|
|
|
|
The boat's already rocking, and I'm leery of capsizing it, and I'm not suggesting that my conjectures here apply to anyone in particular, but I wonder...
We are a group of gay and bi men who have experienced or witnessed or fear prejudicial treatment. We are normal in every way except that the genetically determined attraction that guys feel towards girls is genetically determined, in our case, to point towards guys. All we ask of society is that this difference in behavior be acknowledged and no longer be a subject of ridicule or hatred or intolerance.
Now, there exist other behavioral traits, genetically determined, that affect one's propensity to act before thinking, or be quick to anger, or be abnormally defensive. These behavioral traits can be hidden if one is constantly alert to them, but doing so is denying one's genetic makeup. One could just as well ask society to put up with nature: oh, that guy's gay, he likes guys, big deal; oh, that guy spouts off, it's just the way he is, big deal.
The obvious huge difference here is that my gayness doesn't affect others, while my tendency to anger and to speak judgementally does affect others. Society tolerates anti-social behaviors up to a point, but then strikes out to limit an anti-social person's scope of influence. Is this fair? We believe that any discrimination against gays is unfair and intolerable. Do people who are genetically prone to non-violent, anti-social behavior deserve the same consideration?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we establish that the anti-social behaviour is genetically influenced? It would seem more likely to be caused by societal and environmental factors. I would be more apt to consider it learned behaviour. So, I guess my question is, are we talking about mental illness (which can be a matter of genetics) or just bad behaviour in general?
There is a condition, the name of which I've forgotten, that causes a person to punctuate their speech with filthy language. I could probably tolerate this knowing it was unintentional, but I don't think I have to tolerate it from someone who uses it for shock value. People with mental illnesses should receive the respect and support of all of us. But bad behaviour, for its own sake, needn't be tolerated. However, you would have to know the cause of the behaviour before you made a judgement as to how you were to respond to it. How do you do that?
Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure I understand brit, I believe that every thing we do and say has an effect of some sort, what is the line between violent and non violent, is it the pitcher or the receiver or the observer that decides? Ooops did I say that.: P
I am also aware in some cases “anti social behavior” can be wet wired some times physically genetic or environmental, i.e. disease, injury, or maybe even pollutants, but could it not be in many cases be a learned behavior, isn’t there the possibility of a whole lot of nurture goin on?
Ooops I'm late a lot of the same thought i see.
I think tourette's Syndrome with coprolalia be a extreme and rare form syndrome from what im reading.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 July 2008 04:48]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
An interesting thought!
I think you are in error when you ask for non discrimination, though. The reason is that being "quick to anger" and "being of a particular sexual orientation" are so widely different.
One harms others, the other harms (if that is the right word) only the bearer of the trait.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The heading is 'innate' but the assumption is 'genetic' and the possibility is that a trait is neither.
Some bringing up of children we class as 'civilising' them - teaching them not to lose their temper, not to snatch things, not to hit people with sticks (and, regrettably, to fear and honour god).
Some bringing up is teaching them how to do things - to read &c, to swim, to ride a bicycle, to balance a canoe.
What about being nice to people, telling them the truth, doing ones share of the work, being willing to help? Some people treat some of these traits as signs of weakness.
When my brother was digging his swimming pool helped by cousins and friends he went and got himself a large gin and tonic and wandered back to where all the rest were working sweatily in the hot French sun murmuring audibly "Suckers!" They downed tools and it took him some hours before he got any more work out of them.
My mother was a good mother in many respects but she (and her mother) was an incorrigible liar and told my brother lies about what I had said about him and vice versa that kept us enemies for twenty years. Then my father died and he took her to stay in France for a while and then I drove down to fetch her back. She wouldn't open the door to me! Then we did talk and discovered what she had been doing. Memorably she said "Everything was all right till you two got together!"
What can one do about such things? Is there a course on how not to be taken in?
Anyway maybe that is part of the reason why I put truth so high in my order of virtues - but it isn't the only reason because I didn't have the least idea about it till that visit to France and had formed my ideas about right and wrong mainly at university and already recognised that deliberate error was very destructive.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brit wrote:
> Now, there exist other behavioral traits, genetically determined, that affect one's propensity to act before thinking, or be quick to anger, or be abnormally defensive. These behavioral traits can be hidden if one is constantly alert to them, but doing so is denying one's genetic makeup. One could just as well ask society to put up with nature: oh, that guy's gay, he likes guys, big deal; oh, that guy spouts off, it's just the way he is, big deal.
>
> The obvious huge difference here is that my gayness doesn't affect others, while my tendency to anger and to speak judgementally does affect others. Society tolerates anti-social behaviors up to a point, but then strikes out to limit an anti-social person's scope of influence. Is this fair? We believe that any discrimination against gays is unfair and intolerable. Do people who are genetically prone to non-violent, anti-social behavior deserve the same consideration?
I'm not sure that I believe that either sexuality or other behaviour are exclusively genetic. To be honest, I don't think the causes matter much.
The thing is, I don't think there's any evidence that my choice of sexual partner(s) has any detrimental effect on anyone else. However, "anti-social behaviour" frequently does. I'm thinking particularly of bullying, which is often not physically violent but can drive the victim to despair and suicide. Indeed, I think it's a fundamental difference that being gay is caring about other sorts of people in a way which may not be socially approved, whereas anti-social behaviour is about (temporarily or permanently) NOT CARING about others. My moral code - and most moral codes I know - tells me that this is in some way "wrong".
I probably should make an admission here. For thirty years I struggled with a constant boiling rage deep inside myself, and anger that constantly threatened to blow the lid off my self-control. Oh, I learned all kinds of techniques for dealing with it: not replying in haste, sleeping on my answers, breathing exercises, leaving the room rather than engaging in confrontation, and never, ever, hitting anyone. Though every three or four years the lid would blow off and I'd loose it completely, "see red", and end up throwing the phone at the wall or similar. These infrequent episodes left me white, shaking, and deeply ashamed of myself.
It wasn't until, in my late 40s, I started to explore having been physically and sexually abused as a child that I was able to unearth the causes of the constant anger ... I'd now say that this once-constant companion is no longer a significant part of me.
So, yes, I do understand a little bit about anti-social impulses. And - whatever their causes - I do know that it's almost impossible to control them completely. To that extent, brit, I hear what you're saying. But I do know that there's a hell of a difference between trying unsuccessfully to control such impulses, and not trying. Whatever it is, there are techniques that help, and it's usually possible to see if someone's using them.
If one wants to be part of a society, one does have to either abide largely by that society's rules, or work on changing the rules. The little society here has "netiquette", for example.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I agree with NW in a couple of areas. I have doubts regarding the genetic origin of anti-social behaviour but I don't have the knowledge to mount a strong challenge to the concept. And in regards to discrimination the dividing line is any detrimental effect on others. By "non-violent" I assume you mean lacking physical violence, however verbal and emotional violence can be just as harmful. As NW points out bullying is a good example of very harmful behaviour that need not be of a physical nature.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
