Remember Peter’s run on X-Factor, where he discussed the implications on a test that could determine if the fetus would be a mutant?
Welcome to the future:
WorldNetDaily: Bill would ban abortions of ‘gay’ fetuses
Maine legislator got idea listening to Rush Limbaugh
Posted: February 25, 2005 – 8:45 p.m. Eastern
• 
So is this an acknowledgement that being gay is how a person is made, & not a “lifestyle choice”?
You realize of course if its acknowledged that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice many people’s perceptions and faiths are gonna be blown all to hëll???Mind you I think this is a good thing ,Im just saying.
Sounds like a double edged sword to me, Glenn.
On the one hand it will be cool for many reasons when our knowledge of genetics gets to that point. Finding cures and so forth. The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait.
I would question, however, outlawing abortions on the basis of homosexuality genes found in a fetus. For one, how do we prove what someones motivation for an abortion is?
When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.
Determine gender? Sure.
Prevent disease or disability? Maybe.
Create designer children so that parents can have another way to live vicariously through them? Or so they’re all pretty? Or smart? Or, better yet, so they don’t talk back? No.
Hëll no! It reminds me of Hitler injecting dye to change eye color.
It’s bad enough that we throw all these pills at them now to make them docile zombies because we can’t find ways to engage them. How far would we be willing to go? I’m willing to bet we’d go too far.
Plus, there is another downside. A bill banning abortions based on sexual orientation would eventually be used to piggy-back legislation that would reach even deeper into our right to choose.
‘Looks into the future’ indeed.
SIDENOTE: Any woman who would abort a fetus based on sexual orientation should not be bearing children in the first place.
Which brings me to this: Given such technology, how long before we decide that certain people are ‘Genetically Undesireable’ and are forbidden to reproduce at all?
I think that, after a certain point, this particular key to Pandora’s Box should be locked away.
Every once in a while a Republican does something right…wing! HA HA HA HA!!! I made a funny.
Um, isn’t he jumping the gun a little bit? I’m no law expert, but I certainly wouldn’t try to create laws based on premises that are still in the realm of the theoretical. It seems kind of silly to make a law “just in case.” On the other hand, I guess it couldn’t hurt to be prepared.
Got any laws for human/alien hybrids yet? Couldn’t hurt…
I’m always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America.
As for this current bill, it presents quite a dilemma for pro-choice folks: How do you balance the right to choose with restrictions on what you choose? I have absolutely no answer to this.
If people can choose to have an abortion simply because they’re “not ready” to have a child, then how can you say they can’t have an abortion because they don’t want a gay child? Pretty hypocritical.
Hey, are we sure this article isn’t in error?
For a Republican, I’m surprised the guy isn’t demanding that a “gay” fetus is aborted. Nothing like playing god, you know.
Or is this where the moral struggle finally arises, to prevent a gay person from living by another act of sin, in presumably taking a life?
Ah, this quote from the article does bring up the point:
The bill, they say, is a way of forcing some lawmakers to choose between abortion rights and gay rights.
This should be interesting.
I think this a conservative attempting to be clever by pitting abortion rights groups against gay rights groups, with the hope of making headway against Roe v. Wade. Similar thing with the proposed laws charging a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman.
The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait.
Of course, the thing that scares me is that, right before you said this sentence, you said “Finding cures and so forth”.
Talk about the ultimate “cure” for the homosexual “problem”.
Again, I’d see plenty of ‘playing god’ by way of abortion or genetic manipulation, etc, if a gene were discovered. Obviously, if the gene exists, it needs to be found to shut up the “It’s a Choice” idiots, but still…
I read a pørņø like this once. Turns out that the only gay people left were Catholics, because they didn’t believe in abortion, no matter what.
😐
Matt has it nailed right on the head–this is someone who is having much merry fun with the opposition, putting them into a position where they must pìšš øff one of their essential constituents. Don’t think the Democrats are exactly in a position to do that. It’s clever, but of course meaningless, since no such gene has yet been discovered.
But it probably will be.
And then at that moment, we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. If they, in any way shape or form, prohibit abortion for the “wrong” reasons, they will be exposed as hypocrites. There are women today who get abortions for reasons no less contemptible. Hëll, Asia is heading for a demographic time bomb now that sex selection abortions have so knocked the usual 50/50 male/female ratio out of whack.
If a woman can abort a handicapped child, or a child who is the “wrong” sex, or because it will conflict with a planned vacation,or for any other bad reason, how the hëll can anyone suddenly claim that it’s become unallowable to abort a child based on sexual orientation?
Incidentally, it’s far more likely that Limbaugh got the idea from the play or movie TWILIGHT OF THE GOLDS. Perhaps playwrite Jonathon Tolins is a comics fan, though it’s not like the idea is all that radical.
Mitch Evans wrote:
———————————–
When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.
———————————–
And those deny women the right to do what they wish with their bodies. Making a law to prohibit genetic testing and manipulation would only serve to open the door toward limit abortion, since we’re saying the State has a right to supersede a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body. So whether its abortion, abortion of homosexual babies, or gene manipulation of a baby, then the right belongs to the woman.
Or something.
And then at that moment, we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. If they, in any way shape or form, prohibit abortion for the “wrong” reasons, they will be exposed as hypocrites.
Your hypothetical assumes that “they” think and act monolithically. And it furthermore assumes that it is hypocrisy to choose which issue is more important to you– it could be that to one person, preventing an act of bias against a sexuality is more important, while to another, keeping the government out of these decisions could be more important. That doesn’t mean that they don’t value either side, it simply means they each have different priorities, which is our right in America.
Here’s what will happen though; if I could deduce what this dope is up to within a few seconds of reading Glenn’s excerpt, any group with a serious interest in these issues will be able to as well. And so this bill will die quietly, like all the other political posturing bills the Republicans dream up as sops for their right-wing constituencies, because gay rights groups will instantly understand that anything coming from the party that put preventing them from getting married at the top of its political agenda, is not being done to help them.
After all, what this bill really says is, “I think homosexuals are morons.”
And gay people will just love that.
A note of caution: it sounds more like someone’s found away to stop an abortion from being carried out, I don’t think it has anything to do with the sexuality of the baby. May be this is just a first stab at overturning Wade vs. Roe?
I thought pro-choice was pro-choice, or are you now saying that it’s OK to be pro-choice unless it touches a liberal sacred cow?
Look at it this way. If someone that’s “on the right” finds out she’s pregnant, and the fetus shows signs of some homosexual gene, decides to get an abortion, then we don’t have to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned.
Abortion for convenience…OK
Abortion for carelessness…OK
Abortion for life of mother…OK
Abortion for gay gene…HÊLL NO!
WTF???
the way around this is to ban the testing for sexual orientation on fetuses.
I’m confused. No, not by the idea. I’m confused because of what quarter it’s coming from.
Your hypothetical assumes that “they” think and act monolithically. And it furthermore assumes that it is hypocrisy to choose which issue is more important to you– it could be that to one person, preventing an act of bias against a sexuality is more important, while to another, keeping the government out of these decisions could be more important. That doesn’t mean that they don’t value either side, it simply means they each have different priorities, which is our right in America.
At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric.
“A woman has the right to choose!”
“(As long for reasons we approve!)”
Ok, it doesn’t quite trip off the tongue, does it?
And if we ban testing for the gay gene while allowing it for the sex and genetic health of the child, doesn’t that send a message to women and the handicapped that while they are fair game for pre-natal elimination, homosexuals are more important?
The fact that we are having this discussion means that Mr. Duprey has achieved his goal; stirring the pot, making his adversaries uncomfortable. I don’t know whether this guy is a political genius of just some doof who got lucky but you have to admire it on some level.
Also, if the right is going to admit that being gay is genetic & not a choice, that means that their claim of homosexuality being unnatural will be shot to hëll.
Yeah, cause republicans think other reasons for abortion are okay.
Hey, why not pass laws prohibiting trade with martians, travelling faster than .04c outside Earth’s atmosphere, and only allowing Godzilla (or Gojira, depending on your accent) to enter the US through ports south of New York City?
Glad to see our elected leaders have enough free time to work on laws to address issues that don’t exist today. Not like we have current issues to take care of…poverty, hunger, a huge debt and deficit.
That this comes from the conservative side is interesting for a few reasons. First, it’s a tacit admission that homosexuality might not be a lifestyle choice, but genetics or biology. It really calls into question the whole religious acceptance of homosexuality on the basis that it’s an abomination in the eyes of God. If there’s a “gay gene,” then it’s pretty clear that God make people gay. Going to be hard for the current religious leadership to digest that.
Second, it does seem like this is kind of a conservative test. Sort of a way of saying “let’s put the liberal’s convictions to the test. We’ll make law that forces them to choose between protecting their precious gays, or allowing women free choice to murder their babies.”
Third, it’s clearly a back-door attempt to outlaw abortions. Once the door to preventing abortion is open, it’s so much easier to pass successive laws that expand the prohibition.
It’s much like Bush’s attempt to “protect” marriage by prohibiting same sex marriages. Once he sets a precedent for defining marriage, I’d not be surprised if his next step was to outlaw divorce.
If a lesbian is pregnant, would the automatic assumption be that the child would be gay? Even though the male contributor to the pregnancy might not be? Just wondering….
I’m really enjoying this discussion for many reasons. But since several postings brought up Rowe vs. Wade, I thought I’d pass along an interesting fact. My aunt works on the hill and when these discussions are brought up, she likes to ask people if they know what overturning RvW would do. Every person responds that it would outlaw abortion. Well, this isn’t true, it would send the issue BACK TO THE STATES. It currently protects a woman’s right to choose on a federal level, but overturning it does not outlaw abortion.
So a woman who lives in a “Red” state that does outlaw abortion, can travel to a “Blue” state where it is legal. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a person can’t be charged with a crime in her/his home state if it was committed in a state where it is perfectly legal.
If Congress and the Supreme Court refuse to make a ruling on this issue, then each state may end up doing so.
Interesting, huh?
Daniel
I still think you’re proceeding from a few false assumptions, Bill.
Assumption #1: that there is a single “gay gene” that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme.
Assumption #2: that “pro-choicers” not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill’s trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I’m trying to behave myself.)
Speaking personally, I’ve got a couple of observations.
1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said “gay gene” comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone’s intentions to the point of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an intriguing question.
2) Those on the pro-choice side aren’t the only one with a catch-22 here. I’d love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with … oh … Rick Santorum.
3) I will say flat out that I wouldn’t support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say “but only if it’s choices we agree with.” Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hëll, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.
4) Remember, folks, any government that’s given the power to prohibit abortions is also being given the power to mandate them given a majority of lawmakers. Think about that. The opposite of “choice” is not “life” — it’s lack of choice.
TWL
Craig J. Ries:
M.E.: “The added bonus would be that we would have proof that homosexuality is a genetic trait rather than, as the unenlightened would have us believe, a deviant character trait.”
C.J.R.: “Of course, the thing that scares me is that, right before you said this sentence, you said “Finding cures and so forth”.”
Hi Craig.
I’m assuming that the part that scares you is ‘and so forth.’ Please let me know if I’m wrong, but I’m going with that assumption for now.
To adress ‘and so forth’ I think I first need to clarify ‘finding cures.’ By ‘finding cures’ I’m refering to many things. Let’s look at the flu and cerebral palsy. In the case of the flu the level of genetic understanding that we’re talking about would allow us to determine how different strains affect the human host and we could create a defense that could make the human host unattractive to the flu.
In the case of cerebral palsy we could possibly prevent it altogether through genetic manipulation.
Now what I refer to when I use the phrase ‘and so forth’ would be cases involing babies being born with one arm, for example. Through testing we discover that the fetus in question will be born with one arm and we use genetic manipulation to ensure that both arms develope in utero(sp). This would not be a disease but rather a deformation, and I probably should have been more clear in my original post.
Like I said, I’m working from an assumption based upon how I interpreted your post so I could still be way off.
Seamus Bradley:
“Mitch Evans wrote:
———————————–
When it comes to pre-birth genetic determination (hey, I just invented a phrase!) I would personally suggest that we go not much farther than we have already.
———————————–
And those deny women the right to do what they wish with their bodies. Making a law to prohibit genetic testing and manipulation would only serve to open the door toward limit abortion, since we’re saying the State has a right to supersede a women’s right to do whatever she wants with her body. So whether its abortion, abortion of homosexual babies, or gene manipulation of a baby, then the right belongs to the woman.
Or something.”
Hi Seamus.
I think I may have given the impression that a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body be superceded. That wasn’t my intent and I find that it’s generally a bad idea to do so.
Even though I would prefer that unwanted pregnancies be prevented I would never dictate that a woman must abort or must not abort.
Yes, most people don’t realize that RvW doesn’t make abortion legal, it “simply” makes it legal at the federal level and forces the states to comply. But that doesn’t mean that losing RvW won’t end with abotions re-criminalized across the board.
Most states have used the gaps in RvW to create their own rules on timing, information, and parental consent. And at least as far as parental consent, yes, many states have indeed tried to criminalize the act of going to another state to avoid a local law. (Though it is usually phrased as “custodial interference” or “interstate transport of a minor”.)
And it really doesn’t matter if only one state ends up banning abotions, because we are a federation of states. If 49 states can be forced to recognize gay marriages performed in one, then one state can demand that it’s views on abortion be upheld by every other state. (And while that is extreme, if there is enough political will to overturn the Supreme Court, more than likely 51% of the [voting] population will be behind it.)
In the end, that’s why we have a Federal government, to uphold those basic rights that apply to everyone, equally. If we are going to buy into this Red State/Blue State mentality, we might as well kick the Constitution to the curb and start Balkanizing like Europe.
(Oh, wait, they are starting to come together and try and find ways to function as a single Union. Those crazy Europeans and their silly ideas…)
This story echoes my little Michael Crichton story wannabe. Never got around to trying to write it – way too much research.
Tim Lynch:
“Assumption #1: that there is a single “gay gene” that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme.”
Hi Tim.
You’re correct. After discovering the “gay gene”
we would have to determine if it would have dominance over the “not gay gene” and the “not gay, not straight, but instead bi gene.” I was going to mention that in a follow-up post, but you beat me to it. I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a “gay gene” would mean that everyone has it. How do you suppose the homophobes would react to that?
T.W.L.:
“1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said “gay gene” comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone’s intentions to the point of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an intriguing question.”
What you said.
Tim,
Welcome back. Been missing your contributions but babies will do that won’t they? It’s getting hard to even remember what it was like BC, isn’t it?
Assumption #1: that there is a single “gay gene” that can be isolated and tell you with unerring accuracy whether your child will wind up gay. Considering that (if memory serves) there are multiple genetic markers for something as simple as eye color, the odds of there being a single G-Marks-the-Spot location for homosexuality strike me as extreme.
I’m not assuming anything beyond the likelihood that there exits genetic components that create predisposition to homosexuality. So no, the discovery of such a marker would not be any more a certainty of the child’s eventual sexual orientation any more than the markers for alcoholism or musical talent guarantee that this will be the childs actual destiny. You could have every possible predisposition to alcoholism but if you are raised as a strict Amish you will never be an alcoholic. There are tons of kids starving in Africa who could be child prodigies on the violin; doesn’t really matter since the poor kid won’t ever get to hold one.
If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it’ll be used. I don’t think that’s too unlikely. GATTACA ain’t too far off.
Assumption #2: that “pro-choicers” not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill’s trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I’m trying to behave myself.)
I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically (that would be the a better description of the posters who are scratching their heads wondering how it’s possible that any republican could be against aborting gay fetuses since we all KNOW that all republicans want to kill as many gay people as possible blah blah blah)
What I said was “At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric.” I think it’s pretty clear that I’m distinguishing between the ones who take the position and the ones that don’t. So where am I claiming that the pro-choice side thinks monolithically???
I usually try very carefully not to make broad generalizations about people so it’s especially flummoxing when something I say gets interpreted that way.
And as I’ve mentioned, I don’t think it’s the guys idea to “trap” the pro-choice side, just stir up some trouble between two groups that the Democrats absolutely MUST hold on to. Don’t be surprised if some future smart Republican leader introduces legislature that will pit animal rights activists against AIDS activists. The Democrats could easily do some of the same but I’ll leave it to others to make those suggestions. 🙂
“1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said “gay gene” comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone’s intentions to the point of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an intriguing question.”
Absolutely true, which is why it might pass. Even pro-choice politicians might be tempted to play up to their gay constituents and they may feel that since the law won’t actually be enforced it’s a no-lose situation. I believe that India had passed a law against the use of abortion for sex selection. It hasn’t worked but it HAS certainly weakened the hand of the pro-choice feminists who suddenly found themselves lobbying for it.
“2) Those on the pro-choice side aren’t the only one with a catch-22 here. I’d love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with … oh … Rick Santorum.”
I’ll bet you get your wish and I’ll bet Santorum will say something to the effect that he would oppose any abortion on a child just because they are gay. He’ll come off as a good guy. Sorry to disappoint my blue state friends but the “Let’s round up the gays and kill them” lobby isn’t a very big one. I don’t know if the “hate the sin love the sinner” crowd mean it when they say it but that’s what they say. And so will he.
3) I will say flat out that I wouldn’t support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say “but only if it’s choices we agree with.” Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hëll, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.
Agree 100%. Surprised?
Sorry, I just don’t believe that it’s as simple as “Gay/Not Gay”. Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality–I think that that’s been pretty definitively established. Even among those persons, some consider themselves gay and some don’t (and never will). Others enjoy a homo- or bi-sexual lifestyle with no genetic predispostion.
As to a woman’s right to an abortion; what rights do we have that are completely absolute? Why should this be any different? I believe that medically necessary abortions should be allowed–after that, I’m ambivalant. I don’t think that makes me a hypocrit–others may disagree.
Welcome back. Been missing your contributions but babies will do that won’t they? It’s getting hard to even remember what it was like BC, isn’t it?
Oh, those memories are long gone…
I’m not assuming anything beyond the likelihood that there exits genetic components that create predisposition to homosexuality.
Boy, if that’s all, then the proposed law gets REALLY absurd. When we start worrying that Person A *might* consider an abortion because of some slightly-higher-than-average likelihood that their kid *might* be gay, we’re into serious “dude, you’ve got too much free time if this is what you worry about” territory. Sure, it’s interesting to speculate, but it’s hardly worth a dispute at this stage…
If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it’ll be used.
Not by most people, I’d wager. I certainly wouldn’t use it — I probably wouldn’t even with a 90% predictive rate.
Assumption #2: that “pro-choicers” not only think monolithically, but are so blitheringly stupid as to let themselves get caught in this bill’s trap. (I could come up with all kinds of rude retorts here, but I’m trying to behave myself.)
I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically
Not explicitly, no, but I think
“we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. “
implies it rather strongly. It implies that pro-choicers are both monolithic and hypocritical.
If that’s not what you meant, my apologies, but then I’d like a clarification. (The “at the very least…” bit you mention later came after this statement, BTW.)
1) This is a completely unenforceable law, unless the discovery of said “gay gene” comes hand-in-hoof with a major advance in telepathy. How anyone expects to be able to discern someone’s intentions to the point of “beyond a reasonable doubt” is an intriguing question.
Absolutely true, which is why it might pass. Even pro-choice politicians might be tempted to play up to their gay constituents and they may feel that since the law won’t actually be enforced it’s a no-lose situation.
Not anyone who’s been in politics for long enough, no. I do think they’d see it as a “trap”, and I think they’d see it as such quite correctly. Anyone incapable of explaining why an unenforceable law shouldn’t be enacted is someone I’d just as soon vote out of office anyway, thanks.
2) Those on the pro-choice side aren’t the only one with a catch-22 here. I’d love, love, LOVE to see someone discuss this law with … oh … Rick Santorum.
I’ll bet you get your wish and I’ll bet Santorum will say something to the effect that he would oppose any abortion on a child just because they are gay. He’ll come off as a good guy.
And if the questioner has any combination of brains and balls, there will be innumerable followups dealing with a lot of Santorum’s past statements linking homosexuality to all sorts of criminal behaviors, not to mention lovely things like bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
Now, this undoubtedly shows that I still maintain too much unjustified faith in the media to ferret out some truths, but I still like to think it’s possible. Hëll, give me a credential and I’ll ask the SOB myself.
3) I will say flat out that I wouldn’t support this law. One cannot be in favor of choice and then say “but only if it’s choices we agree with.” Would I disapprove of this particular choice? Hëll, yeah. Would I personally wind up shunning someone who made it? Possibly. Would I make it illegal? No.
Agree 100%. Surprised?
Not especially. Surprised?
TWL
Brian Duprey and Rush Limbaugh are about 25 years late. This idea has already been run. When gay groups were trying to ram down this “born gay” crap in the 80’s, some big religious organization (I think it was Heritage USA) offered to pay for the research to prove them right. The reason, of course, was to then find a “cure.” How you can cure what people decide to do with their various body parts later in life, I have no idea.
JamesLynch:
“I’m always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America.”
And yet is still portrayed as being so cool and funny by TV, movies, magazines, etc. People choose to be drunks, thieves and rapists, too, and all of those things are pretty universally condemned. If you take away the pampered conveniences of modern life, and all of the media influences, you’ll see that homosexuality is a choice… heterosexuality is an instinct.
Andrew W. Laubacher:
“Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality–I think that that’s been pretty definitively established.”
By what? The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut? The most limpwristed goth-fág dude I ever met, was also the biggest horndog.
There is no “gay gene.”
Powell, if homosexuality isn’t an instinct, then how come homosexual behavoir has been observed in over 400 different species in the animal kingdom? Does murdering your neighbor’s children not qualify as instinct because animals do it?
I am being facetious here, but your declaring that homosexuality isn’t instict or that there isn’t a “gay gene” doesn’t make it so. You have to provide scientific proof that the gay geen doesn’t exist. And saying that it hasn’t been identified doesn’t mean it don’t exist! The sexual behavior we engage in is a choice, the desire is biological.
Part II
To answer your question about the “established by what?”, then read the twin studies published in peer-reviewed journals and you will see that there is genetic evidence for homosexuality, even thought the exact genes are unknown.
Daniel
“Happy to know that the day will never come when a person can just declare something and it becomes scientific fact.”
I always get here too late and invariably someone else says what I want to say only more eloquently than I probably would have. So nuts to all of you who came first.
My little bit: I get a little discoureged by the pharse woman’s right to choose. I think “parent’s” right to choose would be better. And I get that most often women are forced to make the desicion alone (and that sucks on so many levels I don’t want to get into it), and maybe it’s only semantics, but it still gets to me.
“I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a “gay gene” would mean that everyone has it.”
I don’t see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn’t mean we all have it.
“Yes, some people are born with a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality–I think that that’s been pretty definitively established.”
By what? The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut? The most limpwristed goth-fág dude I ever met, was also the biggest horndog.
There is no “gay gene.”
I don’t get your point. Being gay has nothing to do with “The way somebody walks, dresses, or gets their hair cut”. It has mostly to do with having sex with your own gender.
The gay gene or genes has NOT been proven, but the evidence, I think, strongly leans that way.
JamesLynch:
“I’m always amazed that people think homosexuality is a choice. How many people would choose a lifestyle that is condemned by the Bible and several major religions; that has very uphill battles for marriage, adoption, and legal rights for the partner; and that, as the last presidential election showed, is incredibly divisive and largely homophobic in America.”
And yet is still portrayed as being so cool and funny by TV, movies, magazines, etc. People choose to be drunks, thieves and rapists, too, and all of those things are pretty universally condemned. If you take away the pampered conveniences of modern life, and all of the media influences, you’ll see that homosexuality is a choice… heterosexuality is an instinct.
But you can find gays in places where being gay will get you killed. There’s no Will & Grace in Saudi Arabia. It’s beyond silly to think that such a fundamental desire as which gender you prefer could be heavily influenced by the media. Golden Showers could be the Next Big Thing but it won’t ever appeal to me ever ever ever. I don’t care if everyone in Hollywood does it. (I also wouldn’t be surprised).
If the tests can predict homosexuality to around a 25% or better predictive rate it’ll be used.
Not by most people, I’d wager. I certainly wouldn’t use it — I probably wouldn’t even with a 90% predictive rate.
I wouldn’t expect YOU to do it even at a 100% rate–what would be the point?
I would be willing to find out if my kid to be had any predispositions to health problems or, on a more positive note, special genius in some area–just so I could be on the lookout for things. If my kid was likely to be diabetic I’d make sure they were monitered for it at a higher rate than a kid who has no such issues.
Since I don’t consider homosexuality to be a “problem” for anyone other than those who make it so, I have no reason to look for it.
I never said anything about all pro-choicers thinking monolithically
Not explicitly, no, but I think
“we will see the truth about those who claim to be pro-choice. “
implies it rather strongly. It implies that pro-choicers are both monolithic and hypocritical.
If that’s not what you meant, my apologies, but then I’d like a clarification. (The “at the very least…” bit you mention later came after this statement, BTW.)
Ok, I can see where that might have come across that way. I was thinking of the second sattement but the first one wasn’t clear.
I think it would be incredibly hypocritical to allow abortions for any reason other than to not have a gay kid, as appalling as that choice would be. I can understand how some gays might feel differently and I suspect it could well weaken support for abortion rights for a significant percentage of the gay community.
To those people, the politicians who oppose the law will be supporting gay genocide (obviously that’s an extreme position but these are issues that bring out extreme positions).
“And if the questioner has any combination of brains and balls, there will be innumerable followups dealing with a lot of Santorum’s past statements linking homosexuality to all sorts of criminal behaviors, not to mention lovely things like bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
Look, I am no Santorum fan so I don’t like having to defend him in any way shape or form, but as I recall he was saying something to the effect that if the Supreme Court says you can’t legislate against homosexual acts then you could also argue that they can legislate against other acts, like incest or bëšŧìálìŧÿ. There’s a kernal of validity in that. (Other than moral and religious grounds, why should incest be illegal? Pointy headed offspring? Easily solvable with a simple sterilization. And gay incest would obviously have no danger of procreation so what would be the problem?)
(EDITORS NOTE- I’m not advocationg eliminating laws against incest).
Santorum stated after the initial controversy ” “I am a firm believer that all are equal under the Constitution. My comments should not be construed in any way as a statement on individual lifestyles.” he’ll say the same thing here. Much as I’d LOVE to see you interview the guy, I suspect it wouldn’t go as well as you think. He’d be smart enough to take the high ground and talk about protecting gay babies (safe in the knowledge that this law will do no such thing).
Agree 100%. Surprised?
Not especially. Surprised?
Nah, I knew I’d eventually get you to think just like me. A simple combination of brilliant arguments combined with sleep deprivation…works every time. 🙂
For those interested:
1) I consider myself very liberal, very far left.
2) I think that this entire discussion is specious (without merit.) Why? Because, (and I’m taking a human sexuality class right now which involves biology among other issues) I think that the entire idea of a “gay gene” is bad science. If any professional geneticists would like to pop up and tell me that I’m wrong, I’ll apologize.
Short version: Human sexuality is very complex. Nature vs. Nuture arguments alone do not explain all of the variety. Is someone born gay? Bisexual? Heterosexual? Other? I don’t know. I used to be convinced that it was solely genetic, now I just try to avoid simplifications.
Bottom line: Abortion isn’t ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening. If you can think of a way to eliminate all rape (and I don’t say, “rape and incest” because, for the most part, incest is usually a form of rape) faulty birth control, and I have no idea what else, we’re never gonna rest this issue. I’m pro-choice because history tells me that outlawing abortion leads to far more harm than good. Untill we ever find a way to install a foolproof “switch” in every human being (“I want to be fertile right now, produce sperm, or not”) that lets us make sure that we only have pregnancies when we want them, I see no happy endings.
See you around,
Jon
“If you can think of a way to eliminate all rape (and I don’t say, “rape and incest” because, for the most part, incest is usually a form of rape) faulty birth control, and I have no idea what else, we’re never gonna rest this issue.”
That should have read “Unless you can think of a way…”
Ðámņ typos
Bill Mulligan:
“The gay gene or genes has NOT been proven, but the evidence, I think, strongly leans that way.”
WHAT evidence? The “1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality?” Bah. There were so many leaps of logic in there. How many twins are gay, and vice-versa? Freud’s analyses in the 50’s were not only more in-depth and better presented, they were more applicable to everyone, not just twins.
But so what? Thomas Jefferson wrote book that is still considered historically significant, despite including a lot of the same rhetoric as the Bell Curve about the mental superiority of whites over blacks. Were either one of those “studies” correct? No, I don’t think so.
vocalyz:
“Happy to know that the day will never come when a person can just declare something and it becomes scientific fact.”
The gay groups are the ones making the declaration that some people are “born gay.” They’ve provided no convincing data, and balked at accepting moneys from opposition groups to conduct serious study. If there’s a “gay gene” that pre-determines what a person will find sexually attractive later in life… gah, that is just stupid on so many levels. But like a life after death, I’ll believe it if I see it.
Jon:
“I think that the entire idea of a “gay gene” is bad science.”
I agree. It’s most often used by gay groups to try and attain special privileges by riding the wave caused by the Civil Rights movement that so many blacks fought so hard for. But now this Republican jáçkášš in Maine is trying to turn the “gay gene” pseudo-biology around and use it as a trap for the gay groups to undo Roe v. Wade. I bet he thinks he’s real clever.
If we adopt a law based on something Rush Limbaugh said on the radio, I’m leaving.
POWELL
“WHAT evidence? The “1992 Twin Studies of Homosexuality?” Bah. There were so many leaps of logic in there. How many twins are gay, and vice-versa?”
Actually, I haven’t read that particular study, so i can’t remark on any “leaps”. But, your response to it “suggests” that you don’t understand why studying the prevalence of something in a twin population is evidence. In short, and I mean in a REALLY basic simplistic manner, because monozygotic (i.e., twins from the same egg dividing) share 100% of their genetic make-up, and dizygotic (i.e., twins from two separate eggs) share on average 50% of their genetic make-up (if memory serves).
So, if the prevalence of homosexuality is greater in monozygotic (identical) twins than in dizygotic (fraternal) twins, we know that means there is a strong genetic influence.
The same is true if we find that homosexuality is greater in identical twins raised together than in identical twins raised separetly. In other words, nature CAN play a stronger role than nurture in these instances.
So, your personal disbelief that these are leaps of logic doesn’t change that it is scientific evidence in support of genetics influencing sexuality. It just demonstrates that you didn’t take the time to understand the science behind the logic to realize that it isn’t a “leap”. It’s an actual measure of genetics. It’s not a PERFECT measure, but we know from countless twin studies of biology that it is telling, fact-based evidence and not just conjecture.
Daniel
“Human sexuality is very complex.”
Well sure, but so is the human immune system and about 1000 other things with a genetic component. As I think I’ve mentioned, it is incredibly unlikely that there is a single gene that, if you have, bam, you’re gay.
There could be lots of factors, but, on the whole, the idea of a genetic component makes a hëll of a lot more sense than repeated viewings of The Birdcage or Shazam.
“Bottom line: Abortion isn’t ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening.”
But the problem is, we will have even more reasons in the future for a pregnancy to be unwanted.
Regrettable but inevitable. really, everyone, watch the movie GATTACA. Not perfect as a film but the premise will come true in our lifetimes and will utterly change the world. For better or worse, so we might as well face it and try to make it for the better.
Hey, is it me or has Chris Rock been less funny so far on the Oscars than he’s ever been? Worst. Show. Ever.
I saw some of Rock’s opening monologue. Not his ‘A’ material for sure, but he was probably sanitized by the network to be non-offensive.
And I love Chris Rock. I almost drove off the road once listening to a comedy album of his.
I dunno, it’s just a bad fit, Rock and the Oscars. And is it me or did the movies and actors just get smaller…the last few years had the Lord of the Rings trilogy to keep things great but this year…yow. I may actually go to sleep on time tonight.
“Bottom line: Abortion isn’t ever going to go away untill unwanted pregnancies stop happening.”
“But the problem is, we will have even more reasons in the future for a pregnancy to be unwanted.”
Perhaps, but in this case (the current law proposed) I think that it is almost a non-issue. Many people base both their opposition to abortion and their opposition to homosexuality based on religious grounds. We already have so many reasons that a person might want to get an abortion (such as places that want to abort a female baby to try again for a male) that I don’t see too much of a change in the abortion debate. As long as there is a coat hanger in the world (or sulfuric acid, or poison, or blows to the stomach, or one of the many things desperate women used when abortion was illegal), and unless we turn the world in 1984 with hidden camera and police everywhere (not if I can help it) any women that wants an abortion for any reason, and is willing to take the risks involved, can have one. That’s one of the reasons I think laws against abortion don’t work well for those who call themselves pro-life or pro-choice. What will cut down on most abortions? Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. What is the best way to do that? From what I have read, the best results come from sex education that is comprehensive (not abstinence only, which is what many religiously based pro-lifers want; I believe that the evidence shows that leads to more unwanted pregnancies than comprehensive sex-ed) more programs for young girls (sports, honors society, etc.) that give them the sense of self-worth and self-confidence to say no to a pressuring boyfriend, and I don’t really know what to do about pregnancies caused by rape (incest or not) and the mother’s life being in danger, except in the second case, wait for medical science to improve.
“Regrettable but inevitable. really, everyone, watch the movie GATTACA. Not perfect as a film but the premise will come true in our lifetimes and will utterly change the world. For better or worse, so we might as well face it and try to make it for the better.”
I liked the movie a lot, but I’m not sure how predictive it will be and I’m not sure how much of it will be bad. One of the points of the movie is that science isn’t omniscient, and that just because, “genetics say this person is class-A and this person is class-B” that a person’s life isn’t set at bith. If I had access to one of those labs and could make sure that my kid would be much less likely to get some horrible disease by using gfenetic engineering, I’d do it.
What will happen in the future? Short term: Some will always have ethical objections to new technology (the “faith-birthers”) some will always abuse and misrepresent it (eugenicists, racists, the heavily misguided, the power seekers, and the hate filled) and some will use it wisely (the healers, and those that know to try new “improvements” slowly, if at all.)
On the whole, I think that technological change has increased the human life span, the amount of work and time we have available (for things such as ethical ponderings as opposed to just surviving) for the better. I think that the future will probably be much better than the past if we embrace it optomistically, cautiosly, and wisely.
Personally, I wish I was born again today (physically, not religiously =) so that I’d have more time and a better chance to get those moon colonies/space ships/alien contacts/star trek/voltron/babylon 5 futures that I wanted growing up.
Ah well. C’est le vie.
And in the future, I hope that I learn to communicate *much* *more* *economically*!!!
“One of the points of the movie is that science isn’t omniscient, and that just because, “genetics say this person is class-A and this person is class-B” that a person’s life isn’t set at bith. If I had access to one of those labs and could make sure that my kid would be much less likely to get some horrible disease by using gfenetic engineering, I’d do it.”
true on both points, but even now, if you had to choose between 2 applicants for a job and one was said to be unusually intelligent and creative, you’d probably go with that person. But you’re only going on reputation or impressions gained from a brief encounter. When we can get a reasonably good “read” on a person from a genetic fingerprint it’ll be the way people get hired. Sure, a few gifted people without the right profiles will be missed but 99 times out of 100, the profiles will be useful.
And yeah, I would do anything I could to maximise my children’s chances at happiness. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with in vitro fertilization and if one COULD know what each fertilized egg would become there would be nothing intrinsically wrong with choosing the one most likely to become the healthiest, smartest, best looking person. But theer WILL be serious problems that will result from all this, not the least of which is that the wealthy will not only be richer than most of us, they will also become smarter, healthier and better looking with each generation, while the underclass will fall even further behind.
Anyone got a suggestion for an Oscar Drinking Game? I’m getting bored…
The only thing that would be worse than making all these poor nominees line up on the stage while they announce the winner would be if a trap door opened up beneath the losers and they plunged into a pit of vipers.
David Letterman must be a happy man tonight.
At the very least, the pro-choicers who take that position will have to change their rhetoric.
Again, you’re assuming some kind of monolithic rhetoric that “they” have.
And if we ban testing for the gay gene while allowing it for the sex and genetic health of the child, doesn’t that send a message to women and the handicapped that while they are fair game for pre-natal elimination, homosexuals are more important?
Don’t ask me. Ask the guy who’s proposing the bill.
The fact that we are having this discussion means that Mr. Duprey has achieved his goal; stirring the pot, making his adversaries uncomfortable.
Really? So discussion implies uncomfortability? I for one am no more or less perturbed with Republicans or their agenda than I was before reading this.
I don’t know whether this guy is a political genius
I’m sorry, but how high are your standards of intellect if you think that managing to upset some people qualifies as genius?