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
• 
Bill,
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.
Well, sure — I would as well (and in some ways did, or at least agreed to the idea; that’s what all that genetic testing for pregnant women is about, after all). But homosexuality is neither a health problem nor a special genius, folks like Oscar Wilde to the contrary (possibly in both cases).
I know you agree with that, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing these up as examples.
On the “pro-choicers thinking monolithically” question…
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.
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.
That I can agree with, though I’m not sure it’s as strong an issue as you make it out to be, especially in the here and now. After all, since (as you pointed out) some cultures are still in the habit of doing abortions for sex selection, one would think that might weaken support for abortion rights among those devoted to women’s rights. I haven’t seen any sign of such.
Look, I am no Santorum fan so I don’t like having to defend him in any way shape or form,
No one’s forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you’d rather not be defending.
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.
If someone other than him were making the argument, perhaps — but given many of his other statements on the issue, it was a very clear attempt to link the activities in the minds of the audience. Context is important.
[Now, if you want to get into questions of incest or polygamy, since the latter also tends to come up, I’m game … but it seems a bit far afield for this.]
Rest assured, if I were actually in a position to interview Santorum I’d do a lot more research than I’m in a position to do at present. Plus, if you don’t like Santorum as an example, there’s no shortage of other loonies to choose from. Feel free to substitute in “Tom Coburn” or “Tom DeLay” (or Jesse Helms / Bill Dannemeyer if you’re willing to dig into past folks in power).
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).
You’re welcome to believe that. Given the documented cases of him basically flipping out when confronted with gay-friendly audiences, I’m inclined to believe otherwise.
I knew I’d eventually get you to think just like me.
Um. Yes, well.
To quote Susan Ivanova…
I’ll have you know I’ve been nothing but compassionate and understanding, I mean all you have to do was admit that you were wrong and I was right and everything would’ve been fine.
🙂
TWL
who’s missing the Oscars entirely this year, and not especially broken up about it
Me:
“I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a “gay gene” would mean that everyone has it.”
Bill Mulligan:
“I don’t see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn’t mean we all have it.”
Hi Bill,
Please clarify… When you say, “doesn’t mean we all have it” are you refering to cystic fibrosis or to a gene that makes us suseptible to it?
I know you agree with that, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing these up as examples.
Just to show my objection is not to pre-natal testing in general, even to the point of GATTACA type prognostication.
After all, since (as you pointed out) some cultures are still in the habit of doing abortions for sex selection, one would think that might weaken support for abortion rights among those devoted to women’s rights. I haven’t seen any sign of such.
I think it was Indian feminists who led the fight to outlaw using abortion for gender selection, so I’d say their support for abortion rights took a hit (I am, however, assuming that feminists in India were ever abortion supporters to the degree that most American feminists are).
Since in this country there seems to be a slight preference for girls among those who go to the trouble of using in vitro to bump the odds up for a specific gender, I don’t see this becoming a big issue. Thank God, the Asians are gonna show the world some day what a disastrous mistake it is to screw around with the usual 50/50 male/female ratio.
No one’s forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you’d rather not be defending.
Thank you. I try to be fair, even to those I may disagree with. It’s how I was raised.
Wait, that WAS supposed to be a compliment, right?
If someone other than him were making the argument, perhaps — but given many of his other statements on the issue, it was a very clear attempt to link the activities in the minds of the audience. Context is important.
You may be right, though he could easily deny it. I should think SOMEONE will ask Santorum, Helms, et al about this at some point soon, so we should find out who’s right (And remember, I have no idea what they REALLY believe, lack of telepathy and all, I’m just saying that they will officially come down on the side of the little gay babies. I’d bet on it.)
Mitch
“I was also going to add the best part: Discovering a “gay gene” would mean that everyone has it.”
Bill
“I don’t see why. Discovering the gene for cystic fibrosis doesn’t mean we all have it.”
Hi Bill,
Please clarify… When you say, “doesn’t mean we all have it” are you referring to cystic fibrosis or to a gene that makes us susceptible to it?
Oh I see now–yes, you’re right, if we find a gene for gayness it means we all have the potential to have been gay. But this won’t phase the people who say it is not genetic–they seem to think it’s a choice, which must mean they could have chosen it and chose not to. I never got that since I never remember any point where there was choosing involved. One day, breasts became very interesting, that was pretty much it. Didn’t have to sign a form or anything.
hey, btw, has anyone ever determined just what it is that makes us right or left handed? Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?
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.
Actually, I just read an article tonight that there are administrative laws in China that ban ultrasounds to determine the sex of the baby unless medically necessary.
Some lawmakers in China now want it to be a criminal act to abort a child due to the sex of the child, specifically because of the now-imbalance between the number of girls and boys born in the country.
The article said, nationally, there are 117 boys to every 100 girls. In some rural areas, that number is 150/100.
It currently protects a woman’s right to choose on a federal level, but overturning it does not outlaw abortion.
Except, once Roe vs Wade is overturned, Congress can sweep in and make a law that effectively bans abortion.
So, with one leading the other, I’d say that people aren’t far off when they say that striking down Roe vs Wade will cause abortions to be banned.
To adress ‘and so forth’ I think I first need to clarify ‘finding cures.’
That the religous and conservatives of this country would use the ability to abort a ‘gay’ fetus will be the “cure” to the “gay problem” – you prevent gays from being born, you have no gays in the future to persecute.
Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?
Well, that’s a fun little question, isn’t it?
The only member of my family who’s left handed is one of my brothers. As far as I know, he’s the only southpaw in my extended family too (5 aunts and uncles and a dozen or so cousins).
I can’t explain it in any way, shape, or form. 🙂
Bill Mulligan,
“Hey, is it me or has Chris Rock been less funny on the Oscars than he’s ever been.”
It’s not just you. I admittedly only started watching from Best Actress onward, but he was remarkably muted. It’s hard to be funny when you don’t say anything or even – as the late great Carson did – make faces and react to things. From what I saw, he was just there. He introduced who had to be introduced and that was it.
Very lame.
I was definitely disappointed.
Where are Billy Crystal or Steve martin when you need them?
And what does it say about an oscar telecast when the HIGHLIGHT were the speeches?
If they cut them off, I would have rated them the show and F. As it was, I give t a D-/
Zzzzzzzzzz………
“Actually, I just read an article tonight that there are administrative laws in China that ban ultrasounds to determine the sex of the baby unless medically necessary.”
But few Chinese can afford such things. I suspect the imbalance is more likely due to low tech reasons (gulp). The best case scenario is that it’s due to all the girls who are adopted out of the country (but then why do the Chinese allow it?).
Bill,
No one’s forcing you, big fella. You do seem quick at times to defend those you insist you’d rather not be defending.
Thank you. I try to be fair, even to those I may disagree with. It’s how I was raised.
Wait, that WAS supposed to be a compliment, right?
Under most circumstances, yes — I think it’s a much more positive trait than a negative one, and try to maintain the same sense of fairness myself.
When the people you’re leaping to defend are always on the same side of the aisle, however (and the one you always back away from when I or someone else refers to “your side”), it does start to take on a tinge of thou-doth-protest-too-much.
If I saw you leap to the defense of someone I know you really didn’t agree with much (the Clintons, say, or Ted Kennedy), then I’d certainly see it as nothing more than basic fairness at work.
I should think SOMEONE will ask Santorum, Helms, et al about this at some point soon, so we should find out who’s right (And remember, I have no idea what they REALLY believe, lack of telepathy and all, I’m just saying that they will officially come down on the side of the little gay babies. I’d bet on it.)
Oh, I’m sure they’ll try to do so — my claim is simply that a good interviewer would break through that surface coyness and try to ferret out the real opinion underneath. We disagree on what those real opinions might be … but since the odds of the asker being competent enough to dig are slim anyway, we may not find out that particular answer.
hey, btw, has anyone ever determined just what it is that makes us right or left handed? Purely genetic or does it have some nurture components as well?
Well, both my parents are right-handed and both my brother and I are left-handed … so if someone does find out, I’d love it if they’d see fit to inform me. 🙂
TWL
Geeze, I feel like I’m being pilloried by one sound bite taken out of context (pilloried on the internet, now why should I be surprised?). When I mentioned my belief in a genetic component to homosexuality, I was thinking largely of studies of animal populations (wolves, for instance) in which homosexual behaviour was observed. Yes, humans are not wolves; but we are living creatures who share many genetic similarities. Anyway, I’m surprised that so many missed the main thrust (no pun intented) of my argument–that genetics alone do not determine behaviour. We are much more complicated than that.
Most people who don’t accept the genetic theory (nor should they, there is no “gay gene” but their MIGHT be something that influences a gene, so the oversimplification is wrong but what it is likily shorthand for may be true) don’t think it’s truly “a choice” rather that is shorthand for ‘conditioning’.
The idea being that someone doesn’t go from desiring females to desiring males overnight, but that through environmental influence same-sex is ultimately desired.
OR, the “choice” component is involked when influence (genetic or enviromental) is chosen to be acted upon, as a violent man chooses to murder someone – just because he’s prone to violence, doesn’t mean he didn’t make a choice in his behavior.
The only study that matters as far as I’m concerned is the study that determines if homosexuality harms the continuance of a successful, healthy society — and since no one will ever agree what successful and healthy comprise, no study matters. Better to just leave the matter between the individual and God and let them hash it out. 🙂
When the people you’re leaping to defend are always on the same side of the aisle, however (and the one you always back away from when I or someone else refers to “your side”), it does start to take on a tinge of thou-doth-protest-too-much.
If I saw you leap to the defense of someone I know you really didn’t agree with much (the Clintons, say, or Ted Kennedy), then I’d certainly see it as nothing more than basic fairness at work.
Well, you’re free to misquote either one any time. In my opinion, Santorum did not link homosexuality to bëšŧìálìŧÿ. There are certainly others who have–I’m drawing a blank here, who was the preacher who got caught with the prostitute? He made some statements that seemed to indicate that being gay was the worst crime one could commit, so you might get an interesting result there.
(Of course, these folks also believe that you can “cure” homosexuality with therapy so they should oppose aborting gay fetuses for that reason alone. Hëll, with the heads up from the geneticist they could start the heteroindoctrination early, with extra exposure to manly pursuits like Greco-Roman wrestling and dressing up like a cowboy.)
Obviously I can’t prove what is in my mind to you or anyone else. If someone wants to believe that I am a secret Santorum supporter–my several dozen pro-gay rights post part of some clever subterfuge–nothing I say will convince them otherwise. My offical line is that nothing I’ve ever seen of Santorum convinces me that he is anything but an ernestly empty suit. Not much there, there. That boy, I say, that boy reminds me of Paul Revere’s ride. A little light in the belfry. About as sharp as a bowling ball. Lower than a snake full of buckshot. Like beating a dead horse…he’s got no get up and go.
(Whenever I hear the “dost protest too much” I always flash back to the great Mary Tyler Moore show episode where she does that to Lou Grant.)
MARY: Methinks thou dost protest too much.
LOU: What did you just say?
MARY: I said I don’t believe you.
LOU: No, no, the other part.
MARY: Oh, Mr. Grant, that’s just an expression. You can’t repeat that.
LOU: Yeah, you can!
MARY: (self consciously) I said…methinks..thou dost…protest too much.
LOU: You thinks that dost you?! Well, let me tell thee something, Mary…
I’m not saying you’re a “secret Santorum supporter”, much as I might appreciate the alliteration — merely that it’s a lot more difficult to see you as even-handed when you only ever leap to the defense of one side. Just trying to clarify, though, not to belabor things.
And speaking of belaboring things…
In my opinion, Santorum did not link homosexuality to bëšŧìálìŧÿ.
Obviously you’ve got a right to said opinion and it’s unlikely I’ll be able to convince you otherwise … but I’m going to try one last time before we simply agree to disagree.
Here is the actual quote, with enough on either side to give (IMO) a realistic context:
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality
Yeah, he’s an idiot. No argument there and I’d rather not waste any more time on him. I can see your point and if you turn out to be 100% correct it won’t bother me a whit.
Incidentally, on the right/left hand thing–A study done shows that the chance for two right-handed parents having a left-handed child is 2%. One parent left-handed and the other right-handed makes it a 17% chance, and two left-handed parents having a lefty is 46%.
BUT– there is evidence of a “right hand shift” gene that influences handedness. People lacking it could go either way. Thus your parents could be right handed but not hardwired for it and the odds of two boys being lefties might be closer to 25%.
The bad news is that lefties have a surprisingly greater likelihood of all kinds of afflictions. I suspect it’s the price of living in a world where everything is constructed for righties. The paucity of left hand screwdrivers and hammers is an inequity that should be addressed.
The bad news is that lefties have a surprisingly greater likelihood of all kinds of afflictions. I suspect it’s the price of living in a world where everything is constructed for righties.
Even if that’s not the sole reason, I certainly agree with you that it’s a huge one. (I also tend to use left-handedness as the reason my handwriting is so dreadful, but my brother tends to put the lie to that one.)
The paucity of left hand screwdrivers and hammers is an inequity that should be addressed.
And let’s not forget the need for left-handed spanners!
TWL
You have to provide scientific proof that the gay geen doesn’t exist.
On the contrary, the burden is to prove a gay gene does exist. And the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it does not, at least not in the way most think of it. The lie that there is a gay gene is just that, a lie.
The human being is a very complex organism. Current evidence (not speculation) suggests that there would NOT be a specific gene that causes someone to have a given sexual orientation. In a very few cases where the DNA is messed up there are true genetic cases where you can track someone having too many X or Y chromosomes, and they therefore have some severe sexual problems. But that is not the case for *behaviorial* traits and is not the case with most people who are gay.
If there was a specific gene that made someone “gay,” then identical twins would both be gay almost 100% of the time. The reality is, the statistics are not even close. Why is that? It is because while genetics may play a role, they do not *determine* someones behavior or even their desires.
Regardless of whether you feel gay actions are right or wrong, having a gay orientation is not purely a matter of genetics. I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay. But neither is it genetically pre-determined. Instead, there is quite likely a combination of factors that make this a unique issue for each person. That is why you can have one person who makes a successful choice at 30 years old to change (to being either gay or straight) and some who have a desire to change but find themselves unable to do so.
Bottom line, after studying the evidence on both sides, I am convinced that there never will be a way to test “at or before birth” for a gay gene. Even current tests for other “risk factors” are far from absolute. To think we could be accurate with something that is far more complicated is absurd.
Iowa Jim
This is a very interesting discussion. I some ways, I tend to agree with Jim on this issue. Human sexuality is far too complex for any one gene or even a group of genes to wholly determine destiny. The nature vs. nurture argument reduces everything down to a simplistic either/or choice: Either someone’s genes or their upbringing causes sexual preference.
I find it more plausible (although I admit that I am by no means an expert on genetics or behavioral psychology) that there some combination of genes may predispose people to being gay but that there are environmental factors that play a role as well, which would explain why the number of identical twins who are both gay is not 100%.
Lifewise, environment alone can’t determine destiny. There have been studies of children who were genetically male but (due to defects and some surgery) were raised as female and nearly all of them grew up to be maladjusted emotionally and sexually.
I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that “made” them that way? Who knows? Arguments could be made for both.
A side note on that embarrassment to PA named Rick Santorum: Ever since it came out that he bilked a Pittsburgh-area school district out of $100,000 to send his kids to “cyber-school” even though they live in Virginia, I have no faith whatsover in his alleged integrity. From what I know of him, though, I think it’s likely that if someone told him that his wife was pregnant and the child had a greater than 25% chance of being gay, he wouldn’t allow her to have an abortion. But, from the moment of that child’s birth, it would be bombarded with anti-gay propaganda to the point of driving him or her to suicide.
There are many websites that talk about the lack of evidence for a gay gene. Here are a few:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
Obviously, future studies could find such a gene. But it goes against the current evidence to say there must be such a gene. As stated in my other post, I am inclined to believe that our sexual orientation is not so clearly pre-determined by our genetic code.
Iowa Jim
I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that “made” them that way? Who knows? Arguments could be made for both.
Den,
If you have the time, the second website I listed makes a very strong argument that it could be more environment than genetics.
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
Overall, I agree with you that there is probably some combination of factors. Genetics does play some role, I just don’t think it pre-determines the outcome.
I didn’t mention before, but I am against abortion, so even if a gay gene was found, I still would opposes abortion since it ends an innocent human life.
Iowa Jim
While I think that a genetic component to homosexuality will be found, I do agree that there are likely a wide variety of factors involved.
For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous. Anything that makes it less likely that the carrier will get to pass on his or her genes to the next generation should end up present in fewer and fewer individuals with each new generation. While nobody knows the exact percentage of gays in the population I don’t see any evidence that it was massively higher in the past and has decreased steadily over time.
A trait like left handedness, which seems to have a deleterious effect overall, might be retained if it is, as it seems, part genetic, part hormonal, part environmental (has there ever been a case of identical twins with different handedness?). And I suspect that being left handed only began to matter fairly recently–when we were hunter-gatherers it probably didn’t matter much which hand you held the spear in.
Andrew W. Laubacher:
“I was thinking largely of studies of animal populations (wolves, for instance) in which homosexual behaviour was observed.”
Oh, knock it off. Wolves exhibit “homosexual” behavior as a matter of establishing social dominance. Humans do the same thing with money and religion.
Iowa jim:
“I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay.”
I liken it to people who buy comics they don’t enjoy, don’t want to buy, but do anyway. They got into it at an early age, there was some enjoyment in there once, and they just carry on trying to re-live that memory.
Den:
“I personally know of two families where two out of three kids turned out to be homosexual. Now, is that proof of genetics or a common factor in the environment that “made” them that way?”
Getting a job instead of going to college, using drugs, “free love,” long hair, tattoos, dating other races, joining the military, listening to punk/metal/rap music… none of that is shocking any more. Being gay is the new way that kids rebel.
“Being gay is the new way that kids rebel”
Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I know I’m setting myself up for another “thinkest I doth protesteth to mucheth” but seriously, gang, if all the women vanished tonight, it would be a lifetime of celebicy for moi. I’m amazed WOMEN find men attractive. The idea that a straight kid would engage in gáÿ šëx just to torque off mom and dad is nuts!
Besides, most of the ones I’ve known have spent a lot of their lives trying to keep the folks from finding out about, which sort of defeats the whole purpose, rebellion-wise, doesn’t it?
Am I the only one who thinks this is insane? I know I’m setting myself up for another “thinkest I doth protesteth to mucheth” but seriously, gang, if all the women vanished tonight, it would be a lifetime of celebicy for moi. I’m amazed WOMEN find men attractive. The idea that a straight kid would engage in gáÿ šëx just to torque off mom and dad is nuts!
Bill,
I think the majority are like you. It would never happen in a million years. But there is a very sizable (and I would suggest growing) minority who would indeed do so. This is not just supposition. I know of this happening. I know of kids who try gáÿ šëx just to check it out. I know of others who think it is cool to be “omni” sexual. They just want sex. They don’t care with whom it happens. Which is why I do think being gay can be a deliberate, conscious choice in some cases. Guys who choose it are not normally exclusively gay, but many women openly state that they became lesbian at a later age (30 and older) and they remain that way.
Iowa Jim
Iowa jim: “I am not saying someone makes a deliberate, concious choice to be gay.”
Powell: I liken it to people who buy comics they don’t enjoy, don’t want to buy, but do anyway. They got into it at an early age, there was some enjoyment in there once, and they just carry on trying to re-live that memory.
Perhaps in some cases. A better analogy is of traits that are ingrained when a child is a young kid (toddler age and even earlier). These traits, combined with perhaps a genetic dispostion, could lead to early gay desires. As they are affirmed (or as a fundamental bond with the same sex parent is thwarted), the desire becomes very much ingrained. It was never a deliberate, concsious choice. But neither was it predetermined. And once sexual paths are burned into the brain, it is very difficult to change them. Sex is a very powerful human drive. So as the kid gets older, it would be very difficult to get out of the path that has been started.
The truth is, there has not been enough research yet to know. And the agenda to prove that homosexuality is genetic tends to stifle research into the environmental factors that could lead to a gay orientation.
Iowa Jim
“Being gay is the new way that kids rebel”
Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?
No. Not a’tall. I’m with you in being amazed that anyone finds men attractive (though I’d point out that you’re sort of excluding lesbians in your example).
I continue to be amazed by people who insist that being gay is somehow made “cool” despite the instances of discrimination, murder (cf. Matthew Shepard) and being made a political football.
For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Only if it occurs in isolation.
For an example that I’ve used here before, sickle-cell anemia has a genetic link. One chromosome with the active gene gives you a stronger-than-usual resistance to something (cholera, I think), but having the gene on both chromosomes gives you sickle-cell anemia and puts your life at great risk.
I believe cystic fibrosis works the same way, though I don’t recall specifics.
It could be that the “gay gene”, were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.
Jim — I very much doubt that women “became” lesbian at the age of 30 so much as that they recognized that their dominant desire was for women. I know several women personally who are in that category.
Women are just a lot more open about conflicting desires, that’s all — even in 2005, there’s much more of a stigma attached to gay men than to gay women. It’s not uncommon at all for teenage girls to experiment with same-sex activity, but I think it’s somewhat more so for boys — and they’re also a lot less likely to mention it.
TWL
And the agenda to prove that homosexuality is genetic tends to stifle research into the environmental factors that could lead to a gay orientation.
Sigh. I know I’m going to regret this, but … what exactly would be the point of this “agenda” you keep referring to? And who exactly has this “agenda”?
TWL
Spongebob, of course…
*sigh*
Sigh. I know I’m going to regret this, but … what exactly would be the point of this “agenda” you keep referring to? And who exactly has this “agenda”?
The agenda I refer to is to “prove” that being homosexual is the same as being born with black skin color. That it is stricly a matter of genetics, and therefore anyone (such as myself) who says homosexual actions are immoral and harmful to a person are bigots and ignoring scientific reality. Who has this agenda? Obviously those who fight for gay rights.
I have no problem with the fact that many feel homosexuality is acceptable just the same as they feel living together before marriage is acceptable. That is a moral judgment, and I would agree to disagree. We can debate the merits of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman being best for society and I understand not everyone would agree. I do have a problem when there is an unwillingness to actually look at the evidence. I do have a problem when people say it is impossible for someone to change. The fact is, there ARE people who have changed. They should not be forced to, but they also should not be lied to and told it is impossible.
Iowa Jim
(but then why do the Chinese allow it?).
Best guess? The fact that the Chinese are just big on wanting sons rather than daughters. Doesn’t sound like great reasoning, but that’s what you get when males have dominated most civilized societies since civilization began.
On the contrary, the burden is to prove a gay gene does exist
Interesting. Yet, there is no “burden” to prove that there is in fact a god. Go fig.
The agenda I refer to is to “prove” that being homosexual is the same as being born with black skin color. That it is stricly a matter of genetics, and therefore anyone (such as myself) who says homosexual actions are immoral and harmful to a person are bigots and ignoring scientific reality. Who has this agenda? Obviously those who fight for gay rights.
Um, only some of them. I fight for gay rights, and I frankly don’t give a rat’s patootie whether you believe it’s a function of genetics of a function of 10% of the population solely wanting to piss you off.
What I care about is whether your opinion can be used to discriminate against gay people or gay couples, whether we’re talking about hospital visitation rights or a host of other topics.
I don’t especially care whether you think homosexuality is immoral or not — as you say, we can simply agree to disagree on that. When you start asserting that your opinion is the one that should be the law of the land, however, then you can expect a fight.
Is it extreme to claim that homosexuality is purely genetic? Probably. It’s just as extreme if not more so, however, to claim that it’s solely environmental, and that seems to be the direction you’re heading for. You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out — but don’t expect me to value that opinion over that of reputable biologists.
Lovely thing, science…
TWL
“For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.”
Only if it occurs in isolation.
For an example that I’ve used here before, sickle-cell anemia has a genetic link. One chromosome with the active gene gives you a stronger-than-usual resistance to something (cholera, I think), but having the gene on both chromosomes gives you sickle-cell anemia and puts your life at great risk.
I believe cystic fibrosis works the same way, though I don’t recall specifics.
I’ve read that people with a single recessive gene for CF might have some immunity to certain forms of tuberculosis.
It could be that the “gay gene”, were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.
I considered that but I can’t see what that advantage would be. It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing but it still seems to me that this would not be enough to compensate for the lack of offspring. Evolution has only one definition for genetic success–producing as many children as possible that carry the gene. Superman, were he sterile, would be an evolutionary dead end, however impressive.
(Is there any evidence that homosexuality DOES increase in times where it might help to limit a population that has over stripped its resources? Shouldn’t parts of Africa have a lot of gays by this point if it were true?)
Iowa Jim is right on one point–I suspect that nobody wants to even research this can-o-worms. Witness the Larry Summers smackdown at Harvard–some subjects are just too much trouble to touch. Kind of a shame since the truth really does tend to set one free. (Not that extremists on either side will accept the answers that they don’t like but what the hëll.)
Powell Pugh writes: “Wolves exhibit “homosexual” behavior as a matter of establishing social dominance. Humans do the same thing with money and religion.”
Well, Mr. Pugh, at least you acknowledge that animals exhibit such behaviour. Numerous people live in utter denial of such things. I’m not sure how you can be so certain that homosexual behaviour in animals (not just wolves) never has a genetic cause.
As fascinating as this subject is, I will probably retire from the discussion at this time. My wife insists that I’m spending too much time on the computer.
You go TWL!
Bill asked: “Has there ever been a case of identical twins with different handedness?”
I don’t know the exact figure, but there is a high rate of opposite handedness among “mirror-image” identical twins. Unfortunately, the twins studies of homosexuality don’t seem to take this into account when measuring the occurrence of opposing sexuality in “mirror-image” twins.
In fact, I know a mirror-image twin who has many things in common with his twin brother, including those known (or strongly believed) to have a genetic predisposition. For example, they are both alcoholics, BUT they have opposite handedness. They also have VERY opposite sexuality (one is totally gay, the other totally straight). They are also both “gym rats” with really hot bodies.
Daniel
Oops, I should’ve edited my last post. I meant toi say it’s unfortunate that the sexuality twin studies didn’t take into account which twins with opposing sexuality are “mirror-image” versus those who aren’t.
My previous post messed that thought up…
Furthermore…
It’s been suggested that modern twin studies measure differences between identical twins with a common fetal sac versus those with separate sacs.
Daniel
“Furthermore…
It’s been suggested that modern twin studies measure differences between identical twins with a common fetal sac versus those with separate sacs.”
So identical twins can either be in one sac or in separate sacs? Fascinating, I was not aware of that.
This law may amount to nothing but the thread has been interesting.
“When we can get a reasonably good “read” on a person from a genetic fingerprint it’ll be the way people get hired.”
While I think that some (if not far too many) business will opt for this cop-out, my hope that a variety of factors prevent this:
1) Anti-discrimination lawsuits (in Gattaca they talked about getting around that, but I stil think that they will be an improtant factor.)
2) As public knowledge of genetics increases, what I hope is that many people (including human resources personnel specifically trained to recognize quality) realize the *limits* of genetics. in other words “You have to meet/judge the person because we have a ton of research that shows that a person’s ability isn’t set at birth, just a lot of their potential. Genetic tests won’t tell you whether or not this person studied their ášš off studying physics, psychology, whether they have a good work ethic, treat the customers right, etc. Genetics can only provide some probabilities. You have to interview the person and check their background to measure their skills.”
All of this is assuming that what little I know of genetics (at this time) is even true. it may be that bio-tech enginieering will let a person “build themsevles up” even after they are born and that there will be public assistance programs similar to the student grants/loans, welfare, and the bank loans we have now. (Are you poor? Can’t get a good job? Try Super-Genentech! We have various government tested and approved ability/intelligence boosts. Ask about our special deferred payment options! Just like buying a new car or getting a home mortgage! Pay us back easily with your new earning potential!)
Not exactly wonderful, but not exactly terrible either.
Tim Lynch:
“10% of the population”
What exactly are you referring to with this figure?
“You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out”
Again, what evidence?
For starters, it occurs to me that a single gay gene would probably be eliminated over time since it is evolutionarily disadvantageous.
Only if it occurs in isolation.
[snip]
It could be that the “gay gene”, were there a single one, provides an evolutionary *advantage* in the short term which offsets the tendency to have fewer offspring.
I considered that but I can’t see what that advantage would be.
Cystic fibrosis doesn’t have an advantage per se either. You’re looking at the result, not the gene. (Again, this is assuming that there’s a single “gay gene”, and we’ve both said that we think that’s unlikely.) The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the “disadvantage” of homosexuality.
This has gone into the realm of the hugely hypothetical, but I think the “if it’s genetic, then why haven’t gay people died off a long time ago?” argument is one worth addressing — there are possible answers.
It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing
Evolution doesn’t work that way. It’s not what’s best for the species, it’s what’s best for that individual. (I’m surprised to see you making that argument, actually.)
Iowa Jim is right on one point–I suspect that nobody wants to even research this can-o-worms.
I’d go along with that, though I wish you’d used someone other than Larry Summers as an example. Summers is just an ášš. (Not that this surprises me, given that he’s at Harvard. 🙂
TWL
“10% of the population”
What exactly are you referring to with this figure?
“You want to fly in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, you knock yourself out”
Again, what evidence?
You want to ask legitimate questions that further the discussion, my pseudonymous friend, you go right ahead. You want to ask rhetorical questions that make you look like a jáçkášš, that’s your call — but don’t expect responses.
TWL
Hey Bill. I got here late, but if noone else has responded to your comment about ‘if all women vanished’. You should read THE WORLD WITHOUT WOMEN by Virgilio Martini
It might be advantageous for the human race in times of famine to have fewer members reproducing
Evolution doesn’t work that way. It’s not what’s best for the species, it’s what’s best for that individual. (I’m surprised to see you making that argument, actually.)
Oh I know, I mentioned it only to point out an obvious possible advantage to homosexuality–I then said that I didn’t think that this possible advantage would make up for the decrease in progeny.
But at the same time, can we completely say that evolution does not ever work against the individual for the benefit of the species? Some have claimed that there is a genetic component to altruism, which encourages us to sacrifice our lives even for strangers (not sure I buy that argument). And you could argue that ants and bees have taken this to the ultimate extreme where the individual has evolved to give no thought to it’s own individual life so long as the hive survives (but again, I would argue that individual ants should be thought of less as individuals and more like cells in the body of the hive.).
The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the “disadvantage” of homosexuality.
That makes a lot of sense and would have the added benefit of meaning that people would be reluctant to mess too much with trying to eliminate the gene (though it is unlikely they would succeed anyway. I think Stephen Gould had an article on how the Nazis could never have had any success in eliminating recessive genes, even given their brutal methods).
Tim Lynch:
“You want to ask legitimate questions that further the discussion, my pseudonymous friend, you go right ahead. You want to ask rhetorical questions that make you look like a jáçkášš, that’s your call — but don’t expect responses.”
I’m not asking rhetorical questions. I really want to know. What did you mean by “10% of the population?” Do you even know? And what “evidence” are you referring to? If it’s so well-known, shouldn’t you be able to give a ton of links to it?
The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admitted to having participated in homosexual activities.
This percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups.
PAD
It’s just as extreme if not more so, however, to claim that it’s solely environmental, and that seems to be the direction you’re heading for.
Tim,
I very clearly stated that I DO suspect genetics play a role. My point is that they do not *determine* the outcome. I would also say that environment alone also does not *determine* the outcome. I think it is rare (though it does occur) that someone makes a concious choice to be gay. My guess (based on all of the solid evidence currently available) is that genetics, hormones while in the womb, environment, and very early patterns/thougths established in a child’s mind all weave together to form the individual in this area as they do with a host of other tendencies and traits that form our personalities.
Iowa Jim
Um, only some of them. I fight for gay rights, and I frankly don’t give a rat’s patootie whether you believe it’s a function of genetics of a function of 10% of the population solely wanting to piss you off. What I care about is whether your opinion can be used to discriminate against gay people or gay couples, whether we’re talking about hospital visitation rights or a host of other topics.
It goes without saying that not everyone who holds to a given opinion uses the same tactics to prove their opinion. Not all gay rights activists use this argument, but a very large number do.
Your statement about rights is one that we have gone around on before. I think gay couples and individuals have the same basic rights, so they should not be discriminated against. However, I don’t think saying marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman is discriminating against their rights. (I am sure you would diagree.) But on other matters, such as hospital visitation, I think there has been discrimination and that is wrong.
I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.
Iowa Jim
The notion that ten percent of the populace is gay stems from the Kinsey report in which one out of ten people interviewed admitted to having participated in homosexual activities.
This percentage is, of course, aggressively disputed by conservative groups.
You fail to mention that other reputable scientists who are not conservative also dispute the methodology and accuracy of these figures. And that other studies have failed to duplicate Kinsey’s results. But heaven forbid that real science should ever enter into this debate. Let’s just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research on the subject.
Iowa Jim
Bill,
But at the same time, can we completely say that evolution does not ever work against the individual for the benefit of the species?
Well, there’s certainly kin selection (as Lisa pointed out to me last night). You can have a trait that limits your own chances to reproduce while greatly increasing the chance that your close relatives can do so. That’s fairly well documented at this point.
On the level of whole species, however, I don’t think so — it would imply a certain Asimovian Zeroth Law of Evolution which I just don’t see.
The gene could carry some residual benefit, and a pair of them could result in the “disadvantage” of homosexuality.
It turns out that there’s even some current evidence for this. (Boy, I married well.)
Lisa was reading a paper a few weeks ago which noted an interesting connection. It seems that the heterosexual siblings of gay people tend to have significantly more children than heterosexual siblings of straight people. Now, whether that’s due primarily to genetics or environmental factors is yet to be determined (and an interesting question), but it looks like a very possible case of kin selection at work.
If anyone’s interested, I can try to find a link to the paper.
Jim:
Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.
(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)
Powell Pugh:
I’m not asking rhetorical questions. I really want to know.
Sure you do. That’s why you’ve named yourself after a fictional character who does nothing but stir up trouble.
Peter’s already addressed the 10% question, and as for “evidence”, you can read back through the thread, as the grownups involved have actually had some real discussions.
I’ll be happy to answer serious questions — but you can do your own homework assignments.
TWL
I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.
As you are welcome to do. Just as I maintain the right to call you bigots because of it.
Jim (since I’d only seen one of your posts when composing my previous reply):
Your statement about rights is one that we have gone around on before. I think gay couples and individuals have the same basic rights, so they should not be discriminated against.
Can you elaborate on which “basic rights” you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)
However, I don’t think saying marriage is meant to be a union between a man and a woman is discriminating against their rights. (I am sure you would diagree.)
Depends on what you mean by it.
As I’ve said before, I think the real issue is that the word “marriage” is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I’m concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word “marriage” — make ’em all civil unions. Mine, Peter’s, yours (if you’re married), those of my gay friends, etc.
Individual organizations could then decide which couples fit their own faith’s definition of marriage and act accordingly.
It ensures equal treatment under the law AND ensures that no religious body is being forced to sanction something they disagree with.
Would you have a problem with that particular solution? If so, can you explain why in such a way that doesn’t suggest you want your personal religious views made into law?
I know of very few conservatives who have an agenda to make homosexuality a crime, but we maintain the right to say homosexuality is wrong.
I don’t know of anyone who wants to take that right away from you. I maintain the right to say a whole bunch of things are wrong, including some things I’m sure you think are hunky-dory.
It’s when that “wrongness” takes on force of law that it becomes a problem. I don’t care if you believe gay friends of mine threaten the fabric of society — believe what you like and I’ll do the same. What I care about is the ways in which you’re allowed to act on that belief.
TWL
Fair enough, though if you think few people consciously choose to be gay I have to ask why you seem to play up examples of the occasional person making the conscious choice *not* to be.
Good point. I am saying they do make other choices that lead them to the point of having a gay orientation. If so, then it would seem possible that they could deconstruct those same choices and regain a heterosexual orientation. Change is possible, but depending on the string of choices that led to the orientaton, it may be very, very difficult. The genetics/hormones/etc. just open the door for some to be able to move in that direction, it does not in any way alone determine the outcome. Nor does it mean someone cannot change.
Should someone change? Obviously, I think they should since I believe homosexuality is not only wrong (yes, a religious conviction) but also harmful to the person (both a religious conviction and an observation of gay society).
(I also really wonder why the origin is so important beyond the interesting questions of science. Is your view of homosexual morality or your opinion of various gay-friendly or gay-bashing laws going to change depending on how homosexuality comes about?)
My comments about the origin of homosexuality come because it has been emphasized by others who use it to say homosexuality cannot be any more wrong than being right or left handed. Due to my religious convictions, I would still say it was wrong, even it if was proven to be 100% genetic. On the other hand, whether it is 100% genetic or 100% a choice, I do not hate anyone who is gay and would defend them from harm from others.
Can you elaborate on which “basic rights” you mean? (And I notice you link gay couples with INDIVIDUALS, which seems an odd distinction.)
The odd distinction was just being tired and writing things backwards.
The basic rights would be the right to employment, housing, protection from violent acts and violent words. (Obviously, I don’t think saying homosexuality is wrong qualifies as violent words. Standing on a corner and screaming that they are perverts does. There is room to disagree on issues and behaviors, but no room to belittle and threaten people.)
As I’ve said before, I think the real issue is that the word “marriage” is simultaneously used to refer to a civil/legal linkage and a religious/spiritual one. As far as I’m concerned, one of the best solutions would be to have the government get out of sponsoring ANY union with the word “marriage” — make ’em all civil unions. Mine, Peter’s, yours (if you’re married), those of my gay friends, etc.
I am not in favor of your solution, but I would prefer it to gay marriage. The reason is simple, and goes beyond just my religious beliefs. I believe marriage is a union with a purpose: to have and raise children. That does not mean everyone who gets married has to have children, etc. It simply is my conviction that the act of marriage came to existence (whether by God or human custom) for this purpose. To broaden it to include gay unions is to dilute a central purpose for marriage.
That being said, I could live with a civil union system as you describe IF that was the vote of the people and not a command from a judge. From a religious standpoint, I find God considering a man and woman married regardless of whether it happened in Israel or in the church. So your distinction is artificial to me. But your solution provides a clear protection that a church would not have to recognize a gay marriage if they did not believe it was right.
Based on listening to many gay activits, I don’t think your solution will be enough for some gay leaders. Their drive is to destroy my definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. By doing so, it would change society’s perception of homosexuality. So my concern is that your solution is a just a stepping stone to forcing a change in the definition of marriage.
Bottom line, there is a place where something is right or wrong, regardless of whether I believe so according to religious beliefs or some other moral standard. I think there are good reasons why gay marriage is not wise that have nothing to do with imposing my religion on someone else.
Iowa Jim
Let’s just assume that conservatives are idiots who have never even done 10 minutes of research on the subject.
Well, conservatives are idiots, I wonder how much research some of them have actually done, and, regardless, they’ll go for whatever results are skewed in their view.
Well, conservatives are idiots, I wonder how much research some of them have actually done, and, regardless, they’ll go for whatever results are skewed in their view.
Probably not the response you were expecting, but your comments actually gave me a good laugh since you are basically agreeing that I am right.
For what it is worth, I don’t think the same of liberals or others who disagree with me. Some fit that profile, but many (including some on this site) have been quite fascinating to talk to since they are intelligent and are critical thinkers.
Iowa Jim