Gay Gene Eugenics
Aug 18, 2010
Joe Carter
When it comes to homosexuality, those who support gay rights don't often find themselves agreeing with conservative Christians. Advances in biomedical technology, however, should push the two groups to agree that the biological basis for the homosexual orientation is irrelevant. Although their motivations may differ, each side has reasons for promoting the idea that sexual activity is freely chosen behavior.
Gay rights activists have, of course, been working against this idea for decades. They have been eager to find a genetic, hormonal, or neurological explanation for sexual orientation, which, they believe, will remove any doubt that individuals have no choice about their sexuality—and society will have no choice but to accept their sexual behavior as natural and normal.
Ironically, such an explanation could have just the opposite effect of what they hope for. As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a prenatal pill used to prevent ambiguous genitalia may reduce the chance that a female with the disorder will be gay. A bioethicist quoted in the story worried that the treatment could lead to "engineering in the womb for sexual orientation."
The ability to chemically steer a child's sexual orientation has become increasingly possible in recent years, with evidence building that homosexuality has biological roots and with advances in the treatment of babies in utero. Prenatal treatment for congenital adrenal hyperplasia is the first to test—unintentionally or not—that potential.
No one who has followed the trajectory of eugenics-oriented biotechnology will be surprised that one the first targets for manipulation would be sexual orientation. In 2002 Francis Fukuyama speculated that within twenty years we would be able to devise a way for parents to sharply reduce the likelihood that they will give birth to a gay child. Even in a society in which “social norms have become totally accepting of homosexuality,” he argues, most parents would choose the treatment.
Fukuyama is right. Even if homosexuality were considered a benign trait such as baldness or left-handedness, the majority of parents would opt to have a heterosexual child (“What if we want grandchildren?”).
But what happens when a homosexual orientation becomes preventable? There is a chance, albeit unlikely, that the orientation will once again be classified—like alcoholism—under the disease model of behavior and considered a treatable condition. It was not until 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder, and until 1987, ego-dystonic homosexuality was still considered a pathology in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the bible for mental health professionals.
More likely the effects of such change will occur privately, behind the doors of the IVF clinic, the obstetrician’s office, and the abortion clinic. Soon after technology made it possible to detect sex and chromosomal abnormalities, it became acceptable to abort baby girls and children with mental retardation. Children that possess the propensity to become gay will join these “less desirables” in being quietly eliminated before birth.
Although they will naturally abhor the aborting of such children, many conservative Christians will be amenable to changing sexual orientations in the womb. A prenatal treatment seems a humane solution for a moral problem, an easy way to deliver children from a particularly difficult temptation.
This acceptance of the “medicalization” of sexual orientations is misguided. Treating orientation as a malady promotes a reductionist view in which human behavior is explainable by chemical and physical laws. As we’ve seen in other areas of bioethics, reductionism inevitably undermines both moral autonomy and the dignity of the individual.
But even Christians who disagree with me should recognize that embracing the use of drugs and genetic engineering to correct for behavioral orientations opens the Pandora’s box of natal eugenics. Bioethicist Samuel Hensley also warns that rather than unconditionally accepting offspring as a gift of God, we will be tempted to redefine parenthood to include choosing the particular characteristics we want in children.
Christians should reject this cult of choice. We should be vigilant in expressing the truth that children are a blessing from God, not a product we manufacture to our specifications.
However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. We can also rightly insist that acting upon that desire in the form of sexual activity requires a freely chosen decision. While we might not be responsible for our sexual urges, we are always accountable for our sexual behavior. If gay activists would agree with us on this point, we could form a tentative alliance against the type of eugenics that attempts to change someone's future behavior—or eliminate them entirely—while they are still in the womb.
But this would put gay activists in an awkward position. If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality. Yet they could be harming their cause even more if they continue to argue that the orientation is normal and acceptable simply because it has a basis in our biological nature.
What will they say when the “cure” for homosexuality is discovered? How will they adjust when the societal expectation is that parents should have a child with such an orientation corrected or aborted? If homosexuals want to see their future, they should look at the plight of the children with Down Syndrome—assuming, of course, any such children can still be found.
We need an entente between Christians and gay activists to prevent the issue of homosexuality from being determined by genetic engineers and abortionists. This will not lead to an agreement about whether such behavior is benign or immoral. But at least we will be able to discuss the issue with our human dignity intact.
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
RESOURCES:
The Los Angeles Times, “Medical treatment carries possible side effect of limiting homosexuality”
Samuel D. Hensley's Designer Babies: One Step Closer
Francis Fukuyama's Our Postmodern Future
Comments:
8.18.2010 | 9:03am
Rachel says:
Has anyone studied the effects of pharmaceutical pollution? If estrogen and estrogen mimics in the water causes inter-sex fish and frogs, and more females to be born, how can there be no effect on humans? Could it be that we are seeing a lot of young men embrace homosexual behaviour because of the pharmaceutical pollution of our water supplies?
8.18.2010 | 9:10am
Sean says:
I assume gay couples will choose gay children if they can, if only to preserve the community. But I doubt the number of gay couples having kids like that would reach replacement level.
But I dunno. If we have to lower the percentage of gay people in our society, and I don't see that as a bad thing, it's better to do so via in utero treatment than abortion. The real question is, What will happen to reality tv, tabloids, fashion, cooking, and all the other female pursuits that gay men dominate?
But I dunno. If we have to lower the percentage of gay people in our society, and I don't see that as a bad thing, it's better to do so via in utero treatment than abortion. The real question is, What will happen to reality tv, tabloids, fashion, cooking, and all the other female pursuits that gay men dominate?
8.18.2010 | 9:12am
J says:
"Treating orientation as a malady promotes a reductionist view in which human behavior is explainable by chemical and physical laws."
What's your distinction for people who take medication for depression or personality disorders?
What's your distinction for people who take medication for depression or personality disorders?
8.18.2010 | 9:12am
Mark says:
However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. We can also rightly insist that acting upon that desire in the form of sexual activity requires a freely chosen decision. While we might not be responsible for our sexual urges, we are always accountable for our sexual behavior.
That's exactly right.
But this would put gay activists in an awkward position. If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.
I disagree. The real key argument comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and has nothing to do with DNA or hormones. In fact, there are activists on what you might call the post-modern left who despise the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.
What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel. If it is a choice to be attracted to members of one's own sex, then gay rights might appear to some to be frivolous and indulgent. But if it is not a choice (as it appears not to be), then it becomes a much more serious argument over what constitutes the good life and whether some people can be denied that even if they harm no one else in the process.
That's exactly right.
But this would put gay activists in an awkward position. If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.
I disagree. The real key argument comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and has nothing to do with DNA or hormones. In fact, there are activists on what you might call the post-modern left who despise the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.
What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel. If it is a choice to be attracted to members of one's own sex, then gay rights might appear to some to be frivolous and indulgent. But if it is not a choice (as it appears not to be), then it becomes a much more serious argument over what constitutes the good life and whether some people can be denied that even if they harm no one else in the process.
8.18.2010 | 9:27am
Mark says:
However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. We can also rightly insist that acting upon that desire in the form of sexual activity requires a freely chosen decision. While we might not be responsible for our sexual urges, we are always accountable for our sexual behavior.
That's exactly right.
But this would put gay activists in an awkward position. If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.
I disagree. The real key argument comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and has nothing to do with DNA or hormones. In fact, there are activists on what you might call the post-modern left who despise the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.
What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel. If it is a choice to be attracted to members of one's own sex, then gay rights might appear to some to be frivolous and indulgent. But if it is not a choice (as it appears not to be), then it becomes a much more serious argument over what constitutes the good life and whether some people can be denied that even if they harm no one else in the process.
That's exactly right.
But this would put gay activists in an awkward position. If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.
I disagree. The real key argument comes from John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" and has nothing to do with DNA or hormones. In fact, there are activists on what you might call the post-modern left who despise the idea that homosexuality has a genetic basis.
What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel. If it is a choice to be attracted to members of one's own sex, then gay rights might appear to some to be frivolous and indulgent. But if it is not a choice (as it appears not to be), then it becomes a much more serious argument over what constitutes the good life and whether some people can be denied that even if they harm no one else in the process.
8.18.2010 | 9:36am
Matt Hummel says:
I fear no so much the cure for homosexuality as the final solution of the homosexual question.
One of the thought experiments that lead to my conversion to Catholicism was thinking about the landscape change on abortion if the "gay gene" were in fact discovered. But ask yourself what will happen in a nation where 75%+ of e children with Down's Syndrome are slaughtered in utero. In the words of the playgrounds on which I grew up, "If we do this to the [people with developmental disabilities], what do you think we will do to the [people with homosexual orientation]?
It dawned on me that the one Church I know that would not change or nuance its position was the Catholic Church. What will folks like TEC do with bishops like Gene Robinson and leaders like Katherine Ragsdale??
One of the thought experiments that lead to my conversion to Catholicism was thinking about the landscape change on abortion if the "gay gene" were in fact discovered. But ask yourself what will happen in a nation where 75%+ of e children with Down's Syndrome are slaughtered in utero. In the words of the playgrounds on which I grew up, "If we do this to the [people with developmental disabilities], what do you think we will do to the [people with homosexual orientation]?
It dawned on me that the one Church I know that would not change or nuance its position was the Catholic Church. What will folks like TEC do with bishops like Gene Robinson and leaders like Katherine Ragsdale??
8.18.2010 | 10:11am
Ryan says:
@Mark:
>>What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel.
>>What the argument about genetics does is say that in addition to sexuality being none of the government's business in the first place, denying certain people the ability to meet their needs for intimacy is downright cruel.
8.18.2010 | 11:24am
Macy says:
One could easily turn this argument around and say that if anything, this calls for a GREATER push towards acceptance of gays and same-sex relationships. After all, if there's nothing "socially undesirable" about being gay, no need to kill or mutilate (I'm sorry, "cure") them in the womb.
8.18.2010 | 11:33am
Joe Carter says:
@Macy: ***After all, if there's nothing "socially undesirable" about being gay, no need to kill or mutilate (I'm sorry, "cure") them in the womb.***
Are females socially undesirable? Most people would say no, yet throughout the world they are the most likely group to be aborted.
Even if you could get society to view being gay as acceptable as being a female, you'd still have people who would choose to abort a child with the homosexual orientation.
Are females socially undesirable? Most people would say no, yet throughout the world they are the most likely group to be aborted.
Even if you could get society to view being gay as acceptable as being a female, you'd still have people who would choose to abort a child with the homosexual orientation.
8.18.2010 | 11:35am
Joel Clarke Gibbons says:
We have known for a long time that testosterone treatments induce homosexual feelings in women, and to that degree homosexuality can be induced chemically, changing the hormonal regime. Other than this, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality has any biological correlate at all. I know of no evidence at this time implies that with the exception noted, it is not purely a learned behavior.
There is another, purely behavioral way to view homosexuality. Think of it as one of several different forms of sexual obsession. Some men feel a need to seduce women, or more simply to have new sex partners all the time. They are obsessed with heterosexuality. I don't think anyone proposes that there is a biological basis for that tendency. Male homosexuality seems to me to be simply obsessive sexuality directed toward other men. The records on the number of partners that homosexuals have certainly indicates this.
I would propose the following hypothesis, ever conscious of the vast limitations of my own knowledge on the subject. I conjecture that both homosexuality and obsessive heterosexuality result from too-early sexual relations. Stated more simply, they are alternate results of paedophilia.
We have all been made too-aware of the trend in sex education in our schools, and most have been introduced to the Preserve Innocence movement. Clearly, the aberrations that it confronts -- often perpetrated by Planned Parenthood it seems -- seem then to be attempts to promote early sexuality and homosexuality. I think it is high time to stop chasing the canard of biological necessity in homosexuality, and in all forms of obsessive sexuality, and start to focus in their experiential roots. Toward that end, I hope that some patrons of this site who have expertise in developmental psychology and in any other relevant field will either demolish, if that is to be, or reinforce my speculation. My reading in relevant fields certainly does.
There is another, purely behavioral way to view homosexuality. Think of it as one of several different forms of sexual obsession. Some men feel a need to seduce women, or more simply to have new sex partners all the time. They are obsessed with heterosexuality. I don't think anyone proposes that there is a biological basis for that tendency. Male homosexuality seems to me to be simply obsessive sexuality directed toward other men. The records on the number of partners that homosexuals have certainly indicates this.
I would propose the following hypothesis, ever conscious of the vast limitations of my own knowledge on the subject. I conjecture that both homosexuality and obsessive heterosexuality result from too-early sexual relations. Stated more simply, they are alternate results of paedophilia.
We have all been made too-aware of the trend in sex education in our schools, and most have been introduced to the Preserve Innocence movement. Clearly, the aberrations that it confronts -- often perpetrated by Planned Parenthood it seems -- seem then to be attempts to promote early sexuality and homosexuality. I think it is high time to stop chasing the canard of biological necessity in homosexuality, and in all forms of obsessive sexuality, and start to focus in their experiential roots. Toward that end, I hope that some patrons of this site who have expertise in developmental psychology and in any other relevant field will either demolish, if that is to be, or reinforce my speculation. My reading in relevant fields certainly does.
8.18.2010 | 11:53am
jason taylor says:
I would disagree. Removing an unnecessary and aggravating temptation from a child, is common sense, not excusing the giving in to the temptation. No different then moving because one lives in a bad neighborhood.
8.18.2010 | 12:07pm
Macy says:
@Joe Carter
***Are females socially undesirable? Most people would say no, yet throughout the world they are the most likely group to be aborted.***
Umm, in countries with high degrees of female infanticide and and gender-based abortions, females are very much considered "less desirable" - I'm baffled as to how that could have escaped your attention.
***Even if you could get society to view being gay as acceptable as being a female, you'd still have people who would choose to abort a child with the homosexual orientation.***
While its true that we will never fully rid the human race of, for lack of a better word, "d****bags", I imagine that the number of people trying to "fix" their gay children in the US will be about par with the number of people who go out of their way to destroy their female children for being female. Which is to say, not very high. If attitudes do not change, however, we may end up like our neighbors in the Middle East and Asia, and I don't think anyone wants that. Or do they?
***Are females socially undesirable? Most people would say no, yet throughout the world they are the most likely group to be aborted.***
Umm, in countries with high degrees of female infanticide and and gender-based abortions, females are very much considered "less desirable" - I'm baffled as to how that could have escaped your attention.
***Even if you could get society to view being gay as acceptable as being a female, you'd still have people who would choose to abort a child with the homosexual orientation.***
While its true that we will never fully rid the human race of, for lack of a better word, "d****bags", I imagine that the number of people trying to "fix" their gay children in the US will be about par with the number of people who go out of their way to destroy their female children for being female. Which is to say, not very high. If attitudes do not change, however, we may end up like our neighbors in the Middle East and Asia, and I don't think anyone wants that. Or do they?
8.18.2010 | 12:47pm
Fred says:
I do believe that encouraging a wife or daughter to abort gay or downs syndrome babies or doing so for a woman is very Naziesque (with apologies to Godwin), but it does seem to me that the fact that a disease is genetic doesn't make it any less of a disease. Curinjg Downs syndrome or gay babies in the womb seems to me no different or more objectionable than curing, say, epilepsy or MS in the womb.
8.18.2010 | 12:52pm
Papa Giorgio says:
.
I have been posting this in debates for years! Good article. Dale Berryhill in his great book "The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy" asked this:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
This quote can be found on my QUOTES page:
http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes/
.
I have been posting this in debates for years! Good article. Dale Berryhill in his great book "The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy" asked this:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
This quote can be found on my QUOTES page:
http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes/
.
8.18.2010 | 1:28pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Macy
I believe you miss the point. In those countries where females are disproportionately aborted, it's not that females are less desirable in general but that female babies are less desirable for various reasons. This may seem an irrelevant distinction but consider a population in the U.S. that is disproportionately aborted: those with Downes Syndrome. I believe you would find that people who do so may well donate a lot of money and time for the disabled. They just fear what it would take to raise a child with the Syndrome. Not there yet? Then consider another such population: women with the gene indicative of breast cancer. I doubt anyone would claim that a woman with the cancer let alone one with the unexpressed gene is less desirable. Yet aborting babies with the gene has begun. The argument is usually that the parents do not want their child to suffer the problem, if they can help it.
I'm also sad that you see people who disagree with you as less desirable.
I believe you miss the point. In those countries where females are disproportionately aborted, it's not that females are less desirable in general but that female babies are less desirable for various reasons. This may seem an irrelevant distinction but consider a population in the U.S. that is disproportionately aborted: those with Downes Syndrome. I believe you would find that people who do so may well donate a lot of money and time for the disabled. They just fear what it would take to raise a child with the Syndrome. Not there yet? Then consider another such population: women with the gene indicative of breast cancer. I doubt anyone would claim that a woman with the cancer let alone one with the unexpressed gene is less desirable. Yet aborting babies with the gene has begun. The argument is usually that the parents do not want their child to suffer the problem, if they can help it.
I'm also sad that you see people who disagree with you as less desirable.
8.18.2010 | 1:32pm
Michael says:
As cliche as it might sound, I sincerely believe that "diversity" contributes in important ways to cultural wellness and societal health...especially if our collective aspiration is toward becoming a god-like society. It's interesting to note that Paul describes charity as a quality that "seeketh not her own." In other words, I think part of the greatness of the heart of God is its capacity to encompass such diverse people and life into its covering of grace. Beyond the alleviation of pronounced suffering, our efforts to engineer the future generations to be one particular "type" of human constricts rather than expands the heart of our godly characteristics. In short, by deliberately ostracizing certain types of people from the sacrament of existence, we perform remarkable un-grace toward life. The consequences for such a course seem bleak, indeed.
8.18.2010 | 2:05pm
Macy says:
@Mike Melendez says:
"I believe you miss the point. In those countries where females are disproportionately aborted, it's not that females are less desirable in general but that female babies are less desirable for various reasons."
No, Mike. In places like like China and India, women ARE less valuble. That's why female children are aborted and killed as children (and given less food, healthcare, education etc then their brothers.) I'm not sure what twisted rationalization you are attempting to concoct here, but the bottom line is the same - women have lower value in society in these regions. That's why female infants are killed there. Period.
"This may seem an irrelevant distinction but consider a population in the U.S. that is disproportionately aborted: those with Downes Syndrome. I believe you would find that people who do so may well donate a lot of money and time for the disabled. They just fear what it would take to raise a child with the Syndrome. Not there yet? Then consider another such population: women with the gene indicative of breast cancer. I doubt anyone would claim that a woman with the cancer let alone one with the unexpressed gene is less desirable. Yet aborting babies with the gene has begun. The argument is usually that the parents do not want their child to suffer the problem, if they can help it."
Comparing a downes child (or someone with the "cancer gene") to a gay child is a lousy analogy. Do I need to explain why?
"I'm also sad that you see people who disagree with you as less desirable."
I'm sorry, where did I say that? Are you suggesting that I've suggested you should be aborted?
"I believe you miss the point. In those countries where females are disproportionately aborted, it's not that females are less desirable in general but that female babies are less desirable for various reasons."
No, Mike. In places like like China and India, women ARE less valuble. That's why female children are aborted and killed as children (and given less food, healthcare, education etc then their brothers.) I'm not sure what twisted rationalization you are attempting to concoct here, but the bottom line is the same - women have lower value in society in these regions. That's why female infants are killed there. Period.
"This may seem an irrelevant distinction but consider a population in the U.S. that is disproportionately aborted: those with Downes Syndrome. I believe you would find that people who do so may well donate a lot of money and time for the disabled. They just fear what it would take to raise a child with the Syndrome. Not there yet? Then consider another such population: women with the gene indicative of breast cancer. I doubt anyone would claim that a woman with the cancer let alone one with the unexpressed gene is less desirable. Yet aborting babies with the gene has begun. The argument is usually that the parents do not want their child to suffer the problem, if they can help it."
Comparing a downes child (or someone with the "cancer gene") to a gay child is a lousy analogy. Do I need to explain why?
"I'm also sad that you see people who disagree with you as less desirable."
I'm sorry, where did I say that? Are you suggesting that I've suggested you should be aborted?
8.18.2010 | 2:20pm
Grace says:
I don't get it. Aborting a child for any defect is wrong, of course, but curing the defect? If a safe treatment applied in utero can cure homosexuality, how could that be eugenic? It's like curing any number of congenital anomalies that occur.
This sounds like the deafness/cochlear implant argument. Yes, the person is born deaf, but can be cured. Is it terrible to be deaf, or is it a door opening into a rich deaf culture? I don't know exactly, but if my next child is born deaf, I won't have any compunction about trying to cure the defect with cochlear implants.
The gay lobby may not see gayness as a defect, but most parents will. Even some gay parents may not like to see their own child gay, if they can avoid it. I have had gay men friends who have told me how they wish they could be "normal" with all that entails.
For sure, if there is a gay gene, those babies will dissapear, like girls in Asia and down syndrome babies anywhere.
This sounds like the deafness/cochlear implant argument. Yes, the person is born deaf, but can be cured. Is it terrible to be deaf, or is it a door opening into a rich deaf culture? I don't know exactly, but if my next child is born deaf, I won't have any compunction about trying to cure the defect with cochlear implants.
The gay lobby may not see gayness as a defect, but most parents will. Even some gay parents may not like to see their own child gay, if they can avoid it. I have had gay men friends who have told me how they wish they could be "normal" with all that entails.
For sure, if there is a gay gene, those babies will dissapear, like girls in Asia and down syndrome babies anywhere.
8.18.2010 | 2:22pm
mar says:
Other than this, there is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality has any biological correlate at all.
While there is no hard and fast proof of that, there are indications that suggest biological basis. Just to mention two:
1. There is a 'sexually dimorphic nucleus' in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus, which may have male or female form. The form correlates very well with the sexual behavior in mice. The way this structure develops is determined by specific sex hormones. A human homologous structure exists and it has been shown to differ between straight and gay men.
2. Just recently published study in mice shows that when a female has one or both copies of the gene that codes for an enzyme fucose mutarotase (FucM, no it's not a joke...) experimentally deleted, she rejects male advances, shows preference to female urine instead of male, and attempts to mate with other females. The authors propose that because the enzyme normally modifies a specific protein that binds a sex hormone estradiol during development, alterations in such modifcation may influence the development of an abnormal (opposite) structure of the dimorphic nucleus (and they have seen such changes), thus determining the homosexual behavior in female mice. Now, I don't know of any evidence that this gene is defective in human homosexuals, yet the study shows that it is possible that heredity may cause changes in sexual attraction and behavior, and that they may be very subtle, i.e. with preserved fertility, as it was the case of FucM-deficient female mice. Links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727682.600-gene-switches-sexual-desires-of-female-mice.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62
While there is no hard and fast proof of that, there are indications that suggest biological basis. Just to mention two:
1. There is a 'sexually dimorphic nucleus' in the preoptic area of the hypothalamus, which may have male or female form. The form correlates very well with the sexual behavior in mice. The way this structure develops is determined by specific sex hormones. A human homologous structure exists and it has been shown to differ between straight and gay men.
2. Just recently published study in mice shows that when a female has one or both copies of the gene that codes for an enzyme fucose mutarotase (FucM, no it's not a joke...) experimentally deleted, she rejects male advances, shows preference to female urine instead of male, and attempts to mate with other females. The authors propose that because the enzyme normally modifies a specific protein that binds a sex hormone estradiol during development, alterations in such modifcation may influence the development of an abnormal (opposite) structure of the dimorphic nucleus (and they have seen such changes), thus determining the homosexual behavior in female mice. Now, I don't know of any evidence that this gene is defective in human homosexuals, yet the study shows that it is possible that heredity may cause changes in sexual attraction and behavior, and that they may be very subtle, i.e. with preserved fertility, as it was the case of FucM-deficient female mice. Links:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727682.600-gene-switches-sexual-desires-of-female-mice.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-11-62
8.18.2010 | 2:33pm
Ryan says:
My comment at 7:11 got chopped. Could you either restore the part original to my post or delete the whole thing?
Much thanks!
Much thanks!
8.18.2010 | 2:43pm
Liam says:
On the other hand, this is precisely the reason I have a number of pro-life gay and lesbian friends. The implications of Joe's argument work better in that direction that the direction he's trying to force this. If anything, this means there's a pro-life critique of anti-homosexual attitudes.
8.18.2010 | 2:45pm
Heraclitus says:
Without commenting on the particular moral and theological issues involved, I would say that this is a perfect example of how evil eventually destroys itself (or can destroy itself, in the present instance). By disconnecting sex, marriage and family from procreation as its primary goal (not only goal, mind you), we have surrendered procreation to the rule of technology, from contraception, to genetic engineering through abortion. The irony that results is that this technology turns on those who would think that it would lead to the liberation of desire from all moral constraint. Thus, the "right" to abortion, which many deemed would "free" women from child-bearing, turns into an engine for their destruction. The same dialectic would seem to be at work in cases where sexual orientation could be changed through genetic manipulation: it would lead to a drastic drop in the homosexual population.
For Joe's point is that, if people had a "choice," they would choose to have a straight child, no matter how enlightened they think they themselves to be on the issue of homosexuality. For after all, while homosexuality may be acceptable - even cool - in one's hairdresser or interior designer, the vast majority of people would recoil instintively at the thought of their own child being gay. Even after almost two decades of propaganda from the media and entertainment industries trying to inculcate in us the idea that homosexuality is a normal, even desirable, trait, there lies deep within almost all of us the conviction that it is not a desirable trait at all.
Thus, the evil - the use of technology to manipulate human beings and dehumanize them - turns on its users. I would not wish this on anyone, but as Paul says in Romans, chapter one: "Therefore, God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever!" Notice, Paul doesn't say that God condemned the wicked: rather he "gave them up" to their own devices to be devoured by the inexorable logic of evil's self-destruction.
For Joe's point is that, if people had a "choice," they would choose to have a straight child, no matter how enlightened they think they themselves to be on the issue of homosexuality. For after all, while homosexuality may be acceptable - even cool - in one's hairdresser or interior designer, the vast majority of people would recoil instintively at the thought of their own child being gay. Even after almost two decades of propaganda from the media and entertainment industries trying to inculcate in us the idea that homosexuality is a normal, even desirable, trait, there lies deep within almost all of us the conviction that it is not a desirable trait at all.
Thus, the evil - the use of technology to manipulate human beings and dehumanize them - turns on its users. I would not wish this on anyone, but as Paul says in Romans, chapter one: "Therefore, God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever!" Notice, Paul doesn't say that God condemned the wicked: rather he "gave them up" to their own devices to be devoured by the inexorable logic of evil's self-destruction.
8.18.2010 | 3:16pm
Matt Beck says:
It is no discredit to Mr. Carter that he is concerned about such eventualities, but we can be safely assured that neither the "cure for homosexuality" nor the "cult of choice" will ever be forthcoming -- for the simple reason that, as always, the efficacy of the biomedical technology that must needs be involved has been vastly overstated.
Since it can be shown on purely theoretical grounds that there cannot be any such thing as a genetic basis for homosexuality (and that the term 'genetics' itself, as currently used, is also highly suspect -- but that's another kettle of fish), any theory which purports to explain sexual orientation in genetic terms is necessarily pseudo-science. I suppose that the pseudo-scientific explanation could still support a "cult of choice" if enough people happen to believe in it, but its inability to produce the desired results will lead to the cult being short-lived and pathetic.
Unfortunately, the sort of people who would latch on to such a theory are not really interested in facts or truths anyway. The theory simply provides them with a thin varnish of philosophical justification wherewith to package their inner nihilism, which has quite other sources and which they could easily find some other excuse for practising. So while it is useful to point out the dangers inherent in the "cult of choice" style of thinking (if nothing else, it draws our attention to the evils lurking in our midst), on a practical level, it amounts to little more than playing whack-a-mole in the Culture Wars -- cutting off the heads of the hydra, as it were.
Therefore, I think it would be a mistake for Christians to make common cause with homosexual activists in opposition to the cult of choice. If we were to do so, one could then easily infer that the correct "Christian" position was, at bottom, nothing but a rather abstract committment to human rights -- a thin gruel of social-ethics coupled with a make-believe piety. In truth, we should be just as opposed to homosexuality as we are to the cult of choice; perhaps even more so, since the former is a militant reality whilst the latter remains, and must remain, largely fantasy.*
The fundamentals of the Christian faith must guide our thinking in this area, and those fundamentals are steadfastly against both homosexuality and infanticide. For some reason, I find it hard to imagine Jesus Christ teaming up with Herod's catamites to prevent the murder of the Holy Innocents. This incident never happened because it would have destroyed Jesus' messianic vocation and replaced it by a series of episodes of questionable eternal value. Let us not go and do likewise. An alliance with homosexual rights activists would only weaken Christianity in the long run.
*(I am speaking here of the cult of choice practiced on infants "in utero," which is the principal focus of this article. Of course we must recognize that cults of choice could easily be practiced "extra utero," as the case may be. In the ancient world, undesirable offspring could be discarded or disowned, and desirable ones could be purchased on the slave markets or adopted by legal fiction. But this is just further evidence that the Christian argument must center around inviolable moral principles rather incidental facts of technology.)
Since it can be shown on purely theoretical grounds that there cannot be any such thing as a genetic basis for homosexuality (and that the term 'genetics' itself, as currently used, is also highly suspect -- but that's another kettle of fish), any theory which purports to explain sexual orientation in genetic terms is necessarily pseudo-science. I suppose that the pseudo-scientific explanation could still support a "cult of choice" if enough people happen to believe in it, but its inability to produce the desired results will lead to the cult being short-lived and pathetic.
Unfortunately, the sort of people who would latch on to such a theory are not really interested in facts or truths anyway. The theory simply provides them with a thin varnish of philosophical justification wherewith to package their inner nihilism, which has quite other sources and which they could easily find some other excuse for practising. So while it is useful to point out the dangers inherent in the "cult of choice" style of thinking (if nothing else, it draws our attention to the evils lurking in our midst), on a practical level, it amounts to little more than playing whack-a-mole in the Culture Wars -- cutting off the heads of the hydra, as it were.
Therefore, I think it would be a mistake for Christians to make common cause with homosexual activists in opposition to the cult of choice. If we were to do so, one could then easily infer that the correct "Christian" position was, at bottom, nothing but a rather abstract committment to human rights -- a thin gruel of social-ethics coupled with a make-believe piety. In truth, we should be just as opposed to homosexuality as we are to the cult of choice; perhaps even more so, since the former is a militant reality whilst the latter remains, and must remain, largely fantasy.*
The fundamentals of the Christian faith must guide our thinking in this area, and those fundamentals are steadfastly against both homosexuality and infanticide. For some reason, I find it hard to imagine Jesus Christ teaming up with Herod's catamites to prevent the murder of the Holy Innocents. This incident never happened because it would have destroyed Jesus' messianic vocation and replaced it by a series of episodes of questionable eternal value. Let us not go and do likewise. An alliance with homosexual rights activists would only weaken Christianity in the long run.
*(I am speaking here of the cult of choice practiced on infants "in utero," which is the principal focus of this article. Of course we must recognize that cults of choice could easily be practiced "extra utero," as the case may be. In the ancient world, undesirable offspring could be discarded or disowned, and desirable ones could be purchased on the slave markets or adopted by legal fiction. But this is just further evidence that the Christian argument must center around inviolable moral principles rather incidental facts of technology.)
8.18.2010 | 5:04pm
JP says:
If one considers the large number of abortions performed on women with children who test positive for Downs Syndrome and other birth defects, it would be no small wonder what would happen if a "gay" gene is found. Gays make up less than 5% of the population as it stands. Within 2 generations gays would be rarer still.
And no matter how well Christians and Gay Activists band together, the damage has been done. Thereputic abortions are now part of our social scene. And once a society jumps on that band wagon, it is nearly impossible to jump off. Don't think for a minute that a couple who would abort a Down baby would think twice of aborting a child with a "gay" gene. Call it the laws of unintended consequences.
And no matter how well Christians and Gay Activists band together, the damage has been done. Thereputic abortions are now part of our social scene. And once a society jumps on that band wagon, it is nearly impossible to jump off. Don't think for a minute that a couple who would abort a Down baby would think twice of aborting a child with a "gay" gene. Call it the laws of unintended consequences.
8.18.2010 | 5:24pm
John says:
It seems to me that people are wrongly assuming that there is only one route to same sex attraction. It may very well be that those with same sex attraction develop this inclination for different reasons. Are we to believe that all the aristocratic males of Classical Greece who engaged in homosexual acts all had a gay gene? We know now that environment can change genetic structures. I think the best explanation for same sex attraction can be found in Rene Girad's chapter on Mimesis and Sexuality in his book Before the Foundation of the World.
8.18.2010 | 5:36pm
michael Currie says:
The question of how it is that people grow to be the people they become has been the subject of much conjecture for a lot of years. The "nature versus nurture" debate should, in broad terms, be over. Everyone is the product of both and given the incalcuable possible manifestations of this fact it would seem likely that none of us are the same. This would extend into our sexual proclivities therefore begging the question; what does a "gay" gene or homone look like and is the behavior of one who has it predictive and if we change it is that predictive?. This all just collapses into the mawl of determinism because if any of us can be reduced to the sum of our biology and our past then we all can be. Maybe reductionism is what Christ came to save us from.
8.18.2010 | 5:58pm
Maria says:
Wish The Church would have studies , such as how parents who wore the Miraculous Medal and interceded with The Woman concieved without sin would be prevented from much of what has gone wrong in our world !
Cases of possession could help us to recognise what The Holy Spirit can continue to accomplish ....means such as every time we enter in our door , we invite in The Holy Trinity ..and so on ..
The variance in manifestations of genetically modulated illnesses could tell us that we are lot more mysterious than just the physical expressions of genes ..and when such goes astray , they can be occsions of more ardent pleading in of The Spirit ...that when such an occasion is rejected in fearful mistrust of God as author of life , fearful consequences such as 'total possession' and its monstrous destruction of humanness in persons are all possibilities !
Cases of possession could help us to recognise what The Holy Spirit can continue to accomplish ....means such as every time we enter in our door , we invite in The Holy Trinity ..and so on ..
The variance in manifestations of genetically modulated illnesses could tell us that we are lot more mysterious than just the physical expressions of genes ..and when such goes astray , they can be occsions of more ardent pleading in of The Spirit ...that when such an occasion is rejected in fearful mistrust of God as author of life , fearful consequences such as 'total possession' and its monstrous destruction of humanness in persons are all possibilities !
8.18.2010 | 8:45pm
Matt says:
Mr. Carter may be interested to know that many LGBT people do affirm the distinction between sexual behavior (chosen) and sexual orientation (not chosen). Indeed, I think one would be hard pressed to find any non-heterosexual who conflates those ideas. I disagree with Mr. Carter's assertion that to endorse this view would put the gay community in an awkward position. In fact, it would be no more awkward for the gay community than it is for heterosexuals. If we assume that heterosexuality has a biological basis, does that mean that we must accept every form of heterosexual expression as good and moral? Of course not. And that's not what the gay community is hoping for. The main goal of the "homosexual activists" has not been to get federal recognition of wild orgies. The "gay agenda" is seeking recognition of *marriage*. The fact that same-sex desires are just as natural to gay people as opposite-sex desires are to straight people is only part of that picture, but it's an important part. I agree that to hang everything on the biological etiology of sexuality is a very dangerous mistake.
I do hope that the church and the gay community can come together in recognizing that although our desires are beyond our control, how we respond to those desires is a matter of choice. And I also hope that we can all recognize that expecting all homosexuals to refrain from forming lasting sexual relationships with one another is about as unreasonable as expecting all heterosexuals to refrain from the same.
I do hope that the church and the gay community can come together in recognizing that although our desires are beyond our control, how we respond to those desires is a matter of choice. And I also hope that we can all recognize that expecting all homosexuals to refrain from forming lasting sexual relationships with one another is about as unreasonable as expecting all heterosexuals to refrain from the same.
8.18.2010 | 9:30pm
dwl says:
*Quote*Christians should reject this cult of choice. We should be vigilant in expressing the truth that children are a blessing from God, not a product we manufacture to our specifications. *End Quote*
Agreed.
*Quote*However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. *End Quote*
Only if the science shows it. But not for any strategy.
*Quote*If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.*End Quote*
Only if one assumes that either activists or a public react in a rational manner. Once normalization of homosexual behavior reaches a critical mass, activists can dismiss the "gay is natural" meme without harm to their activism. Just because *we* would see the inconsistency, does not mean the public would.
*Quote*We need an entente between Christians and gay activists to prevent the issue of homosexuality from being determined by genetic engineers and abortionists. *End Quote*
The integrity of the Christian position here neither needs or would be helped by such entente. *Our* witness to what the Holy Spirit has called us to do, in living out the "fruits of the Spirit." What happens to homosexuals is their problem, since God has declared that practicing homosexuals have "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
*Quote*at least we will be able to discuss the issue with our human dignity intact.*End Quote*
The dignity of Christian man and the "dignity" of the homosexual has no common foundation. Romans 1 specifically identifies practicing homosexuals as among those who have been given over to "perversion" and a "depraved mind." (NIV) I fail to see how a tactical alliance with homosexuals, in order to prevent "the due penalty of ... [that] perversion," witnesses to our faith and the moral dogmas it implies.
Agreed.
*Quote*However, Christians can agree with the gay activists that homoerotic desire might very well have a biological basis. *End Quote*
Only if the science shows it. But not for any strategy.
*Quote*If they agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality.*End Quote*
Only if one assumes that either activists or a public react in a rational manner. Once normalization of homosexual behavior reaches a critical mass, activists can dismiss the "gay is natural" meme without harm to their activism. Just because *we* would see the inconsistency, does not mean the public would.
*Quote*We need an entente between Christians and gay activists to prevent the issue of homosexuality from being determined by genetic engineers and abortionists. *End Quote*
The integrity of the Christian position here neither needs or would be helped by such entente. *Our* witness to what the Holy Spirit has called us to do, in living out the "fruits of the Spirit." What happens to homosexuals is their problem, since God has declared that practicing homosexuals have "received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
*Quote*at least we will be able to discuss the issue with our human dignity intact.*End Quote*
The dignity of Christian man and the "dignity" of the homosexual has no common foundation. Romans 1 specifically identifies practicing homosexuals as among those who have been given over to "perversion" and a "depraved mind." (NIV) I fail to see how a tactical alliance with homosexuals, in order to prevent "the due penalty of ... [that] perversion," witnesses to our faith and the moral dogmas it implies.
8.18.2010 | 9:36pm
Don Roberto says:
Heraclitus, you are right on the money. You, too, Mr. Beck. And I strongly agree with Joel Gibbons. See Diodge, "The Brain that Changes." Sexual desire is highly plastic, especially in early development. And we as a society should not encourage more such behavior/proclivity. I strongly disagree with those who thing homosexual behavior is benign. It is narcissistic, unhealthy behavior, akin to addiction to pornography or any other sexual obsession. It is learned, with dopamine stimulating the brain in a self-reinforcing cycle where gratification is rewarded and proclivity augmented. It does not bind men and women together in unions that promote healthy families. Even if there are many "homosexuals" who are pleasant and nice to be around, their behavior/proclivity/obsession is a product of evil thoughts and actions, and reinforces the culture of death.
Mar: as I'm sure you know, correlation is not causation. The brain may change because the mice develop a taste for buggery, not beforehand, in the absence of experience.
Michael, diversity is good, but there is no reason to desire diversity in behavior for its own sake, and society should desire less behavior that leads to narcissistic pleasure-seeking, STDs, and depression.
Mar: as I'm sure you know, correlation is not causation. The brain may change because the mice develop a taste for buggery, not beforehand, in the absence of experience.
Michael, diversity is good, but there is no reason to desire diversity in behavior for its own sake, and society should desire less behavior that leads to narcissistic pleasure-seeking, STDs, and depression.
8.18.2010 | 10:16pm
James says:
Many parents find their children with Down's Syndrome a challenge but still a blessing from Divine Providence. I know of parents who treasure their gay children in the same way, sometimes not in spite of the challenges but because of them.
If you say you believe that a sovereign God decrees all things, isn't using artificial means to radically alter not just what a person looks like but who a person is a denial of that belief?
If you say you believe that a sovereign God decrees all things, isn't using artificial means to radically alter not just what a person looks like but who a person is a denial of that belief?
8.18.2010 | 11:08pm
Gil Costello says:
Matt - You write that "The 'gay agenda' is seeking recognition of *marriage*." But what it in fact is doing is undermining marriage. This wasn't started by a gay agenda, but by a sexual revolution, a movement that included a gay agenda, and if one goes back and reads what those revolutionaries considered the basic institution of slavery, you will discover it is the shackles of the nuclear family, an institution where men enslave women and children, depriving them primarily of their sexual rights, the highest expression of freedom. Clearly from the beginning the sex liberationists were out to destroy the institution of marriage, and the "least offensive" way to carry that out strategically was to define it out of existence, and that offensive definition is marriage as a social institution that simply, fundamentally, affirms the existence of love between persons. Gone is the affirmation of the nuclear family where a child is guaranteed, other than by default, a mother and father in the child's maturation, something essential to that maturation.
I want to thank Joe Carter and the many contributors on this thread for carrying on an intelligent conversation that I not too long ago believed wasn't possible in the public square, not at this level of discernment. And I am now confident that strategies are forming to save the children from the relentless assault of sex liberationists.
I want to thank Joe Carter and the many contributors on this thread for carrying on an intelligent conversation that I not too long ago believed wasn't possible in the public square, not at this level of discernment. And I am now confident that strategies are forming to save the children from the relentless assault of sex liberationists.
8.19.2010 | 12:00am
Gil Costello says:
I am a cinefile of the highest order because I have a film reference for everything. And among a handful of master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder ranks high on my short list.
I am a cinefile of the highest order because I have a film reference for everything. And among a handful of master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder ranks high on my short list.
Fassbinder had an interesting personal life. Even though he had relationships with women, including an exclusive one for the last four years of his life, he insisted he was gay, not bisexual (his last film, “Querelle”, based on the Jean Genet novel, was an exploration of a relationship with his ultimate male lover) and even the woman whom he wanted to marry and adopt her child insisted he was gay, not bisexual.
The most interesting thing about his personal life, as I see it, was his male longing for a woman. This longing in the gay movement is manifested in behavior patterns where some gays mimic female mannerisms, cross-dress and other expressions that clearly demonstrate that gay men experience this longing and suffer the absence of a relationship with the complementary other, notwithstanding the claims centered in denial that these are simply expressions of being unified in a superior form of individuality, a ”synthesis of man and woman as a man”, elaborated on in philosophical animation towards the end of John Cameron Mitchell’s film, “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”.
Fassbinder is fascinating because of his heroic attempt to not lie to himself or half-step in fulfilling the longing for the complementary other (which was not sexual with him, for he stated that he was fulfilled sexually totally with men). This tragic element of Fassbinder's personality (tragic because the longing for the complementary other cannot be complete unless the man is totally open to receiving the other, including sexually) finds consummate expression in one of his masterpieces, "In a Year With Thirteen Moons".
As a film artist I love Fassbinder more than any other filmmaker because no other filmmaker was able to confront his personal demons better than he.
I believe the deepest reason a woman who loved him would not marry him and allow him to adopt her child is that she knew he was obsessed with his longing for the complementary other, but that this obsession could never translate into a unification that would be in the child's best interest.
We must stay focused: gay marriage must be defeated in an effort to save the children. Its passage would be the institutionalization of one more altar to sacrifice children on in the cult of sexual liberation.
I am a cinefile of the highest order because I have a film reference for everything. And among a handful of master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder ranks high on my short list.
Fassbinder had an interesting personal life. Even though he had relationships with women, including an exclusive one for the last four years of his life, he insisted he was gay, not bisexual (his last film, “Querelle”, based on the Jean Genet novel, was an exploration of a relationship with his ultimate male lover) and even the woman whom he wanted to marry and adopt her child insisted he was gay, not bisexual.
The most interesting thing about his personal life, as I see it, was his male longing for a woman. This longing in the gay movement is manifested in behavior patterns where some gays mimic female mannerisms, cross-dress and other expressions that clearly demonstrate that gay men experience this longing and suffer the absence of a relationship with the complementary other, notwithstanding the claims centered in denial that these are simply expressions of being unified in a superior form of individuality, a ”synthesis of man and woman as a man”, elaborated on in philosophical animation towards the end of John Cameron Mitchell’s film, “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”.
Fassbinder is fascinating because of his heroic attempt to not lie to himself or half-step in fulfilling the longing for the complementary other (which was not sexual with him, for he stated that he was fulfilled sexually totally with men). This tragic element of Fassbinder's personality (tragic because the longing for the complementary other cannot be complete unless the man is totally open to receiving the other, including sexually) finds consummate expression in one of his masterpieces, "In a Year With Thirteen Moons".
As a film artist I love Fassbinder more than any other filmmaker because no other filmmaker was able to confront his personal demons better than he.
I believe the deepest reason a woman who loved him would not marry him and allow him to adopt her child is that she knew he was obsessed with his longing for the complementary other, but that this obsession could never translate into a unification that would be in the child's best interest.
We must stay focused: gay marriage must be defeated in an effort to save the children. Its passage would be the institutionalization of one more altar to sacrifice children on in the cult of sexual liberation.
8.19.2010 | 12:26am
Mark says:
Gil Costello: "You write that "The 'gay agenda' is seeking recognition of *marriage*." But what it in fact is doing is undermining marriage."
Andrew Sullivan points out that back in the 1990s, he was pushing gay marriage while many gay activists were publicly excoriating people like him as "traitors." Those people really did want to destroy marriage. But now gay marriage has become a mainstream position in gay activist circles.
Your interpretation of this will probably be to say that those cunning gay activists finally realized they are better off infiltrating and then subverting the institution of marriage than in publicly calling for the end of marriage. I disagree and don't find that to be a reasonable interpretation at all. Like many other social movements, gay rights organizations have broadened their ranks while at the same time pushing the radicals out. There are fewer bathhouse libertines and more 40-year-old accountants who take their adopted children to soccer practice in an SUV represented among gay rights supporters nowadays.
In short, there certainly are people -- gay and straight -- who think the whole idea of marriage is horribly oppressive but they are not the ones pushing for gay marriage.
Andrew Sullivan points out that back in the 1990s, he was pushing gay marriage while many gay activists were publicly excoriating people like him as "traitors." Those people really did want to destroy marriage. But now gay marriage has become a mainstream position in gay activist circles.
Your interpretation of this will probably be to say that those cunning gay activists finally realized they are better off infiltrating and then subverting the institution of marriage than in publicly calling for the end of marriage. I disagree and don't find that to be a reasonable interpretation at all. Like many other social movements, gay rights organizations have broadened their ranks while at the same time pushing the radicals out. There are fewer bathhouse libertines and more 40-year-old accountants who take their adopted children to soccer practice in an SUV represented among gay rights supporters nowadays.
In short, there certainly are people -- gay and straight -- who think the whole idea of marriage is horribly oppressive but they are not the ones pushing for gay marriage.
8.19.2010 | 3:31am
Patrick Chapman says:
While God knitting us together in our mother's womb is a common refrain from those opposing abortion, those same individuals seem to find it irrelevant when concerning homosexuality. Apparently, they think, God makes mistakes that need fixing.
8.19.2010 | 11:22am
mar says:
@Don Roberto
as I'm sure you know, correlation is not causation. The brain may change because the mice develop a taste for buggery, not beforehand, in the absence of experience.
It is the knockout of the gene that _causes_ change in their behavior. As for the string of events that links the two, it remains to be proven, but autors' proposition is compelling. Bear also in mind that the development of dimorphic nucleus depends on _perinatal_ hormonal status. It's hard to imagine that you can have any sexual experience while you are being born.
And at the end, it's a serendipitous observation that FucM gene prevents development of "lesbian" behavior in mice. There is no evidence so far for its involvement in humans (read: no studies published yet). The discovery may help in heuristic finding of the mechanism leading of homosexual behavior and/or attraction, but not necessary show that FucM-related insufficiences are actually involved in cases of homosexuality.
Genetic or environmental in origin, buggery is still wrong from a Christian point of view.
as I'm sure you know, correlation is not causation. The brain may change because the mice develop a taste for buggery, not beforehand, in the absence of experience.
It is the knockout of the gene that _causes_ change in their behavior. As for the string of events that links the two, it remains to be proven, but autors' proposition is compelling. Bear also in mind that the development of dimorphic nucleus depends on _perinatal_ hormonal status. It's hard to imagine that you can have any sexual experience while you are being born.
And at the end, it's a serendipitous observation that FucM gene prevents development of "lesbian" behavior in mice. There is no evidence so far for its involvement in humans (read: no studies published yet). The discovery may help in heuristic finding of the mechanism leading of homosexual behavior and/or attraction, but not necessary show that FucM-related insufficiences are actually involved in cases of homosexuality.
Genetic or environmental in origin, buggery is still wrong from a Christian point of view.
8.19.2010 | 2:58pm
Gil Costello says:
Mark – Back in the 1990s Andrew Sullivan was pushing for gay marriage as a means of deconstructing the whole notion of the nuclear family construct and the virtues associated with it. He was one of the first in the new vanguard that decided to throw his brethren, including NAMBLA, under the bus to advance the normalization of homosexuality by equating it with everything that is normal in the courting and eventual union of man and woman. This of course required a façade of the normalcy of gay culture, which hasn’t impacted the actual lifestyles as much as it has created a smokescreen of normalcy: the commitment is to just not talk about the actual activity that goes on in gay relationships, to pretend it doesn’t exist, and especially how children adopted by these men are being deprived of comprehensive maturation, thrown into a maze of gender confusion, and even encouraged to pursue a lifestyle that vastly increases their chances of a premature death.
But even Andrew Sullivan in the end couldn’t resist—he has to retain at least a veneer of intellectual honesty. He has always advocated lifetime committed gays to engage in sex with other men outside their committed relationship, that gay relationships are in fact superior to those of men and women caught up in the nuclear family construct with its attending oppressive moral stances, especially the notion that they have to suppress their urges to have multiple sex partners as a means of being liberated sexually. In other words, Sullivan claims that monogamy doesn’t mean you have to limit sexual activity to a committed relationship; indeed, when one truly loves one's life partner, one wouldn't want to in any way suppress his “natural” urges to have sex with multiple partners, and there is nothing wrong as long as the commitment remains to the significant other, not the sexual partners outside the commitment. This is the highest, most liberated form of monogamy in Sullivan’s view.
Andrew Sullivan also makes the case that anonymous sex for gays can be a transcendent mystical experience. Keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan represents, was even an original vanguard of, as you say, the new way, but even he can’t resist what is endemic to gay culture; namely, that once a person takes on a sexual identity (a reductionist identity and a fundamental lie) then sex becomes pivotal in all that one wants to consider as a means to being more free, a philosophy that is at the heart of sex liberation.
I suppose the time is arriving for Andrew Sullivan to be thrown under the bus, as Stalin did to Trotsky. These intellectuals who can’t kick a propensity towards telling the truth in some degree have no place in the politics of silence and pretense. What these residual gay intellectuals like Sullivan have to come to terms with is that manufacturing lies is the only way towards political and legal success, and that if they continue to undermine that strategy, they will be sacrificed with all the intellectuals who came before them.
But even Andrew Sullivan in the end couldn’t resist—he has to retain at least a veneer of intellectual honesty. He has always advocated lifetime committed gays to engage in sex with other men outside their committed relationship, that gay relationships are in fact superior to those of men and women caught up in the nuclear family construct with its attending oppressive moral stances, especially the notion that they have to suppress their urges to have multiple sex partners as a means of being liberated sexually. In other words, Sullivan claims that monogamy doesn’t mean you have to limit sexual activity to a committed relationship; indeed, when one truly loves one's life partner, one wouldn't want to in any way suppress his “natural” urges to have sex with multiple partners, and there is nothing wrong as long as the commitment remains to the significant other, not the sexual partners outside the commitment. This is the highest, most liberated form of monogamy in Sullivan’s view.
Andrew Sullivan also makes the case that anonymous sex for gays can be a transcendent mystical experience. Keep in mind that Andrew Sullivan represents, was even an original vanguard of, as you say, the new way, but even he can’t resist what is endemic to gay culture; namely, that once a person takes on a sexual identity (a reductionist identity and a fundamental lie) then sex becomes pivotal in all that one wants to consider as a means to being more free, a philosophy that is at the heart of sex liberation.
I suppose the time is arriving for Andrew Sullivan to be thrown under the bus, as Stalin did to Trotsky. These intellectuals who can’t kick a propensity towards telling the truth in some degree have no place in the politics of silence and pretense. What these residual gay intellectuals like Sullivan have to come to terms with is that manufacturing lies is the only way towards political and legal success, and that if they continue to undermine that strategy, they will be sacrificed with all the intellectuals who came before them.
8.19.2010 | 7:04pm
omega sequence says:
@Joe Carter
While I am somewhat sympathetic to what you write, I still cannot see why gay activists must move from a 'biology-only' position to a plastic or somewhat-freewilled position. What exactly would they gain from some a shift?
Sticking the the biology only position would seem to give them as much traction as it did previously (anchoring their position to racial ontologies etc.).
Could you please elaborate?
While I am somewhat sympathetic to what you write, I still cannot see why gay activists must move from a 'biology-only' position to a plastic or somewhat-freewilled position. What exactly would they gain from some a shift?
Sticking the the biology only position would seem to give them as much traction as it did previously (anchoring their position to racial ontologies etc.).
Could you please elaborate?
8.19.2010 | 7:08pm
Withheld says:
For a long time I have wondered why some homosexual activists use mere genetics to justify homosexuality. How does that strategy not put homosexual tendencies in the same category as alcoholism, ADD, bipolar disorder, cystic fibrosis and cancer?
8.20.2010 | 2:58pm
Gil Costello says:
omega sequence - You raise a pertinent question: “I still cannot see why gay activists must move from a 'biology-only' position to a plastic or somewhat-freewilled position. What exactly would they gain from some a shift?”
The answer is that a biology-only position continues to fall apart in the legitimate sciences (the gay scientists who “proved” the “gay gene” were eventually proved wrong, and after millions of dollars have been invested to find the gay gene, even scientists at Harvard and other elite universities who are pro-gay are now certain that no such gene exists, that sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eye color is. Combine this with Rene Girard’s discoveries, including the dismantling of Freud’s notion that homosexuality is an instinct, and therefore biologically based, Michel Foucault was far ahead of the fray in seeing the dead-end of a biologically-based homosexuality, and subsequently argued the alternative free-will position as the only hope for a future ideological success in the gay movement. To understand this better, I recommend David M. Halperin’s book, “Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography”. Halperin, one of America’s leading queer theorists, originally fought against the somewhat free-willed position of Foucault, but eventually came around, so in his book you get a broader perspective on the issue from a gay intellectual. But the track now being taken by gay leaders might mean that Halperin, too, will be thrown under the bus. The leaders are now so rigidly and suffocatingly ideological that they must rely almost exclusively on terrorizing others to sustain the bad science they use to promote their biology-only agenda.
What’s interesting is that after the biology-only position felt apart, it is still touted as good science in mainstream media and in sex education classes. This is proof positive of the effectiveness of terror in promoting ideology instead of good science.
The answer is that a biology-only position continues to fall apart in the legitimate sciences (the gay scientists who “proved” the “gay gene” were eventually proved wrong, and after millions of dollars have been invested to find the gay gene, even scientists at Harvard and other elite universities who are pro-gay are now certain that no such gene exists, that sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eye color is. Combine this with Rene Girard’s discoveries, including the dismantling of Freud’s notion that homosexuality is an instinct, and therefore biologically based, Michel Foucault was far ahead of the fray in seeing the dead-end of a biologically-based homosexuality, and subsequently argued the alternative free-will position as the only hope for a future ideological success in the gay movement. To understand this better, I recommend David M. Halperin’s book, “Saint Foucault: Towards a Gay Hagiography”. Halperin, one of America’s leading queer theorists, originally fought against the somewhat free-willed position of Foucault, but eventually came around, so in his book you get a broader perspective on the issue from a gay intellectual. But the track now being taken by gay leaders might mean that Halperin, too, will be thrown under the bus. The leaders are now so rigidly and suffocatingly ideological that they must rely almost exclusively on terrorizing others to sustain the bad science they use to promote their biology-only agenda.
What’s interesting is that after the biology-only position felt apart, it is still touted as good science in mainstream media and in sex education classes. This is proof positive of the effectiveness of terror in promoting ideology instead of good science.
8.22.2010 | 10:28pm
omega sequence says:
@Gil
Granted but:
1) The power of the gay rights movement has never come from its rational consistency. It may lose it's ontological foundation but that was also less of a 'foundation' and more of a ladder to be kicked away when they reached a higher level.
Barring a wave of conservatism, the status of gay rights should be firm for at least a decade or so (if it is similar to the pro-divorce campaign).
I'm still failing to see how gay rights activists have to give ground right now (vocally that is--I'm sure the gay gene will be quietly kicked under the carpet like the 1-in-10 argument) in order to accommodate advances in eugenics or screening.
Granted but:
1) The power of the gay rights movement has never come from its rational consistency. It may lose it's ontological foundation but that was also less of a 'foundation' and more of a ladder to be kicked away when they reached a higher level.
Barring a wave of conservatism, the status of gay rights should be firm for at least a decade or so (if it is similar to the pro-divorce campaign).
I'm still failing to see how gay rights activists have to give ground right now (vocally that is--I'm sure the gay gene will be quietly kicked under the carpet like the 1-in-10 argument) in order to accommodate advances in eugenics or screening.
8.23.2010 | 12:27pm
Gil Costello says:
omega sequence - It's true: gay rights activists at this time do not have to give ground simply because pseudo-science and smokescreens serve their purpose well. And I, too, see this serving them for the next ten years. What Foucault and Halperin wanted to avoid was an eventual extreme backlash against gays that could be supported with the illogic of the gay movement itself. In other words, right-wing extremists could use what gay activists constructed to justify a program of injustice against gays. The gay activists who dominate the political landscape are playing polka, bluffing their way into a radical social embracing of a surface portrayal of what the gay lifestyle is, which is a lie, with the hopes that the lie itself will be permanently established in constitutional law, and thus be the law of the land. It's a great gamble, and I see the logic in the gamble. But I truly believe that in the end it will hurt those with a homosexual orientation. Pendulums work that way. Only truth in the end protects human rights.
8.31.2010 | 7:50am
Steven says:
I've just had quite a depressing time reading this article and its comments. Many of the comments left by theists give a rather abhorrent impression of those with religious faith. The willful ignorance, revoltingly amoral attitudes and incitement of homophobia, all derived from and/or validated by religious ideology or fragments of mythic scriptures, seem as if they point to a grave depravity among many conservative theists.
Apologies for starting with such patent and uncouth repulsion. Yet it seems that homosexuality is being treated as something to be ashamed of. It's perfectly sensible to assume that some homosexuals may prefer to be heterosexual, and that some parents may prefer heterosexual children; having children is rather more straightforward for heterosexuals, as would be finding reciprocal love (since there would be fewer other homosexuals for homosexuals to meet and fall in love with), moreover homosexuals are a minority and thus susceptible to the unpleasantness of prejudice and discrimination. The first two are likely to become less and less of an issue; options for homosexuals to become parents, both biological and adoptive, are increasing, as are opportunities to meet partners - via support groups, dedicated social clubs and bars or the internet etc. The issue of homophobic discrimination in many European countries is scarcely worse than that of racism, which thankfully is no longer prevalent. These though are typically secular countries with moral values rather than religious values. It's discrimination that makes living as a homosexual so undesirable, it's the abuse and incitement of hatred, or condemnation or castigation, from those societies with religious faith. This is at its worst is conservative Islamic countries, yet in parts of the US its not just tragic for the victims but for the religious believers who take it upon themselves go against morality and cause harm to society. It's the hatred and condemnation that makes life hard for many homosexuals, without that ignorance and delusion I can't imagine many homosexuals would be worried at all (in most developed countries, excluding the mid-US, the vast majority of homosexuals are indeed happy to be gay).
Now, whilst the choice to opt for heterosexuality is reasonable and comprehensible, the implication that homosexuality is unnatural or morally wrong is inexcusable. Homosexuality occurs naturally (in many species), it's clearly not a choice and causes no more harm than heterosexuality. I understand that many here are attempting to argue that homosexual orientation is acceptable, just not homosexual acts - this seems to be based on the bible rather than any rational sense, which is pretty woeful. To condemn others based solely on the opinion of whichever authors you're quoting is not just ludicrous but deplorable. We need to recognise that the bible is not authority, and that many of its messages are unpleasant, dubious or utterly contradictory. It would thus be foolishly untenable to use its content in support of any moral issue, not least in support of homophobia, which has such an immorally destructive effect on innocent people. If there are religious believers who, for whatever reason, take their holy book to be fact and authority - I implore you to at least recognise that others don't share your opinion. If you think homosexual acts are sinful, due to your choice of scripture or your holy man, please accept that this is only your opinion, you needn't cause harm to others as a result.
One of the smartest comments I've read here was the argument that surely theists should be the most accepting of homosexuals, as surely to condemn homosexuals would be an affront to the God who had created them. (Obviously I know this makes little impact on those of irrational faith in scripture, but that makes it no less true)
"If [gay activists] agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality. Yet they could be harming their cause even more if they continue to argue that the orientation is normal and acceptable simply because it has a basis in our biological nature." - I thought I'd include this quote from the original article, simply because it's so nonsensical that it's rather amusing.
Apologies for starting with such patent and uncouth repulsion. Yet it seems that homosexuality is being treated as something to be ashamed of. It's perfectly sensible to assume that some homosexuals may prefer to be heterosexual, and that some parents may prefer heterosexual children; having children is rather more straightforward for heterosexuals, as would be finding reciprocal love (since there would be fewer other homosexuals for homosexuals to meet and fall in love with), moreover homosexuals are a minority and thus susceptible to the unpleasantness of prejudice and discrimination. The first two are likely to become less and less of an issue; options for homosexuals to become parents, both biological and adoptive, are increasing, as are opportunities to meet partners - via support groups, dedicated social clubs and bars or the internet etc. The issue of homophobic discrimination in many European countries is scarcely worse than that of racism, which thankfully is no longer prevalent. These though are typically secular countries with moral values rather than religious values. It's discrimination that makes living as a homosexual so undesirable, it's the abuse and incitement of hatred, or condemnation or castigation, from those societies with religious faith. This is at its worst is conservative Islamic countries, yet in parts of the US its not just tragic for the victims but for the religious believers who take it upon themselves go against morality and cause harm to society. It's the hatred and condemnation that makes life hard for many homosexuals, without that ignorance and delusion I can't imagine many homosexuals would be worried at all (in most developed countries, excluding the mid-US, the vast majority of homosexuals are indeed happy to be gay).
Now, whilst the choice to opt for heterosexuality is reasonable and comprehensible, the implication that homosexuality is unnatural or morally wrong is inexcusable. Homosexuality occurs naturally (in many species), it's clearly not a choice and causes no more harm than heterosexuality. I understand that many here are attempting to argue that homosexual orientation is acceptable, just not homosexual acts - this seems to be based on the bible rather than any rational sense, which is pretty woeful. To condemn others based solely on the opinion of whichever authors you're quoting is not just ludicrous but deplorable. We need to recognise that the bible is not authority, and that many of its messages are unpleasant, dubious or utterly contradictory. It would thus be foolishly untenable to use its content in support of any moral issue, not least in support of homophobia, which has such an immorally destructive effect on innocent people. If there are religious believers who, for whatever reason, take their holy book to be fact and authority - I implore you to at least recognise that others don't share your opinion. If you think homosexual acts are sinful, due to your choice of scripture or your holy man, please accept that this is only your opinion, you needn't cause harm to others as a result.
One of the smartest comments I've read here was the argument that surely theists should be the most accepting of homosexuals, as surely to condemn homosexuals would be an affront to the God who had created them. (Obviously I know this makes little impact on those of irrational faith in scripture, but that makes it no less true)
"If [gay activists] agree that sexual orientation does not require people to act on their orientation, they will have lost a key argument for pushing societal acceptance of their sexuality. Yet they could be harming their cause even more if they continue to argue that the orientation is normal and acceptable simply because it has a basis in our biological nature." - I thought I'd include this quote from the original article, simply because it's so nonsensical that it's rather amusing.
9.28.2010 | 2:43pm
Annmarie Jakiela says:
Andrew Sullivan points out that back in the 1990s, he was pushing gay marriage while many gay activists were publicly excoriating people like him as "traitors." Those people really did want to destroy marriage. But now gay marriage has become a mainstream position in gay activist circles. I am a cinefile of the highest order because I have a film reference for everything. And among a handful of master filmmakers of the 20th century, Rainer Werner Fassbinder ranks high on my short list.
10.28.2010 | 7:51am
Terri Murray says:
Homosexuals have never denied that they have free will. It is their freedom that makes their sexual choices subject to the same standard of moral assessment used to evaluate heterosexual acts - what makes them good or bad is not the involuntary aspect (attraction, etc) but the impact on other people of acting on those urges. Since homosexuals and heterosexuals both have free will, they both should control themselves when the sexual behavior (whether it be adultery, paedophelia, rape or any other form of abuse) is harmful to others. (But since this is so obvious and so clearly refutes the Catholic double-standard, I can expect you to "Moderate" this comment... ie. censor it from the eyes of your readers!)
10.9.2011 | 6:59pm
mark says:
The ability to alter genetics in the womb will be a huge step in human evolution as we will in some respects be able to then direct our own evolution to some extent. Parents will often make choices in life that will make their children's lives easier, so in a sense I agree with the OP, if life continues to be more trying for those that live 'alternative' lifestyles many parents would likely choose to not subject their child to that kind of abuse if it was avoidable, almost regardless of their feelings towards the acceptability/morality of homosexuality. This will likely see not the end of the LGBT community but a drastic decline in the size of this group, if for no other reason than because the intolerance of others makes life so difficult for this group that most parents if given the choice would likely opt not to subject their unborn child to a life of such hardship. That would be a social motivation that for most falls outside of a judgement on morality and is merely a practical choice for the interest of the child, particularly with the growing concerns over bullying why set your child up with one more reason to be bullied due to the lack of understanding of others. This issue is highly complex in the eyes of many and this possibility certainly would further muddy the waters in the debate on social, moral, political, and practical levels. It certainly does little to bring the issue to resolution as perhaps both sides of the argument had hoped.
1.12.2012 | 10:22am
Penny says:
It is a homosexual's choice not to have homosexual sex as much as it is a heterosexual's choice not to have heterosexual sex.
If you are a heterosexual and you have ever experienced love or sex, do you think you would be able to live life without ever experiencing them again? Do you believe you would be able to force yourself to have sex with a member of the same gender, even if your family, religious leaders, and friends encouraged you to do so?
Put yourself in another person's shoes for once.
If you are a heterosexual and you have ever experienced love or sex, do you think you would be able to live life without ever experiencing them again? Do you believe you would be able to force yourself to have sex with a member of the same gender, even if your family, religious leaders, and friends encouraged you to do so?
Put yourself in another person's shoes for once.
What if gay parents 'choose' gay children?