Homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs

  • Thread starter Bubonic Plague
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Civil Jobs
In summary, the Singapore government has recently started allowing homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs, with some people disagreeing with the move. There are some questions that arise from this, such as whether or not gays are really never born that way and whether there are any scientific studies on the matter. There's also the question of whether homosexuality is a choice or not. There are also other threads discussing the matter, with some people claiming that homosexuality is something that is born with, while others say that it can be "cured" through psychological means.
  • #1
Bubonic Plague
95
0
Recently, the Singapore government has started relaxing rules, one of which is the allowance of homosexuals to be hired in civil service jobs.

And just today, i read in the Straits Times forum that some people disagree with this move.

The article can be found here:http://www.straitstimes.com/forum/story/0,4386,199754,00.html? [Broken]

One of this person's reason is that "Gays are never born that way".

This brings up a few questions. Are gays really never born that way? Are there any scientific studies and related matter on this subject?

I'm interested in hearing some of your inputs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I think it's possible to have a genetic predispostion towards it (hormonal imbalance), but I think in a good majority of cases it's a psychological issue, for example of a young man being brought up by a domineering mother. Or, perhaps in young people who lack in self-esteem, or aren't particularly attractive, who seek out companionship of the same sex.

Then there's always the possibility of young children being molested as well, who get coerced into doing these things by means of a parent, a close member of the family, a teacher, a priest, etc. Or, if a child runs away from a broken home, and has to find a means by which to survive ... i.e., through child prostitution.
 
  • #3
I think a lot of people confuse homosexuality with gender issues. Like, if a man is gay, he wants to be a woman.
 
  • #4
Iacchus is right that it is usually a psychological issue. However, there is also the fact that, when a mother's hypothalamus doesn't produce enough testosterone, while pregnant of a boy, the boy will have a tendency for homosexuality.

BTW, there was a recent study that I heard of, which said that boys with older brothers are more likely to be born gay, because the mother's immune system could have built up antibodies to male hormones. I don't know how credible this is, but it seemed reasonable.
 
  • #5
Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY
 
  • #6
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Whatever happened to the gay gene theory?
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

eNtRopY

"Gay gene theory"? If there's already a theory, then yes, this should be in the Other Sciences Forum. In fact, it might be a little more comfortable there anyway. Maybe Kerrie will move it.
 
  • #7
i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...
 
  • #8
Originally posted by Kerrie
i firmly believe that homosexuality is something a person is born with...i have known several people from the time they were children into adulthood that displayed behaviors as children that tend to make one think they might one day display homosexual behaviors as adults...if only those who are biased against them could see it...

I would like to clearify on this post, perhaps not to Kerrie's original intent.

Children that are born with, what Iacchus32 has said, homosexual imbalances would be able to be 'cured' (crude, I know and for a literal meaning, perhaps, incorrect, as homosexuality may or may not be 'bad'; let's say veered from the homosexual path?) of homosexuality through psychological means, such as counceling.

If the child was born with the disposition to be homosexual, one would think that the wiring of the brain would be inherently different from that of a heterosexual mind. This, in turn, would lead, me -among others I hope-, to believe that this 'homosexual trait' would not be 'curable' through counceling.

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.
 
  • #9
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?

Now, as stated in another thread, studies (recent) have shown that there has been much success in 'treating' homosexuals and assimilating them into heterosexual attraction.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?
 
  • #10
Why isn't this thread listed under other sciences where it belongs?

Hm...looks like i made a bad call. I created the topic here because i was anticipating people like George Lim Heng Chye, who wrote the article, to start using religion to back up their stand.

So far, I've heard mostly beliefs. But are there more hard facts? Mind sharing 'em?
 
  • #11
Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice.

if it is not a chemical imbalance or choice, then what is it? my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?
 
  • #12
Fact: I'm a male lesbian.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by RageSk8
I do not believe that people are born gay. Then again, I do not believe that people are born straight, and I am certain that being gay, bisexual, straight, or transgendered is not a choice. Why would someone want to be hated, ridiculed, fired from their job because of their sexuality, or denied the right marry who they wished?

You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?
 
  • #14
Originally posted by quantumcarl
Fact: I'm a male lesbian.

That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).
 
  • #15
You don't think that children are born with any sexual orientation at all? This is a highly "Nurture"-istic viewpoint, isn't it?

Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
my reasoning of why i believe people are born with it is because of my own experience of knowing 2 different people from the time they were children into adulthood as i explained in my above post...not to drag this off topic too much, but do animals display homosexual behaviors as well?

Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.
 
  • #17
Research I've run across, concerned at statistical larger number of homosexual males that were born, in England, during or shortly after the blitz. A more recent study, queried a number of mothers, of gay and straight males, about the emotional times during the late first trimester and early to mid second trimester of gestation. The initial results seemed to indicate that stress hormones were likely to be part of a cause in later male homosexuality. There was some specuation as to this trigger in combination with a homozygous recessive gene, was the cause.

While the correlations between prenatal stress and homosexuality of offspring were not high, the correlation between mothers of homosexual males having had stress during said pregnacy was high. This data does support the speculation, as to cause.

Similar to Mentat, I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body. :smile:
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Mentat
That's impossible (it's an oxymoron, or self-contradiction).

"Not even nothing is impossible." Carl :wink:
 
  • #19
Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

What thread? And especially what studies? And who did these studies?

Do a search of PF and find the thread yourself.

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

At least this is what your stance, as of this post, would appear to be.

What animals show homosexual behavior?, long term, not just the occasional female dog humping another female dog; this is odd but hardly qualifies the female dogs to be considered homosexuals.

The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

This is partly true, there are cases when we can identify the homosexual outcome due to childhood experiences, but not in all cases can we recognise the entire outcome of society on sexuality. Your choice of words [enculturation] makes me think the homosexual child (now adult) was raised in a gay bar or something:smile: Homosexuality isn't the majority, to my knowledge, in any society, so there is no possible way a child could pick up homosexual behavior through the assimilation of a society's culture; I will protect myself by narrowing the scope of society to the parties involved, I trust the children were not raised in a predominantly homosexual society.
 
  • #20
If you believe they are a species then you would also believe fully that they have inherent chemical and biological homosexual traits, which you say you don't believe.

I don't believe they are a species and either did Foucault. Foucault's volumes on the History of Sexuality detail the social creation of sexual categories, the implicit discourses that led to modern conceptions of sexuality. Before for Foucault the popular intelectual theory of sexuality was a "repressive hypothesis", that the gay movement and sexual promescuity were signs of peoples true sexual nature coming out finally after hundreds of years of repression. Foucault, to many, showed how these movements were nothing but continued discourses of old, socially created. Foucault, and other "good" social constructivists, do away with the idea of a human nature (a very good thing). This however does not mean they promote a purely "nurture" stance, our behavior always deals with biology. The difference is that the individuals behavior is always put in terms of both biology and society - biology is never given the role of a blueprint. The way I read Foucault (and many others) leads to the rejection of the nature/nurture distinction because no line can ever be drawn (biology doesn't do one thing and society another, they are completely intertwined and dependent on each other).

You have also contradicted yourself by first saying you don't believe people are born homosexual and then agreeing they can be born with homosexual traits, but writing this off by saying these traits have no bearing on homosexual adults. It's like being born with a social disorder and saying that the chemical imbalance has no bearing on your bashfulness as an adult.

Read above and and my reply to Mentat.
 
  • #21
Originally posted by RageSk8
Sure, children may be born with biological traits sympathetic to the creation of a sexual orientation, but I feel this says very little. The only way to make sense of "being biologically sympathetic or prone" is to have a full understanding of the cultural context of the individual with said biological traits. This is why I feel the whole nature/nurture distinction is useless.

Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).
 
  • #22
I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.
 
  • #23
Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by RageSk8
Some animals do show "homosexual behavior" but I don't like that term. To paraphrase Foucault, the homosexual was once a sodomist but now he is a species. Sexuality is a construct. I personally know two identical twin brothers, they act exactly alike, they dress alike, they have the same humor, but one is completely gay and the other completely straight. The truth is we don't know how enculturation works.

Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.
 
  • #25
Easily explained: The woman's hypothalamus didn't produce enough testosterone for both of them. No mystery here; you just have a woman whose hypothalamus wasn't prepared for more than one boy at a time.

Not necessarily. Just because hormone levels in pregnency coincide to sexuality does not mean there is a mapping. Yes a lack of testosterone can make a male child more likely to be gay, but most gay males still received plenty of testosterone. There is no single cause of homosexuality, there is a plethora of interactions. We have discovered a few of them, but not nearly all of them.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.
 
  • #27
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by RageSk8
But organisms do many other things besides reproduce. All are caused by the interaction between their environment and their biology - I see no way to deviate one behavior caused by this interaction from another. We get inputs and shoot out outputs. Our outputs are determined by the contingency of our inputs.

You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.
 
  • #29
You're still missing my point: If all things are "caused by the interaction between their environment", then homosexuals can only be considered as dead-ends in a biological process. It doesn't appear that it can be natural for biological processes to have such a dead-end.

You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by RageSk8
My point is that I don't see how any behavior that exists can be called more "natural" than another behavior. They both are allowed and made possible by the same biology.

A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.
 
  • #31
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.

Being gay doesn't make you impotent. People have often not been gay their entire lives. Also, some people marry members of the opposite sex to be more culturally-acceptable. Remember "The Birdcage"? Robin Williams's gay character had a son.



Originally posted by RageSk8
You're missing one of the biggest points of evolution - there is no point to evolution, there is no point to an organism, there are only patterns we can describe. Evolution does not give organisms "purpose". "Sh*t happens" is the best way to look at evolution.

Good points. It is all too common a false belief that evolution has a purpose.

Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

How is a chemical imbalance an "unnatural" imbalance?
There is no "point" to sex, other than what an individual ascribes to it, and then that's only the point for that individual having sex. If the only "point" of sex was reproduction, then we'd either have an incredible reproduction rate or a lot less sex going on.

The only definition of what "natural" really means that I can come up with is "the way things have been for a long time." Homosexuality has been around for a LONG time, whether or not it was in the majority.

Finally, whether or not something is considered "unnatural" is irrelevant. That's just an arbitrary criterion for a value judgment.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by Zantra
I personally lean towards the phsychological theory. Regardless of weather a baby is born with homosexual traits, it's the environmental influences that ultimately determine the sexual orientation. The studies on prenatal hormonal imbalance are interesting, but I think ultimately will prove to be false.

IMO, a baby born with homosexual traits would be mutually exclusive with environmental influences determining sexual orientation. Whether that orientation was acted on, or even acknowledged by the individual in question would, most likely, be psycological, but if you state a baby has homosexual traits, then, almost by definition, that is defining their future orientation. The reason I say this is sexual orientation isn't detectable until after puberty starts (certainly not at birth), so by saying a baby was born with homosexual traits - this had to be inferred from later [observed] orientation.

On a different note -
Being the ideas of a domineering mother have been fairly well discounted [as a cause of homosexuality], and children raised of homosexual parents have no higher probability of being homosexual. I'm curious as to what leads you to believe environmental experiences would influence sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Originally posted by Mentat
Fine, but sexual tendency is seen by Biologists as an innate trait of Mammals, and there are no Mammals that can reproduce asexually, so I don't think we can possibly make an argument for homosexuality's being natural (at least not for humans, or other mammals).

This completely discounts two things -

1) is homosexuality could be, at least partially, carried as a recessive gene, so passing the genes on is quite possible. By your reasoning, there would be no sickle cell anemia, given homozygous SC patients all died before puberty (until the 20th century), thus unable to pass on their genes. A number of other recessive diseases, which kill before puberty (some prenatally) would also fall into this category. Beta Thallassemia Major comes to mind.


2) You assume homosexual individuals do not procreate. Until fairly recently, in many cultures most homosexuals were so perscuted that they would 'act straight' to survive. They would marry and have children, just to prevent persucution. That they were not as attracted, sexually, to their mate didn't prevent their sperm/egg from combining to form a new little human.

There has also been some research having to do with the possible beneficial aspects for the species, of lowering reproductive rates (therefore preventing the expenditure vital resources fruitlessly), during times of stress - which fits with the prenatal stress hormone research. If this seems not to make sense, think about prey-preditor communities. When normal predation is evident in deer, the community thrives (given no other pressures), if something [like man] severely reduces predation, the deer population explodes and mass starvation ensues. The population swings are greatly accentuated - leading to the greater possiblitity that the community could be wiped out, if a population trough hits simultaneously with a different stressor.

When rats are kept in extremely over-populated environments, their offspring show a much higher probability toward homosexual traits, once they reach puberty.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Originally posted by Mentat
Yes, but homosexuals can't produce offspring, and if anything can be said to be "natural", it's the continuation of species.


Uhh, I hate to shot fish in a barrell, but...

Homosexuals don't always reproduce, but they can reproduce and are quite capable of doing so. Until extremely recently, it was not uncommon for homosexuals to deny [often to themselves] that they were gay, in turn getting married and raising families.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by kyle_soule
A natural behavior is one that wouldn't consist of unnatural imbalances are such. A social disorder due to a chemical imbalance isn't natural, even though it's caused through natural means.

The reason homosexuality couldn't be considered natural is because the point of sex is reproduction, homosexual reproduction just isn't possible.

It could be reasoned that something isn't natural if it hinders what was the natural intention of the thing being questioned.

I disagree. Though I hate to argue such subjective terms as 'natural', I'll make the effort here. Before I do, I'll qualify 'natural' to a fairly specific meaning (one I assume you mean). Natural, used here, is to mean anything which will not seriously decrease a species ability to survive and continue it's genetic line.

There is some research that gives possible species benefits to a stress triggered increase in homosexual traits. [see previous post]

Eating, procreating, and motion are natural, but Bears have adapted to reduce them during seasons where food is scarce and the environment is more hostile (winter). Does that mean bears aren't natural? Spore forming bacilli have a similar response to environmental stress.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
605
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
36
Views
12K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • STEM Career Guidance
6
Replies
182
Views
68K
Replies
28
Views
7K
Back
Top