is in normal, unirritated action and deed, and not ignoring differences - but also not making a big thing of them, if that can be afforded.

[/quote]

I don't really agree at all with that last paragraph. First thing is, I don't really understand your concept of normality, it seems to dervive from a kind of physiological view. "Normal unirrtated deed and action", what is that? Actions and deeds have mostly been viewed as results of some kind of external or internal irritaion. What would count as unirritated actions?

Second thing, I don't think homosexual people want to achieve the tag normal or normality by any available means, but I guess that some of them want to take part in what very many people on earth find is a normal life, that is to marry, excersie their religion, have children and live in a family. But then some of the arguments against these claims boils down to, "You are not normal, so please don't make all that noise, and by the way I don't want to pay for anything of this".

Puh, that was a long write up. I have no idea how you can keep going with your sometimes massive and frequent posts, Skybird. Please don't crush me by sheer volume, I will not be able to keep up with this kind of writing.

cheers porphy