I would define H as exclusively seeking sexual relations with individuals of the same sex. However, quibbling about a precise “definition” of H can only hinder a rational debate about its origins. The reason that there are no public discussions about "the constancy of frequency" of blue-eyed people is that this genetic feature is not of much consequence, whereas the "constancy of frequency" of H in a society is crucial to its very survival. Whereas some Hs may have been forced to lead double lives, in more structured times, and to get married and procreate, this is no longer the case. This leads to the conclusion that all individuals who have a H proclivity may now exercise this inclination, which means that if H were genetically determined, it would now show signs of dying out – which it doesn’t. (Again: the argument of H being a recessive trait is not viable, since the frequency of H is not constant and all recessive traits demonstrate a "constant frequency" in any given population.
2006-07-30 05:17:24 · 4 answers · asked by Joe Conrad 2 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Your argument falls on the side of "learned behavior" vs "natural inclination". I think it is important for society to realize that it is learned and not natural, hence the significance of understanding the origin.
2006-07-30 05:26:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Bruce S. Much of this county's opinions about the subject hover around (to a degree) the nature vs. nurture argument.
For example, people who oppose H on religious grounds are often met with a variation of the following statement: "this is the way God made me so how can H be wrong." This particular situation revolves around the definition and origin of H.
2006-07-30 05:35:13 · answer #2 · answered by Kyle 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Overcoming ignorance is always important and slow. H among males has been a constant as far back as we can ascertain. It shows no sign as dying out because it is a result of heterosexuality not H. It is expressed as a given percentage of the general population. This is science not religion. In general terms religion tends to demonize what it fails to control. It seems more predominant today because our more liberal society allows its' expression.
As for those readers who might tell me I am going to Hell for these beliefs. I've read The Bible and Hell is not a place. It is separation from God and me and The Man are close.
2006-07-30 12:33:23 · answer #3 · answered by oldsmarty 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you mostly. Everyone wants to know something, just like people trying to understand the universe or animals. People can't just let things exist they need to know why they exist. Practically everyone in the world asks why. Children are the most commen ones to say it and grow up to say it more. It just part of being human.
2006-07-30 05:25:50 · answer #4 · answered by Shorty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋