Our weekend newspaper comes with the usual bundle of advertisements and coupons as well as a "news magazine" called USA Weekend. I consider this a bit of a rag, but I do flip through it because it occasionally contains an interesting tidbit. Last weekend's edition contained one of these, an article titled, "The birds and the bees: Are some gay?" by Karen C. Fox. The article explained that research being done by the University of California at Riverside regarding homosexual behavior in animals shows that not only is it more widespread than the researchers thought, but the behavior appears to fulfill certain utilitarian purposes, as well. Marlene Zuk, presumably the head research biologist on this project, was interviewed and stated that an open mind is necessary in order to learn as much as possible from animal behavior research. The article's author also said that Zuk commented that the "focus" of such research shouldn't be whether the behavior of animals "justifies" that of humans. She also told the interviewer that she next would like to delve into how homosexual behavior impacts the gene pools of wild animals.
Research such this always makes me uneasy. Why is there such a concern about whether or not homosexuality in humans is innate or choice? I have heard of this before, though not recently. It appears that some people give this issue a lot of thought, and the logic goes something like this: If homosexuality is innate, then gays can't help how they are and so should not be "blamed". If it is a lifestyle choice, however, they could ostensibly choose to be heterosexual, but do not, probably just to infuriate those who subscribe to this theory. Therefore, it is all right to blame them. This "blame", it seems, is applied by institutionalizing harassment and discrimination.
Even the above research seems poised toward blame, since the behavior studied could be interpreted either way, depending on the desired outcome. Considering the use of the word "justify" in regards to human behavior, I think it is easy to guess in which direction this study is heading.
Despite the fact that homosexuality has been around for as long as humankind has existed, many cannot accept its existence. For decades it was considered a mental illness, and many a life was ruined by even a whisper of homosexual behavior. Truly, back when such was the norm, who would choose to be gay? At any rate, women and minorities in the United States have also borne the weight of discrimination, and surely no would argue that they could "help" being who they were!
In my opinion, "research" such as this is carried out simply to justify discriminatory behavior. Is there so much research money available that issues like this one merit grants? If so, I think there are more worthy projects out there. A realistic cure for cancer, perhaps?
Research such this always makes me uneasy. Why is there such a concern about whether or not homosexuality in humans is innate or choice? I have heard of this before, though not recently. It appears that some people give this issue a lot of thought, and the logic goes something like this: If homosexuality is innate, then gays can't help how they are and so should not be "blamed". If it is a lifestyle choice, however, they could ostensibly choose to be heterosexual, but do not, probably just to infuriate those who subscribe to this theory. Therefore, it is all right to blame them. This "blame", it seems, is applied by institutionalizing harassment and discrimination.
Even the above research seems poised toward blame, since the behavior studied could be interpreted either way, depending on the desired outcome. Considering the use of the word "justify" in regards to human behavior, I think it is easy to guess in which direction this study is heading.
Despite the fact that homosexuality has been around for as long as humankind has existed, many cannot accept its existence. For decades it was considered a mental illness, and many a life was ruined by even a whisper of homosexual behavior. Truly, back when such was the norm, who would choose to be gay? At any rate, women and minorities in the United States have also borne the weight of discrimination, and surely no would argue that they could "help" being who they were!
In my opinion, "research" such as this is carried out simply to justify discriminatory behavior. Is there so much research money available that issues like this one merit grants? If so, I think there are more worthy projects out there. A realistic cure for cancer, perhaps?
No comments:
Post a Comment