| « I am Margot. | You Think I Jest... » |
The Sociology Chronicles
10/23/05
The Sociology Chronicles
Task for tonight: Write a sufficiently conciliatory yet SCATHING WITH BRUTAL LOGIC paper on the specific issue, "Should society be more accepting of homosexuals."
Actually, it wasn't about society's acceptance of homosexuality (even though that's what the title of the article was), it was really about whether homosexuals should be congratulated for pressing lawsuits because some lesbian responded to a want ad made by two heterosexual women to find a female roommate to help them pay the brunt of the rent. Not knowing the ad-answerer was a lesbian, she moved in with them until they found out what her sexual orientation was and no longer wanted her to room with them.
Is this a matter of two hetero women thinking homosexuality is icky? Not necessarily. Maybe, just maybe, they didn't want anyone living with them who might be attracted to them, for the same reason they weren't looking for a male roomate.
So, anyways. That was what the article really was about.
And in order to present a scintillating glimpse of my literary prowess, here's a small and particularly un-PC paragraph from my paper:
"The issue of homosexuality as related to the family is a tricky one. The sociological concept of family as a means to propagate and carry on one's genetic line in order to survive, speaking in somewhat evolutionary terms, does not really fit with the homosexual concept. These and the following are, may it be known, ideas that I myself did not formulate; they are sociological theory and evolutionary theory that I cannot claim to have developed, and I do not expect any personal credit or discredit for pointing them out and stating them as the obvious. Thus, if, indeed, family is a fundamental foundation of society, helping to ensure the success of the society by producing more members to carry it beyond one generation, would that not make homosexuality counter-productive to society? Indeed, again speaking in evolutionary terms, if the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest is taken as truth, then homosexuality is a grave step backwards on the evolutionary line of survival. While this may sound incredibly crass and unseemly to say, I ask these questions because they seem to point towards a growing trend of contradictory statements by modern education, the media, and politics on the issue of homosexuality. While it is being promoted as healthy, progressive, and natural, speaking strictly in terms of evolutionary and sociological foundational concepts, it can only be considered deviant and anything but progressive."
I feel pretty happy about this paragraph. It's rather horrendous as far as subject matter goes, and I probably could have been more or less brutal, depending on your view on the subject and how mushy-gushy-lovey you happen to be about the issue, but, after all -I'm only applying the sociological concepts of family as I was told to do for the assignment, Professor.
10 comments
so saying, cassie steps into the phonebooth and dons her red cape of awesome! Well. You know. Every so often.
(Does this make up for the fact that you thought I was serious when I dryly commended your American History X post? hehe)
And we should email sometime, or something. You know. So I can get the proper scoop on your life and all that. i think it would be hard to truly misunderstand you, cass, i was just fighting dryness with sarcasm is all. (en garde.) ps - i don't have your email address. oringlorin at gmail dot com. sociology is bringing out some good opinions in ya, cass! weird - we just did this exact topic in a seminar on practical rationality. if our standard of practical rationality is governed by evolutionary principles, and thus obviously reproduction, then (i pointed out) it seems like homosexuality isn't very rationally practical. my prof responded by saying that while it's a good objection, having a few nonreproducing members of a group can help the group's success (eg, the gay uncle who has more time to spend with his niece since he has no children of his own). but i don't know how well that flies. so yeah. Hmm, do evolutionary principles necessarily correspond strictly to reproduction, though? Granted, that's the only way to pass on genetically "favorable" traits, but I think survival of the fittest must account for social circumstances as well as biological ones. So, if homosexuality holds social currency-- think ancient Greece-- then practicing or accepting it is a kind of twisted adaptation. It then can be "passed on" socially, whether via social pressure, indoctrination, or outright abuse. But to return to biology: last I heard, gay adoption/surrogate "parenthood" was on the rise, and there's really nothing biologically stopping a lesbian woman from giving birth.
Just my devil's advocate 0.02. I can't say that they necessarily do J (TS), but since I'm arguing with a low-level functioning professor, I figured i could take my shots at a low-level function. However, I do this evolution and reproduction correspond in the principles, because mate selection, according to evolution, is critical for survival and somehow we're expecting that we're trying to choose the genetic best for posterity's sake.
But yes. Incidentally, I don't believe in macroevolution, I have a bone to pick with Darwin, I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, and no, I'm not really being scientifically in-depth here because I don't really think I have to. If I had days to spend on this class, I probably still wouldn't bother because the professor is just such a joke. Nursing isn't a particularly controversial major, so I like to enjoy my controversies when they come.
To give an example of what controversies sound like in a class full of MY PEERS, the prof would, for example, talk about viruses, and one girl one table over would ask me whether I heard about that new research done that thought that there was a new viral link as to why people go gay. Saying that if you were to get a virus in utero, you had a higher likelihood of being gay. Okay. Fine. But the way she said it was all, "So maybe this means a hooray for the Gay Rights." Which is kinda funny, because calling homosexuality a virus-carried trait really makes nobody hapy whatsoever.
So yes. I agree. Like I said. This is low-level science for a low-level professor and I h onestly don't have more time to expend on this class than i do, thugh it's fun while it last. But i do think the gay uncle theory is funny. Everyone always brings him in somehow.
And yes. You are indeed correct, gay parenthood is on the rise - perhaps this is evolution for the better? tsj: the problem is that, as traditionally defined, evolution creates for us what we like to call 'direct proper functions'. such surrogate parenthood isn't direct, it isn't 'proper' (and i'm not talking morally), and it isn't a function - it isn't traditional evolution at work. the completely natural biological reasons that stop gays from adopting are internal in the same sense that proper functions have to be internal for traditional evolution. i'm not sure if we can think of external technological advances as internal evolutionary advances. 
Comment feed for this post
