Talk:Ascribed characteristics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- "Many heated arguments stem from disagreements over whether or not a given trait is "really" an ascribed characteristic. For example, there seems to be a significant correlation between believing that homosexuality is largely genetically determined and believing that homosexuality is acceptable. And few, it seems, would be willing to condemn homosexuality if it could be proven that it were entirely determined from birth."
This phrasing bothers me somewhat. I do admit to not knowing other cultures like I should, but does this apply to most other cultures or just a culture dominated by a monotheistic religion? What for instance do asian cultures feel about homosexuality? I don't even really like the last sentence as even though I think there's a genetic basis for feeling one way or another, I also thing that experiences can also affect an orientation, so it seems a loaded statement to me. Simply put, it doesn't feel NPOV to me, and may not even be correct. Opinions? - Rgamble
I wrote the above, and I think your questions are all interesting ones. Unfortunately, I'm short on answers. A couple of comments:
- This is probably not the place for a serious discussion of homosexuality. I hope other articles cover the topic better.
- It may be useful to separate worries about whether it is remotely plausible that "it could be proven that [homosexuality] were entirely determined from birth" from claims about what would follow from such proof in the context of various belief systems and from claims about what would follow from such proof in some kind of absolutist moral framework.
- I'm newly suspicious of my claim that "there seems to be a significant correlation between believing that homosexuality is largely genetically determined and believing that homosexuality is acceptable." I have no hard data on this whatsoever, so, if it's to be included, it should probably have even more disclaimers. I bet there is hard data that shows this in the United States, but I don't know where I would find it.
--Ryguasu
Could we perhaps remove the claim then and perhaps substitute another historically valid one? The claim as it stands feels somewhat non-NPOV in style given that it seems to be based on some potentially shaky ground. As you say, the topic of homosexuality has been covered elsewhere in wikipedia, and it just doesn't feel right in this article, at least to me. Point two is interesting, but again, I think it might make the subject of whether homosexuality is solely an ascribed characteristic, dominate the article.
Other comments welcomed.
--Rgamble
This may be a reasonable course of action. I have no alternative suggestions, however. In any case, there should probably be at least a link to stuff about homosexuality. --Ryguasu
