34 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
That’s the most disturbing aspect of this, and all other research into how the human being works. |
Dan, would it be better not to know “how the human being works”? |
It would if only we humans would not exploit that knowledge to harm each other. Can you imagine what the Pentagon will come up with next (seeing that they thought a “gay bomb” would somehow be a workable strategy) if we had this kind of knowledge? |
I think sheep are totally skeewampus because I know personally people who have had sex with sheep and it doesn’t seem like the sheep objected too much. I’m not approving, mind you, just making an observation. Living around all these sheep farmers like I do. You guys, the oddest thing happened last night. Bill thinks I’m disgusting. Well, so do I, but I didn’t do it thoughtfully, it just came out. Me and Bill and Sarah were going to Dan in Real Life (okay movie, could have been better) and we started discussing our young gay friend from Vegas, who’s in town. They were going out later, he and Sarah. I said, “Sarah, you should ask Mike. Maybe they’d like each other.” (Mike is my gay nephew). And she said, “no Mom, Mike’s not good enough for JP?” I said, “He is, too, he’s a very good looking guy. He’s a good person.” She said, “Mom, Mike does drugs.” I said, “Sarah, George (not his real name)is gay in Las Vegas. He’s probably done everything. They might be a cute couple” And Bill violently pulled over to the side and threw up and yelled at us for being disgusting and unrighteous. Sarah argued with him, but I woke up and thought, “crap, I can’t believe we just had that discussion.” I’m like the frog in the water. Mike’s mother is one of my oldest, dearest friends. Everybody but her knows Mike is gay. I think she knows, but doesn’t want to know. I’ve tried to discuss it with her, but she will not and we’ve talked about everything in her life, everything. I tell you, if we could look at DNA in the womb and change our babies and make them not gay, I’d vote in favor. For many reasons. Go worm research. |
This sort of research gives me mixed feelings. As noted above, it’s a two-edged sword. Religious types used to be able to freely say gays are sick perverts who choose to get deity really, really mad. Their battle cry was that homosexuality was “not natural.” Then gay rights activists began to point to developing research, showing a biological contribution to homosexuality. As a result, some religious types completely denied the research, and still do. These types like to talk alot about how their deity will make you straight if you just exercise enough faith, personal effort, and reliance upon the power of their deity. One would think that once at least some religious types admitted a biological influence in homosexuality, they’d stop condemning it. But no! Instead, these folks suddenly switched their argument, and condemned homosexuality because it was biologically natural! “It’s the natural man, so it’s evil,” they declared. In other words, the research made no difference at all to these people. If anything, they started talking about how to “cure” homosexuality. For those of us who are comfortable with who we are, the cause of homosexuality really isn’t a big deal. We know we’re gay, and we just…”are.” If anything is certain from all the research, it’s that causation makes no difference to those who would condemn. |
One of the things I’m wondering is how a gene therapy would work and at what stage it would work. Would it be only possible to treat this in utero or on a small child? Could adolescents or adults be treated? Is this a surgical process? A medicinal approach? How instantaneous or permanent would the results be? This also raises a controversial issue, as changing sexual orientation isn’t necessarily a one-way street. If sexual orientation could be ‘flipped’ there would no doubt be some people who would want to be changed over from heterosexual to homosexual orientation. If parents could pre-determine the sexual orientation of their children, no doubt many would choose to do so … but the assumption seems to be that would be about changing homosexual genes to heterosexual genes. What if some really ‘progressive’ types decided they wanted a heterosexual child to become gay? Maybe that sounds crazy – but we already have a very imaginative and unusual sexual culture in this country. The idea and potential of being able to make these changes raises a host of new issues. As usual, objective scientific results can’t be wrested to serve any single social or political agenda. |
What if medical science obtained a full enough grasp on the human genome to allow parents to trigger other characteristics in their offspring, such as a preferred eye or hair color, height, etc.? Wouldn’t this cause an outcry from conservative religious types, alleging that scientists were “playing god?” Why should it be any different for parents to genetically manipulate their child’s sexual orientation? OH…I get it…because it’s fashionable this week to believe that being gay is a birth defect. |
“Nematode worms are millimeter-long creatures that live in soil all around the globe” That’s a bit like saying that mammals are hopping creatures with a long tail and a pouch that live in Australia. |
Left Field, I cobbled that definition from the articles I read on the subject. I’m no scientist. I’m willing to be corrected. What are they? |
This also raises a whole slew of questions regarding free agency. Just how “free” are we to make the choices we have to make in this life when so much is based on the proper chemical balance in our brains, or certain “switches” to be flipped. What constitutes our own personal choice then? |
danithew, I wasn’t really directing that at you; I was quoting the Tribune article, just as you were. Nematodes are a whole phylum of nearly 100,000 described species. They range in size from perhaps a tenth of a millimeter to many feet, and are extremely abundant in the soil, in freshwater, and in the ocean. Many species are parasitic, and there is no doubt that we all have some nematode parasites. The description given in the Tribune article is for the particular species studied, not for nematodes in general. The article doesn’t identify the species, but the description matches the common laboratory species, C. elegans, and it is almost certain that is the species studied. For the article to generalize to all nematodes is an error on the magnitude of attributing the characteristics of a rattlesnake to all vertebrates. |
Left Field, I actually appreciate the correction you’re making. I don’t know if I had ever even read the word “nematode” before I saw this article. So the information you’re providing is helping me to understand a little more about what is going on here … Dan, I have to agree with what you are saying in #10. There are a lot of new questions with this sort of thing and some of them regard the issue of free agency. |
Off the subject, probably, but a favorite billboard here in Lagos where I’m currently living advises “a worm-free family is a happy family.” They don’t say anything about the sexual orientation of the worms, though, — just advises us to get rid of them all. This is one tip to a happy family that I’ve never heard discussed at church. |
“I know personally people who have had sex with sheep and it doesn’t seem like the sheep objected too much”………Where those people New Zealanders? they enjoy…….. Goodness! I actually went to my second (October) sacrament meeting today (its 7:10pm Sunday Sydney time) then checked Mormon Mentality and the topic is…………sexuality of worms??? Well, it may be an Academic issue, but here?……….. When will Mormon Matters become active again? |
Carlos, if you can get past the title and read through the post (as you did) then it should be obvious that the ramifications of this study are important to Church members as well as to the larger world. The question of how to understand homosexuality, why and how homosexuality exists, whether to treat it or not, etc. and etc. have been faced both without and within the Church. I’m not saying this study resolves anything, really. But I think it provides some evidence that we (both Church members and the world in general) will have to think about homosexuality differently. Maybe the title and comments I’ve made haven’t been serious enough. Part of me likes the fact that scientific research is not serving any single social or political agenda – that what we are seeing from this would require everyone to make adjustments to their thinking. At the same time, I feel we have to recognize that this is a _huge_ personal issue for many people and they have really suffered in their efforts to resolve this, to figure out what they believe about it, etc. Of course the topic of homosexuality has far broader ramifications than our Church culture – but it’s something that we (in the Church) and our leadership are still figuring out. We need to arrive at a better understanding than we’ve had in the past and this study, whether it’s currently inconvenient in its conclusions or not, may be helpful in the long-run. |
I don’t think being gay is a birth defect. Actually, I have no clue what “it” is. I used to have pretty strong opinions, but now I’m simply lost. We were sitting at the dinner table with my sister, her gay son, her other son and his girlfriend, George’s brother, a strapping Marine who’s headed for Iraq, (remember, George is gay), and my daughter, several other family members. Mike said something about being confused about his sexuality and my sister, slightly drunk (that’s her usual self), made the slurred comment, “And I told him, Mike, I just can’t help you with this one.” And that brought the house down. We all fell on the floor laughing. Except George’s brother, who couldn’t believe we were having such a frank discussion because his parents are still thinking if they admit their son is gay, they’ll make him gay. But, Nick, that’s sort of how I feel, what my sister said when she expressed her complete and utter ability to comprehend her son’s circumstance. I just think God’s going to figure this all out in the millenium. |
Nick Literski: What if medical science obtained a full enough grasp on the human genome to allow parents to trigger other characteristics in their offspring, such as a preferred eye or hair color, height, etc.? I think it’s funny that these are the kinds of things that people always imagine when they think of genetically influencing babies. The way that you ask the question makes it all sound very superficial, and I think that this makes your question self-serving. What if medical science obtained a full enough grasp on the human genome to allow parents to trigger characteristics such as patience or empathy. What if it parents could choose gene therapy to give their child a better chance to have a healthy libido (as opposed to over-active or under-active) or make them a Republican. Would this mean that impatience or lack of empathy or unusual sex-drives or voting Democrat are birth defects? (OK, I’ll grant that being a Democrat may well be a birth defect, but besides that…) |
Okay, DKL, what if religiously-conservative parents could genetically manipulate their children to be more unquestioningly obedient to ecclesiastical authority figures? Not to be snarky, but I know a few LDS members who would jump at the chance, notwithstanding Lucifer’s role in the “war in heaven.” Talk about birth defects… Seriously though, I think you misunderstood my post. Many would decry attempts to genetically choose your child’s eye color, height, etc., because these are seen as natural, normal variations in the human species. The idea has come up before (when it was much less feasible), and religionists protested such a thing as “playing god.” There seems to be a cultural taboo against messing with accepted natural variations, such as appearance, I.Q., etc. These conservative religionists do not, however, perceive sexual orientation as an accepted, natural variation, even if it is genetially influenced. Therefore, they seem much more willing to “play god” in that arena. In order to justify this willingness, they have to conclude (and lately have concluded) that homosexuality is some sort of “birth defect,” and thus should be “cured” if possible. Just looking at last year’s “interview” of Oaks and Wickman, and you’ll see Wickman directly correlates “homosexual feelings” (since “homosexuality” doesn’t exist in his world) with his daughter’s unnamed mental or physical disability. |
Ugh. “Just look at…” |
Forget about eye color. Regardless of parental background and characteristics, if we can get these gene therapies done right while the children are still in utero, there’s no reason that we can’t get the fetuses to emerge from the womb as fully developed heterosexual adults in their mid-twenties – fully prepared to either go to medical school or sign a professional sports contract. Let’s just skip all the nonsense inbetween stuff. |
This is an interesting experiment. None of this is surprising as we are slowly finding out that so much of our behavior is encoded in our DNA. If it turns out that sexual orientation is genetic in some cases, so what. I think Nick had a good perspective on it. We already know that many good and bad traits are genetic. My fear is that people will call people with certain traits genetic mutants (Republicans aside DKL). The problem with this nomenclature is we have to define wild type or “normal”. Who is to say that homosexuality in some cases is not “normal” for that person. We may never know and I am not sure it even matters. |
My fear is that people will call people with certain traits genetic mutants. Heh..this reminds me of my favorite scene from any of the X-Men movies—films with a not-so-subtle political subtext. When one young man sits down with his parents to explain his special powers, his grief-stricken mother asks, “Well, have you ever tried not being a mutant?” :-) |
danithew: –there’s no reason that we can’t get the fetuses to emerge from the womb as fully developed heterosexual adults in their mid-twenties You mean like Richard Nixon was? |
I have a genetic condition. I’m colorblind. About 2% of the population of the US are colorblind. It sucks. I’m sure others don’t mind their colorblindness as much as I do. They’re happy to live with it. I’d rather not be colorblind. If they had a way to fix colorblindness, I would probably have it fixed. I see no difference between this and any other genetic condition that is unwanted, “abnormal” (“normal” being defined as the prevailing trait of a supermajority of the population), and fixable. If sexual perference is genetic, and there’s a way to change the genetic condition, and people decide they want to make that change, then there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to do so. |
Jota G. wrote: If sexual preference is genetic, and there’s a way to change the genetic condition, and people decide they want to make that change, then there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to do so. If you’re talking about an individual making the decision for himself/herself, then I agree. I’m a little bit concerned about the scenario when we talk about parents making genetic decisions for their children. Of course it has to do with the issue at hand and how politically nettlesome it is. I don’t think people would argue about parents deciding to fix colorblindness. If the option arose for parents to pre-determine the sexual orienation of their children, it would really hit a nerve. |
If sexual perference is genetic, and there’s a way to change the genetic condition, and people decide they want to make that change, then there is no reason they shouldn’t be able to do so. Agreed, when you talk about a consenting adult who wishes to make such a change. The situation spoken of, however, was one of parents manipulating the genetic sexual orientation of their unborn fetus. That is an entirely different matter. Furthermore, I imagine there are a good many ultra-conservative religionists who would like to actually require such genetic manipulation as a matter of law, in order to eradicate what they see as “heinous sin.” |
I don’t think people would argue about parents deciding to fix colorblindness. If the option arose for parents to pre-determine the sexual orienation of their children, it would really hit a nerve. I’m not sure if you meant it that way, danithew, but your post sounds like you believe such a thing would “really hit a nerve,” only because it’s a hot political issue. While that’s certainly a factor, I think the question is more complicated. How many colorblind people consider being colorblind an integral part of their identity? My partner happens to be colorblind, and my impression is he’d prefer not to be colorblind. Colorblindness is not “who he is,” or even “a part of him.” Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is very much a part of one’s core identity. I can’t see a person finding out at age 20 that his parents genetically changed his colorblindness, and having a crisis. I can, however, see a person finding out at age 20 that his parents genetically changed his sexual orientation, and having one hell of an identity crisis. |
No, it is not surprising that there is a actual gene that determines sex orientation (or sex drive). But like the researchers said, it has to be triggered. It will be interesting to read what the researchers used to trigger the gene. My point being that this still is a nature vs. nurture question. It doesn’t matter what genes you have until they are expressed or supressed which brings the enviornment back into play. I remember reading a paper once about how a single male mouse in a litter of female mice is less aggresive than a male mouse born with other male mice. I don’t remember if the male mice were genetically identical, but there was an argument that the hormonal enviornment in the womb effected the mouse’s behavior. There is homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, as far as I know they are a minority of the species (not fit for reproduction). Just guessing, but it sounds to me like a gene (or more) that is triggered under certain circumstances. What would be an interesting question is at what stage(s) of development can this gene be triggered. p.s. In the interest of full disclosure (or self promotion) I worked in Dr. Jorgensen’s lab for 2 years. He is an amazing scientist. |
Here is an article with a related idea … “In their mid-thirties, both college graduates, both holders of graduate degrees from Gallaudet University, both professionals in the mental health field — sat in their kitchen trying to envision life if their son turned out not to be deaf. It was something they had a hard time getting their minds around. When they were looking for a donor to inseminate Sharon, one thing they knew was that they wanted a deaf donor. So they contacted a local sperm bank and asked whether the bank would provide one. The sperm bank said no; congenital deafness is precisely the sort of condition that, in the world of commercial reproductive technology, gets a would-be donor eliminated.” A World of Their Own In the eyes of his parents, if Gauvin Hughes McCullough turns out to be deaf, that will be just perfect |
#13 made me laugh out loud. we vermicompost and have bins of worms in our backyard. |
Do you think I should tell my friend? I mean, now everyone on this blog knows her son is gay. Although you don’t know their names. I feel sort of crappy about it, not telling her. |
Danithew, I was just being flippant back there. Couldn’t help it after the ‘sheep’ thing! And although there is a place to study generic inclinations to homosexuality and related issues, I really think we should be careful here. Homosexuality, the act not the temptation, has always being the sin against nature and, contrary to the Blacks & Priesthood issue, that sin is spoken of as a sin repeatedly in the scriptures. Today the church is thinking about how to reach out to and relate to people so inclined but I can’t see that it is thinking about things like accepting a gay marriage or similar. To the contrary, it’s going against this. Maybe they will stop excommunicating active gays and only disfellowshipping or similar. But we need to be careful where people use a particular scientific study or claim to say that ‘see, they can’t help it so it shouldn’t be a sin’. That’s changing several fundamental beliefs of the church. |
annegb, Don’t tell her unless the subject comes up specifically. |
okay. I’m not bringing it up, that’s for sure. I did that once and it didn’t go well. She just does not want to hear it. I think he came out to his dad last weekend. I know he came out to his dad, anyway, sometime. |