Born Gay

[Ijustwannateach]

Surrounded as I usually am by people who are perfectly happy with who I am, I suspect that while HOMOPHOBES might happily pay for the development of such a twisted product, regular ol' PEOPLE in general might not be so interested. And I think there are plenty of other genetic conditions which Big Corporations (many of whose employees are gay) might think worth dealing with (profitably, and with far fewer moral questions or public relations risks) long before it occurs to them to fool around with "gay" libido inhibitors. After all, there are already fairly reliable chemical inhibitors of libido around- all that remains, apparently, is to find out *who the gay people are*- but since we're so sneaky (for no real reason, you understand) you just make something that attacks them genetically... but... oops... it'd be just too bad if there's no reliable genetic marker.

Could you make a libido inhibitor for left-handed people with brown hair, or who are over 6 feet tall?

Back to the drawing board for homophobes, then! Heck, it'd be easier just to tag all the gay people with pink triangles and give them pills- or heck, forget the pills- too much trouble... just "ship them East..." or didn't someone try that before?

"Steven"

[The_Moog]

There are lots of families even in impoverished Africa and Asia who would pay a dollar for this. Would that constitute homophobia?

Drugs that operate at genetic level; Cloning. These are all etical and medical issues that we will confront over our lifetimes.

[Ijustwannateach]

Assuming -that those hoards of Africans HAVE a dollar a day in 2005 terms to spend on something as frivolous as a libido-inhibitor for their possibly gay offspring- one for each offspring, you understand- and you have to give it to the straight ones too, in CASE they're gay, because you can't simply interview your children and trust their responses, acting as paranoid and homophobic as you are- and of course we all know how often it is that the rich pharmaceutical companies in America go to such great lengths for that valuable African market-

THEN, I imagine we would see such a coming-out-of-the-closet in those countries and no one had ever imagined might happen, in resistance to the introduction of such a drug.

If in such a future Africa isn't still as homophobic as it is, then your ridiculous fantasy will have no place. And if it is, I doubt that they will want to confront publicly the fact that there are such an enormous number of homosexuals there fighting against them.

Not to mention that the gays in OTHER places will act against the development of such a drug. And I'm still betting you're not going to find a simple set of genes for sexuality, in which case this is simply a homophobic wet dream. So to speak.

[The_Moog]

I already pointed out it is unethical.

- but some might once have said the same about test tube babies. yet they exist.

Yes, you'd have to give the sugar lump to every baby. Who would pay for such a thing? Some right wing fundamentalist Christian charity perhaps.

My only point is that if you keep raising the question. Is homosexuality genetic? Then one day a scientist might say 'yes', then he'll say 'i've identified the gene sequencing'

...and it all goes downhill from there, as Pandora's Box is open.

your ridiculous fantasy

Don't be so childish. Its not my fantasy at all.

I notice that 'Homophobe' is squealed automatically here, every time someone doesn't follow the party line. Its a preposterous accusation.

Edited July 21, 2005 by The_Moog

[ProThaiExpat]

I already pointed out it is unethical.

- but some might once have said the same about test tube babies. yet they exist.

Yes, you'd have to give the sugar lump to every baby. Who would pay for such a thing? Some right wing fundamentalist Christian charity perhaps.

My only point is that if you keep raising the question. Is homosexuality genetic? Then one day a scientist might say 'yes', then he'll say 'i've identified the gene sequencing'

...and it all goes downhill from there, as Pandora's Box is open.

your ridiculous fantasy

Don't be so childish. Its not my fantasy at all.

I notice that 'Homophobe' is squealed automatically here, every time someone doesn't follow the party line. Its a preposterous accusation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Trusting your good intentions, I submit that genetic engineering is so fraught with ethical considerations as to boggle the mind. Along with the "cure" for homosexuality, there would be available cures for all diseases and the choice of making your baby come out the way you want it to. Blond, blue eyes, etc.

We must keep in mind, that as mankind progresses along these lines, the world will have changed. Consider that at some future date, perhaps co-incident with when genetic engineering is capable of curing homosexuality, that homosexuality may have legal equality and be fully accepted by society. Many feel diversity is a good thing and far less borng than if everone was a mirror image of every one else. Most blonds prefers brunettes, etc.

With the genral acceptance of gays and their receiving equality under the law, there may not be such a condemnation of gays present, even in the christian right. Take inter-racial marriage as an example.

Likewise, with an overpopulated world, perhaps non-reporductive people may reach a status of desireablity. I can imagine a time in human development where being gay might be considered a blessing.

With acceptance of gays by society, will come the disuse of the word "homophobia" as has happened to the use of the word "miscegenation".

Edited July 22, 2005 by ProThaiExpat

[The_Moog]

I submit that genetic engineering is so fraught with ethical considerations as to boggle the mind.

Yes, I think so too. Its a Pandora's Box, because it can't be uninvented.

(Bit like nuclear weapons).

Along with 'good' reasons for genetic medicine, like eliminating hereditary diseases, there will also be ancillary discoveries which people will find less palatable.

I'd like a daughter for my next child. If there was a harmless pill which guaranteed it, I might take it. I'd recognize that it was ungodly, but still do it. Now, all those Dads in India and China would be gulping 'boy' pills.

[Ijustwannateach]

Moog:

Your unusual proposition that the African market would be sufficient commercial impetus for science to develop an anti-homosexual urge pill is ludicrous enough that as an argument for why science would bother to develop one (you remember that's how you presented it, right?) *strongly suggests* that you are not thinking rationally about things.

But I am speaking in my posts more generally about homophobes, and I freely admit that I have no idea if you are actually a homophobe or not- if the shoe fits, wear it.

As I've suggested, it's extremely unlikely that there will be any simple genetic marker for homosexuality- any more than there is a genetic marker for "height over 6 feet." Persons who do not understand genetics often think there are such things as "genes for elephant trunks," for example, when there simply are no such things.

It's more on the level, I think, of arguing that a gene will be found for straight men who like blonde women with long necks. Why should such a contingent *psychological* attraction be codified in genes? It seems much more likely that patterns of attraction are identified and fossilized well after birth in the cerebellum, in other words the older animal brain- where many of our deep emotional impressions become encoded, seemingly inalterably, including such quirks as irrational phobias and superstitions.

While there may be those who are born with a greater tendency to become attached to men, I think that such attachments and their effect on one's identity actually happen through experience. After all, if (for a theoretical example) there were born a human baby on a desert island who never met another human being and somehow grew up and survived, would he have any potential of becoming a "homosexual" assuming he had some sort of gene complex as you theorize exists? Moreover, there are sufficiently alien expressions of sexuality among many cultures which, though including homoerotic elements, do not follow the Western gay "party-line" as the Moog likes to put it, that they seriously call into question the notion of those fixed sexual identities that we now take for granted. The expression of one's sexual tastes seems inexorably linked to actual sexual experience of other people in the world, combined with social pressures, and I presume it will remain so.

Gays (I use this term loosely to indicate men who are sexually active with other men) have existed in all societies throughout human history, and despite the best efforts of homophobes they will remain. There is most likely an important evolutionary reason for this- protection and nurturing of children, keeping a surplus of horny males satisfied, giving some men more time in their lives to do research to help the masses, etc., etc. Evidence from the broad spectrum of coming out stories and constructions of sexuality in multiple cultures and historical periods suggests that while the POTENTIAL for homosexuality remains a constant, its expression varies freely- much as styles of heterosexual socialization change and vary from place to place and time to time. Being a sexually isomorphic species (our males and females are very similar in size and structure), it seems to be splitting fine hairs whether to be attracted to one or the other gender aesthetically, and as long as social pressures result in a suitable replacement of the population with the aid of the non-reproducing segment in raising the children, wide variation still seems permissible within parameters of sustainability. After all, you don't need THAT many men to maintain genetic variability in a population of suitably unrelated females.

I would conclude therefore, there being no need to further restrict matters, in the case of our species and many others Mother Nature simply doesn't care if a certain number of men go with men. In this view, there are no genes FOR men being attracted to men- but rather there are simply no genes AGAINST it. Occam's razor, used in an occasion which Occam would probably have found perplexing.

Fortunately homophobes are not that much smarter than other idiots, and as long as they continue to model sexuality as pathetically primitively as they seem prone to, they will remain scientifically impotent and despite the annoyance of their activities they will have no real impact on the numbers of gays in the world. Let them have their little phlogiston theories.

"Steven"

[The_Moog]

patterns of attraction are identified and fossilized well after birth in the cerebellum

Thats your quote.

Born Gay

Thats the title of this topic.

If God Forbid - you are wrong - (but I doubt you ever are), and there is something scientifically decipherable about homosexuality.

Eg Brain chemistry, DNA.

Then, given the amount of money being thrown at gay chemistry (ironically by causes seeking to establish whether one is 'born gay' or not), there may be - perhaps in 50 years time - some isolation of a hormone, gene sequence.

....and 50 years later - a means of reversing it, along with perhaps an ability to guarantee blue eyes, blonde hair and whatever checklist a parent can select from.

And you say that there is no way that medical science can achieve that during the next century - and secondly, there is no way any parent would give that to a newborn.

I don't see how you can be so confident in such an opinion.

ps Not that it matters, but I also think people are not born gay - and ones sexual preferences are conditional on a range of other things, upbringing, environment etc. ....Still, we're testing a 'what if' scenario on our opinions, and for some reason, IJWT doesn't seem to be able to do this without resorting to insults.

Edited July 22, 2005 by The_Moog

[Ijustwannateach]

Genetics is not a recipe for fixed physical characteristics any more than it is a blueprint for behavior.

Let's take the example of height. There *is* some genetic component to height, because it is possible to breed for it. However, it is not the only factor involved. Nutrition during the whole period of childhood and young adulthood strongly affects the final adult height of a human. That height, however, does not change significantly afterwards (excepting severe degenerative diseases which change the amount of bone and other tissue, aging, etc.).

So, though there are some genetic influences, the final height of a human is determined ALSO by environmental influences over quite some time, and is finally fixed in the end.

So where would the genes be for someone who is 6 feet tall?

Many plants which have a fixed genetic sequence will grow in different complex ways (in terms of stem length, leaf size, etc.) depending on other factors such as altitude, humidity, insolation, etc. Many of these plants will then REMAIN IN THE SAME GROWTH PATTERN even if moved to another environment.

So where would be the genes for larger leaves?

The expression of a phenotype from a given genotype is NOT a cut-and-dried, carbon-copying process. Pets which are successfully cloned will not have the same fur patterns as their antecedents, because those fur patterns are phenotypically contingent.

Where are the genes for "the cute black spots on my puppy dog's tail?"

On the other hand, I argue that this thing which you call "homosexuality" is not scientifically well-constructed at all (many scientists agree). I gave a longer and more complicated explanation of this in the previous message. More simply put, I feel a successful model for sexuality must include the potential for attraction to both sexes (there may be some slight genetic component here- it doesn't need to be a big one or a dedicated gene- many genes have multiple duties, by themselves and in combination with others- or on the other hand the isomorphic nature of male/female biology may provide this inherently), while explaining the more frequent attraction towards opposite-sex partners (I do this through societal/cultural pressure) and the FIXED quality of such types of attractions- gays in Western cultures do not tend to change back to being straight once gay-identified, and real straights rarely switch to gay- which I argue seems more likely to be impressed experientially in the mind, as the range of fetishes, tastes, and attractions seems too broad to have anything to do with genetics. At the end of this model of sexuality, genetics is only one small component, if important at all, and we have a model which explains most of the other characteristics of sexuality (which a simple homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy does not).

It's like looking for genes for high-IQ, when in fact there is no real thing which exists mentally to correspond with IQ. IQ is a model which was designed to measure GROSS differences in intellectual capability among *similar* GROUPS, nothing more or less.

So where are the genes for sexuality? I argue that sexuality is a poorly constructed word, which doesn't correspond with any single thing in reality. It's like health. Could you find genes for good health?

Given Mother Nature's propensity for multiple fail-safes in her wise engineering plans, I'd guess that there would be no way to disrupt homosexual activity chemically without shutting down all sexual activity entirely.

"Steven"

[Ijustwannateach]

Moog- if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, don't worry- be happy!