Box Turtle Bulletin
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobby“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyNovember 6th, 2010
Not long ago I saw this on NOM’s Facebook page:
They’ve mapped the human genome. There’s no gay gene!
I can’t find the quote anymore, but that doesn’t matter because this mistake is all over the Internet. The most common source seems to be this deeply flawed statement:
On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule. The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added). Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used. The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”
So much wrong with this.* But that last sentence is especially bad:
The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”
Actually, no — lots of information didn’t materialize from the project. Like the number of genes. Where they’re located on the genome. What those genes do. The same group that issued the press release also said this:
A sampling follows of some research challenges in genetics–what we still don’t know, even with the full human DNA sequence in hand.
- Gene number, exact locations, and functions
- Gene regulation
- DNA sequence organization
- Chromosomal structure and organization
And that’s just the beginning.
I can see why people are confused. What do you mean we don’t know how many genes there are? We’ve mapped the whole genome!
Strands of DNA, held together by base pairs
But that’s not what mapping the genome means. What does it mean, then? Time to get all dorky:
Wikipedia offers a great description of how these elements fit together:
And what’s a gene? A gene is a stretch of DNA, a sequence of base pairs. Now here’s the key:
To say we’ve mapped the human genome is to say we’ve sequenced all the base pairs.
The cobblestone highway
That’s it. It does not mean we’ve identified all the genes in the sequence. And it sure doesn’t mean we know the function of each gene we have identified.
Here’s a metaphor of my own. Imagine a chromosome is like a cobblestone highway winding through America. We can walk the highway and identify every cobblestone (or nucelotide), but that doesn’t mean we know what state (or gene) we’re in, or even how many states there are — much less what each state does.
You can see this by looking at the genes that researchers have only isolated recently:
| The gene that… | Was identified in… |
| Lightens skin color | 2008 |
| Makes hair curly | 2009 |
| Grows tooth enamel | 2009 |
| Causes nearsightedness | 2010 |
| Makes your earwax wet or dry | 2006 |
All of this, discovered after the Human Genome Project was “complete.”
Unfortunately, anti-gays depend a lot on junk science and ignoring the facts they don’t want to see. The passage I quoted up top is all over the Internet, so it would be handy to condense this rebuttal into a simple statement that doesn’t require carrying around a nucleotide zipper diagram.
This is what I’ve come up with:
Mapping the genome just means they’ve figured out its chemical structure. They still haven’t broken it down into all the individual genes yet. They’re not even sure how many human genes there are. I mean, they didn’t find the gene for near-sightedness until 2010, seven years after the genome project was complete. Who knows what else they’ll find next?
For the record, I have no idea whether there’s a gay gene. Or a gay combination of genes. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a lot like height: We know there’s a genetic component, but environmental factors play a part, too, like hormones in the womb, and childhood diet and health. Yet even though it’s not 100% genetic, that doesn’t mean it’s a choice.
Either way, though, this particular anti-gay argument is dripping with irony. By attempting to cloak their homophobia in science, they do nothing but reveal their scientific illiteracy.
But at this point in the game, are you really surprised?
* The authors of this statement seem to be lying. The phrase,”The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” doesn’t appear anywhere in the press release (the authors direct you to the press release here, though that page merely links to the release itself). I don’t know why they felt the need to lie, because the Project is indeed complete. Maybe they were just sloppy, not dishonest. It’s aggravating, nonetheless.
UPDATE: Here’s a great graphic illustrating the relationship between the genome, chromosomes, DNA, genes, and base pairs.
Latest Posts
Featured Reports
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 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.
“Google” is a trademark of Google Inc.
© Box Turtle Bulletin. All Rights Reserved.
Posts 
Posts via daily email:
occono
November 6th, 2010
Excellent post :)
Timothy (TRiG)
November 6th, 2010
Rob, you’re wonderful.
TRiG.
Christopherâ„¢
November 6th, 2010
The argument against a “gay gene” is the most disingenuous argument that the anti-gay side uses.
Even if we discover a gay gene, and even if it were 100% responsible for a person being gay, the anti-gay side would still consider gay people to be “vile,” “sinful,” “broken,” etc. They would likely claim that the gay gene is a product of the Fall of Man, and that gay people should resist the temptation to “act out” romantically or sexually… you know, like regular non-gay people do every day.
So, the only useful response to this argument is the question: “If they DO find a gay gene, will you still consider being gay relationships to be sinful or wrong?”
Watch them squirm as they avoid answering the question. Because if they answer, “Yes,” then I’d finish them off by saying, “Then why are you arguing against the existence of a gay gene at all? You don’t even believe in your own argument.”
andrew
November 6th, 2010
This is all true, but it feels like pissing into the wind. The people they are appealing to are anti-intellectual and completely irrational. To be scientifically illiterate is a badge of honor for these people — after all, we all know the other famous flawed claims of science… evolution, global warming, just to name two… All those liberal universities making things up, and the liberal media disseminating them. And now they’re in our schools !!
Seriously. Anyone rational doesn’t believe these things in the first place. So while NOMs claims may be frustrating and hurtful, we have do A LOT more than “prove them wrong” or make cogent counter-arguments — we have to continue to win the moral and “gut”-level arguments.
Interestingly, it also puts us in the odd position of having to be firm in our own defense, without sounding shrill, and this is a lot harder than it sounds. Rob, you did a great job in that regard (cheers).
Rob, in the meantime, keep up the good work of pointing out the ridiculousness of the whacko claims. As long as they keep putting them up, we need to highlight them so that normal, intelligent people don’t ever confuse NOM for people with the right to a seat on a news program as the guest talking head giving the counterview to gay marriage or other issues.
Ray
November 6th, 2010
2007 – Left handedness (sort of) “LRRTM1”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070801-left-gene.html
“”We think that this gene affects the symmetry of the brain,” Francks said. “LRRTM1 is not essential for left-handedness, but it can be a strong contributing factor.”
In other words, they don’t know what *else* (another gene, perhaps) contributes to left-handedness, while believe this gene isn’t essential for left-handedness.
I’m left-handed – when I write. I’m right handed in athletic skills like throwing, batting a baseball, shooting a basketball.
I don’t know WHAT to do with a hammer in my hand since I need to use the fine motor skills of my left hand and the strength of my right hand. It’s pretty much the same for me with most tools.
Suffice to say that I’ll be thrilled when the find the gene for STUPIDITY.
a.mcewen
November 6th, 2010
Typical straw man argument. I never knew anyone was even looking for a “gay gene.”
David Roberts
November 6th, 2010
Very interesting, I had not seen that reference before. A more recent onslaught of quotes on the same theme appear to have originated with a 2008 interview with ex-gay activist Greg Quinlan. He used information distorted by NARTH, something which we were able to confirm from the man in question, geneticist Francis Collins himself. Collins later gave us this quote in response to our inquiry:
In the article linked above, Collins also said that he was confident that the genes associated with homosexuality would be identified at some point. The amount of misinformation out there from just this one incident is really tragic, and neither NARTH or Quinlan would ever own up to it or make corrections, even after hearing from Collins.
I think these experiences are part of what led to Collins’ open statement concerning the letter sent out to school superintendents by the "American College of Pediatricians" earlier this year.
I try to restrict accusations that people are lying, since that requires knowledge of intent. However, there really is no doubt that these are simply lies at this point, and no doubt they will continue to find their way into the publications and speech of those who have no problem telling lies to further their perceived "greater good."
Sorry for linking to so much of our stuff, but we did a lot of work on this one and it continues to really bug me. I suspect you found the last piece of the puzzle in the quote from 2003. Now if we could only find a way of making the truth as popular to reproduce as the lie.
David Foreman
November 6th, 2010
I usually get in trouble…from all sides. BUT, I think the focus on a “gay gene” isn’t the best way to go. Truth is, at this point no one knows. If it’s proven there is one, the religious right will say it doesn’t matter. They’ll say (I’ve actually heard it said), “If they discover a “thief gene” that doesn’t make stealing right.”
If scientists say they’ve proven there is NO gay gene, well, a lot of pro-gay people will have put too many eggs in that basket.
My position is it doesn’t matter. Gene or not gene doesn’t make it right or wrong. I just think that argument is off base. While I’m at it, I don’t think it matters if “change” is possible. Even if SOME DEGREE of change IS possible, that doesn’t mean it’s necessary or even desirable to pursue such change.
Personally, I don’t believe orientation is a choice, but to say change is impossible is to claim to have all knowledge of all people throughout all time. Pretty arrogant.
I am pro-gay, pro-marriage equality, and I’m TOTALLY convinced that gay and Christian are not mutually exclusive.
BUT I think many of the arguments and rhetoric, from both sides, are damaging.
If you’re gay, I don’t really care if there’s a gene involved. I don’t care if you could “change” if you really wanted to. I just accept you for who you are. I believe God does, too.
Of course that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
cowboy
November 6th, 2010
Your years of work, David Roberts, is amazing. I can’t thank you enough for the helpful and vitally important work you do on http://www.exgaywatch.com.
David Roberts
November 6th, 2010
Thank you for your kind words cowboy. David Foreman, I tend to agree that a genetic link, true or false, should make no real difference to the gay rights debate. However, beyond that is the scientific truth, whatever it may be. Facts are facts, and I don’t think we should shy away from them.
The statement highlighted by this post is a lie, and was rightly called out as such. If someone said right now that there is proof that homosexuality is completely genetic, well that would at best be false (it may somehow be genetic, but we do not have the evidence to say so). Basing any doctrine or policy on a knowledge gap is a bad idea anyway.
At this point it would be truthful to say that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but the evidence points to other factors as well — be they biological or psychological. But as Collins also said, those other factors, whatever they are, do not mean that sexual orientation is mutable.
There is a difference between facts and the philosophical arguments based on them. Regardless of what determines sexual orientation, I do not think it should have any bearing at all on the rights of individuals, gay or straight.
Erin
November 6th, 2010
Rob, you are my blog writing, you tube video making hero.
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2010
Excellent. Well done.
Timothy Kincaid
November 6th, 2010
David,
Ideologically you are correct. It doesn’t matter if the etiology of orientation lies with genes, hormones, environmental influences, a virus, or Gerber strained peas.
But from a political and legal perspective, any eventual genetic component will help countermand such arguments as those made in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that “sexual orientation is a complex and amorphous phenomenon that defies consistent and uniform definition†and that it is a “mutable characteristic which can shift over time and does so for a significant number of people.â€
T.J.
November 6th, 2010
I tend to agree with both the Davids and Timothy. Yes, genetic arguments do NOT determine morality. I think that the gay side and the anti-gay sides tend to speak past each other as David Foreman notes. We say, “We can’t help it, we were born this way.†They say, “Even if you were, you can control your behavior.†At some level, we have to get them to start thinking deeply about the nature of ethics and back the debate up one step to where we ask the foundational question, “What makes something good or evil?†Now, certainly, they’ll claim the Bible to be the source of this knowledge, but this can be easily dismissed by the problem of various interpretive schemes. We need people (and there are more rational people on the right than you would think – I can say this as a former member) to think more deeply about the very nature of what makes something ethical or not. We need to draw them onto mutually agreed upon philosophical grounds where we are both talking about the same things on the same levels. Only then can we proceed to make the case that acting on our sexuality is not inherently evil on those very grounds. So, yes, David Foreman is right that the rhetoric is often “pissing in the wind†as one other commenter put it.
Yet, on the other hand, there is more than the court of public opinion. As Timothy points out, our rights are likely going to be determined in a legal courtroom and not at the ballot box. In that court, the science does matter and we need to be certain to counter false claims when they are made and build a sound theoretical argument. So, basically, I’m saying you’re all right, we just need to emphasize certain elements in certain settings.
My question to Dave Roberts is this: Do you believe that it is possible, as difficult as it might be to fathom, that these people are so blinded by their own theology, self-righteousness, and fear that they may ACTUALLY believe what they are saying? I really do think that for some of them, their faith in God and the Bible depends on there NOT being a gay gene or evidence that homosexuality is immutable. They would not know how to adjust their beliefs or deal with the confrontation of being wrong about something they are so certain about – especially that which is religious in nature. It would literally devastate their faith and that is too much of a psychological threat, so they remain in denial. What do you think?
AdrianT
November 6th, 2010
Is their scientific illiteracy at all surpriseing? the overwhelming majority of NOM supporters and creationists – they cannot believe in genetics in the first place.
David Roberts
November 7th, 2010
T.J. said:
I suppose for some this is true, but most of those evangelicals I have run into (and I came from that part of the Church) would just attribute any genetic findings to "the fall" when sin is said to have entered the world. That is already the explanation for many things — disease, greed, even pain in child birth. In my opinion, the evangelical tendency to de-emphasize rational thought over whatever is considered the correct interpretation of Scripture (which depends on your sect) is one of the major failings of that group.
This is what enables one so inclined to say that they just don’t believe in evolution, as though it were a matter of "belief." The bumper sticker sums it up, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." Of course, even in those circles it isn’t really that easy as some things are too glaring to deny (orbit of the Sun and Earth, for instance). But on the issue of homosexuality, that cognitive dissonance is probably part of what drives the knee-jerk reactions to the subject — it hurts too much to think about it for very long.
Of course, I am speaking generally of the group as a whole, there are definitely evangelicals that think more deeply than this. Unfortunately, I’ve found them to be the minority. The bottom line is this; when one is taught that doing this or that (outside the group-think) will anger, disappoint, hurt, the God who is in control of your immortal soul, there really is no place for free will or free thought. It is basically a life of fear and anger — fear for your own life and anger over what others dare do outside your own beliefs.
Did I understand your question correctly?
David Foreman
November 7th, 2010
TJ,
I used to be a right-wing fundamentalist. YES, for the most part, these people believe what they are saying. They BELIEVE God is anti-gay. Many of them, as you say, wouldn’t know how to even begin to adjust their beliefs without throwing their faith away. This problem is discussed in Rob Bell’s “Velvet Elvis.”
http://lifewalkblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/my-review-of-velvet-elvis-repainting-the-christian-faith/
There’s not time or space here to go into all the specifics, but the author Brian McLaren, in “A New Kind Of Christianity,” gets heavily into the whole western mindset, and a VERY faulty approach to the Bible. Talking to these people about gay rights is pretty much useless until they see the need for a new approach to scripture. This false understanding of the Bible is part of why there are between 30 to 40 THOUSAND different Christian denominations. Now, we can’t wait for all of them to “come around.” We need to keep taking a stand for equality. I’m just saying, there is a new generation of believers who are learning this better understanding, which isn’t really new at all, but rather gets back to the real heart of God.
In case anyone is interested, here’s my review of McLaren’s book:
http://lifewalkblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/my-review-of-a-new-kind-of-christianity/
Again, I used to be one of them, and the books I mentioned were instrumental in opening my eyes to the truth.
JandyA Says
November 7th, 2010
Did the bigots not use similar arguments when they were trying to justify slavery and their condescension toward anyone NOT white? A common belief was (and still is for some) that dark skinned PEOPLE were somehow LESS HUMAN than white people and could therefore be treated like “things”.
Although there may not have been Petri Dishes nor Electron Microscopes back then, if one is committing atrocities against ENTIRE GROUPS of PEOPLE, they need some LIE to soothe their soul and to SELF-JUSTIFY to their god. [Everybody knows that god is white, right?]
They say their god IS truth, yet deny their god by embracing lies. [BTW – How many people does ANYONE know who are actually WHITE?]
There is a verse in their Bible that says, “…ever learning yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
If they can’t accept the idea that Tom loves Bob, what surprise is it that they can hate whomever they target?
And THIS IS their religion.
Mihangel apYrs
November 7th, 2010
The “gay gene” issue is a non sequiteur, it doesn’t matter WHY we’re gay, we just are. Once we get dragged into nature v nurture, gene v environment, we play into the homophobes’ hands, we pathologise a natural state into something that “they” can try to cure.
We don’t try to cure blue eyes so why homosexuality?
We want our rights because we are people with an inalienable right to them, not because they are a privilege to be doled out be our betters.
This isn’t to criticise your exposition Rob, it is to give the wake up call that we must deal with the straight world on OUR terms, otherwise we’re just a good cause for our supporters, and an infection to our haters
JandyA Says
November 7th, 2010
Sorry for double-posting but:
I reflect and marvel at the collective denial there WAS concerning the atrocities of slavery. I am a “white” man in my late 50’s, yet I can remember my grandmother using the “polite term” for the Blacks in her day: “darkies”. Wow!!
As a teenager during the 60’s I actually got caught-up in the anti-establishment movement and saw on TV the burning of entire city blocks during the 60’s.
In my 20’s I had a “born-again” experience. I enrolled in a Fundamental Baptist College to try to overcome my “sin” of homosexuality. And I had immersed myself into a culture that kept condemning who I am. I tried to denounce who I was; my self-hatred was reinforced by my surroundings. The voices in my head were condemning me and SHOUTING to me, “Repent or Die”.
Self-discipline, self-denial, self-loathing, and self-condemnation. These were the lessons I learned and taught… STILL.
All that talk about, “I am crucified with Christ…”
What a battle it was – one part of me, hating and despising the other PART OF ME… judge, jury, and executioner.
Thank God it (I) didn’t kill me.
And we wonder at the teen suicides today.
Please pray for the haters…
And if YOU hate yourself, PLEASE don’t do that. There are people who see your worth and beauty. God Bless
JandyA Says
November 7th, 2010
*These were the lessons I learned and which are taught, STILL.
Bernie
November 7th, 2010
I’m wondering they are bothering to try use scientific findings (distorted through their lens as they might be) to justify their hate… I thought they didn’t believe in science? Science says the earth is six billion years old; they say only six thousand. Science says human beings are the result of the very lengthy and convoluted process of evolution; they say we were created out nothing by god. And so on…. so why are they bothering to attempt to use science?
Reminds me… a few weeks ago I station surfing in the car and came upon a fundie station that was attacking the Mormons and the LDS claim about Native Americans being one of the “lost tribes of Israel”. The fundy stated that recent genetic research proved that there was no such link. I thought to myself, “You don’t believe in science so why are you using science to…..” You know where I’m going with this one. ’nuff said.
justsearching
November 7th, 2010
In my experience, the Fundies do believe that science can show truth about the world. It’s just that biologists have brainwashed to accept evolution, cosmologists have been brainwashed to accept the Big Bang, geologists have been brainwashed to think the world is old… etc. This sort of thinking is the result of the (absurd) idea that all the truths of science must confirm/match all the known religious “truths.” In this case, the known religious “truth” is that homosexuality isn’t genetic (because that could suggest that it was God-made) and thus they latch onto any scientific-sounding statement that confirms this “truth.”
Patrick
November 7th, 2010
“The human genome is made up of 24 chromosomes.”
Correction – while the chimpanzee genome is made up of 24 pairs of chromosomes, the human genome is made up of 23 pairs (46 chromosomes total). For those who are interested, the difference between the two species is that our chromosome 2 represents two chimpanzee chromosomes which fused together in our ancestor.
As someone already posted, the entire “gay gene” argument is a massive straw man. I tell my students the minute they hear someone argue against homosexuality using that as a reference point, they should immediately assume the person does not know what they are talking about – much of biology is not simple Mendelian genetics.
Jonathan Oz
November 7th, 2010
Nice explanation. I don’t particularly care if NOM understands it. (I question from time to time whether they understand much of consequence). It’s nice to have a clear explanation, in relatively lay terms of where the understanding of genetics is today.
Timothy Kincaid
November 7th, 2010
T.J.
This is what I call the Great Conundrum
David Foreman
November 7th, 2010
By the way Timothy,
Loved the “Gerber strained peas” comment.
You may be on to something!
Regan DuCasse
November 7th, 2010
Women and blacks have genetic legitimacy, but that didn’t protect them from systemic bigotry and discrimination and the persistent prejudice that both are inferior.
Variations on gender, and those who are mixed were considered another level of inferior.
Gay people have been caught up in that web of being DISTINCT, but deemed inferior whether any evidence of that inferiority existed or not.
And THAT, my friends, is the sticking point, whether of religious ideology or not.
Faith communities, ancient myths, placed women in the position of being responsible for mankind’s problems because they are OBJECTIFIED as representing lust and men losing their rationality because of women.
There certainly is no INFERIORITY gene, that’s distinguished any oppressed group throughout history, or no matter what events contradict the belief in that inferiority.
The dominant culture will tell itself anything, commit any kind of brutal enforcement, and ignore any honest or truthful insight and reject any opportunities for others to have contrary experiences so that whatever they say can only be true because no one is allowed to think or know otherwise.
Clearly, their interest is in might making right, rather than the virtues of empathy, compassion and equal opportunity, protection, treatment and justice, making right.
Even this historical context is rejected or ignored in the face of irrefutable facts.
This isn’t about being religious, because each culture and religious belief and moral directives have a variation on empathetic actions and decisions.
This IS about stupidity and most of all cowardice.
The deepest, more amoral and intellectual cowardice I’ve ever seen.
I was too young to witness some of what people said directly about blacks and integration as Jim Crow was dissolving.
But I’m seeing it first hand NOW, with how gay lives are treated and discussed in the main.
People are trying very hard to see genetic, intellectual and moral inferiority in gay people that people wanted to see in blacks.
THAT doesn’t exist.
But what doesn’t exist, some people will tell you they have faith it does, such as in God.
But so little faith in God not making anyone superior or inferior in GROUPS.
And THAT is how we can see how those who profess faith, are lying about that too.
Ben in Oakland
November 7th, 2010
“They would not know how to adjust their beliefs or deal with the confrontation of being wrong about something they are so certain about – especially that which is religious in nature. It would literally devastate their faith and that is too much of a psychological threat, so they remain in denial.”
I doubt it. the truly rleigious mind has never had a problem with it. As the Red queen said, “I can believe six impossible tings before breakfast”
there is also this: one of the most important books I have ever read,disguised as a comedy/fantasy, Tom Robbin’s “Another Roadside Attraction” deals with many of these issues you discuss. He tells a fable wherein a man founds a religion, gets everybody going on it, then exposes it and himself as a hoax. They kill him and go on believing.
The same phenomenon is observable in the pedophile scandal with the Catholic Church. They just go on believing anyway– pedophile priests are chosen by god to be priests, except that they frame it as otherwise pure and holy men are tempted to commit sins.
what kind of omniscient god couldn’t see that one coming from a millenium away?
John
November 7th, 2010
I don’t find it surprising that they haven’t come up with a gay gene. If I remember correctly, genes tend to play a role in more than one characteristic. Some genes may do only one thing but others are involved in multiple tasks. To wit, there simply aren’t enough genes to allow every gene to govern only one characteristic. And only 6% of genes govern what makes us human. The other 94% we share with our cousins – apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.
Besides, if they did find a specific gay gene, the right would probably try to find a way to fix it or eliminate it.
darkmoonman
November 7th, 2010
Great article on a prime example of the disconnect between science/fact and the ignorant public.
T.J.
November 7th, 2010
David, yes you did understand my question correctly and, actually, you look at the issue the same way I do. Mr. Foreman, I find Brian McLaren and Rob Bell truly refreshing as I hail from that heritage in my past. I plan to read your book reviews this afternoon. Tim, great link! That article is really well-written and informative.
Pierre Denerome
November 7th, 2010
As a teenager during the 60’s,I also got caught-up in the anti-establishment movement.I spend several self-discipline summers in Fire Island at THE PINE. I thank God it was a born-again experience. Today my husband and I are celebrating our 40th anniversary.Our love is strong and God-made. Pour nous la vie est gaie;pour les phoques c’est l’enfer.
Rick James
November 7th, 2010
Don’t know this for certain, but I’ve a very strong suspicion that they’ve not been able to identify a “straight gene” either. But let’s just continue to ignore that and focus on us “deviates.”
Patrick
November 7th, 2010
“DNA is shaped like two long curly strands (imagine a double slinky) held together by “base pairs†of chemicals called neucleotides.”
Sorry for another correction.
Yes, the two strands of the DNA double helix is joined at the base pairs. The base pairs, however, are not called nucleotides. A nucleotide consists of one base pair, a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. The four base pairs involved in DNA are called Adenine, Cytosine, Guamine and Thymine.
Eric in Oakland
November 7th, 2010
I agree with everyone who says this topic should not be important to the larger debate. If everyone were completely logical, it would not be. Unfortunately the matter of whether homosexuality is a choice or not is one of the most important factors (along with personally knowing someone who is gay) that influence whether people support gay rights. *Surveys have shown a strong corelation between acceptance of gay rights and the belief that it is not a choice.
(*I am sorry for not posting a link to one of these surveys, but at the moment I can’t find one)
Donny D.
November 8th, 2010
I’m not thrilled at the idea that anyone might claim to have found “the gay gene”, and not just because I think such a claim would be false. (I don’t believe there IS a gay gene.) If in the future the “scienfically-proven” existence of a gay gene is widely publicized, racist ideologues and closet eugenicists will come out of the wordwork against us, and their falsehoods will have some resonance within the larger community of straight people.
And straight couples will be aborting their “gay fetuses” en masse.
I’ve never understood the need that some of us have to prove that we were born gay. So many of us seem to think that if we can prove that we “can’t help it”, the homophobes will stop being mean to us.
Given the visceral natural of homophobic hatred, that kind of thinking is dangerously naive.
David Foreman
November 8th, 2010
Donny D.
I agree. To repeat myself, for me it doesn’t matter if there’s a gene, if it’s a choice, etc. The presence or absence of those factors do not determine whether or not something is good or bad; right or wrong.
I’m not knocking those who investigate or report on the findings. That’s fine. I just don’t think it matters in the big picture.
I do agree, though, with Timothy that these factors may be useful in the political and legal discussions. But, I think if they could be useful, they could also be detrimental.
Just my opinion.
Greg Peterson
November 8th, 2010
Don’t forget recent Micro-RNA discoveries, as well as epigenetics.
cd
November 8th, 2010
What the anti-gays want, in effect, is overwhelming evidence. Evidence that excludes any/all other possibilities.
I do think that the biologists working on the basis of homosexuality have not been the smartest and have missed some obvious evidence or obvious analysis. But it probably is best to win the political argument independently of, which is to say prior to, winning the argument about the science.
The political argument one is about whether gay people are sane and responsible members of society. And that should be decided by direct positive in-your-face evidence. Relying on findings that science shows the genes and pathways responsible not to affect cognitive function is indirect, negative, and weak.
As a developmental biologist/geneticist I’ve looked at the scientific problem from some distance but for a long time. The aggregate evidence looks to me consistent with largely a genetic basis. Just not intuitive or commonly taught/understood kinds of genetics.
Regan DuCasse
November 9th, 2010
I agree with Donny’s point. The point is whether or not a person is competent and not a danger to themselves or society.
That because making a contribution is possible, than enabling that contribution is all that should matter.
One’s orientation should not when all these other factors and virtues are more important.
But, there are too many people still stuck on STUPID and scared, and when they had a choice between which button to push to help them move forward in thinking clearly about the other factors: they chose to be stuck.
And I’m done with it. No more patience for something so terminally ridiculous in anyone.
Seraphiel
November 9th, 2010
Irrelevant, distracting canard.
Is there a Baptist gene? A Libertarian gene?
We don’t protect someone’s equal rights because they have a gene that makes them one way or another. We protect everyone’s equal rights because that’s what makes them equal.
Donny D.
November 10th, 2010
Another thing is that we don’t have to have been “born that way” in order to be “immutably” homosexual. A theory that was popular during the Carter years (late 70s to very early 80s) was that sexual orientation somehow got set at about age 4, and no one knew how it happened, except that stereotyped notions of ingraining sexual roles in children’s minds would make no difference.
Then came the Reagan Years, and it was the time of the “dumbing down of America.” Amid all the awful, inexplicable, STUPID things that were going on, suddenly gay people started mindless chanting that we were “born that way.” Apparently the idea that many factors coalesced in early childhood to determine sexual orientation was just too nebulous and sophisticated for us to wrap our minds around after all.
We can be immutably whatever sexual orientation we are without being locked into it before we were born. Nature and nurture are the combo that determine so many things about us. Really, we won’t be losing anything by admitting there’s a developmental component to it. After all, year after year more research is done into the sociology and biology of sexual orientation and more and more evidence accumulates to prove everything that we’ve been saying all along: that sexuality is basic to who people are, that we can’t change any more readily than they can, and that if some of us drift over into a primarily heterosexual lifestyle, one hell of a lot of them eventually drift (or abruptly flip) over to a primarily homosexual one, with some of us actually managing a bisexual life; we don’t molest children disproportionately; many of us already have kids; in our formative years: many of us had sex with the opposite gender, many of us were exemplars of the dominant culture’s gender roles, most of us weren’t molested by an older male, many of us were the best of fundie Christians/Catholics/Mormons — and we still turned out gay. And it doesn’t matter why this occurs really, because the studies all support us behaviorally.
One by one socially prejudiced notions masquerading as social science have been debunked. The lopsidedness of the evidence and science on our side can be seen when we compare the number and quality of the anti-Prop 8 expert witnesses against the pro-Prop 8 ones in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial.
The only people we have to prove our “immutability” to are the religious right. Most people believe that a person either IS or ISN’T homosexual, and that’s something that doesn’t change — including many in the religious right when they’re being honest with themselves.
Given that kind of thinking, that you’re forever branded with whatever it is you are, and given the deep racism and the gross simple-mindedness of our culture, I think we can do with less of the crudity of biological determinism.
Leave A Comment