Blame His Brother
Some people think the question of whether homosexuality is biologically determined has some bearing on whether it’s ok to discriminate against gays. Legally, there might be something there, but morally and socially, it’s all the same to me. Bigotry is never cool, even if you can twist up some limp rationalization for your hate.
The people that say gay people choose to be gay never identify the mechanism of that choice. They make it sound like there are guys who wake up one day and decide to fall in love with men. They make it seem like lesbians should just learn to love men. It’s a strange viewpoint, and those that hold it describe people so unrealistic that you wonder what kind of person thinks anybody else is wired that way.
Here’s another bit of evidence that homosexuality is all about the nature, not the nurture.
June 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Looks like another case of making the numbers fit the problem, but that’s just me. I also think 90% of kids diagnosed with ADD should be redesignated “boys will be boys, deal with it”. Unless they’re girls, of course.
As far as being gay goes, all I know is I didn’t have a chioce to be straight, I just am. So, if I didn’t have a chioce, why should I think a gay person did?
June 28th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
My one question, that nobody’s been able to answer:
Assume Darwin was right;
Assume homosexuality is genetic;
Why hasn’t it bred out of the species? Homosexuals didn’t reproduce, at least not very much, until the advent of artificial insemination. And even with that, they still don’t very much. So why are they still here?
I don’t have any answers, I just throw this question out to flummox folks.
June 28th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I’m not so sure this is a study that helps gays. According to this study, gays aren’t “born that way” in the sense that it’s an immutable genetic characteristic. It means that something has “gone wrong” during the pregnancy to cause their behavior.
If homosexuality is caused in part by damage produced by maternal antibodies during pregnancy, then that’s an environmental factor, not a genetic one. In addition, if this research is correct, then treating the pregnant mother with immunosuppressive drugs could potentially “cure” male homosexuality in the womb. Just as finding a “gay gene” will eventually allow parents to abort gay children before they’re born.
I’ve always said that gays and lesbians will rue the day they ever tried to link homosexuality to biology instead of behavior.
If homosexuality is a behavior, then the behavior can be decriminalized (as it was in the Lawrence decision).
But if it’s due to biological factors, then it can potentially be cured.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
” . . . lesbians should just learn to love men.” Yeah, both of them.
June 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Rustmeister, I like the way you put that last paragraph.
Heartless, there are natural selection advantages to homosexual behavior. Lots of species, including several primates, exhibit homosexual behavior, both sexual and nonsexual. There are lots of theories as to how this behavior helps selection, but it’s a controversial area. I don’t think anything like a consensus exists. It doesn’t help that results from some researchers in this area are maligned because the researchers aren’t heterosexual.
Holly, it doesn’t matter whether the factors are genetic or environmental if the environment in question is the womb. The point is they’re exogenous and determined before birth. For legal purposes, the point is that sexuality is a fairly immutable characteristic.
As for ‘curing’ homosexuality, if you look at it that way, you’ve already made your judgments. Defining homosexuality as aberrance sounds like math, but it’s a judgment call that confuses ‘normal’ with ‘normative’. It’s true that technology will soon give us lots of ability to make new choices about our childrens’ characteristics. But the choices are neutral. It’s only when you define homosexuality as deviation from a normative norm (as opposed to a mathematical mode) that it gets cast as a disease.
I predict we’ll see parents make all sorts of questionable choices for their kids. Some parents will abort or adjust their gay kids. Others won’t. It’s going to get ugly, but not because gays linked biology and gayness. It’s going to get ugly because mother nature linked them and people have new power to make nature bow to prejudice.
June 28th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
If the study is right, and they do identify a chemical that can “correct for” whatever imbalance occurs, then you can expect it will be marketed to women who have already had more than two boys. Although… how many women have more than two children these days?
Brutal Hugger’s point about “normal v. normative” is well taken but I suspect it will become “desirable v. undesirable.” Blonde hair and blue eyes are desirable to many; same for red hair and green eyes. If a way to make sure your kid will have them becomes possible it will happen.
As for the reproductive benefit, I think it derives from social factors, not individual ones. I remember a study done that showed that as the population densities of mice went up, the rate of homosexual behavior (defined as male mounting male) went up. Something to do with the numbers of males v. females and the availability of females. Homosexuality served as a relief valve, if you will, for pent up sexual energy; it kept male agression for mates from escalating to ever greater levels.
It survives genetically, IIRC, because the propensity is passed down the matrilineal side and not the male side. The mother has the “potentiality” and its possibility for expression can show up in any given child. Hence reproducing mothers will, on occasion, produce homosexual children.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Other research I have read also pointed to something environmental while still a fetus, so I’m not so sure about it being genetic, but homosexuality could be from the same process that gives up sickle cell, having the trait confers an advantage, but when both parents have the trait and they both pass it on to the child, boom, that kid gets the gene combo.
This is also a good argument for it being not genetic. If it was, a greater percentage of a homosexual’s siblings would be also homosexual.
OTOH, if were because of something simple like a mother’s poor diet while carrying a fetus, we would probably have it licked by now. It would also probably be classified as a “birth defect” too.
Actually I know a number of homosexual men older than myself who were married and had offspring. I’m assuming this rate will go down as being homosexual becomes more and more acceptable, as I’m guessing peer pressure caused them to marry in the first place, but I don’t really know.
From what I can tell from friends who are gay, growing up as a homosexual really sucks. I don’t think it’s a choice.
June 28th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
“As for ‘curing’ homosexuality, if you look at it that way, you’ve already made your judgments. Defining homosexuality as aberrance sounds like math, but it’s a judgment call that confuses ‘normal’ with ‘normative’.”
Is making judgements bad? Who says so? Isn’t saying that making a judgement is bad a judgement in and of itself? If so, isn’t it bad to say that making a judgement is bad?
We make judgements every day, there’s nothing wrong with that and anyone who says there IS something wrong with it is inherently a hypocrite (yes, that’s a judgement, get over it).
So we aren’t allowed to make judgements about what is acceptable (normal) and what is not? Why, then, do we attempt to cure other mental illnesses (bipolar disease, ADD, depression, schizophrenia)? Who are we to judge a person mentally ill and in need of treatment?
Yes, other mammals do exibit homo (or, more accurately, bi) sexual behaviors. Mammals also exibit the symptoms of other mental illnesses from time to time. Does that legitimize the behavor or symptom? If you say yes, aren’t you making a judgement? (sorry, had to throw that one in).
The bottom line is this: I personally couldn’t care less what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms as long as they aren’t violating anyone else’s rights or causing harm to another. With that said, homosexual behavior disgusts me and I’d prefer that they didn’t perform it in front of me.
Should it be illegal? Of course not, I don’t have any more right to be unoffended than anyone else. Does that mean that I don’t have the right to tell them that their behavior disgusts me or that I think they are behaving contrary to nature and God’s will? Of course not, they don’t have the right to be unoffended either.
Does that mean I hate them? NO! It means that I find their behavior distasteful and inappropriate. Should I have the right to bar them from employment in my company? Of course…their behavior may damage the reputation of my company and, thereby, my business. Do I have he right to refuse to associate with them? Of course…that is a basic freedom.
I’m not going to address the issue of gay marriage and adoption because that would take way too long to discuss adequately here. Let’s just say that I believe marriage to be a religious institution, not a governmental one. If the government got out of the business of rewarding specific personal choices (marriage for example) and punishing others (smoking for example), we would all be much better off.
“If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what ‘consenting adults’ do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it.”
–Thomas Sowell
June 29th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Holly, it doesn’t matter whether the factors are genetic or environmental if the environment in question is the womb. The point is they’re exogenous and determined before birth. For legal purposes, the point is that sexuality is a fairly immutable characteristic.
I think you’ve got your terms mixed up. Exogenous is something like environmental factors, such as lead exposure or fetal alcohol syndrome or tissue damage caused by maternal antibodies. Endogenous is something that is there to begin with, such as genes. Either way, the jury is still out as to whether sexuality preference is immutable. Furthermore, if homosexuality is due to something as simple as exposure to maternal antibodies or hormones, that doesn’t strike me as being either inevitable or irreversible. In fact, it might be quite easily prevented.
However, as I said earlier, trying to find a biological justification for homosexuality is actually the worst thing gays can do. It’s far better politically for them to make it an issue of personal choice and individual liberty, instead of claiming they were born that way and just can’t help themselves.
It’s true that technology will soon give us lots of ability to make new choices about our childrens’ characteristics. But the choices are neutral. It’s only when you define homosexuality as deviation from a normative norm (as opposed to a mathematical mode) that it gets cast as a disease.
I know I’m going to get grief for saying this, but in pure Darwinistic terms, homosexuality isn’t an advantageous mutation (assuming it is genetic). To be successful in evolutionary terms an individual must successfully reproduce. Strict homosexuals who do not produce offspring in effect become extinct because their genes have not been passed on to the next generation.
Which brings up an interesting paradox: Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality might have actually helped preserve and propagate the “gay gene”. Gays and lesbians of 1,000 years ago were forced to marry and live as straights in order to avoid persecution and to have some degree of sexual fulfillment, and thus they passed on their genes to the next generation and kept the characteristic alive.
But that’s assuming the theory homosexuality is genetic is correct, which is definitely undermined by the study you linked.
I predict we’ll see parents make all sorts of questionable choices for their kids. Some parents will abort or adjust their gay kids. Others won’t. It’s going to get ugly, but not because gays linked biology and gayness. It’s going to get ugly because mother nature linked them and people have new power to make nature bow to prejudice.
That’s an interesting position on abortion for a progressive such as yourself to take. Yet it does illustrate an uncomfortable reality for those who believe that homosexuality is genetic AND support the idea that a woman can do whatever she wants to her baby before it’s born. We already have babies aborted for being female or having Down’s Syndrome; it’s not at all far-fetched that we will see sexual-orientation abortions in the near future.
The ironic thing is, it won’t be the homophobic Evangelical Christians who will be lining up to kill their gay embryos; rather it will be the pro-choice left who already are comfortable with the concept of abortion for any reason that will take advantage of modern technology.
Perhaps that is why a surprising number of gays are pro-Life like Andrew Sullivan (or maybe not; Andrew changes his mind frequently). They understand what will happen when advanced embryology meets the absolute and unfettered Right to Choose, and they don’t like the results.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:23 am
I’m the third boy, so I’m in the 10% of that study. I’m not gay. Which – according to that study – makes me abnormal, no? Stupid study.
The homosexual people I know have an expectation of the *relationship* and their partners exhibit the behavior they find desirable. A gay male prefers his partner have certain strengths, but not some weaknesses. And a man may meet his desires. Kinda like a hetero male. Sexually, for at least half of the male gay partners, the orifice is the same – male or female. To the “pitcher”, it shouldn’t matter. My point is that it isn’t about the sex – it’s about the relationship.
My next opinion is probably going to wrankle some people here and I apologize for it in advance. I know that many people here are religious and that I am a guest here. But I wanna get some feedback on these thoughts:
Is it possible that people who believe that homosexuality is “wrong” it is because that is what the Church has taught for so many centuries? This is all they have heard – “being gay goes against God” – I’ve read many times.
I believe that the church has a clear interest in having members who procreate. They want members who have more children who can become future members of the church. Hence, there is a ban on birth control, masturbation, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality. None of these actions “increase the flock”. None bring more power and wealth to The Church. Even children out of wedlock are scorned because a single mom is less likely to have time and money to donate to the church.
But my most important point is that many of us believe it is “wrong” because of *our* training. Again, my apologies if this is inappropriate for this blog. If this comment gets deleted, I won’t be offended. But I would like to know if others have considered these angles.
Thanks
(p.s. Certainly the FedGov should have absolutely *nothing* to do with this topic.)
June 29th, 2006 at 6:15 am
Heck, look at the Shakers. They relied on conversion and adoption only.
June 29th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Sowell,
I don’t reason from natural law or religion. You seem to do both, which means we start from different premises. I don’t think we’re going to agree much here, so let me highlight something I very much agree with you on: I believe marriage to be a religious institution, not a governmental one. If the government got out of the business of rewarding specific personal choices (marriage for example) and punishing others (smoking for example), we would all be much better off. My ideal solution to marriage discrimination would be to get the gov out of the marriage business.
As for judgments, my point was not that judgment is wrong. My point was that there can be a lot of assumptions (or judgment calls) bound up in a phrase like “curing homosexuality”. Some anti-gay animus is driven by heteronormativity. Disliking gays because they don’t fit your world view of what’s normal confuses the normal with the good. I make judgments all the time. Here’s one: bigotry is wrong.
I agree with you that nobody has a right to go through life without being offended. If only homophobia manifested itself solely as rude comments! But denying somebody a job because her private bedroom behavior makes you feel icky is to me of rather lower priority than seeing her get a fair shot at earning a living.
Holly, yes, my terms were mixed up. Thanks for the correction. And abortion is a tough issue. People are going to abort or adjust to improve their odds of having their ideal children. It’s unfortunate, perhaps even wrong. I can’t say I see clearly through this morass.
As for Darwinism, there are lots of behaviors that don’t directly produce offspring but still promote the passing of genes. Check out the cool research on altruism. Not to say that being gay is like being altruistic, but just because homosexuals don’t pass on their own genes doesn’t mean gay behavior is a genetic dead end. It’s possible that homosexual behavior helps pass on genes by making it more likely for breeding relatives to pass on their genes. It’s an open field of research right now and we probably won’t really have any answers for a long time.
Anyway, as I said, the question of homosexuality being genetic or formed at birth doesn’t change the analysis for me. Bigotry is wrong, no matter how you slice it.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Strict homosexuals who do not produce offspring in effect become extinct because their genes have not been passed on to the next generation.
Evolution and extinction are both population-level concepts, so your analysis is flawed. The whole “homosexuals should be extinct” argument is a pacifier for people who can’t or won’t look beyond the superficial. Heartless is plainly wrong in his claim that “no one has been able to answer” his question. It has been answered and addressed many times from all sorts of angles.
Sociality and sexuality are such complex traits that the default assumption for analyzing this issue should be that all humans occupy a middle ground with the capacity for a spectrum of behaviors broader than any of the categories we define to describe that spectrum. The honest intellectual position is emotionally challenging; we are all bisexual.
July 5th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
First, I’m not Thomas Sowell, I’m Curtis Stone. I was quoting Thomas Sowell.
“If only homophobia manifested itself solely as rude comments! But denying somebody a job because her private bedroom behavior makes you feel icky is to me of rather lower priority than seeing her get a fair shot at earning a living.”
If they keep their private lives private, I would have no reason not to hire them now would I?
The bottom line is that no one has a right to a job. Everyone HAS a fair shot at earning a living. If they want to start a company that competes with mine and hires only gays (or hires anyone regardless of their sexual confusion), more power to them. That is their right…and when they run me out of business, they don’t have to hire me and “give me a fair shot at earning a living” because I have no right to a job either.
Life is not fair. Period. Sometimes people don’t get what they “deserve” and sometimes people get more than they “deserve”. With that said, however, the vast majority of us get EXACTLY what we deserve because we get what we have worked for, planned for and chosen for ourselves.
If I choose to take the risks involved, put the time and effort (and they are considerable) in, deal with the struggles and issues involved, and start my own business, then I am responsible for the decisions required to make that business a success…including whom to hire and whom to eschew. I do not start businesses for the good of mankind or society. I start businesses to make a living. Yes, I’m greedy. That’s what makes the capitalistic world go ’round. And that is also what ensures that qualified people get hired regardless of their sexual orientation…as long as their behavior does not negatively impact the business’ bottom line.
If someone doesn’t like my hiring practices, then they can do the same thing I’ve done (I’m not currently self employed, but I did run my own business for several years)…take the risks, make the investment in time, energy, capital and frustration, and start their own business. If they are lucky, work hard, plan correctly and manage well, they will be successful…and then they can choose to hire, or not to hire, whomever they please.
Or, if they aren’t motivated enough to start their own business, they can picket mine and call for a boycott until I cave in to their demands or go out of business.
But using governmental backed threats of violence to force me to conform to your idea of socially acceptable behavior…what was it again that we were condemning?