AlterNet / By Patrick Letellier
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 193

That Oh-So-Natural Fruity Feeling

Right-wingers are frothing over a new study showing that sexual preference among fruit flies (and maybe humans, too) has genetic roots.
October 29, 2005  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
Did you hear the one about the lesbian fruit fly? She walks into a bar and the bartender says, "What can I get you?" And she says ...

OK, I'm making this up. I don't know what a lesbian fruit fly would order (peach schnapps?), but this much is true: scientists announced recently that they've documented homosexual behavior in fruit flies -- girl on girl action, to be specific.

Seems after just a wee bit of gene splicing, and a Barry White soundtrack playing, the female creepy-crawlies of the species try to get it on with other females.

Before you say, "Eew, gross" or "Who cares?", hear me out, because believe it or not the antics of these dykey fruit flies are being linked to homo behavior in us homo sapiens. And like anything else remotely hinting that gay sex may be -- egad! -- natural, this has right-wingers absolutely frothing.

As announced in a recent issue of the scientific journal Cell, two neurobiologists at the Austrian Academy of Sciences made slight genetic "manipulations" in some female fruit flies, inserting the male version of one gene into the brains of these teensy creatures. They apparently hoped to create a super-strong, crime-fighting Six Million Dollar Fly, but instead ended up with k.d. lang-like female flies that act just like males during courtship: they gently tap virgin females on the legs, play songs on their wings for them, and, when that seems to go well, they lick the females in all the right places. And that, says a New York Times science writer, is "all part of standard fruit fly seduction."

Besides legions of lesbian fruit flies serenading willing virgins, what does this study reveal? "We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said lead investigator Barry Dickson.

Uh-oh. Careful, doc. Talking about genes and sexual orientation in the same sentence is dangerous in these right-wing, ultra-religious, gay-marriage-is-evil times we're living in.

Predictably, trouble started when another scientist linked the fruit fly study to fruity humans. "The whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the biochemistry department at Ohio's Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science," Weiss told the Times.

Well, as us non-scientific types like to put it, FAT CHANCE, BUDDY!

But Weiss was undeterred. "I never chose to be heterosexual: it just happened. But humans are complicated. With the flies we can see in a simple and elegant way how a gene can influence and determine behavior."

Yep, he said it: sexual orientation is neither a choice nor a moral issue, and, with fruit flies at least, genes affect complex sexual behavior.

This is not rocket science, I realize, since most people recognize that genes affect a whole host of behaviors, human and otherwise. But to say that sexual orientation in humans has genetic roots is to remove the ace holding the conservative, anti-gay house of cards in place. Because if, like race, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, then the widespread and mean-spirited prejudice directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is revealed to be just that. And Americans, as a whole, don't go in for prejudice of any stripe.

Now you ask, reasonably enough, who cares about a bunch of fruit flies? Conservatives aren't really going to jump all over this, are they? Ah, my naive grasshopper, let us look at the news release from that stalwart of the right wing, Focus on the Family. The fruit fly study has been "hijacked by pro-homosexual journalists," Focus declares. It "doesn't tell anything about humans," says psychologist Warren Throckmorton, of Pennsylvania's Grove City College, who offers this insightful gem: "Fruit flies don't date, go to bars, go to church -- there is no way you can make the leap."

Uh, thanks for that clarification. In case you're still tempted to rush out and buy a "Flies Are People, Too" bumpersticker, Focus further reminds us, "Fruit flies don't have fantasies, wishes, hopes, dreams or any of that."

All I can say is, when the far-right is sternly lecturing us about the emotional life of lesbian fruit flies, you know we're on to something.
Patrick Letellier is a journalist living in San Francisco, a city full of creatures great and small. Read more of his writings at PatrickLetellier.com.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email

comments COMMENTS ( 193 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Prejudiced People Will Always Have Prejudices
[Report this comment]
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 29, 2005 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are homophobic are no different than people with prejudice of any stripe. Prejudice is an expression of hatred and fear and not the result of any rational process. The hatred and fear can have a number of causes.

A climate of racism can influence a childs beliefs. Children who grew up in the south during the 1950's were exposed to hatred of Blacks and a majority of these children would grow up with the same prejudice. If your father was a member of the KKK, there is a high probability that you will become a member too.

Some children grow up with an enormous amount of anger often the result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. The anger needs an outlet and a minority group in society already targetted as inferior will suffice. Neo Nazis are people with hatred towards Jews and express their anger in the form of vandalism, hate literature and physical or emotional abuse.

If homophobia becomes socially unacceptable, what group will be targetted next? In the 19th century, left-handed people were feared and hated. Maybe we can revive hatred and fear of left-handed people. Or why not be original and choose an entirely new group to hate. Why not people with green eyes. After all we konw they own all the banks and control all the wealth around the world.

Author of "LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

agitator church and state
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eileenflmng on Oct 29, 2005 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right wing fundamentalists are what is holding up humanity from evolving into loving compassionate beings.

Science has documented over 600 animal species that engage in same sex activity.

Christ was mute on the topic of sexual attraction and the mystery of love but said plenty about not-judging others.

God is Love, so where ever there is love, God is present.

Sex is a gift from God and the way adults PLAY, express and receive LOVE.

You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
- John 8:32

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: ShaSpirit

Comments are closed-

You're kidding, right?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 29, 2005 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're kidding, right? Patrick Letellier writes: "But to say that sexual orientation in humans has genetic roots is to remove the ace holding the conservative, anti-gay house of cards in place." No, it's not. It's to let the conservative, anti-gay lobby "frame" the whole discussion. Which is pretty much what Uranians, homosexuals, gays, etc., have been doing since the late 19th century. The Christians said we were sinful; we said, No, we're _sick_ -- and you don't go to hell for being sick, and you don't get burned at the stake for being sick, so let us alone. Well, that was an improvement, but it turned out to have its liabilities: if you're sick, some people want to cure you, and what if it's contagious? So we latched on to the "we can't help it" defense: it's our parents' fault, or, aha! it's genetic! We're off the hook! God made us this way! [gag]

Who benefits most from this argument? Anyone who wants a place in the existing power structure: "See? We're just like you except . . ." If all anti-gay and anti-lesbian prejudice vanished this afternoon, I'd still be a woman. Last I heard, btw, woman-ness really was genetic, and I can't see that's been such a great defense against prejudice, discrimination, and violence.

Letellier also wrote: "Because if, like race, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, then the widespread and mean-spirited prejudice directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is revealed to be just that. And Americans, as a whole, don't go in for prejudice of any stripe."

But, but . . . Oh, now I get it. This article _is_ a joke. Never mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Homophobia the New Racism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jeffersonista on Oct 29, 2005 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since racism became unacceptable behavior, the bushies have long sought a replacement, and here it is, homophobia. The arguments and slanders are almost identical, only the targets have changed.

Amazing how the holier than thou types crave victums to brutalize and persecute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: Michelle
» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: kittynboi
» thank you kittynboi! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: thank you kittynboi! Posted by: kittynboi
» pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» pride Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pride Posted by: kittynboi
» i agree it is not a choice Posted by: eastcoker
» No: RACISM is the new racism Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

This isn't really new news
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Oct 29, 2005 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude, you are so behind the times. If you'd like to look at an indepth study of sexuality -- including homosexuality -- in the whole animal kingdom, try this:

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Bruce Bagemihl, PhD -1999
ISBN 0-213-19239-8
Dewey # 591.562 B144

This book should scare ultra-conservatives shitless. It clearly illustrates that homosexuality is normal and natural, and is not a solely human enterprise. Just about every mammalian species practices it, and probably every non-mammalian species as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This isn't really new news Posted by: Michelle
» don't tell me to "relax" Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

Since when is genetic determinism liberal?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 29, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article says "most people recognize that genes affect a whole host of behaviors." Interestingly, though, "progressives" generally do not "recognize" Charles Murray's "scientific" theory that black genes lead to less intelligence, or any of the right's numerous "scientific" attempts to prove that girls are hardwired to bake cookies and avoid higher office. We correctly point out that those studies are full of unwarranted leaps of blind faith and methodological errors, and that humans (unlike fruit flies) have an enormous variety of different cultural behaviors.

Believing that fruitflies and humans have enough in common to use them as a proxy species for behavioral studies is a great leap of faith. Would you study their food-gathering behavior in order to better understand the American grocery industry? Probably not. Like right-wingers who see "traditional family values" in the March of the Penguins, conventional leftists use selective reading of science to justify their firm belief that it's okay to be one of a limited number of sexual orientations ("gay","straight", sometimes bi-- although that's confusing) but it's not okay to come up with a family style they didn't think of first (notice how the proposed gay-marriage laws wouldn't protect my "equal rights" since I choose to live long-term with several friends) and it's not okay to admit that the boundaries are blurred sometimes, and you yourself might have expressed affection in a different way under different cultural circumstances.

But the boundaries are blurred and very much cultural. In San Francisco if I hold hands with another guy I'm a "Gay Couple," in Memphis I'm an "abomination," but in both Brazil and Saudi Arabia (!) I'm simply "a good friend." (I could kiss straight guys in public there too.) In one Mexican sexual practice the guy on top is not gay, but the guy on bottom is. And even within America-- hey, did you know that the straight-same-sex-friends-kissing-&-snuggling custom only died out around 1850 for men and 1910 for women? And, let me ask my fellow non-heterosexuals: how many "straight" folks have expressed a sexual interest in you? Come on, be honest... thank you.

If we were really tolerant, wouldn't we be able to accept that people CAN choose to have different kinds of families, and we ought to respect those choices, rather than sqeamishly saying "but they can't help it"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A mutant fly = lifestyle choices?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 29, 2005 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As announced in a recent issue of the scientific journal Cell, two neurobiologists at the Austrian Academy of Sciences made slight genetic "manipulations" in some female fruit flies, inserting the male version of one gene into the brains of these teensy creatures."

I really don't have a pony in this race...but if I did: I would be very wary about extrapolating human behavior from the behavior of drosophila.
....Especially drosophila that have been mutated and engineered to behave a certain way.
....Especially if I was seeking to justify a lifestyle--clearly the tone of the article.

Biochemically, they're a great model (fruit flys, not homosexuals/lesbians/just browsing/no preferencers): they're big bags of flying enzymes that do many of the same functions as those in the cells of you and me, and ardvarks and elephants. They're positively AWESOME for studying cell division and the process of cell differentiation. You can monitor each seqment develop from individual cells over the course of a number of hours.

Drosophila is a very odd choice for a model to hold up and claim vindication for a lifestyle. In addition to the chick-on-chick behavior, they also land on rotten bananas and on cat poo, you know?

Further, interpreted in its broadest sense (as in the author's take on the study) the study may promote confusion among those who are easily confused. If our fearless leader catches wind of this study, he's liable to hold up the army ant in one hand, the killer bee in another, and claim that "he ever only done what Mother Nature told him to, pardner".

It was a very interesting study and they ought to keep at it, but human behavior just ain't as simple as "the product of our genes" camp would tell us it is. Pardners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A lifestyle choice? Hell yes.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 29, 2005 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to thank ABetterLife for referring to non-heterosexual behavior as a "lifestyle choice," because that is what it is when I do it. It provides a good segue into another reason why "progressives" and many of my fellow not-hetero people prefer to go the genetic route: if it's genetic, there's only one right way to do it, and they can put down any people in the community who fail to conform to their expectations.

Like, I'm personally not very sexual. What ho, the guys I have dated can (and indeed have) told me that I was "still repressed" if I didn't want to get it on or watch porno as much as them, or if I just wanted to cuddle. If they see any straight guys out there who show actual affection for each other as friends (in the Brazillian style), they can tease them about being "in the closet," and since gayness "is genetic" and affectionate friendship is "just a lifestyle choice," their whole theory has given them permission to dish out the same sort of ridicule and prejudice that they are so (justifiably) unwilling to take.

It's interesting that the "leaders" in the main gay organizations are so submissive to the right wing ("we can get married just like you," "we can't help it, if we could we would," etc.) while simultaneously being, generally, dismissive of the sizeable chunk of queer America who does not want to get married, chooses a household style that isn't protected by the so-called "equality" laws they offer, or doesn't believe that they were "born that way" (surveys show that lesbians in particular tend to question this assumption). It's like they are still trying to gain the approval of their conservative parents, but on the national stage. Is that really what we want from our queer movement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forgot to make the final point... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: A lifestyle choice? Hell yes. Posted by: davelwhite
» oh nevermind Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

Mean Spirited Prejudice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 29, 2005 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, thank you for this brilliant piece. I think we are really getting somewhere now with this genetic research. Did you all know that fruit fly is another name for fag hag?

At any rate this sentence really hit the nail on the head "Because if, like race, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, then the widespread and mean-spirited prejudice directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is revealed to be just that."

I have been fighting against this mean-spirited prejudice in various christian discussion groups as well as with various christian individuals. I appreciate the words 'mean spirited prejudice'. I have the most difficult time with members of 'minority races' who hold this mean spirited prejudice against the lgbt community. I think it because being mean to lgbt gives them a feeling of superiority in society that makes them feel constantly inferior.

And I have a dear gay black friend who I have discussed the nuances of the straight black male ego with and we have determined we are both persecuted in the same manner as a straight woman and a gay man!

Please keep publishing more articles like this. It is a weapon to add to my arsenal to fight this mean spirited prejudice which even exists in the San Francisco Bay Area!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mean Spirited Prejudice Posted by: kittynboi
» instincts Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: instincts Posted by: kittynboi
» hyper masculinity Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: kittynboi
» sim Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: sim Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: sim Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: sim Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: sim Posted by: eastcoker

Comments are closed-

Playing Into The Enemy's Hands
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 29, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polls have repeatedly shown that most Americans believe that being gay is a choice and therefore a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. The religious right long ago recognized those findings as a major advantage for promoting policies of discrimination. They formulated a political strategy to bolster those beliefs and to prevent any opposite consensus from forming. That's why the right constantly pushes the idea that being gay is a choice.

So, it's rather strange to see so many messages on this board that offer more ammunition to the radical right and its strategies, while simultaneously trying to disarm gay rights advocates. As the saying goes, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» religion Posted by: eastcoker
» Lakoff school Posted by: eastcoker
» Thank you Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Cheech
» *only* 52? Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

"The mind is not sex-typed" Margaret Mead
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nitsua1023 on Oct 29, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The mind is not sex-typed" Margaret Mead.

In psychology, we learned that homosexuality was likely an adaptation to keep from overpopulating in areas where resources were scarce.

Although we learned in sociology that in many bushman tribes of Africa, all of the males have homosexual experiences while on their hunting trips, away from the females. This would seem to support it being a choice.

Sheryl Swoopes of the WNBA just came out, and she says she wasn't born gay. She just became gay.

Maybe, and I say likely, there are multiple factors which are contribute to homosexuality. For some folks they choose to be gay, but for others it was the only choice they ever had.

Some folks are gay, some straight, some transgendered AND gay, some transgendered AND straight, some folks are transexual. There are multiple factors, so anyone who says it all comes down to one factor, is wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Semantics Posted by: nitsua1023

Comments are closed-

Wait a Minute...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 30, 2005 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Dobson & his Focus On The Family Group do not represent all, or even most, Evangelical Christians. The same can be said for the rest of the Church/Media/Political Cabal that has sprung up in our country over the last number of decades.

Please do not lump us all in one big pile of condemnation.

I am a Christian and hold beliefs GENERALLY in-line with that of the Evangelical movement on sacred matters but NOT on civil law. The laws of civil government should be drawn from the society at large-- not the teachings of one group's theology or philosophy and should always be respectful of the basic rights outlined in our founding documents.

What these short-sighted people (DoMA, etc) do not seem to understand is that the the same institutionalization of intolerance could later be used as a precedent against values and beliefs that they hold near to their heart. Democracy and democratic institutions by their very nature demand some level of tolerance of viewpoints and values at variance with any particular point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wait a Minute... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Wait a Minute... Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

genetic manipulation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 30, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Letellier, what are you saying, that all homosexuals are genetically manipulated to be that way? That can't be right. I have a lot of homosexual friends who were never genetically manipulated... I think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oh, fucking *fantastic*
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on Oct 30, 2005 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now all that's needed is to develop a course of gene therapy and all those icky homos will be turned into straights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, fucking *fantastic* Posted by: thirdmg
» I was and I wasn't. Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Playing Into The Enemy's Hands - Redux
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 30, 2005 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that so many people posting on this board have a strong emotional investment in declaring that being gay is a choice. What makes it so interesting is that the radical right also has a strong emotional investment in declaring exactly the same thing - and, similar to creationists, in promoting a distrust of any scientific findings which might contradict its beliefs.

The only difference is that the right understands the implications of its ideology and uses it to great effect. Polls have repeatedly shown that Americans who believe that being gay is a choice are far less likely to support equal rights, while those who believe that being gay is as immutable as race are far more likely to support equal rights. Since the radical right knows that most Americans disapprove of gays and already believe that being gay is a choice, the right understands that "choice" is its most effective weapon. And so, the right can - and does - confidently claim any of the following:

1) Being gay, unlike race or gender, is a legitimate target for moral disapproval and suppression
2) Being gay can be viewed as criminal or addictive behavior; punishments are legitimate
3) Anyone could decide to become gay, and that is a threat to the family structure
4) Gays can convert others; your children are in danger; everyone is vulnerable to their recruitment tactics
5) Gays aren't asking for equal rights; they're asking for special rights
6) Tolerance of gays should not be taught in schools; anti-gay bullying is legitimate
7) Gays can be converted into ex-gays; gays do not need rights, they need help
8) It is legitimate and normal to discriminate against gays
9) Gays should not adopt or be allowed around children
10) No one is born gay; gays are created
11) Et cetera.

A valid argument has been presented on this board that we protect religious belief, which clearly is a choice, so why shouldn't gays be protected under the same logic? The answer is that most Americans strongly approve of religion and, largely because of that, don't approve of gays. In fact, America is the most church-going nation in the Western world. And those who attend church on a regular basis are far less likely to support gay rights than those who seldom or never attend church. So, arguing for any kind of sexual rights on the basis of "choice" is both futile and counter-productive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» patronizing, anyone? Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

OCD, Tourette's, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Anorexia all genetic too
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 30, 2005 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we can argue that any human behavior is at least partially rooted in genetics. But to say that this means the behavior is "right" or "morally equivalent" because it has a genetic basis is simply false. People with anorexia have been shown to have a certain neurological profile that's almost definitely genetic - and like homosexuals, they say that their behavior is an expression of who they really are, and many of them celebrate it. Does that make anorexia okay?

I'm afraid that genetic studies simply aren't a magic bullet for gay activists who want to prove that homosexuality is okay. They need to prove that their behavior isn't harmful. That's the discussion that needs to take place - and it's an awfully icky discussion about anal sex and other uneasy topics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Um, excuse me. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Um, excuse me. Posted by: Tommy
» RE: Um, excuse me. Posted by: bettsoff
» No, we haven't Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: No, we haven't Posted by: kittynboi
» Care to reconcile these? Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Care to reconcile these? Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

This entire thread is appalling.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kittynboi on Oct 30, 2005 4:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's making me think that large sections of the left are no better than the right wing when it comes to social issues.

Stop romanticizing the working class.

Stop hoping for another MLK and thinking that you can get one by appealing to fundamentalists.

Stop thinking homophobia is suddenly more acceptable because the homophobia of the black community is coming to light.

Stop thinking that moving to the right will give us a marxist utopia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Choice - Thirdmg
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tommy on Oct 30, 2005 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I honestly don't believe sexual orientation is always determined by genetics. I also don't believe trying to base acceptance on that idea helps the gay movement, whatever the hell that might be.

But I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other (and I don't think that's a bad thing). If you want to talk about this more, my email is tmarx@triad.rr.com. Please feel free to write me. But I'm going to stop arguing with you because we're not going to settle anything on this forum and my intention for replying in the first place was to make you understand (which I didn't) that not everyone shares your view.

You think sexual orientation is always a matter of genetics. I don't. But I respect you, and I'm hoping we can agree to disagree. :-)

Tommy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: Tommy
» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

Lecturer Uses "Choice" To Attack Gays
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 31, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now, anyone who has been following the discussion on this board should suspect that at least some of the messages are coming from covert right-wing supporters trying to spread disinformation that sexual orientation is a choice. Take a look at a recent example of how the radical right uses "choice" to attack gays:

Anti-Gay Speaker Claims Homosexuality Is A Choice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Nature Vs. Nurture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blacksheep on Oct 31, 2005 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The importance of this research is that is takes homosexuality per se out of the moral domain. We have always known that sexual orientation is not a moral issue, otherwise we would have heaped praise on heterosexuals for merely being attracted to the opposite sex. But we do not. Why? Because no one can be praised (nor blamed) for matters of fact. Freedom of choice is the foundation on which moral judgements rest, for we cannot be held accountable for that which is not ours to determine. However, since heterosexuals have long believed that human nature JUST IS heterosexual, they viewed homosexuality as a willful rebellion against nature, and so they have (mistakenly) regarded homosexuality as a matter of choice, in the same category as cheating on your partner or raping an unconsenting person.

What is clear is that the things we can be held morally accountable for are the things over which we have freedom of choice. For example, although you are not free to be attracted to the same sex, as you are heterosexual, you CAN choose HOW you behave. Your sexual orientation does not CONTROL your actions. You ARE responsible for decisions about how to act, given your sexual orientation. For example, you orientation does not dictate that you rape a woman, commmit the sin of pederasty, cheat on your wife or your partner -- THESE are the kinds of things which ARE moral issues, because you have a choice in them. But you do not get any praise for your mere attraction to the opposite sex! Sorry - that was not up to you. So nor can you blame homosexuals for their failure to be attracted to the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is simply not a moral issue because it does not involve free will.

The onus is on the homophobe to show how homosexuality (even if it WERE a free choice) harms some pseudo "victim," otherwise there can be no legitimate reason for legislating against it. So far no intrinsic harm has been associated with homosexuality per se, so you need to get busy explaining why you are against it since it is neither (a) a moral issue at all, nor (b) harmful to others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Looking at it the wrong way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zmesberg on Nov 1, 2005 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it matter whether an individual chooses to be homosexual or is born that way? If one truly believes in the importance of human freedom then to condemn someone for their sexual behaviors is morally repugnant as long as those behaviors don't cause harm to others. It should not be an issue whether one was predisposed to those behaviors or not. Just like heterosexual sex, gay sex is harmless if practiced responsibly. The real sickos here are those who seek to condemn and sometimes even regulate the sexual lives of their fellow humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unexpected Consequences
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Texaniensis on Nov 2, 2005 11:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So some scientists are still bending over backwards to prove that homosexuality is DNA-determined. Do they realize that their research is a two-edged sword---that once you determine a gay gene, you can begin researching how to reverse the condition medically? If a medical cure were available right now, I think its popularity would eclipse that of all the vasectomy reversals, DNA paternity tests, and penile enlargement procedures combined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

Kittynboi - As Suggested
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Nov 4, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've set up a quick blog, as you suggested, to display research results. Nothing is on at this moment, but I'll update it as I go.

Not A Choice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kittynboi - As Suggested Posted by: kittynboi
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Prejudiced People Will Always Have Prejudices
[Report this comment]
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Oct 29, 2005 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People who are homophobic are no different than people with prejudice of any stripe. Prejudice is an expression of hatred and fear and not the result of any rational process. The hatred and fear can have a number of causes.

A climate of racism can influence a childs beliefs. Children who grew up in the south during the 1950's were exposed to hatred of Blacks and a majority of these children would grow up with the same prejudice. If your father was a member of the KKK, there is a high probability that you will become a member too.

Some children grow up with an enormous amount of anger often the result of physical, emotional or sexual abuse. The anger needs an outlet and a minority group in society already targetted as inferior will suffice. Neo Nazis are people with hatred towards Jews and express their anger in the form of vandalism, hate literature and physical or emotional abuse.

If homophobia becomes socially unacceptable, what group will be targetted next? In the 19th century, left-handed people were feared and hated. Maybe we can revive hatred and fear of left-handed people. Or why not be original and choose an entirely new group to hate. Why not people with green eyes. After all we konw they own all the banks and control all the wealth around the world.

Author of "LYING FOR EMPIRE: HOW TO COMMIT WAR CRIMES WITH A STRAIGHT FACE"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

agitator church and state
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eileenflmng on Oct 29, 2005 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right wing fundamentalists are what is holding up humanity from evolving into loving compassionate beings.

Science has documented over 600 animal species that engage in same sex activity.

Christ was mute on the topic of sexual attraction and the mystery of love but said plenty about not-judging others.

God is Love, so where ever there is love, God is present.

Sex is a gift from God and the way adults PLAY, express and receive LOVE.

You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free."
- John 8:32

www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: agitator church and state Posted by: ShaSpirit

Comments are closed-

You're kidding, right?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 29, 2005 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're kidding, right? Patrick Letellier writes: "But to say that sexual orientation in humans has genetic roots is to remove the ace holding the conservative, anti-gay house of cards in place." No, it's not. It's to let the conservative, anti-gay lobby "frame" the whole discussion. Which is pretty much what Uranians, homosexuals, gays, etc., have been doing since the late 19th century. The Christians said we were sinful; we said, No, we're _sick_ -- and you don't go to hell for being sick, and you don't get burned at the stake for being sick, so let us alone. Well, that was an improvement, but it turned out to have its liabilities: if you're sick, some people want to cure you, and what if it's contagious? So we latched on to the "we can't help it" defense: it's our parents' fault, or, aha! it's genetic! We're off the hook! God made us this way! [gag]

Who benefits most from this argument? Anyone who wants a place in the existing power structure: "See? We're just like you except . . ." If all anti-gay and anti-lesbian prejudice vanished this afternoon, I'd still be a woman. Last I heard, btw, woman-ness really was genetic, and I can't see that's been such a great defense against prejudice, discrimination, and violence.

Letellier also wrote: "Because if, like race, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, then the widespread and mean-spirited prejudice directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is revealed to be just that. And Americans, as a whole, don't go in for prejudice of any stripe."

But, but . . . Oh, now I get it. This article _is_ a joke. Never mind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Homophobia the New Racism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jeffersonista on Oct 29, 2005 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ever since racism became unacceptable behavior, the bushies have long sought a replacement, and here it is, homophobia. The arguments and slanders are almost identical, only the targets have changed.

Amazing how the holier than thou types crave victums to brutalize and persecute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: Michelle
» RE: Homophobia the New Racism Posted by: kittynboi
» thank you kittynboi! Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: thank you kittynboi! Posted by: kittynboi
» pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pseudo marxism Posted by: kittynboi
» pride Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: pride Posted by: kittynboi
» i agree it is not a choice Posted by: eastcoker
» No: RACISM is the new racism Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

This isn't really new news
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Oct 29, 2005 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dude, you are so behind the times. If you'd like to look at an indepth study of sexuality -- including homosexuality -- in the whole animal kingdom, try this:

Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Bruce Bagemihl, PhD -1999
ISBN 0-213-19239-8
Dewey # 591.562 B144

This book should scare ultra-conservatives shitless. It clearly illustrates that homosexuality is normal and natural, and is not a solely human enterprise. Just about every mammalian species practices it, and probably every non-mammalian species as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This isn't really new news Posted by: Michelle
» don't tell me to "relax" Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

Since when is genetic determinism liberal?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 29, 2005 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article says "most people recognize that genes affect a whole host of behaviors." Interestingly, though, "progressives" generally do not "recognize" Charles Murray's "scientific" theory that black genes lead to less intelligence, or any of the right's numerous "scientific" attempts to prove that girls are hardwired to bake cookies and avoid higher office. We correctly point out that those studies are full of unwarranted leaps of blind faith and methodological errors, and that humans (unlike fruit flies) have an enormous variety of different cultural behaviors.

Believing that fruitflies and humans have enough in common to use them as a proxy species for behavioral studies is a great leap of faith. Would you study their food-gathering behavior in order to better understand the American grocery industry? Probably not. Like right-wingers who see "traditional family values" in the March of the Penguins, conventional leftists use selective reading of science to justify their firm belief that it's okay to be one of a limited number of sexual orientations ("gay","straight", sometimes bi-- although that's confusing) but it's not okay to come up with a family style they didn't think of first (notice how the proposed gay-marriage laws wouldn't protect my "equal rights" since I choose to live long-term with several friends) and it's not okay to admit that the boundaries are blurred sometimes, and you yourself might have expressed affection in a different way under different cultural circumstances.

But the boundaries are blurred and very much cultural. In San Francisco if I hold hands with another guy I'm a "Gay Couple," in Memphis I'm an "abomination," but in both Brazil and Saudi Arabia (!) I'm simply "a good friend." (I could kiss straight guys in public there too.) In one Mexican sexual practice the guy on top is not gay, but the guy on bottom is. And even within America-- hey, did you know that the straight-same-sex-friends-kissing-&-snuggling custom only died out around 1850 for men and 1910 for women? And, let me ask my fellow non-heterosexuals: how many "straight" folks have expressed a sexual interest in you? Come on, be honest... thank you.

If we were really tolerant, wouldn't we be able to accept that people CAN choose to have different kinds of families, and we ought to respect those choices, rather than sqeamishly saying "but they can't help it"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A mutant fly = lifestyle choices?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Oct 29, 2005 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"As announced in a recent issue of the scientific journal Cell, two neurobiologists at the Austrian Academy of Sciences made slight genetic "manipulations" in some female fruit flies, inserting the male version of one gene into the brains of these teensy creatures."

I really don't have a pony in this race...but if I did: I would be very wary about extrapolating human behavior from the behavior of drosophila.
....Especially drosophila that have been mutated and engineered to behave a certain way.
....Especially if I was seeking to justify a lifestyle--clearly the tone of the article.

Biochemically, they're a great model (fruit flys, not homosexuals/lesbians/just browsing/no preferencers): they're big bags of flying enzymes that do many of the same functions as those in the cells of you and me, and ardvarks and elephants. They're positively AWESOME for studying cell division and the process of cell differentiation. You can monitor each seqment develop from individual cells over the course of a number of hours.

Drosophila is a very odd choice for a model to hold up and claim vindication for a lifestyle. In addition to the chick-on-chick behavior, they also land on rotten bananas and on cat poo, you know?

Further, interpreted in its broadest sense (as in the author's take on the study) the study may promote confusion among those who are easily confused. If our fearless leader catches wind of this study, he's liable to hold up the army ant in one hand, the killer bee in another, and claim that "he ever only done what Mother Nature told him to, pardner".

It was a very interesting study and they ought to keep at it, but human behavior just ain't as simple as "the product of our genes" camp would tell us it is. Pardners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A lifestyle choice? Hell yes.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davelwhite on Oct 29, 2005 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just want to thank ABetterLife for referring to non-heterosexual behavior as a "lifestyle choice," because that is what it is when I do it. It provides a good segue into another reason why "progressives" and many of my fellow not-hetero people prefer to go the genetic route: if it's genetic, there's only one right way to do it, and they can put down any people in the community who fail to conform to their expectations.

Like, I'm personally not very sexual. What ho, the guys I have dated can (and indeed have) told me that I was "still repressed" if I didn't want to get it on or watch porno as much as them, or if I just wanted to cuddle. If they see any straight guys out there who show actual affection for each other as friends (in the Brazillian style), they can tease them about being "in the closet," and since gayness "is genetic" and affectionate friendship is "just a lifestyle choice," their whole theory has given them permission to dish out the same sort of ridicule and prejudice that they are so (justifiably) unwilling to take.

It's interesting that the "leaders" in the main gay organizations are so submissive to the right wing ("we can get married just like you," "we can't help it, if we could we would," etc.) while simultaneously being, generally, dismissive of the sizeable chunk of queer America who does not want to get married, chooses a household style that isn't protected by the so-called "equality" laws they offer, or doesn't believe that they were "born that way" (surveys show that lesbians in particular tend to question this assumption). It's like they are still trying to gain the approval of their conservative parents, but on the national stage. Is that really what we want from our queer movement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Forgot to make the final point... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: A lifestyle choice? Hell yes. Posted by: davelwhite
» oh nevermind Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

Mean Spirited Prejudice
[Report this comment]
Posted by: eastcoker on Oct 29, 2005 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah, thank you for this brilliant piece. I think we are really getting somewhere now with this genetic research. Did you all know that fruit fly is another name for fag hag?

At any rate this sentence really hit the nail on the head "Because if, like race, sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, then the widespread and mean-spirited prejudice directed at lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is revealed to be just that."

I have been fighting against this mean-spirited prejudice in various christian discussion groups as well as with various christian individuals. I appreciate the words 'mean spirited prejudice'. I have the most difficult time with members of 'minority races' who hold this mean spirited prejudice against the lgbt community. I think it because being mean to lgbt gives them a feeling of superiority in society that makes them feel constantly inferior.

And I have a dear gay black friend who I have discussed the nuances of the straight black male ego with and we have determined we are both persecuted in the same manner as a straight woman and a gay man!

Please keep publishing more articles like this. It is a weapon to add to my arsenal to fight this mean spirited prejudice which even exists in the San Francisco Bay Area!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mean Spirited Prejudice Posted by: kittynboi
» instincts Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: instincts Posted by: kittynboi
» hyper masculinity Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: hyper masculinity Posted by: kittynboi
» sim Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: sim Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: sim Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: sim Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: sim Posted by: eastcoker

Comments are closed-

Playing Into The Enemy's Hands
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 29, 2005 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Polls have repeatedly shown that most Americans believe that being gay is a choice and therefore a moral issue, not a civil rights issue. The religious right long ago recognized those findings as a major advantage for promoting policies of discrimination. They formulated a political strategy to bolster those beliefs and to prevent any opposite consensus from forming. That's why the right constantly pushes the idea that being gay is a choice.

So, it's rather strange to see so many messages on this board that offer more ammunition to the radical right and its strategies, while simultaneously trying to disarm gay rights advocates. As the saying goes, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» religion Posted by: eastcoker
» Lakoff school Posted by: eastcoker
» Thank you Posted by: eastcoker
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Cheech
» *only* 52? Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

"The mind is not sex-typed" Margaret Mead
[Report this comment]
Posted by: nitsua1023 on Oct 29, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The mind is not sex-typed" Margaret Mead.

In psychology, we learned that homosexuality was likely an adaptation to keep from overpopulating in areas where resources were scarce.

Although we learned in sociology that in many bushman tribes of Africa, all of the males have homosexual experiences while on their hunting trips, away from the females. This would seem to support it being a choice.

Sheryl Swoopes of the WNBA just came out, and she says she wasn't born gay. She just became gay.

Maybe, and I say likely, there are multiple factors which are contribute to homosexuality. For some folks they choose to be gay, but for others it was the only choice they ever had.

Some folks are gay, some straight, some transgendered AND gay, some transgendered AND straight, some folks are transexual. There are multiple factors, so anyone who says it all comes down to one factor, is wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Semantics Posted by: nitsua1023

Comments are closed-

Wait a Minute...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 30, 2005 12:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Dobson & his Focus On The Family Group do not represent all, or even most, Evangelical Christians. The same can be said for the rest of the Church/Media/Political Cabal that has sprung up in our country over the last number of decades.

Please do not lump us all in one big pile of condemnation.

I am a Christian and hold beliefs GENERALLY in-line with that of the Evangelical movement on sacred matters but NOT on civil law. The laws of civil government should be drawn from the society at large-- not the teachings of one group's theology or philosophy and should always be respectful of the basic rights outlined in our founding documents.

What these short-sighted people (DoMA, etc) do not seem to understand is that the the same institutionalization of intolerance could later be used as a precedent against values and beliefs that they hold near to their heart. Democracy and democratic institutions by their very nature demand some level of tolerance of viewpoints and values at variance with any particular point of view.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wait a Minute... Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Wait a Minute... Posted by: LMNOP

Comments are closed-

genetic manipulation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aedwards on Oct 30, 2005 10:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patrick Letellier, what are you saying, that all homosexuals are genetically manipulated to be that way? That can't be right. I have a lot of homosexual friends who were never genetically manipulated... I think.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Oh, fucking *fantastic*
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bettsoff on Oct 30, 2005 3:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now all that's needed is to develop a course of gene therapy and all those icky homos will be turned into straights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, fucking *fantastic* Posted by: thirdmg
» I was and I wasn't. Posted by: bettsoff

Comments are closed-

Playing Into The Enemy's Hands - Redux
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 30, 2005 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting that so many people posting on this board have a strong emotional investment in declaring that being gay is a choice. What makes it so interesting is that the radical right also has a strong emotional investment in declaring exactly the same thing - and, similar to creationists, in promoting a distrust of any scientific findings which might contradict its beliefs.

The only difference is that the right understands the implications of its ideology and uses it to great effect. Polls have repeatedly shown that Americans who believe that being gay is a choice are far less likely to support equal rights, while those who believe that being gay is as immutable as race are far more likely to support equal rights. Since the radical right knows that most Americans disapprove of gays and already believe that being gay is a choice, the right understands that "choice" is its most effective weapon. And so, the right can - and does - confidently claim any of the following:

1) Being gay, unlike race or gender, is a legitimate target for moral disapproval and suppression
2) Being gay can be viewed as criminal or addictive behavior; punishments are legitimate
3) Anyone could decide to become gay, and that is a threat to the family structure
4) Gays can convert others; your children are in danger; everyone is vulnerable to their recruitment tactics
5) Gays aren't asking for equal rights; they're asking for special rights
6) Tolerance of gays should not be taught in schools; anti-gay bullying is legitimate
7) Gays can be converted into ex-gays; gays do not need rights, they need help
8) It is legitimate and normal to discriminate against gays
9) Gays should not adopt or be allowed around children
10) No one is born gay; gays are created
11) Et cetera.

A valid argument has been presented on this board that we protect religious belief, which clearly is a choice, so why shouldn't gays be protected under the same logic? The answer is that most Americans strongly approve of religion and, largely because of that, don't approve of gays. In fact, America is the most church-going nation in the Western world. And those who attend church on a regular basis are far less likely to support gay rights than those who seldom or never attend church. So, arguing for any kind of sexual rights on the basis of "choice" is both futile and counter-productive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» patronizing, anyone? Posted by: Michelle

Comments are closed-

OCD, Tourette's, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Disorder, Anorexia all genetic too
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jasonix on Oct 30, 2005 3:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think we can argue that any human behavior is at least partially rooted in genetics. But to say that this means the behavior is "right" or "morally equivalent" because it has a genetic basis is simply false. People with anorexia have been shown to have a certain neurological profile that's almost definitely genetic - and like homosexuals, they say that their behavior is an expression of who they really are, and many of them celebrate it. Does that make anorexia okay?

I'm afraid that genetic studies simply aren't a magic bullet for gay activists who want to prove that homosexuality is okay. They need to prove that their behavior isn't harmful. That's the discussion that needs to take place - and it's an awfully icky discussion about anal sex and other uneasy topics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Um, excuse me. Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Um, excuse me. Posted by: Tommy
» RE: Um, excuse me. Posted by: bettsoff
» No, we haven't Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: No, we haven't Posted by: kittynboi
» Care to reconcile these? Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Care to reconcile these? Posted by: kittynboi

Comments are closed-

This entire thread is appalling.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kittynboi on Oct 30, 2005 4:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's making me think that large sections of the left are no better than the right wing when it comes to social issues.

Stop romanticizing the working class.

Stop hoping for another MLK and thinking that you can get one by appealing to fundamentalists.

Stop thinking homophobia is suddenly more acceptable because the homophobia of the black community is coming to light.

Stop thinking that moving to the right will give us a marxist utopia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Choice - Thirdmg
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Tommy on Oct 30, 2005 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I honestly don't believe sexual orientation is always determined by genetics. I also don't believe trying to base acceptance on that idea helps the gay movement, whatever the hell that might be.

But I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other (and I don't think that's a bad thing). If you want to talk about this more, my email is tmarx@triad.rr.com. Please feel free to write me. But I'm going to stop arguing with you because we're not going to settle anything on this forum and my intention for replying in the first place was to make you understand (which I didn't) that not everyone shares your view.

You think sexual orientation is always a matter of genetics. I don't. But I respect you, and I'm hoping we can agree to disagree. :-)

Tommy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: Tommy
» RE: Choice - Thirdmg Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

Lecturer Uses "Choice" To Attack Gays
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Oct 31, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By now, anyone who has been following the discussion on this board should suspect that at least some of the messages are coming from covert right-wing supporters trying to spread disinformation that sexual orientation is a choice. Take a look at a recent example of how the radical right uses "choice" to attack gays:

Anti-Gay Speaker Claims Homosexuality Is A Choice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Nature Vs. Nurture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: blacksheep on Oct 31, 2005 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The importance of this research is that is takes homosexuality per se out of the moral domain. We have always known that sexual orientation is not a moral issue, otherwise we would have heaped praise on heterosexuals for merely being attracted to the opposite sex. But we do not. Why? Because no one can be praised (nor blamed) for matters of fact. Freedom of choice is the foundation on which moral judgements rest, for we cannot be held accountable for that which is not ours to determine. However, since heterosexuals have long believed that human nature JUST IS heterosexual, they viewed homosexuality as a willful rebellion against nature, and so they have (mistakenly) regarded homosexuality as a matter of choice, in the same category as cheating on your partner or raping an unconsenting person.

What is clear is that the things we can be held morally accountable for are the things over which we have freedom of choice. For example, although you are not free to be attracted to the same sex, as you are heterosexual, you CAN choose HOW you behave. Your sexual orientation does not CONTROL your actions. You ARE responsible for decisions about how to act, given your sexual orientation. For example, you orientation does not dictate that you rape a woman, commmit the sin of pederasty, cheat on your wife or your partner -- THESE are the kinds of things which ARE moral issues, because you have a choice in them. But you do not get any praise for your mere attraction to the opposite sex! Sorry - that was not up to you. So nor can you blame homosexuals for their failure to be attracted to the opposite sex. Sexual orientation is simply not a moral issue because it does not involve free will.

The onus is on the homophobe to show how homosexuality (even if it WERE a free choice) harms some pseudo "victim," otherwise there can be no legitimate reason for legislating against it. So far no intrinsic harm has been associated with homosexuality per se, so you need to get busy explaining why you are against it since it is neither (a) a moral issue at all, nor (b) harmful to others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Looking at it the wrong way
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zmesberg on Nov 1, 2005 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does it matter whether an individual chooses to be homosexual or is born that way? If one truly believes in the importance of human freedom then to condemn someone for their sexual behaviors is morally repugnant as long as those behaviors don't cause harm to others. It should not be an issue whether one was predisposed to those behaviors or not. Just like heterosexual sex, gay sex is harmless if practiced responsibly. The real sickos here are those who seek to condemn and sometimes even regulate the sexual lives of their fellow humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Unexpected Consequences
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Texaniensis on Nov 2, 2005 11:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So some scientists are still bending over backwards to prove that homosexuality is DNA-determined. Do they realize that their research is a two-edged sword---that once you determine a gay gene, you can begin researching how to reverse the condition medically? If a medical cure were available right now, I think its popularity would eclipse that of all the vasectomy reversals, DNA paternity tests, and penile enlargement procedures combined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: thirdmg
» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Unexpected Consequences Posted by: thirdmg

Comments are closed-

Kittynboi - As Suggested
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thirdmg on Nov 4, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've set up a quick blog, as you suggested, to display research results. Nothing is on at this moment, but I'll update it as I go.

Not A Choice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Kittynboi - As Suggested Posted by: kittynboi
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
The Hollywood Double Standard: Tiger gets cooked, Charlie Sheen gets another free pass
 
Is Greece the New AIG?
 
Confused About Nutrition? Eat Food!
 
Insurer Denies Life-Prolonging Treatment To Five-Year-Old Boy With Cancer
 
Budget Paranoia
 
Why Does the U.S. Assassinate Americans?
 
Jon Stewart: Why Does Sarah Palin Need a Cheat Sheet?
 
We Must Lift the Veil on US Troops in Pakistan
 
Pushing for “Zero Tolerance” on Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo
 
Updated: Obama Calls GOP Bluff on Health-Care Reform
 
MORE 
ALL BLOGS 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
  1. Why Are Americans Passive as Millions Lose Their Homes, Jobs, Families and the American Dream?
  2. 5 Ways Techno-Gadgetry Is Bringing Out the Worst in Humanity
  3. Why Has the FDA Allowed a Drug Marked 'Not Safe for Use in Humans' to Be Fed to Livestock Right Before Slaughter?
  4. Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Are Upending Our Democracy
  5. New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think
  6. White "Savior-Afflicted" Christians, Black Haitian Babies: This Won't End Well
  7. Why I Had to Stop Making Hardcore Porn
  8. It's Now More Dangerous to Give Birth in California Than It Is in Kuwait or Bosnia
  9. Sarah Palin Aims to Bust Up the Republican Party -- And the Tea Party Movement
  10. The Newest Diet Trend: What Would Jesus Eat?
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
ABOUT DIGG