The highly successful Atlanta-based restaurant chain Chick-fil-A has been much in the news these days, because president and chief operating officer Dan Cathy (whose father founded the family-owned business) apparently came out in opposition to same-sex marriage. Or did he?
Terry Mattingly of the indispensable GetReligion site, which tracks all sorts of journalistic coverage of religion, first called attention to the manufacturing of a misleading story here. In an interview with a writer for the Baptist Press, Cathy was asked about the company’s “support of the traditional family.” His response was, “Well, guilty as charged.” And he went on to talk about the company’s commitment “to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families,” because many of the individual restaurants are family-run operations, and because the Cathy family and their company believe, as Christians, in family-friendly policies. (Their Christian faith and their desire to support families account for the restaurant chain’s being closed on Sundays, for instance, a decision by which the company forgoes many millions in annual revenue.)
At no point in the Baptist Press article did Dan Cathy say a word about the issue of same-sex marriage. The nearest the piece comes to the subject is when the reporter writes, “Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family.” The immediate sequel is the remark of Cathy’s I quoted above. But who are those opponents of the company’s policies? We are never told. Is it fair to surmise the reporter is alluding to advocates of same-sex marriage? Maybe, but it’s far from certain. And Dan Cathy is not, repeat not, on the record in this story as taking any position on that issue.
This did not stop CNN and many other outlets from reporting on the “comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage.” And so a manufactured firestorm began. (It’s reminiscent of the manufactured story about that same-sex “wedding” in New Jersey that I blogged about recently.)
When Terry Mattingly set the record straight about the Baptist Press interview, the next redoubt for the let’s-hate-Chick-fil-A crowd was an interview Dan Cathy gave to radio host Ken Coleman in June, in which he said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’”
But this too was hastily taken to be a commentary by Cathy on the same-sex marriage issue, which he never actually mentioned at all. The interview can be heard online here. The date was the day before Father’s Day, and Coleman asked him (start at about the 29:20 mark) about the crisis of fatherlessness in American society. The question takes 30 or 40 seconds to unspool, and then Cathy answers for upwards of a minute and a half. At about the 31:15 mark he gets to the words quoted above. But his entire answer to Coleman’s question has been about the importance of moms and dads in the lives of kids, and especially the role of fathers (given that it’s Father’s Day weekend). It’s clear that Cathy has just been talking about people getting married and staying married, so that children have mothers and fathers and intact families. This is the context for his remark about “God’s judgment” being invited–namely, if we try to treat marriage as optional, or temporary, or a matter of little importance in the upbringing of children. Again, Cathy says nothing, repeat nothing, directly addressing the subject of same-sex marriage.
Given what he does say, and as the sort of Christian he presents himself as being, is it a fair guess that Dan Cathy is opposed to same-sex marriage? Yes, it’s a fair guess, and it may even be true. But while this is plainly a man who has committed his business to being family-friendly and faith-friendly, he has not committed his company, or himself as a high-profile businessman, to being against anything or anyone. He has not sent any “dog whistle” signals to anyone, much less adopted a policy of serving a sermon with every chicken sandwich. The entire kerfuffle over “anti-gay” Chick-fil-A is manufactured from whole cloth by liberal journalists who heard what they wanted to hear. (Perhaps they themselves are dogs hearing nonexistent whistles.)
If Dan Cathy is, as a matter of his own beliefs and moral convictions, opposed to same-sex marriage, the last time I checked it was still permitted to be an American and hold such views–even to be a successful businessman! His company’s policy, meanwhile, is to serve chicken sandwiches to anyone who wants one–except on Sundays. And it’s his company’s policy to support, through various corporate programs, the strength of its employees’ families. That’s all there is to what he actually had to say in either of the interviews that have gotten so much attention.
Meanwhile, the mayor of Boston, incensed over the assumed affront to all right-thinking people committed by Dan Cathy, has decided to pull out all the stops to prevent the people of Beantown from having a good chicken sandwich, courtesy of Chick-fil-A. At this point, the circus furiosus has reached its naturally absurd conclusion, with a pandering politico scampering to take advantage of the left’s misinformed hatreds.
July 23rd, 2012 | 5:10 pm
Mayor Thomas Menino, or “Mumbles” Menino as he is loving referred to in “The Boston Herald,” is a typical Massachusetts liberal who believes that using government power to squeeze the private sector into accepting the agenda of liberalism is a perfectly appropriate exercise of government power. Menino and his supporters would of course be outraged if a hypothetical conservative mayor of Boston (I know, a delusional concept) were to prevent Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream from opening their parlors in “The Hub” due to their support for various left-wing causes. Freedom is taking some serious hits from those who believe that using government power to punish those who disagree with the ’cause du jour’ is an appropriate exercise of government power. It’s a form of soft despotism, now matter if committed by the left or the right….
July 23rd, 2012 | 5:43 pm
This is the nature of the struggle. We’re at the transition where if it can be assumed that you are not on side with the gay agenda, you’re fair game. The only difference with these restaurant owners from regular people is that they are big enough to be worthwhile targets.
The message, “If you don’t support gay marriage, you’re can’t do business here,” is astonishing and horrifying.
The general atmosphere on this subject is one of persecution. Our defense of free speech will degrade to a defense for tolerance which will be disregarged as a defense of intolerance.
July 23rd, 2012 | 5:48 pm
He has not sent any “dog whistle” signals to anyone, much less adopted a policy of serving a sermon with every chicken sandwich.
Perhaps some dogs need to visit the audiologist.
From the original article:
He did not say anything overtly offensive or particularly newsworthy. But if he is not expressing a stand against gay marriage, I don’t know what in the world he’s talking about. “Guilty as charged . . . biblical definition of the family unit . . . stay the course . . . might not be popular with everyone.” He doesn’t have to say “gay marriage” to make his stand clear. It makes no sense to imply that merely supporting traditional families is somehow unpopular.
Even the follow-up story in the Baptist press says the following:
On what issue is the Baptist Press saying Dan Cathy took a biblical stance?
I think it’s fair for gay rights organizations to go after a company that has a policy of fighting gay rights, and some googling indicates Chick-fil-A is such a company. For example, I just found this story about someone a few months ago trying to get a Chick-fil-A off NYU’s campus:
Also see this story.
My initial reaction was that the whole thing was silly and that Dan Cathy’s personal views are not really important. It’s what the company does. But it seems the company works against gay rights, and it seems to have been the subject of controversy before, so I think the reporting and the protests are fair. If it were all a matter of that one interview, I might agree with Matthew J. Franck, but there’s a history to Dan Cathy and the company that I think justifies the interpretation of his remarks in the Baptist newspaper as anti-same-sex marriage.
But there are a lot more important things to get worked up about.
July 23rd, 2012 | 5:59 pm
A manufactured controversy centered on a polarizing social issue? Municipal politicians up in arms using the controversy to support their party agenda? In an election year? Nah…
July 23rd, 2012 | 6:19 pm
Here’s an important point, I think. I doubt that there is any gay person, or any person who is sympathetic to gay people, who is wholeheartedly in favor of everything done in the name of gay rights. But I think many First Things readers believe that the gay rights movement is totally illegitimate. Therefore, nothing done in the name of gay rights can be considered reasonable or acceptable. If Dan Cathy had said, “I am unalterably opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’, and I and Chick-fil-A will do everything we can to stop it,” Matthew J. Franck and many readers here would have pretty much the same reaction to that as they are having to this. Why in the world should Dan Cathy not speak bluntly against same-sex marriage?
Since gay people should have no rights—and particularly not the right to get married—it doesn’t really matter whether gay rights activists are polite, moderate, and conciliatory or pugnacious and hostile. They have no business working for gay rights, because it is an illegitimate cause. And how dare they accuse Dan Cathy of opposing same-sex marriage!
July 23rd, 2012 | 9:07 pm
Homosexuals have rights, but not the right to do anything they imagine they have a right to do.
Pedophiles, even though they are afflicted with a disorder, have rights, but not the right to have sex with children.
A Dad who desires an incestuous relationship with his daughter is afflicted with disordered sexual desires. He has rights, but not the right to that relationship with his daughter.
Homosexuals have rights, but not the right to adopt children and raise them in a home where those raising the children are in an unnatural sexual relationship. Homosexuals don’t have a right to have society officially approve of their homosexual relationship when it is disordered and unnatural.
Homosexuals have the same human dignity as everyone else and a right to be treated in a manner commensurate with that dignity as much as anyone else with a disorder, but have no right to expect society to officially proclaim that their disorder is natural. It isn’t. It is a disorder.
July 23rd, 2012 | 9:55 pm
He did not say anything overtly offensive or particularly newsworthy. But if he is not expressing a stand against gay marriage, I don’t know what in the world he’s talking about.
I don’t think it takes any elaborately sophisticated reading skills to figure that out; why do you think he makes the “married to our first wives” comment? Do you honestly think that the only contrast case, or even the most natural contrast case, for “man married to his first wife” is “man married to another man”? Nor does it take any considerable logical skill to figure out that you can’t draw any logically derived conclusions about gay marriage from vague statements about supporting traditional families, so you’d have to take it as some kind of ‘code’. Likewise, I’m not at all sure why you are puzzled at the idea of suggesting that support for the traditional family may be unpopular; (1) it takes no great experience of people, and especially corporate culture, to realize that even if something isn’t unpopular, people will often talk about it as if it were if it makes them seem courageous or honest or in some other way exemplary; and (2) in context Cathy clearly takes the unpopular to attach to the idea that Chik-fil-A takes its primary demographic to be Christian families and the ‘unpopular’ to mean active support for a certain ideal of such families — which certainly includes not divorcing (and indeed in the furor this has in several places been explicitly recognized and criticized in addition to the same-sex marriage issue). Did he have in mind same-sex marriage? It’s all too vague to give us any evidence one way or another.
And precisely the point is that this is too vague a statement to draw any conclusions about Cathy’s views on same-sex marriage. Conceivably he had it in mind, but it’s neither the most obvious interpretation — the most obvious interpretation is simply that he takes Chik-fil-A to be all about supporting two-parent households, and as Franck notes, he’s explicitly talked about that in other contexts — nor does it necessarily follow from anything he says, since he says nothing explicitly about it, nor does he seem to have actually been asked about it. It’s obviously sloppy reporting.
Your second comment doesn’t seem to be coherent. If Cathy explicitly opposed same-sex marriage, obviously Matthew J. Franck and others would not have pretty much the same reaction, because they wouldn’t be criticizing journalists for misreporting on the basis that he said nothing about it. And given that the closest he comes in the post even to making a critical comment about same-sex marriage advocates is his criticism of liberal journalists, it seems a bit of a non sequitur to slide over to talk about gay rights advocacy — last I had heard, journalism is “done in the name of” fairness and accuracy, not gay rights. Perhaps their motives are as you say, but this seems very much in the same category as the Cathy furor; it goes well beyond what is actually said. And I needn’t tell you that this is exactly the same sort of move that leads people (for instance) to equate ‘supporting gay marriage’ with ‘actively trying to destroy heterosexual marriage’. Turning it around in the opposite direction is quite as obviously irrational.
July 23rd, 2012 | 10:04 pm
David Nickols writes: “Since gay people should have no rights…”
This is an example of the hysteria here. But then when everyone else’s viewpoint is interpreted through a single lens, the distortions creep in.
Gays have and should have every right in the Bill of Rights, not because they’re gay but because they’re human. So “no rights” can only be hysterical, particularly when the solution proposed is to take rights away from others. Check them, there is no “right to marry” there or in any other amendment. So interpretation is needed from the beginning.
There is a right to “freedom of speech”, in no less than in the First Amendment, one that gays have, as do those who disagree with the ideas of some gay rights activists.
Consider Mayor Menino. According to him, Boston is an inclusive city, so non-inclusive people will not be welcomed. I am sorry to say, I doubt he intends the irony.
July 23rd, 2012 | 10:21 pm
Unless gay rights groups are seen as speaking for single parenthood and other types of units that are not ideal, then the journalists overreached in reporting. Traditional family values dont just mean not promoting gay marriage, last i checked.
July 23rd, 2012 | 10:21 pm
David Nickol Since gay people should have no rights…
Do you really think that people on this website, or even very many people who oppose gay marriage, believe that gay people should have no rights? Not the freedom of speech, not the freedom to assemble, not the freedom to due process, etc.?
Surely not, but if you can’t be accurate about what we believe when talking to us, I have to wonder how accurately you represent us to those who disagree.
July 23rd, 2012 | 10:58 pm
Please help me reconcile the HuffPo headline “Chick-Fil-A’s Anti-Gay Donations Totaled Nearly $2 Million In 2010: Report” with this “who me?” article. If Cathy has donated this money then, following the principle endorsed in “Citizens” (money = speech) this whole article is a sham.
I do not know; please tell me if this money was so donated.
July 24th, 2012 | 4:47 am
I belive everything David Nickol asserts in his opinion as a response to this posting.
I also believe it is very telling of the mindset of gay marriage opponents and homosexuals themselves.
For one thing he continuesly uses the impossibly vague and misleading statement “gay rights”. This can mean almost anything that gay advocates want it to mean and makes no distictions between legislative efforts that many Christians find resonable concerning homsexuals.
It also conflates the effort to redifine the insitution of marriage and conflates it with any tolerance of or predisposition twoards resonable actions taken on behalf of gay americans.
This is a purposfull rehtorical tactic that is used to demand that one is either for the entirity of gay agenda (including redifining marriage) &or one is against gays having “rights”
Meanwhile the fact of the matter is that gay Americans have the same rights as their fellow Americans – (including the right to get married)
David also demonstrates his tin ear for his oppositions worldview when he insists that the interview reveals an obvious commitment on the part of Dan Cathy as anti same-sex “marriage”.
The truth is most commited Christians who emphasize family values see the family being besiged on multiple fronts & have a commitment to fighting everything from easy divorce to illigetamacy, to promisciousness and adultry.
To assume that when Dan Cathy speaks of Biblical values concerning the family this means an obvious emphasis on gay marriage reveals the politcized nature of HIS worldview that centers on gay left ideology itself and not that of Dan Cathy.
This is also demonstrated when he makes the point about the charitable arm giving to groups that actively conservative groups that actively “work against LGBT rights and marriage equality laws”
Again – the first part about “rights” can mean about anything and we have no reason or evidence to suggest that those contributions where not inspired by those groups work on many other issues in support of the family.
And then Mr. Nickol tips his hand completley when he charachterizes “many” First Thing readers as thinking -”Since gay people should have no rights”
He demostrates a complete misunderstaning of his opponents worldview… Gay people have the exact same rights as any other American. They have the right to free speech, religion, to keep and bear arms, access to the courts, private property and all the rest…
& also
“and particularly not the right to get married”
As a matter of fact gay people have exactly that right & always had (there is no gay test for a marriage liceance)
Because of their orientation they are not interested in excercising that right in the main…but they do have it.
What is really meant is that they want to re-define that right to suit their purposes.
We become the masks we wear.. And Mr Nickols persistant ill-liberal and anti-intellectual use of language reveals a pronounced inability to see his advesaries understanding of these issues in their authentic understanding..
His persistant use of such language allows him to ipso facto vilify his opposition as not wanting their fellow americans to have “any right” as well as compleley misunderstand the very issue (marriage) that is currently in contention.
No wonder many Americans now consider the gay “rights” movment to be nefarious and radical rather than a reasonable effort to engage their fellow citizens in an effort to address worthwhile issue’s.
July 24th, 2012 | 8:25 am
George –
Well, if that’s the case, there’s an interesting turnabout. Just a couple election cycles ago, addressing ‘gay marriage’ was a way of turning out the ‘conservative’ base. If you’re right, then politicians are nowexpecting that issue to turn out the ‘liberal‘ base…
July 24th, 2012 | 8:55 am
Excellent response Fitzgerald.
Mr. Nickol (and the entire gay movement) need to be reminded that after August 1, 2012, gays will enjoy more rights in this country than Catholics and pro-life Christians.
July 24th, 2012 | 9:43 am
I’ll answer this once, but I don’t want to hijack the thread, which is about whether it was fair or not to interpret Dan Cathy as taking a stand against same-sex marriage.
Many people (including, I believe, many people who read First Things—not all, not most, but many) believe the gay rights movement is illegitimate. I would define the gay rights movement as the movement in which DignityUSA; Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; Log Cabin Republicans; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); Human Rights Campaign; and IntegrityUSA are leading organization.
By gays having no rights, I mean that many people (including the Catholic Church) maintain that gay people have no rights as gay people that it is legitimate for government to explicitly protect. Therefore, the Catholic Church (and others) oppose any antidiscrimination legislation to explicitly protect the rights of gay people as gay people. If you read the pertinent documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, you will see that they disapprove of naming gay people in any rights legislation.
Now, can we get back to the discussion of Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A?
July 24th, 2012 | 10:16 am
David, please don’t use your clarification of grossly sloppy language as an offensive tactic against those who took the literal and obvious implication from it. You accused people of believing that gays have no rights. It’s good you clarified your meaning; it’s not good that you’re trying to make everyone who took your words for what they mean look disingenuous.
July 24th, 2012 | 10:24 am
No wonder many Americans now consider the gay “rights” movment to be nefarious and radical rather than a reasonable effort to engage their fellow citizens in an effort to address worthwhile issue’s.
Fitzgerald,
Are you one of these “many Americans”? I hate it when people say this, but I think you are proving my point. You and others believe the gay rights movement is illegitimate.
“Gay rights” to me does not mean all the American freedoms mentioned as long as “homosexual persons” remain celibate and hide their sexual orientation. It means rights for openly gay people who live their lives openly. Everyone has the right to employment and housing, but if can’t have a same-sex partner, or be in a civil union, or be in a same-sex marriage without fear of losing your job or your apartment, you have rights, but you don’t have “gay rights.”
July 24th, 2012 | 10:35 am
David, it was not “fair” to interpret Dan Cathy as taking a stand against same-sex marriage. Nor is it “fair” for the mayor of Boston to prevent Chick-fil-A from doing business in Boston, thus hurting more than just the economical prospects of Dan Cathy. He’s hurting the people who work for Dan Cathy.
Plus the “not fair” reaction carries more than an unhealthy whiff of paranoia. Let’s illustrate how:
Per:
“Therefore, the Catholic Church (and others) oppose any antidiscrimination (sic) legislation to explicitly protect the rights of gay people as gay people.”
The “anti-discrimination” that “explicitly protects the rights of gay people” would include the adoption of children by Catholic Charities to “gay couples”, wouldn’t it? As well as the re-definition of marriage?
Gee, didn’t Boston, once they passed their new anti-discrimination laws which included terms like “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” have a problem with Catholic Charities not allowing adoptions to gay couples? The Catholic Church had a problem with the anti-discrimination law because they said it discriminated against them. The law did not allow the Church to follow it moral precepts. The Church asked for a religious exemption. It was not granted. So…what happened?
Catholic Charities is out of the adoption business. Now Chick-fil-A is out of business in Boston. An ugly pattern has developed that will only kick into high gear after August 1.
July 24th, 2012 | 10:55 am
David, please don’t use your clarification of grossly sloppy language . . .
pentamom,
There’s a certain justification to what you say. I wrote a message in my own “private language” and had to translate it. However, I have not accused any individual here of anything. Nor, in clarifying what I meant, did I claim anyone who took me very literally (for example, to mean gay people had no right to free speech) was being disingenuous.
I try very hard—when I criticize—to criticize what people say, rather than criticize them personally. You will not find me writing about other people the way, say, Fitzgerald writes about me above.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:05 am
Pentamon,
Well put.
“Since gay people should have no rights” — this is the mantra of gay rights activists who demonize those “bigots” who defend traditional marriage. The latter are uncaring Neanderthals who seek to oppress the downtrodden. Despite it’s inaccuracy, it makes Nickol and others feel superior to those who defend traditional marriage.
July 24th, 2012 | 11:09 am
A little light on the putative “anti-gay” organizations that the WinShape Foundation (the charitable arm of the Chick-fil-a corp.) has donated to (data from 2010 — latest available):
* Marriage & Family Foundation: $1,188,380
* Fellowship Of Christian Athletes: $480,000
* National Christian Foundation: $247,500
* New Mexico Christian Foundation: $54,000
* Exodus International: $1,000
* Family Research Council: $1,000
* Georgia Family Council: $2,500
It would probably be helpful for David (since he is the one who brought it up) to outline for us how these organizations are to be understood as “anti-gay” or “working against gay rights”? I am particularly interested in how that charge is borne out in the case of the FCA?
July 24th, 2012 | 11:36 am
I am particularly interested in how that charge is borne out in the case of the FCA?
The FCA’s Student Leader Application form has the following:
In other words, no gays allowed. They certainly have a right to make these requirements of their members. But I see no reason in the world why gay rights organizations shouldn’t consider them anti-gay. Do you?
July 24th, 2012 | 11:59 am
In David’s defense… the GOP parties of Montana and Texas only this year decided to drop the planks in their platforms calling for re-criminalization of sodomy. I personally doubt it’s because nobody’s left who supports that idea, though.
And I just saw today that in Tennessee a county-level GOP is angry that Gov. Haslam Allowed and retained openly [sic] homosexuals to make policy decisions in the Department of Children’s Services.” (Though, admittedly, they seem more upset that the Governor would appoint a Muslim to state government.)
So, yeah, the idea that “many First Things readers believe that the gay rights movement is totally illegitimate” doesn’t seem that big a stretch to me.
On the other hand… I also think that attacking motivations is a useless game. I want to hear about arguments. If someone’s correct in a particular case, then it doesn’t matter what their motivation is. (And if they’re wrong, likewise.)
All that said… I figure Cathy’s own words in response to the kerfuffle gives plenty of context to judge what he meant.
July 24th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
Just like heterosexuals, the civil rights of homosexuals do not depend on their remaining celibate.
A homosexual admitting his sexual orientation is one thing; insisting his disordered sexual orientation is “natural” is another. Whether or not to keep their orientation hidden is up to the homosexual, as is deciding to promote ongoing homosexual fornication as a legitimate, alternative lifestyle.
From the perspective of traditional Christianity, a heterosexual insisting that ongoing heterosexual fornication is a legitimate lifestyle would be met with disapproval as would a homosexual insisting that ongoing homosexual fornication is a legitimate lifestyle. Heterosexual and homosexual fornicators alike may decide to keep their fornication hidden, or decide there is really no such thing as a sin of fornication and openly insist their lifestyle is legitimate. Christians should be compassionate towards those who admit their sinfulness and are struggling to overcome it, whether those admitting their sinfulness be homosexuals or heterosexuals, but it is silly to think orthodox Christians should approve of fornication just because it is homosexual fornication.
A couple of guys or a couple of gals intending on sharing an apartment, unless they make it a point to let the landlord know they are gay, is not in itself going to make a landlord reluctant to rent them an apartment. Single guys and single gals share apartments all the time with no problems from landlords whatsoever. There are, of course, some landlords who would be reluctant to rent an apartment to a couple of guys or a couple of gals who make it a point to communicate to the landlord that they are gay. The Christian landlord must now be concerned with whether they or others will assume he approves of their homosexual fornication because he rented to them. The landlord is now confronted with a moral dilemma he wouldn’t have faced if the couple had kept their sexual orientation hidden. The couple creates the problem themselves by advertising their sexual orientation. Again, heterosexual and homosexual fornicators alike may decide to keep their fornication hidden, or decide there is really no such thing as a sin of fornication and openly insist their lifestyle is legitimate. If they decide the latter, they should expect to find some landlords who will not want to cooperate in their promotion of that which the Christian landlord considers gravely sinful and who will not want to signal approval of it in any way. There are Christian landlords who would be reluctant to rent to unmarried heterosexual couples as well. The problem arises with Christians not wanting to signal their approval of, or facilitate, that which is considered gravely sinful according to orthodox Christianity.
I will leave it to professional theologians to tell us when it becomes sinful for Christians to accommodate sinful behavior, and when doing so creates a scandal that should have been avoided, in terms of renting motel rooms or apartments to unmarried heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. Somehow I don’t think there will be a consensus on that. ;o) Regardless of that, gays shouldn’t be surprised if devout Christians are reluctant to accommodate them if they openly promote the idea that homosexual fornication is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, leaving the landlord to wonder if the gay couple or others will assume he approves of this by renting to them. Neither should heterosexual fornicators who have that attitude about their fornication be surprised by the reluctance of devout Christians to accommodate them.
July 24th, 2012 | 1:09 pm
Harry – Just out of curiosity, what do you think of people who consider interracial marriage to be gravely sinful? There are people who think such relationships are not ‘natural’…
July 24th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
David Nickol
“If you read the pertinent documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, you will see that they disapprove of naming gay people in any rights legislation.”
What are those documents?
July 24th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
David,
You are misstating FCA’s position which is in fact, the rather unremarkable leadership standard for many many Christian organizations and denominations.
Which is to say ~not~ “no gays allowed” but rather “no sex outside of marriage” full stop. Celibate homosexual persons are as eligible for leadership in the FCA as anyone else is. You can call that “anti-gay” if you like, I suppose. But by your logic it is also “anti-unmarried hetero” too. Does that mean, in your view, that by donating to FCA Chick-fil-A is also an “anti-unmarried hetero” organization?
And did it ever occur to you that the celibacy standard in Christian organizations (who have one) is no more discriminatory against GLBT folk than it is against unmarried heterosexuals? The same standard applies to both. Why is it discrimination worthy of outrage and sanction in the first case but not in the second?
July 24th, 2012 | 2:04 pm
Celibate homosexual persons are as eligible for leadership in the FCA as anyone else is. You can call that “anti-gay” if you like, I suppose.
david c.,
“Celibate homosexual persons” are not “gay persons.” The gay rights movement is not fighting for the rights of celibate, closeted homosexuals. It is fighting for the right to be openly gay and accepted as such. And I rather doubt that the FCA would accept into a leadership position someone who said they were gay (or even homosexual) but pledged to be celibate.
July 24th, 2012 | 2:17 pm
What are those documents?
Fitzgerald,
They are as follows:
Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons
Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons
Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons
Let me know if you disagree with me, but I think it is quite fair to say that these documents can come up with no circumstance under which a law should include “homosexual persons” as a protected class. That is, they would not consider it acceptable for laws to specifically protect gay people from unjustly being fired or being denied housing on the grounds that the people were gay.
July 24th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
Hi, Ray,
Interesting point, Ray.
Let me say first that the Catholic Church, which I am in complete agreement with, doesn’t consider interracial marriage to be sinful at all.
If a church held as an essential belief that interracial marriage was gravely wrong (which would be incomprehensible to me) would it be wrong for the state to mandate that that church be involved in facilitating or promoting interracial marriage? Let’s say that the church membership is open to all races and ethnic groups, and church teaching is that their members should marry within their own race and not outside of it, I don’t think the state could make a legitimate case for mandating the church’s involvement in facilitating or performing interracial marriages. What do you think?
July 24th, 2012 | 2:42 pm
And did it ever occur to you that the celibacy standard in Christian organizations (who have one) is no more discriminatory against GLBT folk than it is against unmarried heterosexuals? The same standard applies to both. Why is it discrimination worthy of outrage and sanction in the first case but not in the second?
david c.,
Because unmarried heterosexuals can get married, but according to you and these folks, unmarried homosexuals cannot get married, and consequently must pledge celibacy for life. If same-sex marriage were universally accepted, then there would be no objection (from me) to a pledge that required no sex outside of marriage. But a pledge intended for heterosexuals and homosexuals that requires they have no sex outside of marriage, when there is no homosexual marriage, clearly impacts heterosexuals and homosexuals differently.
It’s interesting that you should make this point, though, because I often make a somewhat related point. Why can’t the Catholic Church treat gay people exactly the same as people who have been married and are now civilly divorced but cannot obtain an annulment? Both are, within the Church, in a position where any kind of sexual relationship would be sinful. But the Church welcomes the divorced and remarried (although they cannot receive communion), but it does not welcome couples in a same-sex union.
July 24th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Harry,
It is illegal to discriminate against women, and women can and will sue if they are denied advancement in an organization.
And yet at no time has anyone seriously considered suing the Roman Church for discrimination against women because it refuses to ordain women or appoint women as bishops, cardinals, or popes.
Americans understand that this kind of discrimination against women is part of the fabric and identity of the Roman Church just as Americans understand that discrimination against gays is central to it.
You are free to continue discriminating against both women and homosexuals. Go for it.
July 24th, 2012 | 2:57 pm
David,
You wrote: “I rather doubt that the FCA would accept into a leadership position someone who said they were gay (or even homosexual) but pledged to be celibate”.
You may doubt it all you like, but I know differently. I am personally aware of an number of cases in both the denomination I serve (which until very recently did not allow for the ordination of sexually active unmarried persons– gay or straight) and other Christian organizations where celibate but openly homosexual men have served in pastoral or leadership positions.
Your ‘doubts’ notwithstanding most of the Christians I know understand that
serving God faithfully is difficult. Resisting sexual temptation (particularly in the hyper-sexualized culture in which we live) is a near universal element of that struggle for most Christians regardless of marital status or sexual orientation.
July 24th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
David,
Sorry, but now you are begging the question. The standard under discussion is “celibacy in singleness”. Whether one can be married or not is a separate question. Celibacy in singleness is no more discriminatory against heterosexuals than it is against homosexuals. There are plenty of heterosexual Christians who would like to be married but for whatever reason are not. The orthodox Christian expectation is that they will be celibate, even if their singleness is “lifelong”. How is it not wrong for these folks to be expected to be celibate, but wrong to expect single homosexuals to be celibate? Because the former have the “right” to be married. The “right” to be married does not make them so, thus the the real life effect is the same….
July 24th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
You may doubt it all you like, but I know differently. I am personally aware of an number of cases in both the denomination I serve (which until very recently did not allow for the ordination of sexually active unmarried persons– gay or straight) and other Christian organizations where celibate but openly homosexual men have served in pastoral or leadership positions.
david c.,
I am delighted to hear it. Everyone with a homosexual orientation must decide for himself and herself what path to follow, and for those who choose celibacy, I have great respect and admiration, and it is good to know that there are Christians who fully accept them.
As you know, the Catholic Church will not now ordain men with a homosexual orientation, no matter how committed to celibacy they are. I think this is a shame, and I can only wonder how it makes celibate homosexual priests feel who are currently serving throughout the Church to know that if they had been born later, they would not have been ordained.
I had the occasion some years ago to talk with a young man who realized he was gay and felt that God had played a trick on him. I asked him if he had discussed this with his pastor, and he said no, that in his church, it was believed if you were homosexual, it was because you were sinful, and you were going to hell. The very last person on earth he could discuss his plight with was his pastor. Unfortunately, there are many young gay people who also do not dare discuss their sexuality with their parents.
July 24th, 2012 | 3:56 pm
Sorry, but now you are begging the question. The standard under discussion is “celibacy in singleness”.
david c.,
You are full of accusations, aren’t you. If all FCA expects gay people to do is pledge not to have sex while they are members of FCA, then it is asking them to do no more than it is asking heterosexuals. However, if it expects them to accept the statements that about homosexuality being sinful and always forbidden, then in effect it is asking them (a) pledge lifelong fidelity or (b) refrain from joining FCA. The idea in the pledge is not merely that they will refrain from sex in the FCA. It is that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is forbidden. A gay person (as opposed to a celibate homosexual person) by my definition is someone who embraces his or her sexuality and believes there are circumstances under which it is legitimate to have sexual relationships. I don’t see how such a person could sign the pledge even if willing to remain celibate during his or her time in FCA.
July 24th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
Harry –
I fully agree. (And I likewise agree that the Catholic Church doesn’t find interracial couples to be unnatural. Very few churches do anymore. But they do still exist, as my link shows.)
Now, what if a member of that church were a landlord that refused to create a scandal by renting an apartment to an interracial couple? (Does the couple create the problem themselves by showing up to the lease signing without wearing hoods and masks to hide their race?)
July 24th, 2012 | 4:34 pm
I don’t think the state could make a legitimate case for mandating the church’s involvement in facilitating or performing interracial marriages. What do you think?
harry,
I don’t think so either. Nor do I think the state will ever, ever attempt to force a church to hold a same-sex wedding. It is outside the realm of the remotely plausible. This doesn’t say nobody will ever attempt to put together a lawsuit of some kind. After all, I remember a case where someone tried to sue churches for the loss of some of his property because the insurance company wouldn’t pay for “acts of God,” so the guy tried to get churches (as God’s representatives) to pay. But anyone who tries to legally coerce a church into performing a same-sex marriage will get about as far as that guy did.
July 24th, 2012 | 5:03 pm
David,
I really don’t mean to sound accusatory, I really am trying my best to be informative about something I have have a good deal of experience with….but it seems you really don’t get how these organizations work? The Fellowship of Christian Athletes is a para-church voluntary membership organization for athletes in high school and college to engage in Christian fellowship, mission, and study etc. together. Its leadership, like that of most (all?) organizations is expected to follow the rules of that organization for it’s leaders. Once one is no longer a member of that organization, the rules of that particular organization are no longer binding. All of that is,it seems to me, utterly unremarkable SOP. So, I just don’t understand how it is that you believe that leaders of FCA are being asked to do something different — that is to submit to the leadership rules of the FCA in perpetuity?
The reality is, I believe, as I stated it and as you (re)stated ]:”FCA expects gay people to… pledge not to have sex while they are members of FCA, … asking them to do no more than it is asking heterosexuals”…
In other words, they hold up what they believe is a normative biblical principal (fidelity in marriage, chastity in singleness) and ask members and especially leaders to adhere or face sanction. There is nothing that even faintly suggests that FCA believes that it can sanction the behaviors of folks (leaders or otherwise) who are no longer a part of FCA….
So no, FCA should not (I believe) be called “anti gay” . Anti “extramarital sex of any kind” –yes indeed. Though I would probably define it in more positive terms…
As usual, we have probably reached another impasse. I am glad that we did have some moment of agreement as I was able to share with you some stories of folks that made you “lad to hear”? I’ll take that as a small sign of encouragement that we don’t always have to be at loggerheads… be well.
July 24th, 2012 | 7:11 pm
Hi, Ray,
Well, I don’t know “what if” without going into our hypothetical church’s doctrine on the matter in more detail.
Let’s say our hypothetical church’s opposition to interracial marriage is as follows: They think the fact that there are different races is due to God’s willing that there be different races; they further think it is gravely important that we respect God’s will by preserving the various races, discouraging interracial marriage being one way to do that. They condemn racism and racist based eugenics. They see the beauty of the various races and are only interested in preserving each race due to their unique expression of God’s will. (I am just creating an imaginary scenario here where a church with good intentions discourages its members from interracial marriage. Personally, I think that we love each other and acknowledge the image of God in each other is much more important to God than the preservation of the external, trivial differences that cause men to divide up God’s children into the various races.)
Anyway, if such was basis of their opposition to interracial marriage, they wouldn’t want the state to mandate that they perform interracial marriages or mandate that they facilitate their performance. Nor would it be right for the state to do so. Their opposition to interracial marriage would be similar to the Catholic Church’s position on Catholics marrying Christians of other denominations. It doesn’t recommend that, but it does not consider it intrinsically wrong. (See #1633 to #1637 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) Having said all that, now, “what if a member of that church were a landlord that refused to create a scandal by renting an apartment to an interracial couple?” In that case the member of that church would be ignorant of the true intention of the doctrine of his church and would only think he would create a scandal because he misunderstands his church’s teaching, as would a Catholic landlord who refused to rent to a married couple because one was Catholic and the other was Baptist.
On the other hand, if a church’s opposition to interracial marriage was based on the old fashioned racism that led to slavery, and after slavery’s end led to racist eugenics and unjust discrimination in housing, employment and so on, and the church’s teaching promoted those injustices, then, quite honestly, I don’t think I could muster up any sympathy for them at all if state mandates made it impossible for them to implement their racist teachings.
The flaw in the interracial marriage analogy in terms of the discussion of rights and privileges deserved by those engaging in homosexual fornication is that homosexual fornication, regardless of any religious view of it, is plainly unnatural and interracial marriage plainly is not. The children of interracial marriages are often exceptionally handsome and gifted children. Nature seems to bless that. On the other hand, homosexual fornication is infertile; its practice is self annihilating. It can only be an unnatural aberration, not the natural product of evolutionary processes.
July 24th, 2012 | 9:56 pm
two cheap cents:
(1) suppose we agree that homosexual desires are disordered.
(2) greed is a manifestation of disordered desire.
(3) why would greedy people have rights qua greedy people?
July 25th, 2012 | 12:10 am
David
“Let me know if you disagree with me, but I think it is quite fair to say that these documents can come up with no circumstance under which a law should include “homosexual persons” as a protected class. That is, they would not consider it acceptable for laws to specifically protect gay people from unjustly being fired or being denied housing on the grounds that the people were gay.”
Not at all – Indeed those very documents flesh out well the inherint problems with the current homosexual “rights” movment.
That is…they assert a claim for such protections not out of a genuine need to alleviate those specific problems (housing & employment discrimination) ..but rather to change societies understanding of gender, sexuality, the family and homosexuality in particular.
This goes to the heart of what authentic tolerance means…a concept the presupposes legitimante disapproval as its starting point.
In order to actually understand your oppositions true position you would do well to insert other sexual sins in place of homosexuality rather than (the much favored) racial analogy.
In this way you could better see were we are coming from. It would be unjust discrimination to fire a person or deny them housing simply because they are fornicators or mastubators.
The current homosexual “rights” movment however is much more comfortable with the racial analogy…an absolute bar to making any distinctions amoung individuals (and properly so)
You are under no obligation to agree with our stance. However you reveal yourself as ill-liberal if you cannot grasp and show cognition of your opponents understanding.
You may want to try understanding the authentic concerns of your advesaries as they understand them
I can assure you that I am more than aware of the worldview of my advesaries.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:50 am
[...] via On Mau-Mauing the Chicken Sandwich Guy » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog. [...]
July 25th, 2012 | 8:41 am
harry –
Which, of course, depends entirely on how the term ‘natural’ is understood. Obviously you don’t mean ‘happens in nature’, since homosexuality clearly happens in nature.
I must presume you mean ‘contrary to human nature’, then. At which point we have to figure out what human nature is. And what do we do about people who disagree?
Sickle-cell anemia.
Traits that are ‘bad’ in one circumstance can be literally life-saving in others. A person with two copies of the sickle-cell gene will suffer from sickle-cell anemia and die young. But a person with only one copy does not suffer such ill effects – and has a significantly increased resistance to malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, the risk of having babies die from sickle-cell anemia is offset by the improved chances of other babies surviving malaria.
Cystic Fibrosis is another recessive trait where only one copy of a mutated gene apparently affords some protection from Typhoid and perhaps Tuberculosis. A further example is RH-negative blood; there is some evidence that, while RH-negative women are at increased risk of miscarriage, they have an easier time getting pregnant.
There’s also the fact that humans are social, and live in groups. Group dynamics add a whole extra level of complication and interaction, which in turn interacts with genes. (We have inherent propensities for language, for example.) I don’t see how you can possibly justify such a blanket statement.
July 25th, 2012 | 9:07 am
Not at all – Indeed those very documents flesh out well the inherint problems with the current homosexual “rights” movment.
Fitzgerald,
I am not sure what your “not at all” refers to. Are you saying those documents actually do endorse the idea of naming gay people as a protected class in civil rights legislation? Or are you saying what I suspect you are saying, which is the Catholic Church has good reasons for opposing civil rights legislation that specifically protects gay people?
I understand the documents. The Catholic Church does not want, in any way, for government or society to even suggest the possibility that homosexuality is acceptable. I fully understand the reasoning. I just don’t agree with it.
July 25th, 2012 | 11:21 am
Hi, Ray,
If corporeal traits in humans must be attributable only to evolutionary processes, and if evolution is all about the inheritance of traits that enhance survivability, then infertile sexual attraction to the same sex is a self annihilating trait. If there is something positive about it, it can only be that it is nature’s way of weeding out from the species Homo sapiens members with some trait we haven’t yet associated with homosexuality, but one that nature purges from the species via homosexuality. Either that unknown trait is an unnatural aberration quickly purged away by homosexuality or homosexuality itself is the unnatural aberration. Or, I suppose, homosexuality in Homo sapiens could be an acquired trait having nothing to do with genetics or evolution. If it happens naturally, it is a self annihilating aberration from the perspective of biological evolution.
July 25th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
David Nickol (writes)
“I understand the documents. The Catholic Church does not want, in any way, for government or society to even suggest the possibility that homosexuality is acceptable. I fully understand the reasoning.”
Apparently you dont understand their reasoning in the least. As the above gross mischarachterization seems to prove. And its not simply the Catholic Church and its reasoning but the vast majority of Christian sects as well as secular scholars and mainstream traditionalist thinking on these issue’s.
Once one goes from our understanding of homosexuality to our understanding of human sexuality…and then finally to the primary of place accorded to the institution of marriage (quo “marriage”) …its no wonder that your own views on this subject become intractable, fetid & impossibly overwrought.
Lost in all of this is the larger issues of human sexuality, family formation and child bearing/rearing for the overwhellming mass (95% +) of humanity; both now and forever more into the future.
July 25th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
[...] On Mau-Mauing the Chicken Sandwich Guy He has not sent any “dog whistle” signals to anyone, much less adopted a policy of serving a sermon with every chicken sandwich. The entire kerfuffle over “anti-gay” Chick-fil-A is manufactured from whole cloth by liberal journalists who heard what … Read more on First Things (blog) [...]
July 25th, 2012 | 1:30 pm
Harry – You missed my point, I’m afraid. I thought the sickle-cell example was pretty clear.
Getting two copies of the sickle-cell gene leads to sickle-cell anemia and death at a young age. Getting one copy, however, has few detectable symptoms except a significantly increased resistance to malaria. In a region with endemic malaria, being a sickle-cell carrier is an advantage.
Work out the math. If you mate with a non-carrier, 50% of your children will have increased resistance to malaria, and 50% will be no worse off. If you mate with a carrier, then 50% of your children will have increased resistance to malaria, 25% will be no worse off, and 25% will develop anemia. Overall, in many real-world circumstances the sickle-cell gene provides a net advantage to the population that has it.
So, in that light:
Didn’t say that.
Didn’t say that either, though it’s not incorrect so far as it goes. There’s things like genetic drift and so forth.
It’s entirely possible that the genetics that contribute to homosexuality (note: “contribute to”, not “determine”) have other effects in other circumstances such that a population is overall better off containing some proportion of genes that sometimes result in homosexuality.
In other words, the traits that lead to homosexuality in some cases may lead to greater fertility in other cases. Given the fact that homosexuality is so widespread – and not just in humans – it’s rather difficult to dismiss that idea with a handwave.
Certainly in one of our nearest relatives, the Bonobo ‘pygmy’ chimpanzee, pretty-much-universal bisexuality serves an important social purpose, regulating conflict.
(As an aside, this difficulty in sorting out the total effects of genes is just one of many reasons why eugenics is such a bad idea.)
The good news is that, if you are right and homosexuality is a net negative, then laws that discourage homosexuality are horribly misguided. All they end up doing is encouraging carriers to mate, thus preserving the bad genes longer!
July 25th, 2012 | 1:59 pm
harry,
There are any number of ways homosexuality might be genetically determined (or more likely, influenced) and not be “self-annihilating.” You’ll note that it doesn’t show any signs of disappearing. And straight couples continue to have gay children.
Evolution acts on populations, not on individuals. The fact that a homosexual individual might not himself or herself reproduce is no reason why the genes that influence homosexuality can’t continue indefinitely in the population.
Either that unknown trait is an unnatural aberration quickly purged away by homosexuality or homosexuality itself is the unnatural aberration.
Evolution cannot occur without “unnatural aberrations,” called mutations. Speaking from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, I am not sure the words “unnatural aberration” make sense. Natural selection gets to “decide” which are adaptive traits and which are not. What is an adaptive trait in one environment might be disastrous in another.
July 25th, 2012 | 4:17 pm
Hello, Ray, David,
We haven’t identified traits that lead to homosexuality; if there are indeed such traits we don’t know what they are, so there is certainly no more basis for suggesting that if there are any they may lead to greater fertility than that if there are any they may lead to reduced intellectual capacity, or a third arm growing out of one’s back, or one having two heads.
I didn’t say it was a net negative. I just pointed out that homosexuality in itself cannot be passed on by infertile homosexual sex. Again, it is a self annihilating, unnatural aberration. If it is a genetic affliction there is no more point in making a law that discourages homosexuality than there is making one that discourages sickle-cell anemia.
I understood your point about CF and sickle-cell anemia and was already familiar with that. The understanding science has of the genetics of CF and sickle-cell anemia is vastly beyond its understanding of the genetics of homosexuality; this is because we are not even certain homosexuality is a genetic-based disorder; we are with CF and sickle-cell anemia.
That would also be true if it were an acquired trait, not a genetic one.
Evolution can’t act on populations if it doesn’t act first on individuals.
Leaving a sex drive in place but such that the act that fulfills the drive is an infertile misuse of the “plumbing” of the creature doesn’t seem as though it can be the result of a series of successful mutations, each of which enhanced the survivability of the creature. Are you sure it isn’t an aberration?
July 25th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
If it is a genetic affliction there is no more point in making a law that discourages homosexuality than there is making one that discourages sickle-cell anemia.
harry,
You missed Ray’s point. If homosexuality is a heritable “genetic affliction,” anything that discourages homosexual expression and encourages homosexuals into heterosexual relationships that produce children is interfering with the “self-annihilating” effect of homosexuality. In conservative cultures all over the world were men are expected to marry and have children (India is a good example, but this phenomenon is not unknown in the United States), you will have homosexual men marrying women, and homosexual women marrying men, and if homosexuality is heritable in the way you seem to imagine it might be, they will be passing on the genes.
July 25th, 2012 | 5:42 pm
Homosexuals have rights, but not the right to do anything they imagine they have a right to do.
They imagine they have a right to bypass normal political processes in establishing whatever rights they want.
It works like this: they say they are entitled to _____. They say it is theirs because it is a “civil right”.
It is then proven. If you disagree, then you are against “civil rights”.
If you try to argue that it is not a “civil right”, they then point out that blacks already settled the issue. You aren’t against black people doing _____, are you?
Never mind that their issue is different in many significant/meaningful ways. Blacks fought for civil rights, now nobody ever has to endure such injustice again – all they have to do is say, “This is mine because it is a civil right”, and BOOM! You have no right to object!
(And if you do object, it could only be because you hate black people!)
Don’t you wish YOU got a blank check like that?
July 25th, 2012 | 6:54 pm
They imagine they have a right to bypass normal political processes in establishing whatever rights they want.
Blake,
They are awful, aren’t they? Certainly not the kind of people I would want to move into my neighborhood or have to deal with at the office. They are selfish, and they want society to lie for them.
July 26th, 2012 | 9:00 am
harry –
Since homosexuality is relatively common (more common than sickle-cell, say), but third arms or two heads are decidedly not common, we actually have a very solid basis for saying that any genetic contributors to homosexuality aren’t associated with those traits. If you don’t understand an argument, ask for clarification, don’t just dismiss it.
You see, if an inheritable trait has substantial negative effect on fertility, then evolution should, in fact, weed it out as you note. But you need to take the next step. If it hasn’t been weeded out, that means it’s either relatively recent or has some compensating advantage in other circumstances.
In other words, the same factor can be ‘self-annihilating’ in some circumstances, and ‘self-supporting’ in others. If the latter circumstances are more common than the former overall, then the trait can persist (and even increase in frequency until a balance is reached).
Homosexuality isn’t recent. Therefore… if there are heritable factors that influence it, then there must be some compensatory advantage that outweighs the negative effect on fertility. And there do seem to be heritable factors associated that influence homosexuality.
Populations evolve. Selection operates on individuals. An important distinction.
July 26th, 2012 | 11:02 am
[...] On Mau-Mauing the Chicken Sandwich Guy Matthew J. Franck, First Things If Dan Cathy is, as a matter of his own beliefs and moral convictions, opposed to same-sex marriage, the last time I checked it was still permitted to be an American and hold such views–even to be a successful businessman! [...]
July 26th, 2012 | 11:18 am
Hi, Ray,
An excerpt from the article at the link you provided:
As I pointed out, we just don’t know about the genetic causation of homosexual orientation, or even if there is any such thing. We do know about the genetic causation of CF and sickle-cell anemia.
You have quite handily refuted your straw man who apparently was saying that genetic contributors to homosexuality are also associated with having third arms or two heads. Congratulations.
Now let’s get back to the discussion you and I were having. What I said was “We haven’t identified traits that lead to homosexuality,” a point which the article you provided is in agreement with. That being so, your remark that “the traits that lead to homosexuality in some cases may lead to greater fertility in other cases” was wild speculation not based on any scientific evidence. So, I pointed out that there was no more of a scientific basis for that remark than there is for asserting that genetic traits that lead to homosexuality “may lead to reduced intellectual capacity, or a third arm growing out of one’s back, or one having two heads. It was your straw man who said “genetic contributors to homosexuality aren’t associated with those traits.”
You need to take the next step. It is also entirely possible that it hasn’t been weeded out because it is a trait acquired due to environmental factors, and has nothing at all to do with genetics. Furthermore, it is also entirely possible that the environment may bring about only the inclination to homosexual orientation, and the biggest factor in one ending up with a homosexual orientation is whether one chooses to act on those inclinations. What we choose to do becomes easier to do and begins to seem natural, whether it is nor not.
July 26th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
harry,
You were the one who introduced evolution into this discussion, and you are now, strangely, making the case that since so little is known, what Ray says is speculation. And yet you, who clearly understand the mechanisms of evolution less well than Ray, continue to make speculations of your own, prefaced by statements like “it is entirely possible.”
July 26th, 2012 | 12:50 pm
Harry – You were the one who introduced the “third arms or two heads” strawman. Don’t blame me for pointing out that it was a strawman, and a complete misrepresentation of what I’ve been saying.
There’s a difference between ‘identifying specific inheritable traits influencing homosexuality’ and ‘identifying that inheritable traits influencing homosexuality exist‘. Even before the specific genes involved in sickle-cell were identified, it was clear that the disease was heritable. (Indeed, this was firmly established before the structure of DNA was puzzled out.)
Most studies do indicate that homosexuality has a heritable component. (To compare and contrast heritability, BTW – in the majority of cases, when one identical twin has diabetes, the other does not. That doesn’t mean diabetes has no heritable component.)
It’s a pity you didn’t read further in the article I linked, in the section helpfully titled “Sexual orientation and evolution”: Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of “gay genes” has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani. They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother’s side tended to have more offspring than those on the father’s side. This indicates that females carrying a putative “androphilia genes” complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes.
So – ‘speculation’? Sure. Not with you on the ‘wild’ part, though. My point to you is that your claim – and I’m quoting your words, here – that homosexuality “can only be an unnatural aberration, not the natural product of evolutionary processes” is simply not correct. It very well could be “the natural product of evolutionary processes” acting on genes that have different effects in different circumstances. A lot more research needs to be done.
Sure, quite possibly. In which case, laws aiming to curb something consenting adults do that harms no one else are also a bad idea.
So… if homosexuality is at least partly biological, laws against it are a bad idea. If homosexuality is purely a choice, then such laws are also a bad idea.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:05 pm
So… if homosexuality is at least partly biological, laws against it are a bad idea. If homosexuality is purely a choice, then such laws are also a bad idea.
Nobody ever said anything about laws against homosexuality.
Even when sodomy was illegal, nobody was making it a crime to be a homosexual – only to engage in certain behaviors.
People cannot “choose” whether to be attracted to corpses, animals, children, siblings, or fetish items. We cannot punish them for what is not theirs to control – but we can and do have expectations about how far they can indulge those desires, and in what ways.
Where the line is – between the right to indulge your sexual desires vs. where society has the right to expect you to curb your impulses – is a line we draw based on the recognition that your interests aren’t the only interests at stake here. And that’s where most gay rights arguments today fall down – they deliberately ignore, minimize, and outright deny the other stakeholders.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:15 pm
The real question is not whether gay people should have rights, but why those rights should necessarily override religious rights.
Black rights (which Ray consistently tries to equate with gay rights) center on the question of “innate” or “unchangeable” characteristics; black people cannot choose their skin color.
He argues that gays cannot choose to be gay.
But then comes the giant leap, because nobody is discriminating against gays based on the presence of an innate characteristic.
What is the correct way for a gay person to behave? That is the question – and what gay activists want is for their own personal answer to be taken as THE answer, with any other answer being punished as equal to discrimination against blacks.
The giant leap is the leap from “to be” to “to do”.
It is the jump from having a characteristic to engaging in an action, or living a lifestyle.
We have one set of rules for guiding discrimination against ‘innate’ conditions, such as skin color. Gays are entitled to the same protection: if anyone were demanding that people submit to “gay gene” testing as a precondition for employment, that would be the same as discriminating against someone based on skin color.
We have a different set of rules for guiding discrimination against religion and belief. The rules differ because we recognize that there is an element of choice – yet at the same time we all have certain rights when it comes to belief.
In other words, there are rights and protections due to religious beliefs, but not at the same level or same in kind as the rights and protections we have in place to protect people from racial discrimination. Racial discrimination gets a higher level of protection because there is no element of choice involved. This is why gays keep going on about how involuntary homosexuality is – because they want that higher level of protection that we accord to innate qualities over religious beliefs.
What is not clear to me is why homosexual beliefs and lifestyle choices should be treated as innate.
Clearly, one’s sexual impulses are not something one can choose (though if we ever did develop an effective and reliable therapy to ‘cure’ deviant sexuality, this might open a whole new argument). But why should it be taken as self-evident that because one does not choose to feel sexual desire for _____, that therefore one has not only a right to indulge that desire – but even a right to force people to affirm that lifestyle choice, and even punish them for disapproving?
July 27th, 2012 | 8:41 am
Blake –
Currently there’s this controversy over the phrase ‘freedom of worship’ – you may have heard of it? The claim is that some are trying to make it legal to be a Christian, but not to engage in Christian activity.
By your words here, though, I assume you have no problem with that. Right?
Actually, I tend to avoid that. Which is why I specifically chose interracial marriage as an example here.
Please list those differences. Can you give some examples of them in practice, too?
How has the Westboro ‘Baptist’ Church been punished for who or what they disapprove of?
July 27th, 2012 | 11:13 am
If evolution requires reproduction and beneficial, heritable mutations that enhance survivability, how can that which ends in one gratifying one’s sexual desires in a sterile way be the result of evolution?
You say it very well could be the natural product of evolutionary processes acting on genes that have different effects in different circumstances, and say this even though there is no certainty that sexual orientation is even based on genetics. That is unfounded speculation in an attempt to make plausible that which makes no sense at all — that that which ends evolution due to sterility is the natural product of evolution.
Infertile same-sex attraction “very well could be” entirely due to environmental factors and have nothing at all to do with genetics.
Well, I certainly don’t know as many “just so” stories as Ray. Ray fails to directly address the fundamental problems with the notion that lifeless matter somehow assembled itself into that first reproducing, single-celled life form, problems which I have repeatedly pointed out to him. He responds instead with the unfounded speculation we have seen on this thread.
July 27th, 2012 | 11:53 am
If evolution requires reproduction and beneficial, heritable mutations that enhance survivability, how can that which ends in one gratifying one’s sexual desires in a sterile way be the result of evolution?
harry,
Take a look at honey bees. For an entire colony of bees, there is only one fertile female, the queen. Out of thousands of male bees (drones), perhaps ten or fifteen will mate with the queen. From an evolutionary viewpoint (or more precisely, from the viewpoint of existing to pass along your own genes) the lives of all the other males have been useless. Also, male bees don’t have fathers. They are born from unfertilized eggs. Only female bees have both a mother and a father.
So your argument seems to be that in human beings, it can’t be possible for perhaps 5% of the population to continue to be people who are inclined not to reproduce sexually, whereas in bees it is definitely the case that only one female per colony and ten or fifteen males reproduce sexually.
You seriously underestimate nature!
July 27th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
harry –
Wow.
I thought the quote I gave from the article was pretty clear. I honestly don’t quite grasp how you missed it. Look again, it’s the paragraph all in italics.
Apparently I need to make things very explicit, so… Picture a gene that influences the carrier toward sexual attraction to men, regardless of the carrier’s gender. In a man, this is unlikely to get propagated, yes. But the very same gene in a woman can lead to more childbirths. (I trust I don’t have to draw a picture or anything regarding that.)
If, on average, the women with this gene wind up having more children than the man would have without the gene… then the gene will become more prevalent in the population. Actually, thanks to genetic drift all it needs is for the woman to have as many extra children as the man would have. That, plus a bit of luck, and neutral mutations can increase in frequency.
Let’s say in a stable population, men tend to sire two children, and women tend to bear two children. But now we have this putative trait for attraction to men. Men with it have zero children, but women with it have four children. Voila, it’s neutral overall.
I’ve pointed to evidence that suggests this very case. Right now, all you’re putting forward is an Argument From Incredulity – “I can’t see how this could happen, therefore it didn’t.” A la Dennett – do not mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.
What if the women carrying more children don’t quite compensate for the men not siring their share? Then over time, the trait will be selected against, sure.
But wait! What if there’s social pressure on the men, compelling them to reproduce? They may have reduced fertility, but now it’s even more likely that the extra children the women have will compensate. As I stated above, if homosexuality is both biological and a net negative, then laws discouraging it are misguided, since they can wind up having the exact opposite effect!
I really don’t understand why you don’t grasp the idea that something that’s maladaptive in one case can be enough of an advantage in another case to compensate. You know about computer programming. Surely you’ve run into cases where you have to choose between two kinds of code – one that runs in about the same time for all cases, and another that’s slow in general but very fast for particular inputs? You can’t just go by the average times; you have to look at the cases the code is going to encounter in practice, and figure out which will be faster overall.
You sound like a naive programmer, who’s asking, “Why aren’t you using quicksort there? It’s O(n*log(n)), and insertion sort is O(n^2)!” And I’m saying, “You’re neglecting complicating factors. Insertion sort’s slower in general, sure, but it’s ~O(n) for nearly-ordered lists, and that’s what we run into most of the in this particular problem domain. Plus, it takes up less memory and is simpler to implement.”
Or, just possibly… you fail to recognize when I directly address the problems you discuss. I’m afraid I can’t help but think that’s what’s going in this particular discussion.
July 27th, 2012 | 4:50 pm
Ray fails to directly address the fundamental problems with the notion that lifeless matter somehow assembled itself into that first reproducing, single-celled life form, problems which I have repeatedly pointed out to him. He responds instead with the unfounded speculation we have seen on this thread.
It is precisely this sort of “leap of faith” that makes me believe that humanism should be recognized as a religion, not merely an ideology.
If you list the functions religions perform (from explaining origins and destinies, to creating narrative frameworks and thus moral codes, and so on) you see that humanism is very much based on articles of faith; it has prophets and high priests; it has rituals; it has its own ideas of “the sacred” – it’s got almost everything.
What it doesn’t have is a good explanation of how something comes from nothing, or why the universe should be self-organizing (or even why a self-organizing universe should exist at all).
That is where the claim that man can know these things ‘rationally’ (and thus be superior to people who have to rely on articles of faith) starts to become problematic.
That is why they insist they “know” things that they don’t actually know – like what causes homosexuality – and why they can assert, as if it were fact, interpretative statements about what homosexuality “means”, what sexuality “is” or “what it’s for”, what a family “is”, and so on. Of course such interpretations are loaded with value judgments and assumptions and opinions. But part of the allure of humanism is that it does not present itself as a religious answer to the world’s problems, it presents itself as the truth – replacing religion with something that transcends mere religion (the “myth of mythlessness”).
July 28th, 2012 | 8:10 am
What I find interesting in all of these comments is how we’ve adopted the language of the liberal community –there is an underlying assumption that “gay marriage” is a “right,” and that opposing that belief is “discrimination,” throughout.
So what’s really going on here is the terms have been defined, and anyone who disagrees with the “right to gay marriage” is a “bigot who discriminates.” Once one side captures the language this solidly, there’s little chance for rational discourse. No matter what Dan Cathey, or anyone else, says, in their defense, no matter how rational, how much backed up by facts, how strong, how reasonable, the result will be an immediate reply of “you’re a bigot who discriminates against gays because you don’t support gay marriage.”
It’s yet another case of the big lie –repeat it often enough and loud enough, and people believe it no matter whether or not it’s actually true.
That’s the bottom line in this argument.
July 28th, 2012 | 8:37 am
@Ray:
Are you really certain you want to prove homosexuality is genetic?
Consider, for a moment, that your entire line of argument can be applied to all sexual behaviors, and think about the results. IF sexual behavior is both genetic and irresistible (which I don’t believe), then all sexual offenders aren’t really offenders at all, but should be released from jail immediately.
Consider, for a moment, what happens to the arguments against racism if your belief is true. If behavior is genetic (which I don’t believe), then racism is rational.
Consider, for a moment, what happens to the honor of those who fight for what they believe against their natural instincts if your belief is true. If it is ultimately impossible to go against your genetic makeup, then there is no honor in bravery, nor is there is greatness in determination. The only point of the Olympic Games, in your world, is for people to show their genes off as potential breeding stock. Not that anyone can actually choose a mate in your world, because all sexual behavior is both irresistible and genetically determined.
Do you really, really want all of this? If not, then you should rethink your commitment to the gospel of genetic sexuality, and your continuous creation of “just so stories” in it’s defense.
One of the worst aspects of evolution is this constant attempt to prove anything and everything by simply making up another “just so” story –”in a universe far, far, away…” A “theory” that proves both common descent and disparate descent by similarity of function and design isn’t a theory, it’s a bit of nonsense parading around with the emperor’s new clothes.
July 28th, 2012 | 10:28 am
Blake –
As I’ve made clear, I… um… disagree with both you and Harry on that.
I’m not convinced any religion actually has that, though.
Interesting. I’ve clearly labeled what I’ve been discussing here as “speculation” – that’s the actual word I used, btw – and now you say I claim to “know”. If you can’t get basics like that right, why should anyone think you’ve got a handle on the rest of my views?
July 28th, 2012 | 10:39 am
Russ White –
Are you really certain that’s what I’m doing? See my reply to Blake.
I’m curious. Please tell me where I used the word ‘irresistible’; I don’t remember using it.
That’s wrong in two different ways. Arguing that behavior is influenced by genes is not at all the same thing as arguing that ‘behavior is genetic’. Secondly, you’re assuming that there are actual significant genetic differences between human ‘races’. But there aren’t.
I’m afraid you’re going to have to unpack that statement a bit. Exactly what are you referring to with the phrase “disparate descent by similarity of function and design”? The whole point of evolution is common descent, and we have ridiculous amounts of evidence supporting it.
I suggest you take a look at David Sloan Wilson’s “Evolution for Everyone”; one of the first chapters, for example, tackles ‘genetic determinism’.
July 28th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
Ray,
If one has no idea how to bring about a given phenomenon intentionally, due to its vast, functionally complex intricacy, one is in no position to assert it came about accidentally. If one knew at least one way to bring it about intentionally, once could then begin to surmise how that procedure could have taken place mindlessly and accidentally.
Where is the laboratory where primitive, single-celled, reproducing life forms are routinely brought about from scratch, where the scientists are saying, “OK. Now we know how lifeless matter can be assembled into life, we just need to figure out how that can take place mindlessly and accidentally in nature.”?
There is no such laboratory. This is because the intricacy and functional complexity of the nanotechnology of the most primitive, single-celled, reproducing life form is light years beyond anything modern science knows how to build from scratch. We know it consists of multitasking, self-repairing, self-replicating nanotechnology that includes communication systems with error detection and correction, digitally encoded instructions stored in biological memory that are read by cellular processes to instantiate intricate, three dimensional cellular machinery needed for metabolism and reproduction (think CAD/CAM), along with the necessary quality control mechanisms, and much, much more that we don’t understand at all.
Our universal experience is that significant functional complexity doesn’t come about mindlessly, much less the massive functional complexity of nanotechnology vastly beyond our own. Unless one’s most fervently held atheistic convictions are offended by the idea that the intentions of an intelligent agent were a causal factor in life coming about, one sees that the involvement of an intelligent agent, based on what science currently knows, is by far the most likely explanation for it.
Let’s say there is a tribe of jungle savages whose leadership believes and teaches religiously that all phenomena are natural with the exception of the items the tribe themselves and other tribes like them build. A laptop PC that still has good batteries has been discovered. The savages have been playing with this mysterious device, amazed at what happens when certain parts of it are touched or pressed. They are speculating as to how it came to be. Many are saying it is obvious that someone intentionally built this thing. The tribal leadership finds this idea patently offensive. They proclaim that all the wise men of the tribe believe it is a natural phenomenon, as though that should be reason enough to believe this. The tribal wise men speculate about a tree somewhere the fruit of which is these mysterious devices, hanging on its branches by the hundreds. They warn those who disagree, “do not mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity.”
The reality is that since the tribal wise men have no idea how to build a functional laptop PC, they have absolutely no rational basis for asserting that one can come about mindlessly and accidentally. The real basis for their assertions are their religious beliefs.
If one is a devout atheist, one is in exactly the same position as our tribal leadership when confronted with nanotechnology vastly beyond anything they know how to build from scratch. And they use the same methods as the tribal wise men to defend their atheism, only in addition to asserting that their “superior” knowledge is reason enough to believe that they are correct, they also pretend their unfounded speculations, which spring from their zealously held atheistic convictions, are “science.” They most certainly are not.
July 28th, 2012 | 2:08 pm
Maybe there’s a path forward here. Can proponents of “traditional marriage” devote their efforts towards methods of supporting traditional marriage without seeking to impose laws or constitutional language that prevents or obstructs same-sex marriage?
Can the conservative Christians come up with ideas of how this might work? Or does supporting traditional marriage necessarily imply resisting same-sex marriage through legal and political means?
July 28th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
No matter what Dan Cathey, or anyone else, says, in their defense, no matter how rational, how much backed up by facts, how strong, how reasonable, the result will be an immediate reply of “you’re a bigot who discriminates against gays because you don’t support gay marriage.”
Russ White,
Almost without exception, the only mentions of bigotry in discussions here on First Things are from opponents of same-sex marriage saying, “You’re calling us bigots, but we’re not!”
It seems to me in the debate over same-sex marriage and homosexuality, if we insist on dividing people into two and only two groups, pro and con, those who oppose same-sex marriage engage in demonization of those who support to a far greater degree than those who support it demonize those who oppose it. Suppose there actually were supporters of same-sex marriage here in this forum calling those who opposed it bigots who are denying gay people rights. Opponents of same-sex marriage here accuse supporters of “the big lie,” of selfishness, indifference or hostility toward the wellbeing of children, intentions to destroy Western civilization, opposition to religion and the will of God, and an endless number of offenses that make bigotry, in comparison, almost a compliment. There are often sweeping generalizations here about what gay people think, do, and want that are breathtaking in their scope and ill will. Opponents of same-sex marriage feel free to quote any supporter of same-sex marriage as a spokesperson for the entire movement, and yet would object to supporters of same-sex marriage quoting Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church as a spokesperson for Christianity and traditional marriage. Blatant cases of homophobia and bigotry on the part of opponents of same-sex marriage are dismissed as aberrations. But if one gay radical somewhere makes an obnoxious statement, he or she is regarded as an official spokesperson for everyone who defends same-sex marriage.
July 28th, 2012 | 3:26 pm
From the Science Integrity web site:
Dr. Don Johnson (with earned Ph.D.s in both informational and natural sciences), the founder of Science Integrity, once believed anyone not accepting the “proven” evolutionary scenario that was ingrained during his science education was of the same mentality as someone believing in a flat Earth. With continued scientific investigation, paying closer attention to actual data (rather than speculative conclusions), he began to doubt the natural explanations that had been so ingrained in a number of key areas including the origin and fine-tuning of mass and energy, the origin of life with its complex information content, and the increase in complexity in living organisms. It was science, and not religion, that caused his disbelief in the explanatory powers of undirected nature. The fantastic leaps of faith required to accept the undirected natural causes in these areas demand a scientific response to the scientific-sounding concepts that in fact have no known scientific basis. Scientific integrity needs to be restored so that ideas that have no methods to test or falsify are not considered part of science. Science needs to avoid unsubstantiated speculation based on “science as we don’t know it.” Speculation is important for investigating whether proposed mechanisms are possible, but great care is needed if those speculations are conveyed outside the scientific community. For example, the argument “we don’t yet know how this feature can arise by undirected natural processes, but we will someday” is not a scientific statement. It is faith based on “naturalism of the gaps” dogma, which has no more scientific validity than the “God of the gaps” theology as an explanation for currently unexplainable complexity.
July 29th, 2012 | 1:39 am
Maybe there’s a path forward here. Can proponents of “traditional marriage” devote their efforts towards methods of supporting traditional marriage without seeking to impose laws or constitutional language that prevents or obstructs same-sex marriage?
Can the conservative Christians come up with ideas of how this might work? Or does supporting traditional marriage necessarily imply resisting same-sex marriage through legal and political means?
It’s actually the gays who are obstructing the possibility of a solution.
By insisting that their own personal beliefs on procreation should be universal – and, further, that the government should be used to force people to embrace this view – they are inappropriately trying to establish their own beliefs as “required by law”.
But those beliefs are based on lies.
Lie #1: “Marriage is not procreative”.
You do not have to believe that the procreative functions of marriage are important. You do not have to believe that marriage should be linked to procreation. But it is not at all clear why gays think they have the right to insist that, because they do not think marriage should be related to procreation, therefore it ought to be the law – enforced by government authority – that nobody is allowed to recognize the procreative functions of marriage.
That’s what “changing the definition of marriage” is all about. Right now, procreation is an important function of marriage. It’s not the only function – but it is a function, and that function is linked to the institution, its benefits, and its structure. Making it a thoughtcrime to recognize procreation as a major function of marriage (historically THE function of marriage) is simply intolerable, and that’s why those who fancy that the gay marriage argument will turn out the way interracial marriage arguments turned out are going to find themselves bitterly disappointed.
Those procreative functions of marriage are important. This issue matters.
Lie #2: gays are potentially just as procreative as anyone
Even as they’re arguing that marriage isn’t procreative (since obviously if marriage is, there’s no discrimination in limiting it only to couples suitable for making a family together), gays are also arguing out of the other side of their mouth that there’s no reason why only heteros should be viewed as procreative – after all, gays can always use surrogates, or adoption.
The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that gays are not the only stakeholders in a given family situation. Children have rights too. Children also have needs, and they are also entitled to equal consideration when it comes to weighing everyone’s interests – a fact that gay rights advocates have to minimize or outright deny in order for their arguments to hold up. When children are considered as equal stakeholders, the argument that “no harm is done” when gays make families together simply crumbles.
Relationships are important.
Having a mother is important.
Having a father is important.
Gay marriage creates barren relationships. There is no way to counteract this problem that does not involve lying, forcing children to accept situations that are not in their best interests, and other forms of dysfunction.
Since gays are always insisting that marriage is not procreative, they should practice what they preach – recognizing that they have the right to marry Gary but they should be honest and recognize Susan, not Gary, as the mother of their child. We don’t want a subclass of “Handmaid’s Tale”-style “breeding stock” women for rich men to exploit every time they want a new pet child. We want a family where EVERY family member is treated with dignity and respect – even the mother of your child, even though you personally have no use for her. Your child does.
Also, the procreative benefits of marriage should go with your co-parent. Only the life partner benefits of marriage should be shared with your life partner. Since you’re both able-bodied adults – neither one of you being the other’s caregiver or breadwinner (since procreation is not involved) – there’s no reason why either of you should be riding on the other’s insurance policies or other company-sponsored benefits. You should share those benefits with Susan, whom you have an obligation to support – and Gary, if he wants to have children, should support (or be supported by, if he prefers) his child’s real mother.
Lie #3: “it’s just like discriminating against blacks”
If we assume that nobody has the right to discriminate against someone because of their innate sexual desires, then why wouldn’t that include sexual desires – including forbidden ones?
I believe that it logically follows. But on a practical level, I see a problem – there is no cure for sexual desire, that I know of, and I wouldn’t want a person who has a pedophile orientation in charge of the kids. It would not only be bad for the kids, it would be bad for the person of pedophilic orientation. Nonetheless, I could see how rules could be drawn up that could theoretically prevent such a situation while still treating the person with the unwanted orientation with dignity and respect.
But it does not follow that all persons can behave any way they want. There are limits. Where should those limits be drawn? That I can’t say, but I can say this: what’s true for a black person is not necessarily true for a gay person, because black does not involve ANY behavioral choices. NONE. The success of the civil rights movement hinged on this recognition: that black men are just like white men, and that is what makes race different from gender. It is not true that men are just like women, and it is not true that gay couples are just like hetero ones.
July 29th, 2012 | 9:29 am
Harry… how did we get from possible evolutionary accounts of the prevalence of homosexuality to abiogenesis?
If someone discusses the current election cycle with you, do you debate the origin of nation-states with them?
We’ve had the discussion on abiogenesis before, but that’s not what we’re talking about now. If there’s a problem with my case, a flaw in the math, a conceptual error… let me know. Otherwise, it really looks like you’re making a strategic retreat to ground you can’t (yet) be proven wrong on.
July 29th, 2012 | 5:20 pm
It’s actually the gays who are obstructing the possibility of a solution.
By insisting that their own personal beliefs on procreation should be universal – and, further, that the government should be used to force people to embrace this view – they are inappropriately trying to establish their own beliefs as “required by law”.
Blake,
Could you please consider dialing back on your sweeping generalizations about “gays”? Even if what you say about proponents of same-sex marriage is true, not all gays are proponents of same-sex marriage, and not all proponents of same-sex marriage are gays. Your persistent statements about gays want this, and gays do that, and gays think this bear a resemblance to statements racists make about blacks and anti-Semites make about Jews—stereotypes and sweeping generalizations. Gay people are not a monolithic group with a universally agreed-upon agenda. If you want to criticize same-sex marriage proponents or gay rights activists, I will be the last to say you shouldn’t. But please stop making sweeping generalizations about gay people.
July 29th, 2012 | 6:44 pm
Hi, Ray,
Science needs to avoid unsubstantiated speculation based on “science as we don’t know it.”
“Picture a gene that influences the carrier toward sexual attraction to men, regardless of the carrier’s gender. …”
– Ray
What scientific validity does an argument have that is based on an imaginary gene?
Then there was there was the time you used a natural nuclear fission reactor in Gabon, Africa as a “scientific” basis for the notion that replication with modification can produce increasing complexity, as though the existence of such a phenomenon had some kind of bearing upon biological functional complexity:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/05/20/nature-and-the-philosophers/
Draw all the conclusions you want from your speculations, Ray. Go for it,
July 29th, 2012 | 11:23 pm
Harry – You declared that homosexuality could have no possible evolutionary explanation. You were the one holding forth with great certainty.
I pointed out a potential explanation. I didn’t have to prove it correct – though I did offer some evidence in support of it – to establish that your statement was overly broad. If you disagree, point out a problem with my case. Yes, it’s speculation – but on what evidence do you rule it out?
Homosexuality may have no genetic or biological component. I’d be shocked if that were the case – sexual attraction is pretty fundamental to biology, after all – but that is a possibility. However, it’s also possible that there’s a significant biological and/or genetic component to it. Anyone who claims certainty on that score – either way – is striking out well ahead of the evidence.
July 30th, 2012 | 11:51 am
harry –
If that’s what you got out of that, either you need to read more carefully or I need to express things more clearly. I used it as an analogy – “Replication plus mutation is a game-changer, like reaching critical mass, or undergoing a phase transition” (emphasis added).
And I also used it as an illustration of how different conditions in the past could allow things to happen then that can’t happen now: “It couldn’t happen now – U-235 concentrations have decayed too much” – since you often talk about how, since abiogenesis doesn’t happen naturally now, it couldn’t have happened back then.
July 30th, 2012 | 1:23 pm
I also said:
Fact: Evolution is all about heritable mutations that enhance survivability.
Fact: Severe mutations that render the mutant sterile end evolutionary progression from that point onward. Infertility is an evolutionary dead end.
It seems to me that a trait that leaves the mutant’s sex drive such that the act that fulfills it is a sterile misuse of the mutant’s “plumbing” is — in terms of the evolutionary process — an unnatural aberration that does not contribute to evolutionary progression.
Any unfounded speculation based on imaginary genes or the pretense that science has demonstrated that human homosexuality is the result of a series of heritable mutations that enhance survivability is just that: unfounded speculation.
July 30th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
harry –
Fact: That is not a fact. Evolution is about change in the frequency of genes in a population over time.
In this very discussion I’ve specifically mentioned one mechanism where ‘mutations that don’t enhance survivability’ can spread – can you name it? Then there’s things like sexual selection (which can drive the development of maladaptive traits, linkage disequilibrium (where negative traits can get linked to positive ones, and spread by ‘riding coattails’).
I’m sorry, but I really think you need to study evolution a bit more before you can make confident statements regarding what it’s about.
I am frankly unable to parse the concept of ‘nature’ ‘purging’ a trait from the population ‘via’ homosexuality. This seems to represent a fundamental confusion of ideas. Exactly how would ‘nature’ pick a trait for ‘purging’, and how would it ‘choose’ homosexuality as the mechanism? Can you point to some case where something like this is known to happen? Can you even lay out a mechanism whereby this could happen?
Let me tell you about a simple case where your logic fails. In many species of frogs, the deeper the mating call of the male, the more likely females are to respond and announce their presence. The ladies wait until the frog version of Barry White sings, then they call out and wait for him to come to them.
Naturally, the bigger the frog, the deeper the voice. So there’s strong selection pressure for big, deep-voiced frogs. Over time, genes for smaller males should be weeded out, right?
Not so fast. Literally – because big male frogs are generally not so fast. Smaller frogs can be quicker.
The smaller frogs can hear the ladies call out, too. And often they can get to her before the big guys can, and take advantage of the situation. So, what you get is a situation where a mix of different strategies prevails. There’s no one perfect strategy – in life, there’s never one perfect strategy, really – so you get a mix of guy sizes.
At no point in our discussion have you even attempted to grapple with the idea that genes can have different effects in different situations. Hell, that’s pretty much the normal case for genes – we know that the prenatal and immediate postnatal environment has profound effects on the metabolism and immune system of human babies. It applies later in life, too – girls with absent fathers go into puberty earlier, on average.
You seem to hate the idea that homosexuality may be a side effect of some other trait that’s positive in other situations. But ‘I don’t like that’ and ‘that’s impossible’ aren’t the same thing.
July 30th, 2012 | 3:50 pm
For a population, heritable mutations provide the source of genetic variation, without which evolution could not occur.
I do not deny that genes can have different affects in different situations. What I deny is that speculating that what we know about honey bees (thanks David), frogs and the effects the environment has on babies tells us anything about human homosexuality. It’s all bluff, just like your citing a wikipedia page full of technical jargon as though it explains how the information in DNA is arrived at when it doesn’t at all.
July 30th, 2012 | 4:11 pm
What I deny is that speculating that what we know about honey bees (thanks David), frogs and the effects the environment has on babies tells us anything about human homosexuality.
harry,
The reproductive life of honey bees may or may not tell us something about human homosexuality, but it does tell us something about sexual reproduction—namely, that a species can flourish when not all of its members reproduce or even can reproduce. You simply want to ignore basic facts about evolution and sexual reproduction because they don’t fit with harry’s theory of evolution. But we’re dealing with Darwin’s theory here, not harry’s. This really isn’t a discussion about the heritability of homosexuality. It’s about how evolution works, and you’re adamant about maintaining your own version of evolution rather than the prevailing scientific view. I suspect you don’t even really believe in evolution, actually.
July 31st, 2012 | 9:04 am
Hello, David Nickol,
“You simply want to ignore basic facts about evolution and sexual reproduction because they don’t fit with harry’s theory of evolution. But we’re dealing with Darwin’s theory here, not harry’s. … you’re adamant about maintaining your own version of evolution rather than the prevailing scientific view.”
– David Nickol
The article at the link Ray provided stated that “No cause for sexual orientation has been demonstrated … Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions” and some indicate there is “no genetic influence” on sexual orientation.
Could it be that you and Ray are pretending the David and Ray theory of evolution is the “prevailing scientific view”?
“I suspect you don’t even really believe in evolution, actually.”
– David Nickol
The big issue to me is not whether a biological process that took place over millions of years resulted in higher forms of life and culminated in humanity. The issue to me is whether lifeless matter, which tends to reach a state of equilibrium and just “sit there,” so to speak, not assemble itself into ever-increasing complexity, but instead tends to disintegrate into its simplest, most likely state, could have mindlessly and accidentally assembled itself into the astounding functional complexity of the nanotechnology of life — which in the simplest single-celled, reproducing life forms is light years beyond any technology of our own — and then mindlessly and accidentally increased in complexity such that higher forms of life up to and including rational beings came about.
There are simply no instances of significant functional complexity coming about mindlessly and accidentally. So why should we believe that the most spectacular instance of functional complexity known to us is a mindless accident? If it was within mindless nature’s abilities to bring about such astounding functional complexity, why aren’t there other phenomena consisting of 1/4 or 1/2 or 3/4 of the functional complexity of life? There aren’t, yet there should be if it was within mindless nature’s abilities to bring about significant functional complexity in spite of lifeless matter’s tendency to disintegrate into simpler, more likely states rather than self-assemble into ever more complex and integrated states.
So, my issue isn’t how life came about, it is whether what we find life to be could have possibly been the result of mindlessness? Common sense answers that question with a resounding “No!” It seems as though nature was intentionally set up to shout to us that there is Someone behind it and responsible for it.
July 31st, 2012 | 1:05 pm
harry –
Is a virus alive?
But that’s a side issue. The discussion was about your claim that homosexuality “can only be an unnatural aberration, not the natural product of evolutionary processes.” That’s a pretty categorical and sweeping statement, don’t you agree? You’re saying that no other possibility exists.
But other possibilities have been pointed out to you. And you respond by saying – so far as I can see – ‘Well oh yeah? Where did life come from?’ I trust you can see why I’d find this non-responsive.
August 1st, 2012 | 9:40 am
The development of viruses appears to be inexorably linked to that of life, whether they are alive or not. They don’t count as something entirely different from life but approaching its astoundingly intricate functional complexity. What I was asking for was an example of some other natural phenomenon, unrelated to life in its attributes and development and not suspected to be the result of a degeneration of the evolution of life, but one that is similar to life only in that it approaches its astounding functional complexity. We should see such phenomena if it is within the abilities of lifeless matter to mindlessly assemble itself into functionally complex nanotechnology beyond our own. We don’t.
The following is from “Where did Viruses Come From” on the Scientific American web site:
“There are a number of viruses that have a similar way of copying themselves—a process that reverses the normal flow of information in cells, which is where the term “retro” comes from—and their central machinery for replication may be a bridge from the original life-forms on this planet to what we know as life today … they may have an ancient origin, possibly as parasitic life-forms that then adapted to the “virus lifestyle.” In fact, viruses may be responsible for significant episodes of evolutionary change, especially in more complex types of organisms. At the end of the day, however, despite all of their common features and unique abilities to copy and spread their genomes, the origins of most viruses may remain forever obscure.”
The discussion turned to the origin of life in response to a remark David made. You know that. Your characterization of that as my abruptly announcing out of the blue ‘Well oh yeah? Where did life come from?’ is unfair. You know that, too.
August 1st, 2012 | 2:11 pm
harry –
You brought it up in your comment dated “July 28th, 2012 | 12:33 pm” – addressed to me, not David. I specifically pointed out that’s what you were doing at “July 29th, 2012 | 9:29 am”.
August 1st, 2012 | 4:17 pm
And yet you, who clearly understand the mechanisms of evolution less well than Ray …
– David Nickol, July 26th, 2012 | 12:03 pm
Well, I certainly don’t know as many “just so” stories as Ray. Ray fails to directly address the fundamental problems with the notion that lifeless matter somehow assembled itself into that first reproducing, single-celled life form, problems which I have repeatedly pointed out to him. He responds instead with the unfounded speculation we have seen on this thread.
– harry, July 27th, 2012 | 11:13 am
Or, just possibly… you fail to recognize when I directly address the problems you discuss.
– Ray Ingles, July 27th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
Ray, If one has no idea how to bring about a given phenomenon intentionally …
– harry, July 28th, 2012 | 12:33 pm
That is how it began.
So, tell me, Ray, how is that the information in the coding regions of DNA got there? Whether it be DNA as we now know it, or some form of biological memory that was a predecessor to it, in some primitive life form, the correct information was arrived at and stored in biological memory such that, when accessed by a cellular process, directed that process in the construction of various cellular machinery necessary for metabolism and reproduction. How did that come about? Here is the basic dilemma:
Even if every possible state of memory, at one time or another, hand been mindlessly and accidentally placed in biological memory, the contents of memory in each and every one of those states would have been gibberish, not information, as far as its contents somehow appropriately corresponding to the execution of the cellular process in terms of directing it, before that cellular process existed. How does the contents of memory, regardless of how it is that it keeps changing, ever “evolve” into containing meaningful information in terms of directing a cellular process without a cellular process being in place to which it can correspond?
And how does a cellular process evolve that can be directed in its execution by the contents of biological memory before there is biological memory that somehow meaningfully corresponds to the possible paths of execution the cellular process can take?
Neither the correct contents of biological memory nor the cellular process directed by it can evolve in the absence of the other. And even if you accidentally (miraculously) happened to get such a cellular process going that corresponded to the state of biological memory such that its execution could be directed by the information in memory, that is light years away from the “final destination” where the state of memory is such that it not only can direct the execution of the cellular process, but also directs it such that something useful is constructed, not just directs it such that it has no “output”, or that it constructs useless or possibly destructive “machinery.” The entire process would be tossed by the evolutionary project as a waste of energy long before any benefit was derived from it, if the process ever got going at all.
Do you think you can answer these questions in precise, practical terms, without references to natural nuclear fission reactors or wikipedia pages full of technical jargon that may bamboozle some but do not in any way provide an answer to such questions? Let me explain what I mean. Software evolves from an unstable, “buggy” state into a “solid” state, and concrete goes from a liquid state to a “solid” state, but it would be of little value to explain the evolution of software by presenting in a scholarly way the molecular stages concrete goes through on its way to becoming solid, which is the kind of thing you tend to do instead of directly answering questions. I suspect that is because you don’t have the foggiest idea what the answers to the questions are. Don’t feel bad. Neither does anyone else. The way things stand right now, the ONLY possible answer is the obvious one: an intelligent agent was involved in life coming about.
August 1st, 2012 | 5:36 pm
Oops.
“in some primitive life form, the correct information was arrived at”
Should have been
“in some primitive pre-life form or some kind of chemical unit, the correct information was arrived at”
because we don’t yet have the machinery necessary for metabolism and reproduction, without which we don’t have “life” yet.
August 2nd, 2012 | 9:26 am
Whoops, harry, you’re right, it came up earlier than I thought. But it’s still the same issue – you’re ignoring the case I’m discussing and switching to the one you want to talk about.
Considering that we’ve already had that discussion – many times, I can’t work up much enthusiasm. Indeed, the last time I tried to pin you down to a specific topic – the ossicles – you retreated to abiogenesis again. I fell for it, and the source of ‘biological information’ specifically (March 22nd, 2012 | 3:33 pm), but you still wouldn’t come back to the main point. I’m afraid I’m not interested in another round right now.
We can talk about your claim that ‘homosexuality cannot be a product of evolution’, or we can go our separate ways. That’s all I’ve got for you this time.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact