Whom You Love: The Interaction of Science and Equality


Whom You Love
the biology of sexual orientation

Here is an intriguing new Kickstarter project that brings together two of my greatest interests: Science and Equality.

The brief discription of the project is listed as such:

Reviewing scientific evidence that processes at work before birth
influence sexual orientation.
Nature has a say in whom you love.

I don’t need to write much more than that.  The creators of this project are hoping to create a documentary (or a series of docs if the money is there) on the subject and, perhaps most tantalizing, if at all possible air it on a major network.

Anyone who has an interest in the area of sexual orientation knows that scientists have been studying it for over half a century.  This has included geneticists, biologists, sociologists and any number of fields.  Unfortunately, the findings of these fields are often kept at arm’s reach from each other and are only discussed together when they seemingly discredit one another.  Here is a chance to unite all the different research under one roof and finally craft a conscious scientific opinion.

If you have any investment in this topic, either because you are fascinated by human biology or are a member or ally of the LGBT community, I highly recommend that you get behind this project.

I know there are people out there for whom science will always be an enemy and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds.

But for many, many people sitting on the fence, their barrier to acceptance is small and something like this could be their Berlin Wall moment.

A documentary like this could help break down some of the roadblocks to gay marriage.

It could be the difference between a parents rejection or acceptance of their child.

It could be a bridge along the pathway to true and lasting equality.

Get involved, throw in your support and let’s make a change.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Whom You Love: The Interaction of Science and Equality

  1. Hi. Mispelled equality in the title.

    I wish any artistic endeavor well. But the notion of starting with a conclusion and then finding the evidence to support it is anathema to the scientific method. There’s too much contamination from confirmation bias.

    In the end, this would be a propaganda piece more than a solid addition to the science. I personally think 99% of the info that is out there is propaganda, so I’m not judging this particular effort on that basis – I’m just saying it won’t be science. The second sentence in the two-sentence mission statement precludes it.

    Like I mentioned on a previous post, human sexuality is immensely complex. Here’s a pretty good article on it:
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2005/08/14/what_makes_people_gay/

    Wikipedia also has a decent analysis:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Cause

    I understand the notion that insisting homosexuality has a genetic or pre-natal cause only would work to advance homosexual citizen rights and would garner more acceptance in society as a whole. But I’m NEVER in favor of bending the science prematurely to meet that need.

    The science will progress, and there is likely to be more and more evidence that homosexuality has distinct biological markers. There is a lot to support that already. But, it’s just not at consensus level yet.

    And isn’t it enough to just say we don’t know what it’s like to live in someone’s else skin? If someone says they’re gay by nature – who am I to disagree? I don’t know what it’s like to be them. It’s why people who say homosexuality is a choice are immediately suspect to me – because how would they know?

    And isn’t it enough to believe in protecting others’ choices in life (with the strong caveat that those rights should never extend to actions causing mental or physical harm to others)? Shouldn’t we all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

    • Ah. I made a fundamental mistake in assuming what the project was about without reading the actual project site. Whoops – many apologies for that doozy. It doesn’t claim to be a scientific endeavor, just a documentary one (recording presentations and interviews with researchers and their findings). This part says it best:

      “The title also refers to the overall theme of the documentary–without discounting the importance of culture and experience in sexuality, Nature also has a say in whom you love.”

      I also found this about the organizer:
      http://borngay.procon.org/view.source.php?sourceID=4224

      A lecture series of leading researchers objectively stating their findings (and the resulting documentary) would be of benefit to advancing the knowledge of the public. There’s no evidence to support that the project would be unduly biased, and I wish them the best.

  2. BTW, take out the first sentence in my reponse. You’ll see the spelling error and fix it. Delete this response, too. Thanks.

    • Hey, if you don’t mind, I’m going to leave all of your responses. The reason is because, yes, you’re right, I see the misspelling (I posted this as I was running late for work; was hoping to have it out quickly and didn’t take the time to do the proper editing), and I’m happy having the record of my error out there.

      Secondly, I think all the points you made in your first comment are completely on point and worth noting. As you realized and illustrated in your next comment, it isn’t a fair criticism of this project, but it still is a point of criticism worth keeping in mind. As you said, this isn’t a scientific endeavor wishing to prove a point of view, rather it is a documentary aiming to collect the scientific knowledge that we’ve already attained and collect it into one definitive document.

      We should be weary of any ‘science’ that starts with a conclusion already in mind.

      So, again, I hope you don’t mind that I leave all of your responses in place. First, to point out my own mistake, and second to show that there is a right way to be skeptical.

Comments are closed.