<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Study of Twins: Homosexual Behavior Part Nature, Part Nurture</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.q-portland.com/gay-news-worldwide/study-of-twins-homosexual-behavior-part-nature-part-nurture/rob_mathias/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.q-portland.com/gay-news-worldwide/study-of-twins-homosexual-behavior-part-nature-part-nurture/rob_mathias/</link>
	<description>Your Guide to All Things Queer in Portland</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Zach Newman</title>
		<link>http://www.q-portland.com/gay-news-worldwide/study-of-twins-homosexual-behavior-part-nature-part-nurture/rob_mathias/#comment-203</link>
		<dc:creator>Zach Newman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:37:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.q-netwerk.com/blog/?p=69#comment-203</guid>
		<description>My "red flag" tends to go up whenever the conversation veers towards the "cause" of homosexuality: be it 'nature' and/or 'nurture'. I can't recall who or when, but at some time years ago SOMEONE said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "We look for causes when we look for cures. We want to find the "cause" of cancer or arthritis or diabetes, because we believe that will help us find the "cure". Since being gay requires no "cure" and should not be considered an "illness", why all the talk and energy and focus on "what causes" homosexuality? Sometimes unbiased, well-meaning conversations will focus on orientational causes; likewise, so much prior and continuing research on sexuality goes forward. But I tend to think whenever we start hearing about the "causes" of homosexuality, we need to be alert and challenge and add to the discussion the "causes of heterosexuality." If we're truly looking for more enlightenment on human sexuality and it's development, so be it, but all too often, these "cause" discussions are a mask for old and tired spoutings of prejudice against GLBT folks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My &#8220;red flag&#8221; tends to go up whenever the conversation veers towards the &#8220;cause&#8221; of homosexuality: be it &#8216;nature&#8217; and/or &#8216;nurture&#8217;. I can&#8217;t recall who or when, but at some time years ago SOMEONE said, and I&#8217;m paraphrasing here, &#8220;We look for causes when we look for cures. We want to find the &#8220;cause&#8221; of cancer or arthritis or diabetes, because we believe that will help us find the &#8220;cure&#8221;. Since being gay requires no &#8220;cure&#8221; and should not be considered an &#8220;illness&#8221;, why all the talk and energy and focus on &#8220;what causes&#8221; homosexuality? Sometimes unbiased, well-meaning conversations will focus on orientational causes; likewise, so much prior and continuing research on sexuality goes forward. But I tend to think whenever we start hearing about the &#8220;causes&#8221; of homosexuality, we need to be alert and challenge and add to the discussion the &#8220;causes of heterosexuality.&#8221; If we&#8217;re truly looking for more enlightenment on human sexuality and it&#8217;s development, so be it, but all too often, these &#8220;cause&#8221; discussions are a mask for old and tired spoutings of prejudice against GLBT folks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
