Guybrush

I understand what you mean and to some extent agree, but I think to understand the "problem" you describe, you have to look at reality and sciences in a sort of hierarchy.

Say physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology.

This is bottom up starting with the most fundamental (physics), so biology is based on chemistry which is based on physics. People dealing with society or the way people think should be aware that there is no scientific theory which explains how emotions, thoughts and behaviour can have an independent existence. They are a products of our biology which is a product of evolution. That means that homosexual behaviour is a product of evolution. This is not a sociological argument, rather it is a conclusion from a more fundamental level of science and is something social sciences have to relate to, just like biology has to relate to gravity.

If you think biology looks simple or deterministic, it's probably because biologists generally don't study the effects certain genes have on society. That's a job for sociologists. Studying the effects of certain genes on thoughts, emotions and mental health should generally be a job for psychologists. Both sociologists and psychologists should make sure they have their biological foundation in order.

So, to the point. Because biology is fundamental to psychology and sociology, any pure psychology/sociology attempt at explaining homosexuality without biology will fail at describing the truth. However, psychology and sociology are not fundamental to biology, so explaining homosexuality from a biological point of view works just fine. It will not contain the extra understanding you would get from including psychology and sociology, but you can explain in general terms why homosexuality exists and f.ex how much of it is caused by genes. Generally, biologists don't draw on social studies theory to reach the conclusions in their studies. When I read your post, it seems like a complaint against those who think the only thing worth knowing about homosexuality is what you can determine from biological theory. I would agree that's complaint-worthy and for a whole picture of what homosexuality is, we need to add the social fluff. However, a more dangerous error is when social sciences and the like fail to include biology. It's like building a house of cards and any rustling in the foundations (biology) can tip it.

To add a little extra to the conversation, to me, the biggest irritation about biology and particularly evolution is that it's something almost all western-worlderners think they understand when they really don't. In essence, people love to abuse it, as has been demonstrated twice within a relatively short amount of posts in this thread.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Nine Black Poppies

I follow your line of reasoning and I understand the hierarchy paradigm you're arguing but I think the issue here is that we disagree on this key assumption--my argument is that psychological and social factors are very much at play in biology, both fundamentally and as a scientific discipline; the relationship between the two is dialectical and can't really be teased apart.

I don't feel fully equipped to get into the depths of the first part of that argument on my own, but isn't it generally accepted that psychological stimuli can have imprinted effects on the body and it's development and progeny? Like I say, I'm not in depth enough in that particular realm of scientific thought to be fully comfortable getting into it with someone who clearly is, but I do know there's a school of thought that feels the superorganic model (which, if my understanding is correct, corresponds to that hierarchy you describe) is, at best, inadequate.

But there's also an epistemological effect in play, and that I do feel comfortable talking about. In a radically simple form, it's basically the idea that scientists are human and active participants in culture and therefore--because scientific data require interpretation and context to have any meaning--no science can be perfectly objective or independent of pervasive cultural norms. In other words, that knowledge is not necessarily concrete--what science is being done and how is based on a system of what knowledge we value and there are things that we don't know, not because the information isn't available, but because we--as a culture, not necessarily as individuals--choose to not investigate, ignore or reframe it. You said yourself that there is a common misperception about the science among laymen that's been demonstrated even here. I'm suggesting that that misperception doesn't exist in a vacuum and that the same knowledge patterns that inform it can also inform the path scientific discovery can take even among people who "should" know better, as well as--in the case of sexuality--also having a multitude of intra-social and political effects justified by a misperception of science.

So, in essence, you're right--that is what I was trying to address. But I don't think you can really say that one side is more dangerous than the other (nor could one fairly characterize the social aspect as "fluff")--doing so, especially when the scientific community itself (versus a layperson) does so, makes it that much easier to foster that misperception that biological theory can explain everything. And, as I said earlier, that misperception can be exploited.

__________________
Like carnivores to carnal pleasures, so were we to desperate measures...

s_k

I didn't say it was an idea of mine, I just said 'could be true'.
It didn't sound unlikely to me.
I'll have to read your post. Haven't, so far .

__________________
Have some music recommendations!

TheBig3

Hey man, I mean this is the most friendly, positive way possible. Avoid this discussion like the plague until the multi-paragraph, quote-broken posts die down.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

adidasss

I think this is the first time someone said "to wit" on musicbanter. I'm in love. <3

Carry on. *totally constructive contribution*

__________________
“Think of what a paradise this world would be if men were kind and wise.” - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle.

Last.fm

Nine Black Poppies

This sort of philosophy is kind of a passion of mine--I get a little bit lit up when I get to bust it out.

__________________
Like carnivores to carnal pleasures, so were we to desperate measures...

Dirty

I don't really like to think too deeply into things like this (referring to all this DNA talk and whatnot). Interesting discussion but I'm just one of those people who doesn't really care why someone is gay. I mean, does it really matter why a dude likes another dude? The fact is that he does... and there's nothing wrong with it

RVCA

Problem is, a lot of people (currently about half the population in America) don't agree with you. If we have concrete evidence to show that homophobia is wrong, we can reduce it.

Revolutionarypunk

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. If you have a problem with it your just a white trash jerk.

Homophobia is wrong; America is stupid, and they just spend all day watching tv.

captaincaptain

I didn't know trash came in only one color.

__________________

LAST.FM

RYM