Saturday, March 17, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

by NYTimes.com, AP

Thanks to Guillermo for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/us/16baptist.html

Homosexuality May Be Based on Biology, Baptist Says

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 16, 2007

The president of the leading Southern Baptist seminary has suggested that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified.

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., and one of the country's evangelical leaders, posted the article on his personal Web site earlier this month.

Mr. Mohler said in the article that scientific research "points to some level of biological causation" for homosexuality.

That suggestion offended fellow conservatives, Mr. Mohler said. Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality, which they view as sinful, is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

But Mr. Mohler said he was criticized even more strongly by supporters of gay rights, who were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could change an unborn child's sexual orientation.

"He's willing to play God," said Harry Knox, a spokesman on religious issues for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group. "He's more than willing to let homophobia take over and be the determinant of how he responds to this issue, in spite of everything else he believes about not tinkering with the unborn."

The article, published on March 2, carried a long but intriguing title: "Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"

Mr. Mohler began by summarizing some recent research into sexual orientation and advising his Christian readership that they should brace for the possibility that a biological basis for homosexuality might be proven.

He wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, but said the discovery would be "of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations."

Posted: Saturday, March 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 80 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #26116 by steveroot on March 17, 2007 at 3:54 am

Surely if it is "biological" (and that's *only a theory*), then it must be god's will.

Shaker (#26115), I think you meant to say "desperately", not "deliberately"!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

2. Comment #26123 by MartinSGill on March 17, 2007 at 4:41 am

This question raises the whole specter of manipulating children before they are born.

The thing is, I generally support the concept for removing disabilities, for example, but I know many disability charities object because they think it will demote/devalue disabled people as human beings. I disagree, but that's a digression.

All this man is doing is defining homosexuality as a disability, and saying it should be stamped out.

That is where I disagree with him. Sexual preference, race, or gender, has no impact on the potential quality of life of the child, and as such is not a disability, and there's no reason to "treat" it.

Other Comments by MartinSGill

3. Comment #26125 by Will S on March 17, 2007 at 5:02 am

To be candid, I think there is a kind of logical consistency here.

As I understand it, the traditional Christian view is that it's OK to be gay � just so long as you don't do anything about it. In the same way, it's OK to experience an impulse to steal, so long as you don't actually steal. (I disagree very strongly with the traditional Christian view of homosexuality � but that's not the point.)

So, if homosexuality is to any significant extent genetically determined (as I understand it, this is also highly controversial � but let's assume it for the sake of argument), then a traditional Christian might see homosexuality as a kind of birth defect, and, if it's possible to 'correct' it in utero, this would be desirable, in order to spare the unfortunate sufferer constantly having to make choices between sin and sexual frustration, and to allow him or her the possibility of a 'legitimate' (i.e. heterosexual) sex life.

In a word, this looks like valid logic, based on faulty, and deplorable, premises.

In the same way, I recall, as a lad, seeing a TV film of some pyschologists trying to 'cure' a homosexual (who had volunteered for the treatment), using aversion therapy. If (repeat, if) you accept the premise that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be cured, then I can't see any way of faulting what they were doing.

Other Comments by Will S

4. Comment #26128 by Jack Rawlinson on March 17, 2007 at 5:27 am

So let's get this straight... err... as it were:

- prenatal tinkering to "cure" potential homosexuality: a good thing
- stem cell research involving blastocysts with perhaps no more than 150 cells: a bad thing.
- religious hypocrisy: perfectly acceptable.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

5. Comment #26129 by Frederiksen78 on March 17, 2007 at 5:31 am

Well, you would consider the extra chromosome people to be disabled, wouldn't you? How would you distinguish between what is a disability and what is not? (I'm throwing bombs here, I know).

Is it what will cause the person to have a life of lower quality? Because I think many disabled people (mentally disabled) don't really think of themselves as disabled. Different, yes. But disabled, no.

And sure a homosexual person is different. It's nothing bad, it's just a fact. It's a matter of pure statistics - how many homosexuals are born compared to heterosexuals.

Maybe the real issue is whether or not the parents believe it's a disability (probably to them, not the child). At the moment, there is little evidence showing that being homosexual is a disability - it might be so in some places due to the unjust treatment they receive by certain individuals and groups of people. But that's not a "homosexual problem" that is a problem of for instance the conservative religious people who choose (probably unlike the homosexuals) that they will not like the homosexuals.

All this is just to shed light on the fact that not everything we see as a disability is really so.

Other Comments by Frederiksen78

6. Comment #26130 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 5:52 am

Is Your Baby a Conservative Christian? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Other Comments by karlJ

7. Comment #26132 by NormanDoering on March 17, 2007 at 6:19 am

karlJ asked:

Is Your Baby a Conservative Christian? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

There's an article, "Religion's Generation Gap Growing," on beliefnet.com. They claim there is an alarming increase in religious belief in young people.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21317_1.html

The nominal Christian and liberal parents discover that they don't actually like what is happening to their kids.

It's not something I would want:

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/03/are-we-losing-this-generation.html
Are we losing this generation?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

8. Comment #26133 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 6:19 am

Comment #26125 by Will S
In the same way, I recall, as a lad, seeing a TV film of some pyschologists trying to 'cure' a homosexual (who had volunteered for the treatment), using aversion therapy. If (repeat, if) you accept the premise that homosexuality is wrong and ought to be cured, then I can't see any way of faulting what they were doing.

There is at least one way to fault it, by pointing out there's no evidence aversion therapy works at all! According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy

"conversion therapy had a failure rate in excess of 99.5% in each study."

Peter Cook's aversion therapy sketch is worth watching:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLcLQXMIzPM

Aversion therapy is worthy of ridicule, someone recalled to me once the use of aversion therapy for homosexuals at a psychiatric hospital where they worked in the 70's, using the NHS official pornographic slide collection(!)

This article made me sick, how they can try to come across all pro-life when they're willing to tamper with an unborn child just because she/he might be gay and they have a problem with it.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

9. Comment #26134 by freestateofmind on March 17, 2007 at 6:29 am

Oh I can't wait. Maybe in the future we could also check to see if there is a gene(s) that may code for the potential to believe in religious or superstitious myth! Surely we should CORRECT that aberration Mr. Mohler.

As a NON-heterosexual, I certainly do not remember sitting down at the kitchen table one night to decide if I wanted to be straight or gay. And that is another point: If it is a choice for some folks (certainly has NOT been proven), that makes the theists case even more absurd. Who the heck are they (or anyone else) to tell anyone they can't be that way!!!

Their pompousness of attitude is what's most disgusting. I don't like you or who you are attracted to, so therefore I am going to change you to be more like me. It's like the Borg from StarTrek. We are theists...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated. Captain Dawkins beam us up..there be religionists down here!

Other Comments by freestateofmind

10. Comment #26135 by PaulJ on March 17, 2007 at 6:34 am

He wrote that such proof would not alter the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality...

If this is really what he wrote, it demonstrates completely illogical thinking: The Bible does condemn homosexuality -- there's no argument about this. It's a fact that anyone with a copy of the Bible can verify. The quote above suggests that there might be something that could actually change what's already written. Plainly nonsense.

Other Comments by PaulJ

11. Comment #26136 by elfinabout on March 17, 2007 at 6:58 am

Mohler strikes me as no more deluded than any other religite.
What is scary here (and I speak as a gay man with no "issues" whatsoever about my sexuality) is the apparent association between "gay" and "defect" of some sort.

I have never considered myself in need of "alteration", and neither have any of my friends, family or colleagues. When I come across someone who has a problem with my sexuality, it is painfully obvious that the problem is theirs, not mine.

Mr Mohler - if your particular deity has a problem with how I live my life, then kindly ask him/her/it to tell me personally, and also inform me why he/she/it created me "flawed" in the first place. Otherwise, keep your prejudices to your bigoted self. End of conversation.

Other Comments by elfinabout

12. Comment #26139 by scottishgeologist on March 17, 2007 at 7:11 am

One thing that hasnt been mentioned so far is another answer to the question: What If You Could Do Something About It?

Like abortion.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if some fundies went for this option as the lesser of two evils.

Mohler has pened a right can of works here (remember a while back he did his own "Dawkins Delusion" thing - mind you I think he came a poor second to DR in this respect :-)

Interesting article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,,-6480712,00.html

Entitled "Furor Over Baptist's Gay-Baby Article"

And a very interesting final comment in it:

Not all reaction to Mohler's article has been negative.

Dr. Jack Drescher, a New York City psychiatrist critical of those who consider homosexuality a disorder, commended Mohler's openness to the prospect that it is biologically based.

``This represents a major shift,'' Drescher said. ``This is a man who actually has an open mind, who is struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it.''

"struggling to reconcile his religious beliefs with facts that contradict it" Just love that one!

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

13. Comment #26141 by freestateofmind on March 17, 2007 at 7:17 am

Makes me also wonder if Mohler is going to condone screening for "gayness" in other animal embryos as well.
Surely he knows that NON-heterosexual activity has been observed and documented in over 400 different animal species.
Oh wait. What am I saying. That would mean he would actually have to do some research into human and non-human sexuality. And that would be expecting way too much.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

14. Comment #26143 by Logicel on March 17, 2007 at 7:30 am

elfinabout wrote: "When I come across someone who has a problem with my sexuality, it is painfully obvious that the problem is theirs, not mine."
____________

Spot on. What is needed is therapy for people who are disturbed by same-sex attraction.

Other Comments by Logicel

15. Comment #26146 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 8:07 am

One thing that hasnt been mentioned so far is another answer to the question: What If You Could Do Something About It?
Like abortion.

I wouldnt be at all surprised if some fundies went for this option as the lesser of two evils.

No! the fundies would never opt for that. They really need someone to bat on to make themselves seem better. Its the old classical: If you can't make yourself better then make someone else worse, so you will look better in comparison.

It's a part of their system to supress. They must have it to justify themeselves.

Other Comments by karlJ

16. Comment #26149 by Fishpeddler on March 17, 2007 at 8:30 am

I love the bit about how homosexuality would still be a sin even if it had a biological basis. So the doctrine of original sin, possibly the stupidest idea of a religion that has been a cornucopia of stupid ideas for 2000 years, just hatched another evil offspring. Man, this would be hilarious if only it were fiction.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

17. Comment #26150 by Luthien on March 17, 2007 at 8:42 am

These people are so sick I don't even know where to begin!

What is needed is therapy for people who are disturbed by same-sex attraction.

Precisely, there is something deeply wrong with someone who would even contemplate modifying their child like this.

I was reading an article in New Scientist about how someday they might be able to use gene therapy to change skin pigmentation as easily as we change hair colour today (so you could adjust yourself perfectly to your climate), can you imagine the outcry if a well known racist were to suggest that skin colour be "screened for" in the womb and "corrected"?

Other Comments by Luthien

18. Comment #26153 by DavidMcC on March 17, 2007 at 9:09 am

If a genetic basis for religiosity could be established, then in utero removal of christianity would be an option worth considering.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

19. Comment #26155 by ICONIC FREEDOM on March 17, 2007 at 9:20 am

No need for anyone being upset as science is not based on anything subjective, but objective. Religion is solely based on subjective principle, interpretation and opinion. Once science announces the discovery of a biological predisposition to being gay, their arguments are over. Only the truly stupid don't realize that their arguments are over since Darwin, anyway, but this particular issue seems to stick in their craw.

I agree, they will attempt to cajole or manipulate the information but much like Galileo's discovery within the cosmos and all the other scientific discoveries made before and since, they will dispel all mythology from religion once and for all.

The fact that some are still stupid enough to believe becomes irrelevant, their "meme" of stupidity regarding religion will eventually dissipate from society to such a degree they will be almost non-existent.

It will take several generations for this to occur as all discrimination takes time to eradicate to higher levels of less limited thinking. Time is on our side.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

20. Comment #26156 by ICONIC FREEDOM on March 17, 2007 at 9:26 am

Here's the link to his actual page and response:

http://www.almohler.com/

This is an interesting statement:

"Such a discovery, if it were to be accepted, would not change God's condemnation of all forms of homosexual behavior, nor would it mean that this represents the inviolable "identity" of any individual."

To which I would ask him, "how do you that this would not change god's condemnation? On what basis of criteria, information or authority do you have empirical evidence to refute such a claim?".

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

21. Comment #26157 by ICONIC FREEDOM on March 17, 2007 at 9:29 am

More from the good reverend.

"The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone"

This is so replete with dysfunctional thinking, illogic, and diseased ideas I don't know where I would start to deconstruct it.

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

22. Comment #26158 by ICONIC FREEDOM on March 17, 2007 at 9:34 am

"In one article, I was said to advocate genetic therapies. I never said that, and I resolutely oppose such proposals. I would not advocate the use of genetic therapies to create heterosexual babies -- or any other therapy of this type. The hypothetical question I addressed had nothing to do with genetic factors at all. Furthermore, genetic factors are likely to be so complex and inter-related that no single genetic factor or set of factors is likely to be found to cause anything as complex as sexual attraction"

I find his statement interesting. He wouldn't advocate a "designer" baby if it meant that the "sinner" would then NOT be predisposed to such a level of sin in god's eyes. What kind of empathy for sinners does this guy have? Wouldn't you want to eliminate as much temptation for sin as possible? Isn't this why christians want to stop all the Britney's of the world from prancing around half-naked? Isn't this why they want to erradicate all the porn around the world?

Wouldn't the opportunity for less temptation be a grand move in god's eyes? Would not god look with favor upon those who are doing his work by moving people away from sin, even through science, to such a grand degree?

Other Comments by ICONIC FREEDOM

23. Comment #26163 by Logicel on March 17, 2007 at 10:44 am

scooternyc quotes this mentally/emotionally unstable guy as saying, "The only cure for sin itself is the cross of Christ. No therapy will cleanse us of sin, no treatment will atone. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ will save, and salvation is found in Him alone"
________

There is no evidence for sin and no evidence that the blood Jesus Christ shed was divine and had any power to save us from this unproven concept of sin. This is pure insanity. If he kept it to himself that would be bad enough, but he wants to influence PUBLIC policy.

Mohler should spell his name muther and tack on a f*cker at the end of it.

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #26164 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 10:53 am

Will S:
genetically determined (as I understand it, this is also highly controversial

Frederiksen78:
At the moment, there is little evidence showing that being homosexual is a disability

Fellow Dawkins readers,

There is no need to so tentatively frame the latest research of homosexuality. You can safely state with affirmative grammar: Based on the literature, homosexuality is very likely a biological phenomena. Full stop.

There is NO evidence "showing that being homosexual is a disability". This is "highly controversial" in the same way global warming is "highly controversial".

Unless you read journals with <50% Impact Factors, you will see data in the literature consistently supporting the prenatal hormonal theories (which I believe is the strongest right now), genetic theories, or neutral results. Same goes with studies on gay parent quality compared to straight parent quality (they're equal in study after study).

Other Comments by bruno_burned

25. Comment #26165 by Eventhorizon on March 17, 2007 at 10:56 am

I just see this as another nail in the coffin for Christianity. If it is ever to survive as a religion then people like this should really learn to keep their mouths shut!
Hopefully the issue of homosexuality will be the one that brings it all tumbling down. It would seem that we gays are really stirring things up within the church and I cant help but feel a little pleased at this prospect.
It strikes me that while it's abhorrent for anybody to hold views like this it also exposes the true nature of these people. Its just yet another own goal for relgion.

Other Comments by Eventhorizon

26. Comment #26166 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 11:02 am

You scooternyc, you really got a shitload off your chest there!
I concur.

Other Comments by karlJ

27. Comment #26167 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 11:12 am

scooternyc, do I understand it that you have not been qouted correctly? So whats new? If you open up to the media they will eat you. Though I really admire the ones that do and takes the heat.

Other Comments by karlJ

28. Comment #26172 by freestateofmind on March 17, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Kudos to you guys. If only the millions of delusioned religionists could think ----even for a nanosecond---with the rationality and logic of some of this sites readers! There would be an end to bigotry and hatred. Thanks guys. You certainly do give some of us hope.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

29. Comment #26174 by MAS2007 on March 17, 2007 at 1:04 pm

karlJ asked:
Is Your Baby a Conservative Christian? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

What would theist objections be if religiosity was determined to be viral and children could be inoculated against it?

To the rational mind nothing is inexplicable,
only unexplained.

Other Comments by MAS2007

30. Comment #26175 by Roll on March 17, 2007 at 1:19 pm

This has probably been picked over by some huge brains somewhere, but I have not come across it personally yet.
I just wondered why there ARE homosexuals (not just in humans), if evolutionary natural selection working over many millinea, continues to select the individuals that are most successful in passing on their genes.
Thanks.

Other Comments by Roll

31. Comment #26177 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Roll, it's an interesting question and there are various theories. One theory is the so-called "sneaky male theory" In a species where a few males do all the breeding, Elephant Seals are a good example, and fight to keep the other males away from the females, if another male is gay at least some of the time the dominant male will worry less about turning his back on the harem, allowing the sneaky male a chance to breed! I'm sure there is more to it than that, and indeed better explanations of that theory but it is interesting to consider.

[Edit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html

offers some explanation also. for instance:

Genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men apparently boost fertility in women. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother's side of the family, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men. (Corna et al. 2004)]

Other Comments by BaronOchs

32. Comment #26179 by steve99 on March 17, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Roll: the theory that BaronOchs mentions is probably not that useful, as it would require that gay members of a species had at least some degree of bisexuality, and would make an effort to mate with females. Personally, I favour the idea that gay individuals help to support siblings and offspring of siblings. Being gay myself, and having many nephews and nieces, I can definitely see how this could work.

Other Comments by steve99

33. Comment #26182 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 2:10 pm

steve99 Yes Those inadequacies were apparent to me as I made the post. I think you may well be on the right lines. The problem Roll indicated is that gay individuals would presumably have less or no descendants to propagate their genes. But another way to look at it is if an individual has genes that mean at least some of their offspring might be gay, and those gay offspring help the survival of their siblings for example then individuals would be rewarded for carrying those genes. This article

http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,705,Economics-and-human-evolution,The-Economist-print-edition

indeed suggests humans may have benefited from adopting specialised roles and that would be consistent with this.

Wikipedia has this to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenic_hypothesis_of_homosexuality

though I wasn't convinced.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

34. Comment #26185 by karlJ on March 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm

MAS2007.
The original title was:
" Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?"
I'm just switching the "gay" in the original question to show that the question is wrongly stated, as a provocation to the "righteous" ones, really.

Other Comments by karlJ

35. Comment #26188 by mark1958 on March 17, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I am a geneticist at a major university and have no doubt that being Gay (at least in most cases) is biologically determined. I do not believe it should be considered a disability or that it should be considered in the same class as a disability. However, because Gay folks are still discriminated against, it would hurt me to see a loved-one who was discriminated against for whatever reason. If I could change an unborn child in a manner that had no risk, I would really have to consider it. I think I would agonize over my decision but the fact that it would hurt me to watch my son or daughter live in a world where they were discriminated against when I had an opportunity to make a difference would be too powerful.

Other Comments by mark1958

36. Comment #26192 by freestateofmind on March 17, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Mark1958 you do make a good point. But, it seems the answer is to combat the discrimination. It would be like, "Honey, the doctor said our baby was going to be dark skinned, so maybe we should alter his genes to make him a little more light skinned so he will fit in."
I think we should go after the "discrimination" gene myself.

Other Comments by freestateofmind

37. Comment #26194 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 3:46 pm

freestateofmind I completely agree, I'm totally against this pre-natal gene selction thing. If we started selecting for various personality traits according to trends it would just be a horrible step towards a nightmare boring world where everyone was the same and our culture was drastically poorer. Not to mention if people consistently selected for certain genes, and a virus hits town that particularly affects people with those genes we'd be fucked.

Now if anyone thinks I've been posting a hell of a lot lately and have no other life just go on thinking that damn you!!!!!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

38. Comment #26195 by denoir on March 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm

I think that objections against prenatal genetic screening (and abortion/correction) stand on a lousy ethical ground. It's scary how people are willing to sacrifice individuals for some greater social 'good'.

Suppose that you at such a screening, which can be done when there are only a couple of hundred cells discover that if the pregnancy is completed, the child will have a serious disability. Anything except aborting is extremely cruel. Why condemn an individual to suffering when you can abort the process when it's just a few cells? You can more or less directly try again and chances are good that you'll get a DNA combination without any serious defects.

This argument can be extended to the question of homosexuality (if the basis is genetic and can be tested). It doesn't matter if you think that being gay is ok - you have to think about the individual that will have to suffer through it because gays are discriminated against. Is it ethical to use a child so that you can make a point about discrimination being bad?

Other Comments by denoir

39. Comment #26197 by ed on March 17, 2007 at 4:06 pm

Another tale in what Sam Harris described as the ongoing saga of scientific discovery and religious forfeiture. We should be heartened that this person has aknowledged a biological link to homosexuality, its a shame that he can't then acknowledge the hypocrisy of his religious beleifs when its staring him in the face.

Other Comments by ed

40. Comment #26198 by mark1958 on March 17, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Freestateofmind

I know what you mean as in my original post, I started to say things get more complex when you start talking about Race and skin color. I decided to delete that part of my statement but in retrospect I should have left it in. I will say that I used to see patients in genetics clinic. One point of interest is related to the fact that when the gene defect responsible for the most common form of dwarfism was determined, most of the parents did not want to consider prenatal testing to allow for selecting non affected individuals. In this case the parents know the issues and feel totally comfortable with it. However, does that mean the child is better off? I am not stating an opinion here just a question.
I totally appreciate the issue of pre-selecting children for specific traits. The facts are the technology is going to get better and better for detecting all sorts of traits, and we will be able to intervene with genetic based therapeutics and where we draw the line is going to be complex decision of our society as a whole. I hope these decisions are based on facts and sense, and not on religous grounds.
If we could treat schizophrenia or manic depressive diseases before they occur no one would have an issue with it. However, if we start to alter behavioural aspects in folks who are pedophiles for example, would people object... Probably not.. However what about mild anti social behavior? Promiscuity?

Back to the main issue. I agree that fixing the discrimination is a great solution, and although I predict it will get better over time, it is not going to go away during the next generation or two. So hence the dilema if I were to have a kid and knowingly could do something about it.

Other Comments by mark1958

41. Comment #26206 by Nails on March 17, 2007 at 4:52 pm

Maybe by the time we have the technology to change any such genetic traits then the discrimination will be a thing of the past.....
Only if we can close down the churches first I guess!!!!
But hey, maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. To him, anything that compels you to sin must be biological in nature, otherwise he could just baptise you and you would be cured.
At least he's not blaming science for making people sin....

Other Comments by Nails

42. Comment #26213 by eddie.river on March 17, 2007 at 5:25 pm

The point that Roll made has been bothering me for some time. Surely natural selection will eventually weed out genetic "dead ends" like homosexuality, making this arguement redundant.
The explanations provided so far seem more like excuses, and have failed to hit the spot. More information please.
Thanks Roll, I have been reading these posts for ages. but have never been inspired to register until now.

Other Comments by eddie.river

43. Comment #26215 by BaronOchs on March 17, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Evolution has no answer eddie.river, this is clear evidence of a Gay Designer!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

44. Comment #26222 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 7:26 pm

eddie.river
The explanations provided so far seem more like excuses, and have failed to hit the spot.

Hopefully, you realize that "hitting the spot" happens after significant data is gathered and tested. Until then, we only speculate.

Right now, we know so little of the complex neurology of sex. For that matter, we know so little of complex neurology... period. We barely understand the genetic influence of type 2 diabetes. We can bet that the neurological/genetic explanations of something as enormous as human sexuality are decades away (if not more).

So whats the data? I think the most consistent findings are in birth order - gay men tend to have more older brothers. The probability increases with each subsequent birth, so that by the 10th brother in a row (guesstimate), the chances are 50/50. This is an exercise in statistics, of course.

Brothers of gay men have a 22 percent chance of being gay, whereas the brothers of straight men have only about a 4 percent chance (similar findings reproduced). Multiple studies have found high concordance rates between identical twins - one study reaching 52 percent.

A recent 2006 study show mothers with one (and especially with more) gay sons show significant inactivation within the X chromosome across cells.

Sexual differention of mammals tends to happen hormonally in fetal development - so a prenatal cause of homosexuality is a good place to look. Checking out the brains of sheep and humans, there is a trend for groups of cells (which relate to sexual behavior) in the anterior hypothalamus to be smaller in gay rams/men and in straight ewes/women, and respond differently to fluoxetine. Gay men and straight women perform more the same on visuospatial tasks and object location memory.

There are several more relevant data, but I can't do a lit review tonight :)

Personally, I don't think the only relevant question is how does homosexuality increases the homosexual's chance of reproduction.

With all this data surrounding the X chromosome, prenatal development, androgens on the brain, etc, my question is: How do the mother's genes benefit by starting off with sexually competitive male sons and then decreasing this trait in subsequent sons? ...particularly in an EEA band of families. What is the difference between a 10th son and 1st son in respect to natural selection in the EEA context?

Just questions :) I haven't seen any evopsychs address the birth order/twins studies yet.

Other Comments by bruno_burned

45. Comment #26230 by Miri on March 17, 2007 at 10:27 pm

This article made me want to cry.

Other Comments by Miri

46. Comment #26231 by fonex_86 on March 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm

denoir,

At first I disagreed with your view, but it seems to hold more value than I thought.

Suppose an embryo is determined to have three eyes, two in the 'normal' positions, and one on the forehead. Obviously many people might view this as a monstrosity. What do you do? Abort the embryo, for fear of discrimination; or would you rather let it live (given the assumption that the third eye causes no health complications whatsoever, and may actually be advantageous)?

Makes me think (again). =D

Other Comments by fonex_86

47. Comment #26236 by bruno_burned on March 17, 2007 at 11:51 pm

denoir: Is it ethical to use a child so that you can make a point about discrimination being bad?

A natural birth does not "use" a baby for anything. It's the designer babies that make a statement.

Is it ethical to use a child so that other people don't have to think?

If you want to design your babies so that the world is more comfortable with your offspring, then go ahead.

Other Comments by bruno_burned

48. Comment #26251 by denoir on March 18, 2007 at 3:27 am

If you want to design your babies so that the world is more comfortable with your offspring, then go ahead.

It's the other way around - design the baby so that it as an individual is more comfortable in the world. Why on earth would you want your child to suffer through life if you have the option of not inducing that suffering?

A natural birth does not "use" a baby for anything. It's the designer babies that make a statement.

You seem to think that there is a purpose to the natural world and that natural defects have some form of value because they are natural. Discussing evolution goes beyond the scope of this discussion but if you are an ID proponent that sees purposeful design in nature then your position makes sense. If you do not believe in intelligent design then its only sadism left to explain your position. There is no purpose or an optimal choice when it comes to which combination of shuffled paternal and maternal DNA will 'win' at one point. Cough once during intercourse and another sperm will win - perhaps one that doesn't carry defective genetic code.

The abort and retry selection procedure takes its toll on the woman and is generally not a very efficient approach. If we can make the modifications without having to abort, all the better.

So does this mean that future parents should have complete discretion when designing a baby? Of course not. On purpose inducing a defect should of course not be allowed. This is nothing strange, today we also apply restrictions on what parents can do to their children.

Other Comments by denoir

49. Comment #26255 by Logicel on March 18, 2007 at 4:11 am

To be able to identify the gene(s) which causes same-sex attraction means that gay people can select to have gay children via in-vitro methods as they already do presently. The identification of the genetic basis for gayness could actually be the boon that gay people need to increase their numbers and fight discrimination.

This genetic identification does not necessarily mean that only gay people would select for gayness, but even heterosexuals, especially if it is shown that there are epigenetic interactions among genes causing an increase in creativity and intelligence--all the gay people I know are extremely creative and intelligent. Not to mention the added advantage that human breeding would perhaps be lessened. I, as an heterosexual, would seriously consider to select for a gay child--if I was still in my child-bearing stage that is!

Other Comments by Logicel

50. Comment #26257 by Logicel on March 18, 2007 at 4:30 am

I can envison special adoption agencies where gay couples could adopt gay babies from heterosexual couples who did not want to terminate the development of the gay fetus, but did not want to raise a gay child.

Other Comments by Logicel

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last