Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

One fascinating oddity of the contemporary multicultural left is that it is devoted to the assumption that no important differences between people, and especially groups of people, are genetically determined--with one exception. Such "blank slatism" is most notable in debates over intelligence and differences between the sexes, which are claimed to be entirely the product of nurture rather than nature (although moderate lefties will sometimes concede a genetic basis for body size dimorphism).

The exception is homosexuality, which we are supposed to believe is all in the genes. (Your sex is supposedly more malleable than the sex to which you are attracted!) The position that being gay is in the DNA is expedient, since it makes it harder to object to homosexuality on moral grounds.

But we notice a bit of a crack in this dogma, and from a surprising source--the nasty partisans at ThinkProgress.org. TP's Zack Ford highlights a comment from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, in response to the "coming out" of basketball player Jason Collins:

Collins has an identical twin, Jaron, who was "astounded" to discover that his brother had entered into the homosexual lifestyle. He, despite sharing Jason's identical DNA, is as straight as a laser beam. Identical twins share straits [sic!] that are genetically determined: height, skin color, eye color, hair color and so forth. If homosexuality is a genetically caused sexual preference, Jaron Collins should be as gay as his brother. He's not.

Here's Ford's rebuttal:

Just because homosexuality is a bit more complex than a particular gene prescription doesn't mean Fischer's point has any validity.
The latest research suggests that variations in sexual orientation can be influenced--not by the genes themselves, but by how certain markers ("epi-marks") on the genes interact with hormones inside the womb. These epigenetic markers act as switches that can be activated during fetal development, affecting how DNA expresses itself. The end result is the same: an individual's orientation is determined before birth and cannot be changed. This actually jibes with some recent twin studies, which suggest that even identical twins who share a hormonal environment in the womb can still experience different levels of blood during development. Thus, even twins with identical DNA can have differences in how that DNA is expressed.
Ford had the better of the argument, but he got it by making an important concession: that environmental factors as well as genes play a role in determining sexual orientation. Some gene or combination of genes might have been necessary for Jason Collins to be homosexual, but it was not sufficient.

Another way of putting this is that Collins evidently had the DNA to be heterosexual but his environment, unlike his brother's, was insufficient to yield that result.

Which raises an interesting question. Suppose researchers isolated both a gene that predisposed the Collins brothers to homosexuality and a prenatal hormonal condition that caused that predisposition to manifest itself in Jason's case but not his brother. Suppose further that parents or unborn children could be tested for that gene, and mothers carrying sons who have it could be administered a hormone treatment that would reduce or eliminate the possibility of a homosexual child.

Would gay-rights groups push for outlawing such a therapy? If so, would their pro-abortion allies join the push, or would they feel compelled to stand for "reproductive rights"? If such a therapy were available, would parents forgo it given the increasing public acceptance of homosexuality? Would its popularity follow political patterns, so that conservative Southerners would opt for straight kids while liberal Northeasterners allowed nature to take its course? Or would lots of the latter group take advantage of their right to privacy and make sure their kids didn't turn out gay, not that there's anything wrong with that?

1)Would there be compelling moral or ethical reasons to stop parents from manipulating those factors to make sure their children are straight?

2)If those factors cannot be manipulated, what are the implications of parents who might choose abortion to avoid having a homosexual child?

Is there a disconnect, as the author suggests, in thinking no important differences between people, and especially groups of people, are genetically determined and are instead an outcome of their opportunities yet insisting that homosexuality is biologically determined?

Would you care if your own children were homosexual, and why?

Is it morally wrong to hope that your children aren't gay for reasons like not wanting them to face any hardships and ostracism that come with it?

What if we do find that homosexuality is determined by purely biological factors?

1)Would there be compelling moral or ethical reasons to stop parents from manipulating those factors to make sure their children are straight?

2)If those factors cannot be manipulated, what are the implications of parents who might choose abortion to avoid having a homosexual child?

Is there a disconnect, as the author suggests, in thinking no important differences between people, and especially groups of people, are genetically determined and are instead an outcome of their opportunities yet insisting that homosexuality is biologically determined?

Would you care if your own children were homosexual, and why?

Is it morally wrong to hope that your children aren't gay for reasons like not wanting them to face any hardships and ostracism that come with it?