Le côté 'Nature' de la controverse sur l'homosexualité

Après avoir lu la traduction d'un extrait du livre anglais, How the Mind Works, de Steven Pinker, j'ai écrit un court résumé. Je crois que ça vaut la peine de visiter cette site, chers collègues. Après la description des recherches d'une équipe suédois qui scannait les cerveaux des volontaires pendant le reniflement des dérivés d'hormones, suit des idées révélateures. Une hypothèse que j'ai trouvée intéressante est que la cause principale de l'homosexualité soit biologique mais pas directement génétique. Les différences dans les hormones et les anticorps lors de la gestation affecteraient le foetus pendant sa croissance. Il parle du lien possible entre l'existence de l'homosexualité et l'évolution. Il précise la raison pour laquelle le mouvement gay condamne la biologie de l'homosexualité: la stigmatisation des Gays comme des anormaux et le fait que les parents feraient avorter un bébé ayant le gène gay. Happy reading...

http://www.stephane.info/show.php?code=weblog&direct=579&lg=fr le 2 février 2006

L'auteur de l'article suivant favorise la 'nature développementale ou environnementale' de l'homosexualité, même si elle admet les effets biologiques. Elle cite l'amour pour son frère gai comme motivation d'éduquer le monde au sujet des causes. Les causes biologiques impliquent le fait qu'une fois qu'on est 'diagnostiqué' on ne peut pas changer. Or, l'explication des causes mijotées en famille pendant l'enfance crée de la compassion - même chez les religieux conservateurs. Le fait que l'écrivaine a grandit avec un garçon homosexuel pourrait vouloir dire qu'elle a assimilé un grand réseau personnel de 'faits' au sujet de la controverse. 2004-mise à jour en avril 2006

Un extrait de l'article: Developmental nature of homosexuality

Education on this issue includes information about environmental contributors to same-sex attractions. When I educate I begin by explaining the various developmental needs children have, needs for connection with the same-sex parent and same-sex peers. I explain that children are not simply born with a sense of their own gender but that their gender identity is formed through connections and interactions with others, primarily members of the same sex. I explain that children look first to their same-sex parent and then to same-sex peers to form their own identity: to understand how they measure up, how they fit in, what value they have as male or female, what it means to be male or female, etc. When children do not form healthy same-sex bonds and their needs for same-sex connection go unmet, these needs do not go away; they simply intensify or take on another form. Typically, near puberty, these unmet needs take on a sexual form, the emotional needs become sexualized (Satinover, 1996). These developmental factors, combined with genetic temperament, which impacts perceptions, all go into the development of homosexuality. Other factors such as sexual abuse or traumatic experiences may also contribute to the formation of same-sex attractions. Since this information is largely unknown to the general public, it is very important that we begin to share it in order to generate a more widespread understanding of this issue. Understanding the developmental nature of homosexuality is not only a better alternative to believing it is a choice, but it is also better in some ways than believing it is solely biological. Believing homosexuality is biologically based is actually quite limiting to homosexuals, and therefore has negative implications. For homosexuals who are not happy in the gay lifestyle, the biological explanation gives no hope for any other option. I have met countless homosexuals who were told by psychotherapists that their condition was unchangeable, despite the fact that they were very miserable and were seeking change. Believing that it is biologically based implies that change is impossible. In a society that highly esteems freedom of choice, it seems ironic that we accept and promote a theory of homosexuality that leaves the homosexual with no other options. Taking away all hope for change seems restrictive at best, detrimental at worst. On the other hand, when we educate we promote the truth that people can seek change if they so desire.

http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-harren.html

Analysis of Article on three sides of the debate! October 23

This summary of the open-minded manner in which we should be approaching the subject is quite refreshing considering the source. The authour does a very thorough job of refuting almost all the biological factors of homosexuality by making a laughing stock of the scientists and their results. His research skills are top notch and we get the idea that he has smashed many black boxes on his path of discovery. He does seem to favour the 'Nurture' arguments when he states that in some cultures there is no word for it in the language because the behaviour is so uncommon. There is something to be said about the nature, nurture and personal choice roles in the debate. He states that there are many factors involved and one cannot attribute one or the other to a cause and effect exercise. At the end of the article he includes biblical references when he treats the idea of 'What is natural?' If homosexuality feels natural, why not? He compares this to the fact that feelings of envy mean we can steal? I do not see the correspondence between the two scenarios. This concluding analogy is the weak link in his thought network whereas most previous claims appear strong and logical in our present society.A homosexual who has 'strong feelings' is going to live a gay lifestyle because he or she does not think or feel it is a crime like stealing. It brings me to an e-mail I sent to a lesbian friend of my sister's who teaches law in the States. When I let her know the subject of our controversy, she wrote: 'I don't think it should be regarded as an issue because it is natural'. I now realize that I offended her by suggesting that her way of life is an issue to be debated and scrutinized like a character in a wax museum. This article did open my eyes to prevalent scientific errors, a compassionate approach and thinking twice about this 'controversy'.

November 2 Response to an article read after googling heterosexuality: Lors du travail en petits groupes Renée a glissé un commentaire qui n’est pas tombée dans l’oreille d’une sourde : Pourquoi ne ‘google’-t ‘on pas ‘les causes de l’hétérosexualité? L’auteure de l’article finit par écrire des propos très intéressants au sujet de l’homosexualité. http://www.finis-africae.net/article.php?id=554

Pour souligner l’opinion de Vincent, la réponse d’un lecteur bien averti.

Le danger est qu'à rechercher les causes d'un phénomène mal défniit, on risque de tomber dans le n'importe quoi, sive l'idéologie.

Conclusion: I agree with the authour's comment about how we should spend just as much time researching heterosexuality as we do homosexuality. I was surprised to discover that heterosexuality seems to generate more debate than homosexuality and that the first two articles that appear are on Wikipedia-one of which contains a heated reparté on the subject. The authour brings up the subject of suffering as if homosexuals suffer just by being homosexual. In her mind it is a given. Is her reasoning such that: if society treats them as outcasts, they must be unhappy?