Yeah, this goes with my general theme of moral dilemmas and situations in the human world. One, did you ever notice that suffering always gets a better response from people than simply being in need? Group A is not as happy as you. Who cares? They say. I have my own problems. But then you ask then. But don't you see how they're suffering? And they say, Well I didn't know that. And they want to help. Sad it has to come to that. But that argument always works. Especially when the first argument isn't enough. And the argument, it's biologic function or disease. Or something else out of the oppressed people's control. Then everyone wants to help again. As I've said here before, male and female homosexuality seems to be linked to prenatal exposure to Diethylstilbestrol (DES). By a factor of 2-to-1. Actually, I think some people just lied on the survey, whether they were gay. They asked the women even if they had lesbian "ideation". IOW, some of the women didn't identify as Lesbian, even if they were homosexual. Same thing with being homosexual and being "gay". Homosexual is a biological phenomenon. Gay is a cultural thing. And some people, probably due to DES (maybe the amount their mother's took, etc.) are on the hetero-bi-homosexual spectrum. Which I never understood, i.e., bisexuality. It is probably even more complex the origins of homosexuality. There is also is the insanity defense. The US is the only society in human history which doesn't have it some place. Even the prophet Muhammad had it. In ancient Rome they had it, if you were no more than a "wild beast". And they crucified people, remember. The old M'Naghten Test (1843), which most English-speaking countries don't even use, BTW. Said that if you didn't even know what you were doing, that it was wrong or that you couldn't tell the difference between right or wrong, you were acquitted. No, not innocent, not even not guilty. But acquitted. And some people in this country have a problem with that.
Sorry. I just noticed my typo (I'm getting older you know...). Let me look at that OP above and try to correct it. I am actually busy today and I just got up from a nap. EDIT: I think I the first sentence is all I needed to fix. Wasn't it obvious what I meant though. I'm about to leave the house as I said.
Not everyone, I'm afraid. Some will simply deny it, because it doesn't fit their religious or ideological map of reality. Take the issue of homosexuality, for example. There's a whole "alternative" school of psychiatry/psychology (pseudo science) on the religious right called "Conversion Therapy" which still regards gays as suffering from a mental disease or disorder that can be "cured" by psychotherapy. D. Haldeman (1991). "Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy for Gay Men and Lesbians: A Scientific Examination". Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy. pp. 149–160; D. Haldeman, C. (2022). "Introduction: A history of conversion therapy, from accepted practice to condemnation". The case against conversion 'therapy': Evidence, ethics, and alternatives. pp. 3–16. I'm hetero, married with kids. It's not a highly salient issue for me, but I belong to a church, the United Methodists, in which it's become a big deal. Some folks are leaving cuz they think the church is too tough on gays, denying them the right to be married to someone of their own sex in the church or to become ordained ministers. More are leaving cuz they think it isn't tough enough on them. And why? Cuz "the Bible sez...". My Sunday school class, which is relatively progressive on the issue, generally likes the church and wants to stay in hopes of reforming it, or that the dropouts will clear out the hard liners and leave us soft liners in control. What's it all about, Alfie? Homosexuality is a complex subject. There seem to be not one but four main theories about what causes it: (1) intra uterine environmental influences, like intra-uterine exposure to hormones and chemicals (your DES); (2) biological influences, like genetics; and (3) psycho-social influences like parent-child relations and seduction; and (4) bad choices. The first two seem be favored by liberals; the latter two by conservatives on the matter. As is the case with U.S. politics in general, the possibility of reaching the other side by arguments and evidence seems limited. You focus on the intra-uterine effects of DES. There is a medical literature supporting such a linkage. Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation Identity in Women and Men Prenatally Exposed to Diethylstilbestrol - Archives of Sexual Behavior But there may be other intra-uterine influences, as well, such as the immunity a woman develops after having more than one male kid. Male homosexuality and maternal immune responsivity to the Y-linked protein NLGN4Y - PubMed Why Men With Older Brothers Are More Likely to be Gay The possibility of genetic influences also has scientific support https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7693, although a "gay gene" has so far not turned up. The psycho-social explanations see the roots of homosexuality in bad parenting (over-mothering and/of under fathering for gay males, the reverse for lesbians). They draw on an older psychiatric/psychological literature that regards homosexuality as a result of “neuroticism or emotional instability/immaturity." On the Psychogenesis of Homosexuality It's not unlikely that all or many of these factors could be involved, and may vary from individual to individual. It's unlikely though that the behavior is simply a "choice". What sane individual, given a choice (does anyone remember getting one?)would chose the one that would get him ridiculed, harassed, ostracized and/or (depending on the country) imprisoned or executed. Homosexuality has been around for a long time--long before physicians were prescribing DES to prevent miscarriages. And it seems to be found in the animal kingdom, among rams, and other species which are unlikely to have thought it over. https://www.nwf.org/Home/Magazines/...onservation/Same-Sex-Behavior-Animals-Science Why Is Same-Sex Sexual Behavior So Common in Animals? | Scientific American As for those passages in the Bible, there are basic differences in how that are interpreted. The literalists (the Sunday school one floor down in my church) see it as God's word, and point to the passages calling it an abomination. My class (the upstairs group) takes an historical-metaphorical approach, and view it as something that developed at a time when population growth was paramount, homosexuality was associated with pagan rituals, and reasons needed to be found for conquering Canaan. It seems to me that Paul's views, expressed in Romans 1:18-27 concern lustful, promiscuous behavior instead of loving same-sex relations. But that's just my take. My wife once told me (before gay marriage was a thing) that it was too bad gays couldn't marry so they could enjoy the kind of relationship we have. I love that woman!
This is a puzzling statement! The U.S, has it in lots of places. The federal government and 46 of the state governments recognize the insanity defense in criminal proceedings, although they may differ in what insanity defense they use. The only states that don't allow it are Kansas, Montana, Idaho and Utah. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html Hate to break it to you, but the M'naghten test in its original form is still used in my state of Oklahoma, along with a dozen other states where English is spoken. The accused is deemed to be insane if (s)he can't tell right from wrong or know the nature and quality of his/her acts. In thirteen other states it is supplemented by the "irresistible impulse" test. If the accused knows right from wrong, and what (s)he is doing, but can't help himself, like Mr. Whipple in the old Charmin commercials, the accused must be acquitted. Only one state (New Hampshire) uses the Durham (product) test, in which the accused is deemed insane if his or her criminal act was the "product of a mental disease". This maximizes the role of psychiatric testimony in determining whether or not the accused is insane. The shrinks are able to testify in terms of their own language and professional judgment, instead of being forced into the legalistic boxes of the other tests. The federal courts and twenty states plus the District of Columbia use the Model Penal Code test, in which the accused is insane if the accused "suffered from a mental disease or defect, or lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law." (Note; this is a somewhat watered down version of the M'Naghten/irresistible impulse test, combined with the Durham rule.) https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html
