Wednesday, January 11, 2012

MSN runs story on how men and women are so biologically different; what about LGBT?

Well,, MSN has a story today by Anna Breslaw, “Men and Women are different species”, link here.  If so, immutability arguments about homosexuality become even more frail.  

It seems as though the primary traits listed for men and women are a bit (to use a favorite vocabulary word form George Gilder), “fungible”.  For example, a man might be “rule-conscious” and “vigilant” and “utilitarian” but not be “dominant”.  Welcome to the world of the psychological polarities of Paul Rosenfels.  Either men or women can be psychologically masculine or feminine, and either can be objective or subjective.  We already have a cube of eight possible combinations.  In this mathematical scenario, opposites may attract.   But a submissive male may enjoy the domination of someone he idealizes, and that could be another male (psychologists call that “upward affiliation”).   That context understood, there’s no reason relationships can’t be lifelong and provide a parental environment for children in the home.

I thought I would pass along this Washington Post blog posting by Mark Driscoll, "Why men need marriage", although it sounds like it could have been written by George Gilder in the 1980s, link here. His metaphor about trucks is interesting, if misstated.  

No comments: