2010-04-14, 05:30 AM
Quick summary of the science:
1. There is no one "gay gene". It would likely be very difficult to genetic engineer babies to not be gay.
2. Sexual orientation is influenced strongly by genes, but is not primarily genetic. However, taken together, genes and environmental factors that are NOT considered nurture (primarily the conditions in the mother's womb) explain 70-100% of sexual orientation, depending on the study.
3. The "gay genes" would not be eradicated from society even if no gay people had biological children from this point forward. Many of the "gay genes" so far found are located on the X chromosome and are carried by (straight) women, who often have increased fertility as a result of these genes. Therefore, evolutionarily speaking, a certain risk of homosexual children could be a "price" paid for higher overall female fertility.
4. There are real biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, especially in the way we produce and respond to hormones and pheromones.
Gay marriage is the political issue that I feel the most strongly about by far, and the sad thing is... It shouldn't be a political issue. I have not heard one counterargument that holds any logical water. No one is forcing any church to marry gays. This is just about two adults of consenting age (i.e. not children, animals, etc. which are legally unable to consent, hence not able to sign a binding contract) being able to go to the courthouse and sign a contract so that they will be able to take care of and provide for each other for the forseeable future, as any two adults of consenting age should be able to legally enter into any kind of contract they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
Many people I know (gay and straight) are in favor of abolishing legal marriage as a concept, transferring all the rights currently reserved for it to civil unions, and allowing all couples, gay or straight, to get civil unions, and get married in or out of churches if they wish. I would love for this idea to be implemented, but with our current sound byte political culture, I seriously doubt it would fly. (OMG THEY KILL MARRIAGE!!1) It makes the most sense though, because it separates in the public consciousness what has always been separate in the United States, the legal contract two people sign when they get married, and the social event and construct and morals behind marriage.
The state should stay out of marriage as much as possible. It's between two consenting adults first, then between whatever religious, family, and social groups the couple wishes to share it with. But forbidding gay couples from taking care of each other when sick (in Florida, a partner of 30 years could not visit their unconscious partner in the hospital, because they are considered a stranger!), from having joint custody of their children if anything should happen to the custodial parent, from sharing insurance and taxes and pensions the way that heterosexual couples take for granted...? That's just pure discrimination.
1. There is no one "gay gene". It would likely be very difficult to genetic engineer babies to not be gay.
2. Sexual orientation is influenced strongly by genes, but is not primarily genetic. However, taken together, genes and environmental factors that are NOT considered nurture (primarily the conditions in the mother's womb) explain 70-100% of sexual orientation, depending on the study.
3. The "gay genes" would not be eradicated from society even if no gay people had biological children from this point forward. Many of the "gay genes" so far found are located on the X chromosome and are carried by (straight) women, who often have increased fertility as a result of these genes. Therefore, evolutionarily speaking, a certain risk of homosexual children could be a "price" paid for higher overall female fertility.
4. There are real biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, especially in the way we produce and respond to hormones and pheromones.
Gay marriage is the political issue that I feel the most strongly about by far, and the sad thing is... It shouldn't be a political issue. I have not heard one counterargument that holds any logical water. No one is forcing any church to marry gays. This is just about two adults of consenting age (i.e. not children, animals, etc. which are legally unable to consent, hence not able to sign a binding contract) being able to go to the courthouse and sign a contract so that they will be able to take care of and provide for each other for the forseeable future, as any two adults of consenting age should be able to legally enter into any kind of contract they wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
Many people I know (gay and straight) are in favor of abolishing legal marriage as a concept, transferring all the rights currently reserved for it to civil unions, and allowing all couples, gay or straight, to get civil unions, and get married in or out of churches if they wish. I would love for this idea to be implemented, but with our current sound byte political culture, I seriously doubt it would fly. (OMG THEY KILL MARRIAGE!!1) It makes the most sense though, because it separates in the public consciousness what has always been separate in the United States, the legal contract two people sign when they get married, and the social event and construct and morals behind marriage.
The state should stay out of marriage as much as possible. It's between two consenting adults first, then between whatever religious, family, and social groups the couple wishes to share it with. But forbidding gay couples from taking care of each other when sick (in Florida, a partner of 30 years could not visit their unconscious partner in the hospital, because they are considered a stranger!), from having joint custody of their children if anything should happen to the custodial parent, from sharing insurance and taxes and pensions the way that heterosexual couples take for granted...? That's just pure discrimination.