National Geographic discusses possible bases for orientation

Timothy Kincaid

November 24th, 2009

Sexual orientation is genetic… but not fully genetic.

Each person has about a 4-6% chance of being same-sex attracted. If, however, one has a twin brother that’s gay, the odds increase to about 12%. Make it an identical twin and you have a 50/50 chance that you too will be gay.

Anti-gay activists irrationally declare that this proves that “there is no gay gene.” In a sense they are correct, if orientation were entirely determined by purely genetic composition, then identical twins (who have the same genes) would always have the same orientation.

But the increase in odd with the increase in genetic similarity does show that genes play a part, and a big part. Which leaves the question, how does one twin end up gay and the other straight? The answer may be in how epigenetics triggers genes and can cause identical genes to respond differently.

In the following National Geographic video, the narrator discusses what might cause identical twins to have non-identical orientation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aUlWjPZVw&feature=player_embedded

(hat tip Queerty)

wackadoodle

November 24th, 2009

I have never in my life seen a bigot argue against homosexuality being genetic without inadvertently revealing they don’t know any more about genetics than what they learned from Punnet Squares and Pokemon. I don’t know much either, but I’m not sitting there screeching “dem scientistz iz wrong! How can it be gentic if they dun have kidz!”

Ray

November 24th, 2009

I wonder if there is a transcript of this video so that deaf readers might participate. I spend a couple of days of every week, as I have for most of my adult life, delving into the science of sexual orientation and gender non-conformity in children and it would be helpful to stay abreast of the discussion by know at least what the narration says during this film.

Richard W. Fitch

November 24th, 2009

Ray – I would suggest contacting Natl Geo. Many of their videos are also in published form in their journal. I would also not be surprised that they have a service for hearing and/or sight challenged persons.

Pender

November 24th, 2009

Also… how do they know for sure that a straight person is straight? Not to get too wild here, but the closet does exist. I bet Larry Craig honest-to-god thinks he’s a straight man and would tell you as much no matter how anonymous you made the survey.

TampaZeke

November 24th, 2009

I know identical twins where one is right handed and the other is left handed. I don’t know precisely what determines handedness (I’m not sure if anyone does) but I know it’s a natural orientation (one way, the other or both) that is most certainly set at birth. It seems likely to me that the causes of sexual orientation are like the causes of handed orientation.

Imagine how idiotic a person would look if they said, “I don’t have a problem with left handed people, it’s when they use their left hands to write and eat that I have a problem with” or “Left-handed orientation isn’t a sin; it’s left-handed behavior that’s a sin.”

Interestingly enough, it wasn’t so very long ago that such ignorant statements about handedness were common.

One day we’ll look back at this whole debate with disbelief that it was such a big deal to so many people.

Christopher Waldrop

November 24th, 2009

“Left-handed orientation isn’t a sin; it’s left-handed behavior that’s a sin.”

As a left-hander I laughed out loud at this. I’ve thought of this argument, though, and thought that, to some degree, sexual orientation is no more important than handedness. Also I don’t think sexual orientation is a choice any more than handedness is.

At the same time there may be environmental influences in both cases that allow handedness or sexual orientation that doesn’t fit the norm to be expressed. There was a time when left-handed children were forced to switch, forced to write with their right hands. This didn’t make them right-handed, but it did force them to conform to such a degree that left-handedness was all but invisible.

Christopher Waldrop

November 24th, 2009

I apologize for my choice of words about “not fitting the norm”, by the way. I should have said “not fitting the majority”, although it’s usually the majority that defines what’s normal and what’s not. I’m proud that being left-handed makes me abnormal, but I understand some people may consider that pejorative.

Swampfox

November 24th, 2009

Identical twins are not totally identical, is that supposed to be a surprise?

Ephilei

November 24th, 2009

Hey, that’s Chicago!

If you’re male with any gay brother, fraternal twin or not, your odds are about 12%. Fraternal twins and non-twin siblings all share 50% as do parents with their children. So if your genetic father is gay, you also have a 12% chance. The odds also go up the more older brothers you have, regardless of their orientation. Having an older brother increases your odds by 1-2% if i’m not mistaken. Two older brothers increases it further.

The older brother pattern also occurs in the probability of being transexual for genetic males.

@Ray YouTube is working on using voice-recognition to auto-caption every video. Right now it’s being tested on their official partners (CBS?).

Quo

November 24th, 2009

“Each person has about a 4-6% chance of being same-sex attracted. If, however, one has a twin brother that’s gay, the odds increase to about 12%. Make it an identical twin and you have a 50/50 chance that you too will be gay.”

That’s inaccurate, and it has been known for some time that it’s inaccurate. See chapter 9 of Simon LeVay’s book Queer Science, for example; it discusses ascertainment bias, and explains how it exaggerated the likely strength of the genetic influence.

The book was published in 1996…

Emily K

November 24th, 2009

I am fascinated by the older brothers theory because it highlights just what a miracle a healthy pregnancy (all 9 months) can be. The hypothesis is that the more children a woman gives birth to, the more the organism within her will be exposed to her own hormones to make it more “familiar” to the rest of her body: thus “feminizing” it. Essentially, a foreign object completely different from herself is being nurtured and grown inside her – by all definitions, a parasite. The body’s natural response to parasites is to kill them. But instead the woman’s body nurtures it; although, it sort of adapts to housing it in an interesting way, one that might lead to gender and sexual orientation variance.

John

November 24th, 2009

I have been exposed to many identical twins over the years. What is interesting about identical twins is how they are usually not really identical.

When you first start dealing with them, it can be hard to tell them apart, but over time, their speech, personality, and often their physical appearance is different. It is something to keep in mind when looking at twin studies.

Ben in Oakland

November 25th, 2009

quo– i thought you were going away. when the going get’s tought, the tough get going, or something.

William

November 25th, 2009

Identical twins do NOT have absolutely identical genes. See:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080215121214.htm

Maajour

November 25th, 2009

“Left-handed orientation isn’t a sin; it’s left-handed behavior that’s a sin.”

Regarding the above statement, perfect.

I am lefthanded, gay, and a fraternal twin. I am pleased to hear the media get on board about epigenetics. Epigenetics are truly a major player for gene influence.

I read a study a while back that said that the odds of a gay child increase dramatically if the AGE OF THE FATHER is OLDER. If I recall, it peaked if the father was over 40. There was speculation that if the sperm was older, perhaps it changed somehow. That was only speculation. The study was conclusive though that older sperm resulted in a marked increase of a homosexual child.

Priya Lynn

November 25th, 2009

Quo who a few days ago said “I won’t be commenting here in the forseeable future” once again shows up like something the cat dragged in.

Quo

November 25th, 2009

Priya,

Shouldn’t someone be criticizing you for making a totally off-topic comment about another commentator rather than talking about what the thread is ostensibly about?

Emily K

November 25th, 2009

He’s here because while he doesn’t *comment* here every day, he still trolls BTB quite often. And every time BTB releases an article confirming the biological grip on homosexuality, he feels threatened. (after all, he’s convinced he’ll still change… one of these years…) He clutches his 13 year old Simon LeVay book ever tighter, and has to comment here to show everybody that they’re wrong. Just wrong! Because for some reason, it’s not enough to believe you can change your orientation – you have to convince everyone else it’s possible, too.

Accept that multiple (deleted) blog posts will demonstrate otherwise, whether or not anyone believes one can go straight…

Priya Lynn

November 25th, 2009

Quo, its hilarious that you come here constantly trying to make the case that gayness is a choice when your own life overwhelmingly demonstrates not only have you utterly failed to choose your orientation you’ve utterly failed to choose your out of control sexual behavior. Your own reality is constantly slapping you in the face with the fact that orientation isn’t chosen yet you insanely want to deny the reality of your own life. You need help. Its no coincidence that those who hate their orientation are involved in out of control, dangerous, and promiscuous behavior.

Priya Lynn

November 25th, 2009

I meant to say Quo’s demonstrated that he’s utterly unable to choose to control his behavior.

Quo

November 25th, 2009

Emily K,

You’re confusing different issues. Whether homosexuality is genetically determined or not is a separate question from whether it can be changed or not. Answering one question wouldn’t necessarily show us what the answer to the other was.

As for your complaint that LeVay’s book is out of date, do you happen to have more recent information supporting the claim that the 50% figure for identical twins is correct? You’ll have to give a proper scientific source, since it’s very common for false scientific claims about homosexuality to be repeated time after time even though they have long been discredited.

Priya,

Filling this thread full of off-topic comments (which misrepresent things I’ve said in the past) is boorish.

Désirée

November 26th, 2009

Quo, how do you suggest one change something that is genetic? can you change your eye color? How about whether you have attached earlobes? Can you make yourself taller? Sorry Quo, genetics matter.

Jason D

November 26th, 2009

“Désirée said:

Quo, how do you suggest one change something that is genetic? can you change your eye color? How about whether you have attached earlobes? Can you make yourself taller? Sorry Quo, genetics matter.”

Désirée – first of all you and I are on the same side of the gay rights issue (as in pro) so please keep that in mind when I say this—

Yes, you can change your eye color, sort of, you can by contacts that change how people see it. If someone has a “no blue eyes” rule, you could get around this with contact lenses. It wouldn’t be “true” change, but neither is the ex-gay movement.

Yes you can have surgery to “detach” your earlobes. This doesn’t change the tendency in your descendants, but visually, change is possible.

Between growth hormone and certain surgeries, I do believe it is possible to make yourself taller — although I think this is ONLY done for children with some sort of condition.

And if we look at Sammy Sosa and Michael Jackson, we can see how skin color and facial features — race, in a manner of speaking — can also be changed.

Is it now okay to discriminate against people for being blue eyed, attached earlobes, short, or black?

The “you can change so discrimination is okay” model is rather cynical and bigoted. It basically says two ridiculous things:
1 – If I don’t like something about someone else’s life, even if it has nothing to do with me, they should change it — especially if I’m in the majority.
2 – There’s something wrong with being black, but since those people can’t help being born dirty n*ggers, it’s not fair to hold that against them — it’s not their fault.

Discrimination is not okay because fundamentally there is nothing wrong with being black, short, gay, blue-eyed, differently-abled, jewish, republican, these are all details about someone, but they don’t impair someone’s ability to be an upstanding citizen. The true test of a personal characteristic’s merit is whether or not it causes harm.

Emily K

November 26th, 2009

Actually, my comment wasn’t so much about Quo’s pseudo-bible being out of date so much as it was about it rapidly becoming irrelevant. But now that he mentioned it, let’s look at how relevant LeVay’s comments and work is in the context of nearly 15 additional years of sexual orientation research.

In the past 13 years since LeVay’s book’s publication, more twin studies have been done that confirm a “non-negligible” genetic influence. Twin studies are more difficult than simply comparing fraternal to identical twins. Many variables exist in the womb when the twins develop. Some twins receive much less blood than the other sibling. Position in the womb plays a factor.

The wikipedia article about biology and sexual orientation cites several twin studies conducted within the new millennium or sooner. It is less important that a concrete “50%” figure is reached than it is to confirm the hypothesis presented – that genetics play a factor in determining sexual orientation. The studies have confirmed the hypothesis is correct.

Simon LeVay is mentioned, but only for a blurb about how he didn’t find “a gay center of the brain” – a statement he made not less than 16 years ago; a statement which speaks against a hypothesis that by now no serious scholar would believe is valid or worthy of exploration. LeVay studied the brains of gay men who died of AIDS in 1991. Studies on epigenetics, birth order, female fertility, and even pathological causes have since commenced. And hypotheses concerning biological and cognitive differences between those of specific sexual orientations have been explored.

Quo will have to deal with the fact that he is becoming increasingly irrelevant in society. Pretty soon nobody is going to care if he can change his orientation (which he can’t, and has failed miserably to do so). The question directed at him will shift from “How?” to “Why?”

Priya Lynn

November 26th, 2009

Quo, what’s boorish is your tedious attempts to make the case that orientation is chosen when your own life is a testament to the fact that you’re utterly incapable of choosing yours.

Désirée

November 26th, 2009

Jason D. I fully understand your point. As a MTF I am very aware of the ability of medical science to change a variety of genetically decided characteristics. However, all my examples, and your response to them require medical intervention to accomplish. Quo would like us to believe that a genetic characteristic can be altered by sheer force of will. Sure I can wear contacts to make my brown eyes blue, but no matter how much I wished it so, I couldn’t will myself to change gender. That required a little more. Quo changing orientation would require a little more than just his desire and a dream.

Priya Lynn

November 26th, 2009

Plus, unlike the examples Jason gave, there is no medical intervention to change one’s orientation.

Ben in Oakland

November 26th, 2009

Sure there is, Priya. It’s called reparative therapy. and it works really well, like maybe 15% of the time, except when it doesn’t, which is about 14% of the time.

Look at quo. This therapy is so successful that there is no need for him to even do it. Just reading aobut it works. It’s called Bibliotherapy.

How well does it work?

Exhibit 1: Quo.

Quo

November 26th, 2009

Désirée

You wrote, “Quo would like us to believe that a genetic characteristic can be altered by sheer force of will.”

What evidence do you have that something that had a genetic cause can never be changed by force of will?

Priya,

This is totally off-topic, but since you (again) misrepresent what I’ve said about an entirely different issue, let me explain again that I have never said that sexual orientation is a choice, only that science is presently unable to prove that it is not a choice.

Emily K

November 26th, 2009

What evidence do you have that something that had a genetic cause can never be changed by force of will?

This is a classic example of the “Negative Proof” logical fallacy. Rather, the onus is on the challenger to prove a positive: that something genetic can be changed by sheer force of will.

Priya Lynn

November 26th, 2009

Quo said “let me explain again that I have never said that sexual orientation is a choice, only that science is presently unable to prove that it is not a choice.”.

Yes, you’ve used that excuse before. If you’re not trying to claim that orientation is a choice than its pointless for you to be claiming that science is unable to prove it is not a choice. In other words, you’re trying to create the impression that orientation is chosen, even if you technically avoid actually saying so. Its dishonest any way you slice it.

Quo

November 26th, 2009

Emily K,

You wrote, “Rather, the onus is on the challenger to prove a positive: that something genetic can be changed by sheer force of will.”

You appear to be saying that if I can’t show that if something genetic can be changed by force of will, then it has been established that it cannot be changed. That is incorrect.

Priya,

You wrote, “In other words, you’re trying to create the impression that orientation is chosen, even if you technically avoid actually saying so.”

No, what I am saying is that the issue is uncertain.

Priya Lynn

November 26th, 2009

Quo said “No, what I am saying is that the issue is uncertain.”.

Another dishonesty. If you weren’t trying to create the impression that orientation is chosen you wouldn’t be making the absurd statment that science is unable to prove it is not a choice. Your own abject failure to choose your own orientation shows you know full well based on your own experience that it is NOT chosen – you are not uncertain at all, merely dishonest.

Your dishonesty is further emphasized by your once again absurd suggestion that there is doubt as to whether or not something genetic can be changed by force of will. By the same token you cannot establish that I do not have an invisible unicorn in my backyard – technically true, but absurd nonetheless. That’s the level of childishness demonstrated by the positions you take.

Quo

November 26th, 2009

Priya,

You wrote, “If you weren’t trying to create the impression that orientation is chosen you wouldn’t be making the absurd statment that science is unable to prove it is not a choice.”

Why, because you say so? You don’t seem to be willing to consider the possibility that different people have different experiences, and that the apparent fact that I can’t choose my sexual orientation does not mean that other people cannot.

It’s revealing that you would suggest that I am being childish because you are, after all, the most childish and immature commentator on this website. I don’t think that you have the excuse of stupidity; it’s more that you’ve chosen not to grow up. Your juvenile behaviour, along with that of Emily K and a number of other commentators simply goes to support the old claim that homosexuals are stuck in some kind of state of arrested development.

You remind me of Christian fundamentalists, with their “God said it, I believed, that settles it” approach. Replace “God” with gay dogma and political correctness and that describes your reasoning perfectly.

William

November 27th, 2009

@Quo. “What evidence do you have that something that had a genetic cause can never be changed by force of will?”

The proposition that something that had a genetic cause CAN be changed by force of will is plainly contrary to common sense. Must common sense have the last word? No. After all, common sense changes as our knowledge and understanding increase; the common sense of the 21st century is not that of the 13th or even the 19th century.

When Du Moncel introduced Edison’s phonograph to the French Academy of Sciences, Monsieur Bouillaud rushed at Du Moncel and seized him by the collar, shouting: “Wretch! We are not to be made dupes of by a ventriloquist!” Bouillaud’s common sense told him “that it was impossible to admit that mere vile metal could perform the work of human phonation.”

Philippe Lebon discovered how to use gas for lighting purposes in 1797, but it was not use for street lighting until 1805, in Birmingham, and it was not used in Paris until 1818. Why the delay? Because a lamp without a wick could not possibly burn; people’s common sense told them so.

But in such cases common sense was overcome by FACTS. If anyone is postulating something that is contrary to common sense, it is up to him or her to produce the facts to prove it; there is NO burden of DISPROOF lying on his or her opponents.

Désirée

November 27th, 2009

wait a minute, we’re off track now. I’m still waiting to hear how sheer force of will can change my genetically determined gender. What have I been doing wrong?

William

November 27th, 2009

“I’m still waiting to hear how sheer force of will can change my genetically determined gender.”

The plain answer is that it can’t. Similarly, IF sexual orientation is also genetically determined, then it can’t be changed by force of will either. If someone like Quo objects that we don’t absolutely know with 100% certainty that it can’t, then it’s for him to demonstrate otherwise.

However, even if sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined, that still doesn’t necessarily imply that it can be changed by force of will – or by any other means. Perhaps it can; perhaps it can’t. The evidence strongly suggests that it can’t. As the late Rev. Sylvia Pennington (a heterosexual woman who was once involved in “ex-gay” ministry) observed, for anyone who attempts to change their sexual orientation, disappointment is the only realistic expectation.

Ben in Oakland

November 27th, 2009

Not to mention, prominent geneticist and evangelical Chrstian Francis collins has stated that being gay is definitely hard-wired.

Priya Lynn

November 27th, 2009

Quo said “Why, because you say so?”

Because its inherently obvious – there is no other reason for you to be harping on the lie that science hasn’t proven orientation is not a choice other than your desire to create the impression that it is a choice. Your childish attempts to deny the obvious aren’t fooling anyone.

Quo said “You don’t seem to be willing to consider the possibility that different people have different experiences, and that the apparent fact that I can’t choose my sexual orientation does not mean that other people cannot.”.

That’s a rather foolish statement. I’ve considered the possibility and rejected it because despite thousands of people trying none have been able to choose their orientation. This isn’t just about you. Science has demonstrated that its much more likely than not that orientation is biologically determined and the various studies on “ex-gays” have demonstrated that its virtually impossible for anyone to change orienatation.

In light of your own total inability to choose your orientation its apparent that you don’t come here attempting to convince people orientation can be chosen out of any sincere belief, but you do it merely because you want to annoy people. You are simply a troll out to be an a**hole for the sheer pleasure of it.

cd

November 27th, 2009

This isn’t a bad National Geographic effort but it is vague. It follows a recent fashion of trying to attribute things that don’t fit nicely to genetics proper to epigenetics. And it focuses in essence on the harder problem scientifically speaking, the origin of male homosexuality, rather than the somewhat easier one of genetics of female homosexuality.

It’s an understandable social bias, there being around 3-4x as many exclusively homosexual men than exclusively homosexual women. There’s also AIDS, getting many more gay men to volunteer for and get interested in biomedical studies than lesbian women.

In short: as a person working in that mix of developmental biology, genetics, and biomedicine, I think the scientific research path will be that the genetic/molecular basis of homosexuality in woman will be figured out first. And then that of men will not be difficult to figure out- it will involve the same set of genes and molecules, just perturbed in the other direction mostly by some environmental factor.

Burr

November 27th, 2009

If sexual orientation is so easily changed, where’s all the ex-straights? Surely we’d have some advocacy groups promoting people willfully change into a gays for benefits like greater mate compatibility..

Jason D

November 29th, 2009

“Burr said-

If sexual orientation is so easily changed, where’s all the ex-straights? Surely we’d have some advocacy groups promoting people willfully change into a gays for benefits like greater mate compatibility.

Silly Burr, don’t you realize the answer is all around you? According to some Dominionists — ALL gay people are really “ex-straight” and we just need to become “ex-gay”

I’ve had to explain this time and again, I’m not a straight house covered in gay paint. I’m a gay house, if you removed my homosexuality — I’d have no sexuality left.

SarasNavel

December 2nd, 2009

Quo said “let me explain again that I have never said that sexual orientation is a choice, only that science is presently unable to prove that it is not a choice.” (from Priya Lynn’s retort)

Quo, you are committing an ad ignorantiam argument, a logical fallacy. And despite what was said earlier regarding proving a negative, in some cases it is actually trivial. Simply prove to be true that which is mutually exclusive. In this case the probability of being gay (as a function of a relative being gay) being greater than random will do nicely. In other words, any significant percentage greater than random chance does prove that it is not a choice of free will.

As far as the “ex-gay” argument goes, wasn’t the historical basis of that idea (Homosexuality in Perspective) pretty much debunked earlier this year (see boxturtlebulletin, 4/23/09)?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.