Empirical: "derived from or guided by experience or experiment."
In the social sciences, the term "empirical question" is used when a question can (and should) be answered through scientific research.

Are gays unfit to live and therefore selected at birth by either Nature or 'God', or are gays constructed as we grow up, in our environments, in which case this would mean they might have something positive to contribute to our lives.

All available research indicates that it's both environmentally and genetically influenced. It's not an either or. There's nothing that indicates gays are unfit to live--homosexuality does not shorten one's life in any way.

Instead of "nature" can I substitute "genetics" for the word "God"? That seems more accurate and less vague than either of the other words.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 07-10-2009 7:10 PM]

The public usually lags behind the social science data and this case is no exception. Behavioral geneticists have long moved past the question of "is it nature or nurture" (or "genes or environment?") on the issue of sexual orientation. Now, they're examining questions like
-which specific genes (or technically genotypes) impact sexual orientation? (It will likely be the combination of many genes that predispose one to develop specific sexual orientations.)
-which specific environmental factors impact sexual orientation?
-which environmental factors interact with which genes to impact sexual orientation?

When I cover behavioral genetics in Intro Psych classes, I often discuss this research.

A few common, mistaken beliefs are that
-if a characteristic is genetically determined and/or influenced, it cannot be changed. Hair color, eye color, weight, and height are all examples of genetically determined or at least influenced characteristics that can be changed.
-if a characteristic is not genetically influenced, that means the person "chose" to have this characteristic. This statement requires the untenable assumption that people choose all the environmental influences that they've experienced--starting from birth.
-the extent to which sexual orientation is genetic has public policy implications. For example, "if it's genetically impacted, then they're just 'innocent victims' and we should be more understanding and grant gay marriage or at least civil union rights."

Posted by Allanfan20:

It's always been an interesting debate.

If they truely truely are attracted to the same sex, then I suppose it is genetic. However, I think in many cases, it tends to be an environment thing too. Perhaps they feel safer with the same sex and say it's being gay and assume they are gay because circumstances make them feel safter with people of the same sex.

There's another thing that caught my interest in this debate too. I know a couple of gay people, and this may sound real silly, but when they say they get drunk, they feel attracted to women suddenly. So it made me wonder that if perhaps they are decieving themselves by thinking they are gay, but aren't.

However, evidence is evidence. To me, it can go either way.

l
People are just much more open to "experimentation" sexually when they're drunk. Heck, many straight women do homosexual (or lesbian) things when they're drunk. (Think Girls Gone Wild.) Some straight guys may but probably not in public since male homosexuality is viewed so negatively in society.

Posted by orangeblobman:

Interesting, Bonn, your points on the debate 'advancing' to more detailed subjects within the 'nature v. nurture' thing.

In light of this, I think the better question would be 'Are gays unfit to live?' or 'Can gays contribute anything to a healthy society' (keeping in mind that OUR current society is anything but healthy).

I am leaning towards 'No' on both. If you're gay, you're not meant to reproduce (adoption is a socially constructed perversion), and if you're not meant to reproduce, then there is nothing to be gained from your inclusion in a forward-moving, -thinking society.

[Edited by - orangeblobman on 07-11-2009 12:10 PM]

Well we have different views here and I'm sure we're not going to agree but I don't think one's worth has anything to do with reproduction. The world is actually overpopulated and I think a lot of couples who don't have children are doing the world a favor and are advancing the human species by keeping our population at a healthier level. As far as contributing to the future, there are lots of things you can do other than reproducing anyway:
-A gay (or heterosexual or bisexual, etc.)) medical doctor can keep patients healthy, making them more likely to produce healthy children.
-A gay teacher/professor can educate young adults, improving the skills of our nation and workforce. Among other benefits, this education can lead to cures for diseases.
I could give an endless list.

I think one's fitness in society has more to do with their actions--in what ways do they help others to live better, healthier, more productive, and more rewarding lives?--than with anything (noncriminal obviously) that they do in their bedrooms.