‘Bureaucratic advising system’ makes enrolling difficult
I was determined to get my schedule set up for the Spring semester, but I ran into several problems registering. It was neither the schedule book nor my registering time, but the overwhelming design of the bureaucratic advising system here on campus that was more troubling than ever.
You meet with your academic advisor who only guides you with General Education courses, but then when you meet with your major adviser, they are not aware of G.E. requirements.
How can you plan your schedule with different inputs suggested?
This bureaucratic advising system is way too complicated.There should only be one adviser that can answer both G.E. and major requirements.
Other universities provide services where students only have one adviser. Why not here?
This is discouraging for students.
I had to make two separate appointments on two separate days to only find myself in a deep hole. I was more confused after seeing two different advisers and highly discouraged to return.
If this campus wants to continue promoting and improving academic achievements of students, they must fix the bureaucratic advising system here on campus.
Rebeka O. Garcia
Freshman
Pre-Physical Therapy
Students urged to offer help to charities during holiday season
As we approach the holiday season, I dearly hope that everyone thinks of all those who are less fortunate than ourselves.
Around 21 percent of Fresno’s denizens live in extreme poverty — that’s one out of five people who probably can’t afford a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner.
This statistic is an abomination to our community. Consider this, and consider helping the situation.
Instead of just lounging around in anticipation of ridiculous amounts of mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes and gifts from your rich Uncle Bob, try volunteering your able labor at the Bulldog Pantry, Poverello House, the Community Food Bank and other such establishments.
The Bulldog Pantry is located on Shaw and Jackson, across the street from the University Health Center — easily accessible for students and faculty.
If you are unable to physically lend a hand, a simple donation, however small, can make a vast difference. Another great reference point to start with is www.volunteermatch.org/search, where you can search for places at which to volunteer, maybe finding another cause you̢۪d like to champion.
Knowing that you̢۪ve helped decrease the destitution of this city is one of the best things you can give thanks for.
Give someone the comfort of knowing that there are still people who care about the welfare of the homeless and impoverished. Give a little of what every person wants and a lot of people take for granted, the best gift a person can receive during the holidays — love.
Jacqueline Aldern
Freshman
Studio Art
Price of textbooks too large a burden for average students
Aside from the cost of tuition and housing, students like myself are now being forced to pay up to $1,000 a year on textbooks.
I̢۪ve tried sharing books with classmates or not buying the books at all, but both these options make it harder to succeed in my classes.
As a student taking an average of 18 units a semester, I find myself spending close to $500 on books alone, sometimes in vain when I find that teachers don‘t even use some of the books required for the class.
I try to purchase books online at cheaper prices, but most teachers require the newest editions, (which in my opinion are only made to help book sales) not to mention the fact that when a new edition comes out, selling your book back to the school is useless.
Most students only receive about one-fifth of their money back and end up with books they don̢۪t want.
The book store should develop a way to rent books to students at cheaper prices, and charge for damages or lost books.
It would also be helpful if the majority of textbooks could be found in the library, even if you can̢۪t rent them out.
As a student I want to stick to sources like half.com simply to not be participating in this monopoly of book sales.
Dayna Waterworth
Freshman
Pre-Occupational Therapy Major
Construction near major campus intersection an ‘annoyance’
The construction on the corner of Cedar and Shaw has become extremely bothersome.
I live in Graves Hall, so I am constantly driving by Cedar and Shaw. The construction just congests everything and causes driving to last much longer than it should. While construction is going, there is either only one lane or no left or right turns. This forces drivers to locate detours and find their way around the construction.
I do realize that the school is just trying to improve the roads by our school, but why couldn̢۪t this construction be done over the summer where it would not cause so much annoyance?
It just doesn̢۪t seem like this construction plan was given much thought.
Robert Delmanowski
Freshman
Business
Title IX places ‘unnecessary burdens’ on athletic departments
As students, we must grapple with raising tuition and other student fees at Fresno State as the university tries to adjust to a shrinking budget.
The addition of a lacrosse program to the athletic department increases expenditures when less funding is available to the school, all in the name of gender equality. Despite its noble purpose, Title IX is placing unnecessary burdens on universities across the nation, including Fresno State, in its call for compliance in establishing an environment of gender equality.
In order to offset the costs of football, common men’s sports, like soccer and wrestling, have been cut while women’s sports that have no roots in the Valley, like lacrosse, have been added. There is a certain irony in the fact that Title IX is responsible for men’s exclusion from soccer, swimming and diving at Fresno State — all of which have women’s programs — in its promotion of gender equality.
Fresno State’s baseball and softball teams — each with a national championship — are highly esteemed, as well as the men’s and women’s basketball teams for their NCAA tournament appearances. The issue at Fresno State is not the need to create more opportunities for women (often achieved at the expense of men’s sports), but to ensure equality among all programs, regardless of gender.
All athletic programs at Fresno State should receive the same treatment, attention and support from the university, from the football program to the lacrosse team.
Samantha Peel
Freshman
History
Californians should watch courts’ ‘Judicial strong-arming’
Fellow Americans, arise from your snoozing! We may soon see the court system do the inconceivable — that is, rule that part of the constitution itself is unconstitutional!
Apparently some of those who opposed Proposition 8 are ready to ignore the wisdom of the majority, as well as the foundation of Western civilization in general, and try to use the courts to ram their demented version of marriage on the rest of us.
It was judicial strong-arming that made Proposition 8 necessary in the first place. Now, it̢۪s going to be interesting to see just how brazen and shameless the courts will be in supporting this effort to override the will of the people. Whatever happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
Every year, we celebrate the Revolution in which our predecessors risked possessions, life, and limb in order to free themselves from a tyrannical foreign monarch who was accountable to no one. Do we have the character to preserve our democratic republic from domestic tyrants who arrogantly display their lack of accountability to, and contempt for, the people?
Shall we remain silent while the power of our votes becomes completely nullified?
Not me!
Brad Taylor
Fresno State Alumnus
turkey - day • Dec 3, 2008 at 12:02 am
SAO i am sorry to say its not gonna happen with a textbook paln. Our student government, our administrators our whoever represents us has been saying they would do something for years.
Your best option is to boycott the bookstore and buy on AMAZON.com or ebay.com they have cheaper books and belive me, there are acutally enough tudents starting to do this that the campus bookstore and those who are robbing us are feeling the pinch. We need to give our business to someone else rather than to those who are taking our money.
turkey - day • Dec 3, 2008 at 7:02 am
SAO i am sorry to say its not gonna happen with a textbook paln. Our student government, our administrators our whoever represents us has been saying they would do something for years.
Your best option is to boycott the bookstore and buy on AMAZON.com or ebay.com they have cheaper books and belive me, there are acutally enough tudents starting to do this that the campus bookstore and those who are robbing us are feeling the pinch. We need to give our business to someone else rather than to those who are taking our money.
Sao • Dec 2, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I completely agree with you, Dayna, text books are overpriced, especially if they were just a minor update from the previous edition. Instructor who requires book that they don’t even use should just recommend them to their students instead of forcing them to buy it. It’s barely my first year in college and I’ve spent over 400 dollars on book including two textbooks which I don’t even use. I feel that since the library is still under construction we’re forced to buy these books. Publisher should stop updating these books unless it’s going to be some major changes within it and stop wasting so much paper. With the economy the way it is, we should spend our money wisely and having to buy books that we won’t even use is not helping.
Sao • Dec 3, 2008 at 5:35 am
I completely agree with you, Dayna, text books are overpriced, especially if they were just a minor update from the previous edition. Instructor who requires book that they don’t even use should just recommend them to their students instead of forcing them to buy it. It’s barely my first year in college and I’ve spent over 400 dollars on book including two textbooks which I don’t even use. I feel that since the library is still under construction we’re forced to buy these books. Publisher should stop updating these books unless it’s going to be some major changes within it and stop wasting so much paper. With the economy the way it is, we should spend our money wisely and having to buy books that we won’t even use is not helping.
undercover • Dec 1, 2008 at 10:56 am
yeah they should also let us park after 3:30 in the save mart lot so we can just go park and not worry about fussing imn between the late afternoon to walk way the F&^$#K over there and move it into general parking.
WELTY needs to get his head together so we can have sufficient parking. Campus safety is ajoke. cant we do something about it…..and i hope no one tells me to go to my student body govt. cause they are incompetent
undercover • Dec 1, 2008 at 5:56 pm
yeah they should also let us park after 3:30 in the save mart lot so we can just go park and not worry about fussing imn between the late afternoon to walk way the F&^$#K over there and move it into general parking.
WELTY needs to get his head together so we can have sufficient parking. Campus safety is ajoke. cant we do something about it…..and i hope no one tells me to go to my student body govt. cause they are incompetent
Arianna Thomas • Nov 30, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Aggravation of on Campus Parking
With a new semester coming up every one at Fresno State knows that means you better get to campus fifteen minutes earlier than you usually would just for a parking spot. Any one who drives to school knows the aggravation of trying to find somewhere to park and at the cost of sixty eight dollars a semester there should be a front roll stall for you every time. However all the close parking spot are for the faculty. The members of the Fresno State faculty do deserve a designated area just for them to park, but not even half of the spots are occupied. It is upsetting that we students are continuously driving in circles, in and out of rows, trying to find a fellow student leaving so we can snag their spot, when there are dozens of empty stalls not being used right by our classes. And don̢۪t even try to park in the yellow area, because you will receive a twenty- five-dollar parking ticket on top of the sixty-eight dollars you already paid just to park on campus. With a new record of incoming freshman you would think that they could open up some of the reserved parking and relieve students̢۪ struggle of looking for parking, especially when no one is using them.
Arianna Thomas • Dec 1, 2008 at 5:18 am
Aggravation of on Campus Parking
With a new semester coming up every one at Fresno State knows that means you better get to campus fifteen minutes earlier than you usually would just for a parking spot. Any one who drives to school knows the aggravation of trying to find somewhere to park and at the cost of sixty eight dollars a semester there should be a front roll stall for you every time. However all the close parking spot are for the faculty. The members of the Fresno State faculty do deserve a designated area just for them to park, but not even half of the spots are occupied. It is upsetting that we students are continuously driving in circles, in and out of rows, trying to find a fellow student leaving so we can snag their spot, when there are dozens of empty stalls not being used right by our classes. And don’t even try to park in the yellow area, because you will receive a twenty- five-dollar parking ticket on top of the sixty-eight dollars you already paid just to park on campus. With a new record of incoming freshman you would think that they could open up some of the reserved parking and relieve students’ struggle of looking for parking, especially when no one is using them.
junior • Nov 29, 2008 at 11:01 am
Actually, I can’t see how I’ve been refuted. All you’ve said is that nothing will change, but you’ve provided no reason for that other than saying the slippery slope argument is unreliable. Believe me, sometimes it’s reliable. If it weren’t, women still wouldn’t be able to vote, an African American wouldn’t be president and anything else that wasn’t once widely accepted would still be on the back burner. I’m not saying the slippery slope is a bad thing, I’m just saying that things have a tendency to work in a natural progression.
Things will change. Please don’t be blind to that. Things will definitely change. Gay marriage may not be the cause, but the principles behind it are. Oh and by the way, I never said anything about dogs, but who knows, maybe in a hundred years. Truth is, you don’t know either. I mean, if same sex couples can marry, why not cousins or brothers? Who are you to say where it ends or what people’s preferences are? Are you gonna tell someone that incest is morally wrong if they sincerely believe it isn’t? You see, I’m not the one who’s naive because I understand that everything that was meant to happen, happens. It’s just society progressing over time.
junior • Nov 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Actually, I can’t see how I’ve been refuted. All you’ve said is that nothing will change, but you’ve provided no reason for that other than saying the slippery slope argument is unreliable. Believe me, sometimes it’s reliable. If it weren’t, women still wouldn’t be able to vote, an African American wouldn’t be president and anything else that wasn’t once widely accepted would still be on the back burner. I’m not saying the slippery slope is a bad thing, I’m just saying that things have a tendency to work in a natural progression.
Things will change. Please don’t be blind to that. Things will definitely change. Gay marriage may not be the cause, but the principles behind it are. Oh and by the way, I never said anything about dogs, but who knows, maybe in a hundred years. Truth is, you don’t know either. I mean, if same sex couples can marry, why not cousins or brothers? Who are you to say where it ends or what people’s preferences are? Are you gonna tell someone that incest is morally wrong if they sincerely believe it isn’t? You see, I’m not the one who’s naive because I understand that everything that was meant to happen, happens. It’s just society progressing over time.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 29, 2008 at 10:15 am
So you’re employing a slippery slope argument? What, next are you going to claim that people might be able to marry their dogs? Gay marriage being legalized meant only that GAY PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO GET CIVIL MARRIAGES. Nothing else. You’ve gone through the whole spectrum of arguments against gay marriage only to be refuted time and again. Give it up already.
Homosexuality is a normal sexuality that should not be ignored. The main concern is that gay students do not feel ostracized or devalued. Which is why gender neutrality when referring to partners is the norm in schools now, and when human sexuality is mentioned it is a part of that. And, frankly, gay folks being able to get hitched wasn’t the cause of that. Society’s progression in understanding human sexuality was.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 29, 2008 at 5:15 pm
So you’re employing a slippery slope argument? What, next are you going to claim that people might be able to marry their dogs? Gay marriage being legalized meant only that GAY PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO GET CIVIL MARRIAGES. Nothing else. You’ve gone through the whole spectrum of arguments against gay marriage only to be refuted time and again. Give it up already.
Homosexuality is a normal sexuality that should not be ignored. The main concern is that gay students do not feel ostracized or devalued. Which is why gender neutrality when referring to partners is the norm in schools now, and when human sexuality is mentioned it is a part of that. And, frankly, gay folks being able to get hitched wasn’t the cause of that. Society’s progression in understanding human sexuality was.
junior • Nov 29, 2008 at 9:50 am
Well, the truth is, neither of us really knows what’s going to come of this. It’s not for me to say what’s normal and abnormal, only what the effects might possibly be. And there is a big difference between a sex ed. video and porn. My high school sex ed class was only observing what happens to sperm when it enters the uterus.
But I’m just saying if sex education is strictly about reproduction and pregnancy, then homosexuality has no place in it. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, but it could matter to some. You might be right. If gay marriage passes for good, they may not bring it up in school at all. But it was only legal for a very short time. We’ll just have to see what happens when it’s made permanently legal. Remember, things don’t happen unless someone addresses it. How long do you think gay marriage will ride before someone speaks up and says schools or other institutions are bias towards heterosexuality?
junior • Nov 29, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Well, the truth is, neither of us really knows what’s going to come of this. It’s not for me to say what’s normal and abnormal, only what the effects might possibly be. And there is a big difference between a sex ed. video and porn. My high school sex ed class was only observing what happens to sperm when it enters the uterus.
But I’m just saying if sex education is strictly about reproduction and pregnancy, then homosexuality has no place in it. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you, but it could matter to some. You might be right. If gay marriage passes for good, they may not bring it up in school at all. But it was only legal for a very short time. We’ll just have to see what happens when it’s made permanently legal. Remember, things don’t happen unless someone addresses it. How long do you think gay marriage will ride before someone speaks up and says schools or other institutions are bias towards heterosexuality?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 28, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Junior, I really encourage improving your reading comprehension skills, and also an understanding that I’m talking about neutrality when discussing partners. You know, not assuming that a guy is going to end up with a chick and vice versa? That was the extent of it, shocker! Because Sex Ed is mostly about teaching teens about the reproductive system, pregnancy, and how to avoid both pregnancy and STDs. And if we really want to get into marriage, what exactly is the worst that can happen, “Two adults can get married”?
Did you go to private school or something? Because when I was in public school ten years ago we never watched internal porn, heterosexual or otherwise. We did, however, watch a video of a water birth. What, are you afraid that high schools will start showing gay porn? PLEASE.
Again, gay marriage was ALREADY legal, and nothing changed. Heterosexuality may be the common sexuality, but homosexuality is also normal on the spectrum of human sexuality. Those ads claiming that kids were going to be taught “teh gay” were lies. How many times do I have to refute this before you get it?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 29, 2008 at 4:41 am
Junior, I really encourage improving your reading comprehension skills, and also an understanding that I’m talking about neutrality when discussing partners. You know, not assuming that a guy is going to end up with a chick and vice versa? That was the extent of it, shocker! Because Sex Ed is mostly about teaching teens about the reproductive system, pregnancy, and how to avoid both pregnancy and STDs. And if we really want to get into marriage, what exactly is the worst that can happen, “Two adults can get married”?
Did you go to private school or something? Because when I was in public school ten years ago we never watched internal porn, heterosexual or otherwise. We did, however, watch a video of a water birth. What, are you afraid that high schools will start showing gay porn? PLEASE.
Again, gay marriage was ALREADY legal, and nothing changed. Heterosexuality may be the common sexuality, but homosexuality is also normal on the spectrum of human sexuality. Those ads claiming that kids were going to be taught “teh gay” were lies. How many times do I have to refute this before you get it?
dw • Nov 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Weirdo…
I’m not debating you, and you seem to reach the same point I’ve been saying (and I will repeat it so people as dense as you will get it!
The research on whether there is a gay gene or not is inconclusive–I hope weirdo you know what that means. Science can not say definitely whether there is one or not. Every time some researcher says no, another researcher says yes or maybe.
Of course, there’s also wide debate among some forensic scientists about the validity of DNA evidence and on fingerprint identification. Nothing in science is absolute!
As for NARTH, quit being lazy and do a Google Search!
dw • Nov 28, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Weirdo…
I’m not debating you, and you seem to reach the same point I’ve been saying (and I will repeat it so people as dense as you will get it!
The research on whether there is a gay gene or not is inconclusive–I hope weirdo you know what that means. Science can not say definitely whether there is one or not. Every time some researcher says no, another researcher says yes or maybe.
Of course, there’s also wide debate among some forensic scientists about the validity of DNA evidence and on fingerprint identification. Nothing in science is absolute!
As for NARTH, quit being lazy and do a Google Search!
junior • Nov 28, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hey Jo, you’ve gotta be incredibly naive to believe that sex education has no gender specifity. I don’t know how old you are or if you’ve ever taken a sex ed. class, but in the one I took years ago, every book, graph, picture or video portrayed a man and his biological counterpart, a woman. There was even a video showing the internal act of sex between the two.
Now if gay marriage passes, the schools are gonna have to make a choice. They will either have to rid all references to heterosexuality in particular which I can’t imagine is possible, or provide both versions of sexuality as valid and acceptable. Because you know if wouldn’t be fair if they didn’t offer advice for both preferences. So which is it?
junior • Nov 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Hey Jo, you’ve gotta be incredibly naive to believe that sex education has no gender specifity. I don’t know how old you are or if you’ve ever taken a sex ed. class, but in the one I took years ago, every book, graph, picture or video portrayed a man and his biological counterpart, a woman. There was even a video showing the internal act of sex between the two.
Now if gay marriage passes, the schools are gonna have to make a choice. They will either have to rid all references to heterosexuality in particular which I can’t imagine is possible, or provide both versions of sexuality as valid and acceptable. Because you know if wouldn’t be fair if they didn’t offer advice for both preferences. So which is it?
weirdo • Nov 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm
DW you got me there ….im not about to read that whole damn thing……i knew you would come back with some unfactual source like a “SEATTLE TIMES” newspaper writer.
I alos apologize i dont know what is NARTH, is that a new vocab word ?
as a student studying biology let me clue you in on better links that have real research
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
and another link
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
your better off starting here DW if you want to understand the fact that there has been no proven existence of a gay gene.
Those who claimed there “may be a gay gene” are just giving an opinion not a fact.
The media which it seems you like to rely on for sources twists things around.
weirdo • Nov 27, 2008 at 8:33 pm
DW you got me there ….im not about to read that whole damn thing……i knew you would come back with some unfactual source like a “SEATTLE TIMES” newspaper writer.
I alos apologize i dont know what is NARTH, is that a new vocab word ?
as a student studying biology let me clue you in on better links that have real research
http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/Pierce/gaygene.htm
and another link
http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html
your better off starting here DW if you want to understand the fact that there has been no proven existence of a gay gene.
Those who claimed there “may be a gay gene” are just giving an opinion not a fact.
The media which it seems you like to rely on for sources twists things around.
dw • Nov 27, 2008 at 10:03 am
Weirdo, you are weird alright, but I suspect your “source” is either NARTH or one of the hate groups. Below is an article that does a good job of summarizing the debate…
The Mystique of the Phantom “Gay Gene”
by Philip L. Bereano, Seattle Times
February 26th, 1996
“If homosexuality is inherited, shouldn’t it have died out by now?”- two women talking in a New Yorker cartoon.
Last October 10th the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Romer v Evans, concerning Amendment 2 to the Colorado Constitution, adopted by referendum, which would bar all state and local laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The courts in Colorado had thrown out the Amendment by claiming that it infringed on the “fundamental right to participate equally in the political process” by “fencing out an independently identifiable class of persons” without showing that the amendment “support(ed) a compelling state interest” and was “narrowly tailored to meet that interest.”
In the proceedings in the lower Colorado courts, one of the witnesses was a Federal scientist, Dean Hamer, who testified that homosexuality was a genetically caused, rather than a cultural or chosen, behavior. He was put on the stand by gay rights activists trying to utilize language of an earlier Supreme Court case which suggested that government’s ability to protect a group of people from discrimination might somehow be linked to the “immutability” of the characteristic which defined that group.
Although the “immutability” criteria was not part of the arguments voiced before the Supreme Court last October, there is significant social debate on whether homosexuality is a biological characteristic.
Is There A “Gay Gene”?
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation go back about a century when the British sexual investigators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter urged ending the laws against same-sex sexual activities because people engaging in them were biologically different from those who had opposite-sex partners; they called such people “inverts.” The term “homosexual” had been in use as a somewhat clinical adjective for describing certain activities (sex between two men or two women); in the late nineteenth century it began to be used as a noun to designate a person who engaged in such behavior-although it is unclear how often or how exclusively one had to be doing the act in order to earn the label.
While the modern gay rights movement has gotten nine states and a number of localities to extend ordinary civil rights protections to cover sexual minorities, right-wing extremists have whipped up fiscal contributions, media attention, and political power by attempting to pass laws and referenda prohibiting such civil rights protection, which they misleadingly call “special rights.”
Whether to look to nature or nurture to explain sexual orientation does not align with political belief. Although some conservatives believe that homosexuality is a sin (i.e. chosen behavior for which one is responsible), a biological explanation would facilitate eugenic “improvements” of the population, a goal of right-wing authoritarians since the days of Darwin. Among progressives, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force relies on biology to claim that “homosexuality is a naturally occurring and common variation among humans,” while the Council for Responsible Genetics last month issued a white paper arguing that the scientific basis for such claims is exceedingly weak and irrelevant to the notion that gay people should be protected from the discrimination directed towards them.
Some of the researchers who are gay have made it explicit that they are involved in this research because they want to prove that gay behaviors are not “unnatural,” or “crimes against nature,” nor-if their sexual orientation has a biological foundation-is it their “fault” that they are gay. Yet posing the question of what causes individuals to be lesbian or gay exemplifies homophobia itself by implying that heterosexuality, because it predominates, is more “natural” or “normal,” and that homosexuality therefore represents a “problem” in need of a “solution.” Since gay behaviors have been recorded in virtually all known cultures, they must be both as normal and as natural human orientations as heterosexual activities.
In our society people are subjected to discrimination precisely on the basis of biology (for example due to sex, or skin color) as well as because of differences that are cultural (such as ethnicity or religion). An examination of the African-American and women’s movements amply demonstrates incidences where focusing on differences in biology have been used to further oppression rather than secure liberation. American slavery was rationalized on biological grounds, as was the Nazi persecution of Jews.
Indeed, in 1539 the theologian Sebastian Munster based his anti-Semitism explicitly on imagined physical attributes; “you Jews” he wrote, “have a peculiar color of face different from the form and figure of other men.” Unfortunately, these old ideas still persist. Last year the Federal Sixth Court of Appeals, upholding a Cincinnati referendum denying homosexuals “protected status” against discrimination, said that it was impossible to have a law shielding a minority from discrimination where they are “defined by subjective and unapparent characteristics such as innate desires, drives and thoughts. . . . Many homosexuals successfully conceal their orientation. . . . Homosexuals generally are not identifiable ‘on sight’. . . .” Does this mean that it’s OK to discriminate against Mormons, Baptists, or Pentecostals waiting for the rapture?
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. Since we are biological organisms, of course, virtually everything we do has some biological components. But seeking a definitive basis of homosexuality in genetics risks oversimplifying our view of human behaviors, and ultimately of our world.
Genetic Fixation
“At last we will know what it truly means to be human,” exulted biologist James Watson (who received the Nobel Prize for his work for discovering the DNA double helix), as if Shakespeare, for example, had no inkling. The media is currently filled with a revival of earlier biodeterminist arguments attributing a wide range of physiological, psychological, and social characteristics to genetics. Reports claim that a host of disparate behaviors-the enjoyment of shopping, environmentalism, even the propensity to be raped-arise from genetic configuration, as implausible as these may sound.
It appears that this attempt to “geneticize” social activities and behaviors is a manifestation of our society’s unwillingness to deal directly with social problems by mounting appropriate remedial social programs.
What Does the Science Say?
The studies which people usually refer to support the existence of a “gay gene” do not offer a clear conclusion. The most frequently cited one was published in 1993 by Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. They examined DNA samples from men who self-identified as gay and other gay family members. They claimed to have found a DNA segment, called a “marker,” which correlates with sexual orientation-but only in 2/3s of the men. Hamer’s group did not feel it necessary to check out whether any of the straight men in these families shared the marker.
Hamer’s study is significantly compromised by his definition of who is “gay”, using an extremely conservative estimate for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men, 2%. If one used instead the commonly accepted estimate of 5-10%, the statistical significance of his results would be severely reduced or would vanish. However, there is a large population of American men who have sexual relations with other males but do not identify as gay, as well as numerous men who identify as gay or bisexual and have had sexual relationships or marriages with women-and have sometimes even fathered children. This error of confusing homosexual activities and homosexual essence goes back to the 19th century work of Ellis and Carpenter.
We also need to be aware that the federal Office of Research Integrity is investigating Hamer’s study because one of his collaborators has alleged that the research team suppressed data which would have weakened the statistical significance of its findings.
A Canadian researcher has reported his inability to replicate Hamer’s results but Hamer himself has recently published another study claiming to reproduce these conclusions (only finding the marker within a smaller percentage of gay men, however).
Although Hamer was recently quoted as saying “there is no ‘gay gene’ and I’ve never thought there was. Genes play a role and there is probably more than one of them and other factors as well,” this statement backpedals from his triumphant 1993 claims of having found “the first concrete evidence that ‘gay genes’ really do exist,” made extensively in the print media and as a featured guest on “Nightline” and “The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour.”
None of the results of any of these studies support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.
Another claim for a biological link to homosexuality was made in 1991 by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, who concluded that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay men than in straight ones, more like the size seen in heterosexual women (although he had no evidence whatsoever regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined). LeVay’s study utilized the brains of corpses, who were categorized by sexual orientation on the basis of circumstantial evidence. All of the “gay men” in LeVay’s study had died of AIDS; the disease is known to sometimes affect brain structure, and the wide variety of drugs and therapeutic regimes these people have undergone also introduce confounding factors. Amazingly, some of the study’s “gay” cadavers had larger structures than in the “straight” ones, so that upon inspection there would be no basis for deciding whether a given corpse had been “gay” or “straight” when alive.
The literature also reports some animal investigations in which hormonal changes, in some studies caused by genetic engineering, result in activity which the researchers called “gay”. In one study, male fruit flies rubbed each other and ignored nearby females; how would these researchers characterize the prolonged physical interaction among human males in a football game? Are we dealing merely with metaphors?
Studies of twins and other siblings have been relied on for additional arguments that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. The best known study, by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers in their sample about 10% were both gay, a rate which is often attributed to the prevalence of homosexuals in the population. According to their data, the rate of homosexuality among fraternal twins was 22%, and 52% for identical twins .
Identical twins, of course, have exactly the same genetic makeup, so at first glance the fact that the rate of homosexuality is five times higher among identical twins than non-twins would seem to support a genetic basis to sexual orientation. However, the finding that fraternal twins of gay men (who biologically are the same as brothers born in separate pregnancies) were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers indicates that environmental factors probably play an important role in sexual orientation. Much of the world thinks of identical twins as being the “same” and treats them accordingly, and these twins often share intense feelings of sameness. Thus, it might not be surprising that an even higher portion among identical twins would exhibit similar behaviors. Catholicism runs in families too, but is unlikely to be biological.
Homophobia-which is clearly an environmental factor-probably distorted Bailey and Pillard’s sample. The researchers did not study a random sample of men. The participants “were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications.” Thus, all of the study participants read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, open about their sexuality. In addition, the ads asked readers about their brothers; although the ads wanted gay men to call in regardless of the brother’s sexual orientation, readers with gay brothers would be more likely to participate than men with straight brothers if the straight brothers were homophobic or if the gay ones were not “out” to their families. Since so many people already believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin who has read the ad-especially a gay identical twin- will feel that his own sexual orientation is suspect. He may be threatened by the study, and refuse to participate in it. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay and “out” they might find the study interesting and be eager to volunteer.
So What?
The potential for mischief in relying on these studies and the potential for misuse if a gay gene ever were found, is substantial. A recent cover story in The Advocate, a major national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, had the subtitle “Once a Gay Gene is Found, Can Gene ‘Therapy’ Be Far Behind?” Although both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association take the view that homosexuality is not an illness and that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation would be wrong, it is clear that the idea of using a marker or gene to predict which male fetuses are gay for purposes of terminating such pregnancies, or to subject young boys to “remedial” education, reprogramming or other so-called “therapies” will inevitably be voiced.
“Homosexuality is a disability and if people wish to have it eliminated before they have children-because they wish to have grandchildren or for other reasons-I do not see any moral objection for using genetic engineering to limit this particular trend. It would be like correcting many other conditions such as infertility or multiple sclerosis.” These are not the words of some Neo-Nazi propagandist or mad scientist, but the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jakobovits, in 1993.
The Armed Forces and other employers could use information from mandatory blood samples ( which they currently require for drug testing or DNA identification banks) to weed out “undesirables”.
We need to keep our eyes on the real social issue behind all of the interest in the gay gene-homophobia and societal discrimination. Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against the discrimination based on their sexual orientation. It is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality would provide a quick technological fix for the social problem of discrimination. Only social and political remedies will counter unjust and unequal treatment of people.
Biology is not the issue. Society at present protects people against discrimination for behaviors which are not biological. Whether people’s differentiation is cultural (such as religious) or purely the result of choice (such as marital status or political affiliation, protected in many jurisdictions, or religious conversion, protected in all), genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections. Would anyone seriously argue that the anti-discrimination statutes should protect, for example, a person born of a Jewish mother but not one who converts to Judaism? Certainly “born-again Christians,” who lately have claimed they are being discriminated against, ought to recognize the validity of choice as a basis for one’s whole persona.
The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that if we can establish a genetic foundation we will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to our experience. The lesbian, gay, bisexual community does not need to have its “deviance” tolerated because its members were born “that way” and “cannot help it.” Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian, gay and bisexual lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, and an acceptance of all human beings. We need to celebrate diversity, whatever its origins.
An article published on the PsychOrg website recently describes recent developments in the debate….
Although biologists are still far from answering this question, scattered evidence for a possible gene influencing sexual orientation has recently encouraged scientists to map out a guide to future research. Because many possibilities for such a gene exist, scientists Sergey Gavrilets and William Rice have recently developed some theoretical guidelines and testable predictions for explaining the evolutionary causes of homosexuality.
“During the 1990s there was a short surge of interest by a small number of labs in finding major genes that might mediate homosexuality,â€Â Rice told PhysOrg.com. “However, for a variety of reasons, this effort waned by the turn of the century. I think that—when studying humans—many people shy away from studying sexual phenotypes in general and homosexuality in particular. Much of Sergey’s and my motivation in writing our paper was to rekindle an interest in studying the genetic basis of homosexuality. I personally think that if a firm genetic foundation for homosexuality in humans were established, then many people would view this fascinating human phenotype more objectively.â€Â
During the past several decades, scientists have discovered some interesting patterns that may point toward genetic causes of homosexuality. Among the findings is that male homosexuality appears to be inherited more often from the mother than the father (Pillard). Also, natural selection might maintain a gene that may decrease the fecundity of one sex because the same gene also increases the fecundity of the other sex. In fact, recent data shows that female maternal relatives of gay men have higher than average reproduction capacity (Camperio-Ciani).
Another interesting result from previous research is that a male’s chance of homosexuality increases with the number of biological older brothers he has—even when he grows up away from his older male siblings (Blanchard and Bogaert). Scientists explain that, with each male fetus, a mother develops an increased immunization to an antigen produced by the male fetuses, and this antigen likely plays a role in masculinizing the brain.
These studies and others—while unable to point to a specific gene—do point to the idea that homosexuality may be inherited through a polymorphic gene, which is a gene that has more than one different form, and can exhibit either form. Studies have shown that this gene inheritance must be more complex than for common Mendelian traits.
To take the next step, Gavrilets and Rice have developed several mathematical models that make contrasting predictions for the possible factors responsible for the polymorphism of genes influencing homosexuality. Hopefully, the predictions generated by these models will guide future tests and help zone in on the correct genetic characteristics involved in sexual orientation. As Rice explains, past research has shown the complexity inherent in determining the cause(s) of homosexuality.
“We know that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) can be caused by simple genetic changes in fruit flies, and since so many reproductive and neurological genes are shared by flies and humans, it seems highly likely that there are major genes influencing homosexuality in humans,â€Â said Rice. “However, we also have firm evidence for a birth-order effect on male homosexuality, and discordance in the expression of homosexuality of identical twins, so clearly there is also an environmental influence on the trait.â€Â
Gavrilets and Rice identify two main factors that may explain the polymorphism of a gene (and how the gene spreads): overdominance and sexual antagonism. Overdominance refers to phenotypes that come from heterozygous genes, and the advantages promoting genetic variation. Sexual antagonistic traits are those that are advantageous in one sex, but may cause homosexuality in the other sex. For a variety of different gene inheritance patterns, the scientists provide mathematical models that require, in essence, that the benefits for one sex must outweigh the costs for the other sex.
In their study, Gavrilets and Rice make predictions for the likelihood of certain types of genes (e.g. autosomal or sex-linked, recessive or dominant, with small or large effects) favoring either overdominance or sexual antagonism under different conditions. However, many possibilities remain, and research into each one will determine how well they satisfy the requirements provided in this study.
“The research so far that I think is most illuminating on this topic are the studies showing that homosexuality can have a simple genetic foundation in fruit flies,â€Â said Rice. “I think that it is too early to decide which of our models (or one yet to be formulated) is most feasible. However, based on the abundance of sexually antagonistic variation found in fruit flies, the sexually antagonistic variation seems like a probable candidate process leading to polymorphism for homosexuality.â€Â
Citation: Gavrilets, Sergey and Rice, William R. “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.â€Â Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038.
Is it clearcut that there is not a genetic link? No. That’s why I used the word “maybe.” Why? Because the research is inconclusive.
dw • Nov 27, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Weirdo, you are weird alright, but I suspect your “source” is either NARTH or one of the hate groups. Below is an article that does a good job of summarizing the debate…
The Mystique of the Phantom “Gay Gene”
by Philip L. Bereano, Seattle Times
February 26th, 1996
“If homosexuality is inherited, shouldn’t it have died out by now?”- two women talking in a New Yorker cartoon.
Last October 10th the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Romer v Evans, concerning Amendment 2 to the Colorado Constitution, adopted by referendum, which would bar all state and local laws protecting homosexuals from discrimination. The courts in Colorado had thrown out the Amendment by claiming that it infringed on the “fundamental right to participate equally in the political process” by “fencing out an independently identifiable class of persons” without showing that the amendment “support(ed) a compelling state interest” and was “narrowly tailored to meet that interest.”
In the proceedings in the lower Colorado courts, one of the witnesses was a Federal scientist, Dean Hamer, who testified that homosexuality was a genetically caused, rather than a cultural or chosen, behavior. He was put on the stand by gay rights activists trying to utilize language of an earlier Supreme Court case which suggested that government’s ability to protect a group of people from discrimination might somehow be linked to the “immutability” of the characteristic which defined that group.
Although the “immutability” criteria was not part of the arguments voiced before the Supreme Court last October, there is significant social debate on whether homosexuality is a biological characteristic.
Is There A “Gay Gene”?
Questions about the biological basis of sexual orientation go back about a century when the British sexual investigators Havelock Ellis and Edward Carpenter urged ending the laws against same-sex sexual activities because people engaging in them were biologically different from those who had opposite-sex partners; they called such people “inverts.” The term “homosexual” had been in use as a somewhat clinical adjective for describing certain activities (sex between two men or two women); in the late nineteenth century it began to be used as a noun to designate a person who engaged in such behavior-although it is unclear how often or how exclusively one had to be doing the act in order to earn the label.
While the modern gay rights movement has gotten nine states and a number of localities to extend ordinary civil rights protections to cover sexual minorities, right-wing extremists have whipped up fiscal contributions, media attention, and political power by attempting to pass laws and referenda prohibiting such civil rights protection, which they misleadingly call “special rights.”
Whether to look to nature or nurture to explain sexual orientation does not align with political belief. Although some conservatives believe that homosexuality is a sin (i.e. chosen behavior for which one is responsible), a biological explanation would facilitate eugenic “improvements” of the population, a goal of right-wing authoritarians since the days of Darwin. Among progressives, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force relies on biology to claim that “homosexuality is a naturally occurring and common variation among humans,” while the Council for Responsible Genetics last month issued a white paper arguing that the scientific basis for such claims is exceedingly weak and irrelevant to the notion that gay people should be protected from the discrimination directed towards them.
Some of the researchers who are gay have made it explicit that they are involved in this research because they want to prove that gay behaviors are not “unnatural,” or “crimes against nature,” nor-if their sexual orientation has a biological foundation-is it their “fault” that they are gay. Yet posing the question of what causes individuals to be lesbian or gay exemplifies homophobia itself by implying that heterosexuality, because it predominates, is more “natural” or “normal,” and that homosexuality therefore represents a “problem” in need of a “solution.” Since gay behaviors have been recorded in virtually all known cultures, they must be both as normal and as natural human orientations as heterosexual activities.
In our society people are subjected to discrimination precisely on the basis of biology (for example due to sex, or skin color) as well as because of differences that are cultural (such as ethnicity or religion). An examination of the African-American and women’s movements amply demonstrates incidences where focusing on differences in biology have been used to further oppression rather than secure liberation. American slavery was rationalized on biological grounds, as was the Nazi persecution of Jews.
Indeed, in 1539 the theologian Sebastian Munster based his anti-Semitism explicitly on imagined physical attributes; “you Jews” he wrote, “have a peculiar color of face different from the form and figure of other men.” Unfortunately, these old ideas still persist. Last year the Federal Sixth Court of Appeals, upholding a Cincinnati referendum denying homosexuals “protected status” against discrimination, said that it was impossible to have a law shielding a minority from discrimination where they are “defined by subjective and unapparent characteristics such as innate desires, drives and thoughts. . . . Many homosexuals successfully conceal their orientation. . . . Homosexuals generally are not identifiable ‘on sight’. . . .” Does this mean that it’s OK to discriminate against Mormons, Baptists, or Pentecostals waiting for the rapture?
Sexual orientation, like any other human behavior, is experienced in complex and variable ways which are undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors. Since we are biological organisms, of course, virtually everything we do has some biological components. But seeking a definitive basis of homosexuality in genetics risks oversimplifying our view of human behaviors, and ultimately of our world.
Genetic Fixation
“At last we will know what it truly means to be human,” exulted biologist James Watson (who received the Nobel Prize for his work for discovering the DNA double helix), as if Shakespeare, for example, had no inkling. The media is currently filled with a revival of earlier biodeterminist arguments attributing a wide range of physiological, psychological, and social characteristics to genetics. Reports claim that a host of disparate behaviors-the enjoyment of shopping, environmentalism, even the propensity to be raped-arise from genetic configuration, as implausible as these may sound.
It appears that this attempt to “geneticize” social activities and behaviors is a manifestation of our society’s unwillingness to deal directly with social problems by mounting appropriate remedial social programs.
What Does the Science Say?
The studies which people usually refer to support the existence of a “gay gene” do not offer a clear conclusion. The most frequently cited one was published in 1993 by Hamer and his colleagues at the National Institutes of Health. They examined DNA samples from men who self-identified as gay and other gay family members. They claimed to have found a DNA segment, called a “marker,” which correlates with sexual orientation-but only in 2/3s of the men. Hamer’s group did not feel it necessary to check out whether any of the straight men in these families shared the marker.
Hamer’s study is significantly compromised by his definition of who is “gay”, using an extremely conservative estimate for the prevalence of homosexuality among American men, 2%. If one used instead the commonly accepted estimate of 5-10%, the statistical significance of his results would be severely reduced or would vanish. However, there is a large population of American men who have sexual relations with other males but do not identify as gay, as well as numerous men who identify as gay or bisexual and have had sexual relationships or marriages with women-and have sometimes even fathered children. This error of confusing homosexual activities and homosexual essence goes back to the 19th century work of Ellis and Carpenter.
We also need to be aware that the federal Office of Research Integrity is investigating Hamer’s study because one of his collaborators has alleged that the research team suppressed data which would have weakened the statistical significance of its findings.
A Canadian researcher has reported his inability to replicate Hamer’s results but Hamer himself has recently published another study claiming to reproduce these conclusions (only finding the marker within a smaller percentage of gay men, however).
Although Hamer was recently quoted as saying “there is no ‘gay gene’ and I’ve never thought there was. Genes play a role and there is probably more than one of them and other factors as well,” this statement backpedals from his triumphant 1993 claims of having found “the first concrete evidence that ‘gay genes’ really do exist,” made extensively in the print media and as a featured guest on “Nightline” and “The MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour.”
None of the results of any of these studies support the claim that any single gene can determine sexual orientation.
Another claim for a biological link to homosexuality was made in 1991 by the neurophysiologist Simon LeVay, who concluded that a specific structure in the brain is smaller in gay men than in straight ones, more like the size seen in heterosexual women (although he had no evidence whatsoever regarding the sexual orientation of the women whose brains he examined). LeVay’s study utilized the brains of corpses, who were categorized by sexual orientation on the basis of circumstantial evidence. All of the “gay men” in LeVay’s study had died of AIDS; the disease is known to sometimes affect brain structure, and the wide variety of drugs and therapeutic regimes these people have undergone also introduce confounding factors. Amazingly, some of the study’s “gay” cadavers had larger structures than in the “straight” ones, so that upon inspection there would be no basis for deciding whether a given corpse had been “gay” or “straight” when alive.
The literature also reports some animal investigations in which hormonal changes, in some studies caused by genetic engineering, result in activity which the researchers called “gay”. In one study, male fruit flies rubbed each other and ignored nearby females; how would these researchers characterize the prolonged physical interaction among human males in a football game? Are we dealing merely with metaphors?
Studies of twins and other siblings have been relied on for additional arguments that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. The best known study, by Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, found that for adoptive and non-twin brothers in their sample about 10% were both gay, a rate which is often attributed to the prevalence of homosexuals in the population. According to their data, the rate of homosexuality among fraternal twins was 22%, and 52% for identical twins .
Identical twins, of course, have exactly the same genetic makeup, so at first glance the fact that the rate of homosexuality is five times higher among identical twins than non-twins would seem to support a genetic basis to sexual orientation. However, the finding that fraternal twins of gay men (who biologically are the same as brothers born in separate pregnancies) were found to be roughly twice as likely to be gay as other biological brothers indicates that environmental factors probably play an important role in sexual orientation. Much of the world thinks of identical twins as being the “same” and treats them accordingly, and these twins often share intense feelings of sameness. Thus, it might not be surprising that an even higher portion among identical twins would exhibit similar behaviors. Catholicism runs in families too, but is unlikely to be biological.
Homophobia-which is clearly an environmental factor-probably distorted Bailey and Pillard’s sample. The researchers did not study a random sample of men. The participants “were recruited through advertisements placed in gay publications.” Thus, all of the study participants read gay periodicals and probably were, to some degree, open about their sexuality. In addition, the ads asked readers about their brothers; although the ads wanted gay men to call in regardless of the brother’s sexual orientation, readers with gay brothers would be more likely to participate than men with straight brothers if the straight brothers were homophobic or if the gay ones were not “out” to their families. Since so many people already believe that homosexuality is genetic, a straight man who has a gay twin who has read the ad-especially a gay identical twin- will feel that his own sexual orientation is suspect. He may be threatened by the study, and refuse to participate in it. Conversely, if identical twins are both gay and “out” they might find the study interesting and be eager to volunteer.
So What?
The potential for mischief in relying on these studies and the potential for misuse if a gay gene ever were found, is substantial. A recent cover story in The Advocate, a major national gay and lesbian newsmagazine, had the subtitle “Once a Gay Gene is Found, Can Gene ‘Therapy’ Be Far Behind?” Although both the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association take the view that homosexuality is not an illness and that trying to change a person’s sexual orientation would be wrong, it is clear that the idea of using a marker or gene to predict which male fetuses are gay for purposes of terminating such pregnancies, or to subject young boys to “remedial” education, reprogramming or other so-called “therapies” will inevitably be voiced.
“Homosexuality is a disability and if people wish to have it eliminated before they have children-because they wish to have grandchildren or for other reasons-I do not see any moral objection for using genetic engineering to limit this particular trend. It would be like correcting many other conditions such as infertility or multiple sclerosis.” These are not the words of some Neo-Nazi propagandist or mad scientist, but the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jakobovits, in 1993.
The Armed Forces and other employers could use information from mandatory blood samples ( which they currently require for drug testing or DNA identification banks) to weed out “undesirables”.
We need to keep our eyes on the real social issue behind all of the interest in the gay gene-homophobia and societal discrimination. Regardless of the extent to which biology influences one’s sexual identity, lesbians, gays, and bisexuals should be afforded protection against the discrimination based on their sexual orientation. It is naive to think that a biological explanation of homosexuality would provide a quick technological fix for the social problem of discrimination. Only social and political remedies will counter unjust and unequal treatment of people.
Biology is not the issue. Society at present protects people against discrimination for behaviors which are not biological. Whether people’s differentiation is cultural (such as religious) or purely the result of choice (such as marital status or political affiliation, protected in many jurisdictions, or religious conversion, protected in all), genetic predisposition is not necessary to create these legal protections. Would anyone seriously argue that the anti-discrimination statutes should protect, for example, a person born of a Jewish mother but not one who converts to Judaism? Certainly “born-again Christians,” who lately have claimed they are being discriminated against, ought to recognize the validity of choice as a basis for one’s whole persona.
The scientific argument for a biological basis for sexual orientation remains weak. The political argument that if we can establish a genetic foundation we will bolster gay pride or prevent homophobic bigotry runs counter to our experience. The lesbian, gay, bisexual community does not need to have its “deviance” tolerated because its members were born “that way” and “cannot help it.” Rather, society must recognize the validity of lesbian, gay and bisexual lifestyles. We need an end to discrimination, and an acceptance of all human beings. We need to celebrate diversity, whatever its origins.
An article published on the PsychOrg website recently describes recent developments in the debate….
Although biologists are still far from answering this question, scattered evidence for a possible gene influencing sexual orientation has recently encouraged scientists to map out a guide to future research. Because many possibilities for such a gene exist, scientists Sergey Gavrilets and William Rice have recently developed some theoretical guidelines and testable predictions for explaining the evolutionary causes of homosexuality.
“During the 1990s there was a short surge of interest by a small number of labs in finding major genes that might mediate homosexuality,” Rice told PhysOrg.com. “However, for a variety of reasons, this effort waned by the turn of the century. I think that””when studying humans””many people shy away from studying sexual phenotypes in general and homosexuality in particular. Much of Sergey’s and my motivation in writing our paper was to rekindle an interest in studying the genetic basis of homosexuality. I personally think that if a firm genetic foundation for homosexuality in humans were established, then many people would view this fascinating human phenotype more objectively.”
During the past several decades, scientists have discovered some interesting patterns that may point toward genetic causes of homosexuality. Among the findings is that male homosexuality appears to be inherited more often from the mother than the father (Pillard). Also, natural selection might maintain a gene that may decrease the fecundity of one sex because the same gene also increases the fecundity of the other sex. In fact, recent data shows that female maternal relatives of gay men have higher than average reproduction capacity (Camperio-Ciani).
Another interesting result from previous research is that a male’s chance of homosexuality increases with the number of biological older brothers he has””even when he grows up away from his older male siblings (Blanchard and Bogaert). Scientists explain that, with each male fetus, a mother develops an increased immunization to an antigen produced by the male fetuses, and this antigen likely plays a role in masculinizing the brain.
These studies and others””while unable to point to a specific gene””do point to the idea that homosexuality may be inherited through a polymorphic gene, which is a gene that has more than one different form, and can exhibit either form. Studies have shown that this gene inheritance must be more complex than for common Mendelian traits.
To take the next step, Gavrilets and Rice have developed several mathematical models that make contrasting predictions for the possible factors responsible for the polymorphism of genes influencing homosexuality. Hopefully, the predictions generated by these models will guide future tests and help zone in on the correct genetic characteristics involved in sexual orientation. As Rice explains, past research has shown the complexity inherent in determining the cause(s) of homosexuality.
“We know that homosexuality (gay or lesbian) can be caused by simple genetic changes in fruit flies, and since so many reproductive and neurological genes are shared by flies and humans, it seems highly likely that there are major genes influencing homosexuality in humans,” said Rice. “However, we also have firm evidence for a birth-order effect on male homosexuality, and discordance in the expression of homosexuality of identical twins, so clearly there is also an environmental influence on the trait.”
Gavrilets and Rice identify two main factors that may explain the polymorphism of a gene (and how the gene spreads): overdominance and sexual antagonism. Overdominance refers to phenotypes that come from heterozygous genes, and the advantages promoting genetic variation. Sexual antagonistic traits are those that are advantageous in one sex, but may cause homosexuality in the other sex. For a variety of different gene inheritance patterns, the scientists provide mathematical models that require, in essence, that the benefits for one sex must outweigh the costs for the other sex.
In their study, Gavrilets and Rice make predictions for the likelihood of certain types of genes (e.g. autosomal or sex-linked, recessive or dominant, with small or large effects) favoring either overdominance or sexual antagonism under different conditions. However, many possibilities remain, and research into each one will determine how well they satisfy the requirements provided in this study.
“The research so far that I think is most illuminating on this topic are the studies showing that homosexuality can have a simple genetic foundation in fruit flies,” said Rice. “I think that it is too early to decide which of our models (or one yet to be formulated) is most feasible. However, based on the abundance of sexually antagonistic variation found in fruit flies, the sexually antagonistic variation seems like a probable candidate process leading to polymorphism for homosexuality.”
Citation: Gavrilets, Sergey and Rice, William R. “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038.
Is it clearcut that there is not a genetic link? No. That’s why I used the word “maybe.” Why? Because the research is inconclusive.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 27, 2008 at 4:09 am
Junior, gay marriage was ALREADY legalized and nothing of the sort happened. Most sex education simply refers to “partner” instead of anything gender specific, and has for quite some time–even before gay marriage was legalized. Gay marriage didn’t change that. It’s not like there’s anything different in the methods of protection from STDs or anything like that. You don’t have to teach gay men to use a gay condom. They’re all the same.
No, this is not frustrating or confusing. Gender neutrality when discussing partners isn’t difficult at all. It’s not like books aren’t reprinted every year with new editions or pamphlets don’t need to be updated routinely anyway.
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 27, 2008 at 11:09 am
Junior, gay marriage was ALREADY legalized and nothing of the sort happened. Most sex education simply refers to “partner” instead of anything gender specific, and has for quite some time–even before gay marriage was legalized. Gay marriage didn’t change that. It’s not like there’s anything different in the methods of protection from STDs or anything like that. You don’t have to teach gay men to use a gay condom. They’re all the same.
No, this is not frustrating or confusing. Gender neutrality when discussing partners isn’t difficult at all. It’s not like books aren’t reprinted every year with new editions or pamphlets don’t need to be updated routinely anyway.
You’re making a mountain out of a molehill.
junior1781 • Nov 27, 2008 at 2:25 am
To put it simply, if gay marriage is validated and legalized, and it doesn’t make a difference to me at this point, then all the sex education classes and books and pamphlets and pictures in place to forewarn and inform youth on sexuality are going to have to incorporate the alternate version for the sake of fairness. I mean, if we all get the same privileges, than everyone should get equal attention, right?. Would you agree that this might pose a problem, or at least be terribly frustrating . . . possibly confusing.
junior1781 • Nov 27, 2008 at 9:25 am
To put it simply, if gay marriage is validated and legalized, and it doesn’t make a difference to me at this point, then all the sex education classes and books and pamphlets and pictures in place to forewarn and inform youth on sexuality are going to have to incorporate the alternate version for the sake of fairness. I mean, if we all get the same privileges, than everyone should get equal attention, right?. Would you agree that this might pose a problem, or at least be terribly frustrating . . . possibly confusing.
weirdo • Nov 26, 2008 at 11:01 pm
DW…like i said there is no gay gene and nor is there “may be a gay gene” you need to do some research. Whoever or whatever you use to make you think that genetics says there “may be” is inaccurate.
weirdo • Nov 27, 2008 at 6:01 am
DW…like i said there is no gay gene and nor is there “may be a gay gene” you need to do some research. Whoever or whatever you use to make you think that genetics says there “may be” is inaccurate.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Then what exactly is your point?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 27, 2008 at 2:07 am
Then what exactly is your point?
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 5:19 pm
But I agree with you on one thing. A gay lifestyle is a good way to prevent pregnancy.
junior1781 • Nov 27, 2008 at 12:19 am
But I agree with you on one thing. A gay lifestyle is a good way to prevent pregnancy.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Oh I’ve taken one alright. In fact, I’m talking to a sophomore right now who took sex ed and she said she didn’t see any homosexual activity in the video.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Oh I’ve taken one alright. In fact, I’m talking to a sophomore right now who took sex ed and she said she didn’t see any homosexual activity in the video.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Have you ever actually taken a sex education class, or were you just making assumptions based on its name?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Have you ever actually taken a sex education class, or were you just making assumptions based on its name?
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 5:13 pm
So the purpose of sex education is to teach children about reproduction and pregnancy?
Interesting.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 10:13 am
So the purpose of sex education is to teach children about reproduction and pregnancy?
Interesting.
Igor • Nov 26, 2008 at 8:27 am
take this lover’s spat elsewhere. We can clearly see you guys want to be gay married in California. When that day comes, I won’t be there, but I hope your leather jackets and cowboy hats look fabulous!!!
Igor • Nov 26, 2008 at 3:27 pm
take this lover’s spat elsewhere. We can clearly see you guys want to be gay married in California. When that day comes, I won’t be there, but I hope your leather jackets and cowboy hats look fabulous!!!
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 5:04 am
Marriage isn’t required teaching. That’s all decided by local school boards. Sex education, from what I remember, involved looking at the reproductive system, learning the stages of pregnancy, and learning how to prevent pregnancy. I don’t recall ever being taught a darned thing about marriage or even how to have sex.
Not sure if you’re being pithy or what, but if you are it’s pretty clear why. Sorry you don’t have a leg to stand on, but you could at least handle it maturely.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Marriage isn’t required teaching. That’s all decided by local school boards. Sex education, from what I remember, involved looking at the reproductive system, learning the stages of pregnancy, and learning how to prevent pregnancy. I don’t recall ever being taught a darned thing about marriage or even how to have sex.
Not sure if you’re being pithy or what, but if you are it’s pretty clear why. Sorry you don’t have a leg to stand on, but you could at least handle it maturely.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 2:38 am
Yeah, considering they don’t even mention the word marriage in sex education anymore.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 9:38 am
Yeah, considering they don’t even mention the word marriage in sex education anymore.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 25, 2008 at 11:12 pm
But you still have the choice.
About the same as it does now, I’d assume, given that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex education.
Way to buy into the fearmongering “protect the children” argument.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 6:12 am
But you still have the choice.
About the same as it does now, I’d assume, given that gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with sex education.
Way to buy into the fearmongering “protect the children” argument.
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 11:03 pm
P.S. If gay marriage passes, what’s the sex education video gonna look like?
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 6:03 am
P.S. If gay marriage passes, what’s the sex education video gonna look like?
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I’m not married. Never will be. End of story.
junior1781 • Nov 26, 2008 at 5:51 am
I’m not married. Never will be. End of story.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 25, 2008 at 9:29 pm
It doesn’t matter if there’s a GENE for it. Religious preference, ethnicity, culture, is not genetic, but we still value it and protect it, as should be.
Have you heard about the folks in Iran who face DEATH for being gay? A society where it’s not accepted and yet they are gay. Imagine that. I was never exposed to homosexuality as a child, but I turned out gay. It was a matter of realizing that I did not find men attractive, but I found women quite attractive. So, yes, I think I would be gay regardless.
My cousin is an alcoholic because both his father and his grandfather were. There are babies born to addiction. But please do me a huge favor and don’t compare my sexuality to substance addition. I am not addicted to women any more than you are addicted to the opposite sex.
Again, if you are under the impression that you can change your sexuality, please show us how it’s done. Otherwise I think you’re full of it.
If you’re a chick, maybe. But if you’re a dude not a chance. Sorry, don’t swing that way.
Also, you claim you are not being offensive, but you are basically telling me that I and the entire rest of the GLBT community should resign ourselves to never finding human companionship simply because we happen to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite. You seem to be saying that my only option is to be celibate and alone or to marry not for love but for societal expectation. How in the world does that protect the sanctity of marriage? I find that suggestion offensive and hurtful. How would you feel if you were told that you could never ever fall in love, you were prohibited. What gives you the right to tell me that I can never enter into a loving, consensual relationship?
When can I vote on your marriage?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 26, 2008 at 4:29 am
It doesn’t matter if there’s a GENE for it. Religious preference, ethnicity, culture, is not genetic, but we still value it and protect it, as should be.
Have you heard about the folks in Iran who face DEATH for being gay? A society where it’s not accepted and yet they are gay. Imagine that. I was never exposed to homosexuality as a child, but I turned out gay. It was a matter of realizing that I did not find men attractive, but I found women quite attractive. So, yes, I think I would be gay regardless.
My cousin is an alcoholic because both his father and his grandfather were. There are babies born to addiction. But please do me a huge favor and don’t compare my sexuality to substance addition. I am not addicted to women any more than you are addicted to the opposite sex.
Again, if you are under the impression that you can change your sexuality, please show us how it’s done. Otherwise I think you’re full of it.
If you’re a chick, maybe. But if you’re a dude not a chance. Sorry, don’t swing that way.
Also, you claim you are not being offensive, but you are basically telling me that I and the entire rest of the GLBT community should resign ourselves to never finding human companionship simply because we happen to be attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite. You seem to be saying that my only option is to be celibate and alone or to marry not for love but for societal expectation. How in the world does that protect the sanctity of marriage? I find that suggestion offensive and hurtful. How would you feel if you were told that you could never ever fall in love, you were prohibited. What gives you the right to tell me that I can never enter into a loving, consensual relationship?
When can I vote on your marriage?
dw • Nov 25, 2008 at 6:00 pm
In re: genetics….
Research indicates there may be a “gay” gene. However, it hasn’t been conclusively shown yet. If I recall correctly, an extra Y chromosome has been found in DNA samples. The researchers say the result is suggestive, but not enough research has been done to say for sure one way or another. Researchers have, however, made it plain that the inconclusive results so far should not be cited as meaning there is NO gay gene, just that more work needs to be done.
As for alcoholism, junior, genetic research has shown a definite link. Children of alcoholics are more prone to be alcoholic themselves. Testing over many years has identified a particular gene that’s only found in alcoholics and addicts and no one else.
dw • Nov 26, 2008 at 1:00 am
In re: genetics….
Research indicates there may be a “gay” gene. However, it hasn’t been conclusively shown yet. If I recall correctly, an extra Y chromosome has been found in DNA samples. The researchers say the result is suggestive, but not enough research has been done to say for sure one way or another. Researchers have, however, made it plain that the inconclusive results so far should not be cited as meaning there is NO gay gene, just that more work needs to be done.
As for alcoholism, junior, genetic research has shown a definite link. Children of alcoholics are more prone to be alcoholic themselves. Testing over many years has identified a particular gene that’s only found in alcoholics and addicts and no one else.
werido • Nov 25, 2008 at 3:54 pm
but truly there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that backs up a gay gene. its all false and misdirected.
biologically it doesnt help to be gay either.
werido • Nov 25, 2008 at 10:54 pm
but truly there is NO SCIENTIFIC evidence that backs up a gay gene. its all false and misdirected.
biologically it doesnt help to be gay either.
werido • Nov 25, 2008 at 3:51 pm
what about the right to be single
werido • Nov 25, 2008 at 10:51 pm
what about the right to be single
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I don’t mean to offend, really. I respect your position, but you have to understand there are a majority of people in this state that do not. Even interracial marriage took a long time to accepted into the mainstream. All I’m saying is that I can’t conceive that someone is actually born gay just like I can’t conceive that someone is born heterosexual, or Christian or alcoholic.
I use the term “lifestyle” because same-sex couples choose to marry, they choose to co-habitate, they choose to spend time together. The attraction is ingrained into them, but it has to be society, peers, even parents that somehow contribute to the mold. I mean, is there really a gay gene that someone inherits from their parents? It’s preposterous when you think about it. Is there a gene that determines gender, race, skin color? Of course. Those things thereby cease to be a choice.
Can you honestly say that one lived in a culture that had no concept of homosexuality, they would still become gay. If being gay was the norm in society, then I would most likely be gay too.
I do believe, however, that you don’t have a choice of what influences you. You don’t have the choice of the type of society you live in that presents the conditions that makes homosexuality appealing. I don’t know what conditions those are, but it couldn’t be something you’re born with.
I hope when you say “prove it” you’re not asking me out. Just kidding. But seriously, you make some good points. It’s nice to converse with someone who actually uses facts and logic to back up their beliefs.
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I don’t mean to offend, really. I respect your position, but you have to understand there are a majority of people in this state that do not. Even interracial marriage took a long time to accepted into the mainstream. All I’m saying is that I can’t conceive that someone is actually born gay just like I can’t conceive that someone is born heterosexual, or Christian or alcoholic.
I use the term “lifestyle” because same-sex couples choose to marry, they choose to co-habitate, they choose to spend time together. The attraction is ingrained into them, but it has to be society, peers, even parents that somehow contribute to the mold. I mean, is there really a gay gene that someone inherits from their parents? It’s preposterous when you think about it. Is there a gene that determines gender, race, skin color? Of course. Those things thereby cease to be a choice.
Can you honestly say that one lived in a culture that had no concept of homosexuality, they would still become gay. If being gay was the norm in society, then I would most likely be gay too.
I do believe, however, that you don’t have a choice of what influences you. You don’t have the choice of the type of society you live in that presents the conditions that makes homosexuality appealing. I don’t know what conditions those are, but it couldn’t be something you’re born with.
I hope when you say “prove it” you’re not asking me out. Just kidding. But seriously, you make some good points. It’s nice to converse with someone who actually uses facts and logic to back up their beliefs.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 25, 2008 at 1:18 pm
And I’m asking you to prove that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice. Clearly you are unable to do so. Being gay is not a choice. Please stop claiming it is, or put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
Being gay is a sexuality, not a lifestyle. Would you rather we force ourselves into heterosexual roles that do not fit us, something that often leads to broken marriages and homes?
People have been forced to validate groups that didn’t fit into their value systems plenty of times in the past. Back when Loving v. Virginia was ruled on, there were people who had to acknowledge interracial couples. One could claim that falling in love is a choice, and that those individuals chose to fall in love with someone of another race. Does that mean it’s okay for them to be excluded? 16 states said yes. The Supreme Court said no. Had there been an amendment put to the people for a simple majority vote, it probably would have passed because racist sentiment was prevalent in America at that time. Thank goodness the founding fathers protected the constitution against mob rule.
So a couple is same-sex? Even if it were a choice, Loving v. Virginia still applies.
The receptionist, insurance agent, and bank clerk are not directly impacted because they are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. So they have to be aware of our existence. Whoopie.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 25, 2008 at 8:18 pm
And I’m asking you to prove that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice. Clearly you are unable to do so. Being gay is not a choice. Please stop claiming it is, or put your money where your mouth is and prove it.
Being gay is a sexuality, not a lifestyle. Would you rather we force ourselves into heterosexual roles that do not fit us, something that often leads to broken marriages and homes?
People have been forced to validate groups that didn’t fit into their value systems plenty of times in the past. Back when Loving v. Virginia was ruled on, there were people who had to acknowledge interracial couples. One could claim that falling in love is a choice, and that those individuals chose to fall in love with someone of another race. Does that mean it’s okay for them to be excluded? 16 states said yes. The Supreme Court said no. Had there been an amendment put to the people for a simple majority vote, it probably would have passed because racist sentiment was prevalent in America at that time. Thank goodness the founding fathers protected the constitution against mob rule.
So a couple is same-sex? Even if it were a choice, Loving v. Virginia still applies.
The receptionist, insurance agent, and bank clerk are not directly impacted because they are not forced to marry someone of the same sex. So they have to be aware of our existence. Whoopie.
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 1:38 am
If you’re asking me to be gay, you can count me out.
And I’m afraid you misunderstood me. I’m not asking anyone to change what they are. All I’m saying is that the gay lifestyle is a choice the same way that being a Christian is a choice. People who are religious assume the role that is dictated by whatever creed or deity they believe in, but it is more than a routine. It’s who they are.
In the same way, homosexuals are defined by what they believe, but also by what they do. Contrastly, a Latino man who doesn’t act according to the popular stereotypes society may impose on him is still Latino. It’s entirely inherent in him. That is the traditional sense I talk about. I think there should be a distinction between the two when making legal decisions.
Here’s the funny thing. Whether we like it or not, the establishment of marriage in this state, or any state, entails the procurement of government records and the recognition of both public and private agencies that hold independent, however strict assumptions of what that union is. Now change doesn’t both me as much as some, but in order for change to take place, these agencies–and the people within them–must be asked to acknowledge a group they can not validate with their value system.
If someone is passionate about something like gay rights, by all means they should fight for it. Even if that means taking it to court. But it’s going to take mind swap with the people who disagree. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, people have to slowly accept what is different. But I believe it could happen. However, I don’t believe its correct to say that allowing gay marriage will not impose upon anyone’s values, because it’s the receptionist that checks off medical records, the insurance agent who files the paperwork, the bank clerk that manages accounts that have to accept this change.
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 8:38 am
If you’re asking me to be gay, you can count me out.
And I’m afraid you misunderstood me. I’m not asking anyone to change what they are. All I’m saying is that the gay lifestyle is a choice the same way that being a Christian is a choice. People who are religious assume the role that is dictated by whatever creed or deity they believe in, but it is more than a routine. It’s who they are.
In the same way, homosexuals are defined by what they believe, but also by what they do. Contrastly, a Latino man who doesn’t act according to the popular stereotypes society may impose on him is still Latino. It’s entirely inherent in him. That is the traditional sense I talk about. I think there should be a distinction between the two when making legal decisions.
Here’s the funny thing. Whether we like it or not, the establishment of marriage in this state, or any state, entails the procurement of government records and the recognition of both public and private agencies that hold independent, however strict assumptions of what that union is. Now change doesn’t both me as much as some, but in order for change to take place, these agencies–and the people within them–must be asked to acknowledge a group they can not validate with their value system.
If someone is passionate about something like gay rights, by all means they should fight for it. Even if that means taking it to court. But it’s going to take mind swap with the people who disagree. Just like the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, people have to slowly accept what is different. But I believe it could happen. However, I don’t believe its correct to say that allowing gay marriage will not impose upon anyone’s values, because it’s the receptionist that checks off medical records, the insurance agent who files the paperwork, the bank clerk that manages accounts that have to accept this change.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 24, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Given how much society loves to hurt us, why would we choose to be gay? Why would individuals in societies where the punishment for being gay is DEATH choose to be gay?
The simple fact of the matter is that they wouldn’t, and it is not a choice. And frankly, I’m rather sick of being told that it is.
So Junior, I hereby challenge you.
If homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe and I am living this “lifestyle,” I challenge you to choose it. Become gay. Since it is a choice, this should be an easy task for you, and you can always choose to change back.
In other words, prove it.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 25, 2008 at 2:10 am
Given how much society loves to hurt us, why would we choose to be gay? Why would individuals in societies where the punishment for being gay is DEATH choose to be gay?
The simple fact of the matter is that they wouldn’t, and it is not a choice. And frankly, I’m rather sick of being told that it is.
So Junior, I hereby challenge you.
If homosexuality is a choice, which I do not believe and I am living this “lifestyle,” I challenge you to choose it. Become gay. Since it is a choice, this should be an easy task for you, and you can always choose to change back.
In other words, prove it.
junior1781 • Nov 24, 2008 at 5:33 pm
You see Jo, that’s the only thing that troubles me. The fact that the court decided that gay marriage was a protected right, and somehow it winds up on the ballot six months later is a little awkward. So you confirm a very good point many others are making.
All that aside, I personally haven’t the faintest idea who should make that decision. First of all, if the judges had ruled way back then that gays were not a protected minority, there would have been no less resistance–probably even more. Supporters of gay rights would probably move to have those judges ousted.
Second, I can’t see that gays are a protected minority in the traditional sense because their lifestyles are a choice. Ethnic groups, people with disabilities and those who claim protection on the grounds of gender can not resort to that since they have no choice of status.
Still, the court made its own bed so I guess they have to lie in it.
junior1781 • Nov 25, 2008 at 12:33 am
You see Jo, that’s the only thing that troubles me. The fact that the court decided that gay marriage was a protected right, and somehow it winds up on the ballot six months later is a little awkward. So you confirm a very good point many others are making.
All that aside, I personally haven’t the faintest idea who should make that decision. First of all, if the judges had ruled way back then that gays were not a protected minority, there would have been no less resistance–probably even more. Supporters of gay rights would probably move to have those judges ousted.
Second, I can’t see that gays are a protected minority in the traditional sense because their lifestyles are a choice. Ethnic groups, people with disabilities and those who claim protection on the grounds of gender can not resort to that since they have no choice of status.
Still, the court made its own bed so I guess they have to lie in it.
dw • Nov 24, 2008 at 4:06 pm
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Taylor is a musician with the Philharmonic. He complains constantly about gays and lesbians–he even complained about the domestic partner laws.
Some things to be aware of…
The Yes On 8 groups are now at each other’s throats. The “official” campaign is trying mightily to keep what it describes as the lunatic “fringe” groups away from the Supreme Court. The campaign does not want the waters muddied with some interesting legal theories, like….
The one the Campaign for California Families advanced in its unsuccessful petition to intervene in the Supreme Court. The CCF argues that all constitutional rights in California are subject to the people’s initiative power. They argued that a simple majority of voters could legitimately take away constitutional rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion for specific religions and the courts would be powerless to do anything about it. There is no way the bigots who want to portray themselves as not bigoted want anything like that dumped in the Supreme Court. It would likely mean the overturning of Prop 8.
Mr. Taylor and his rant are just plain pathetic.
dw • Nov 24, 2008 at 11:06 pm
If I’m not mistaken, Mr. Taylor is a musician with the Philharmonic. He complains constantly about gays and lesbians–he even complained about the domestic partner laws.
Some things to be aware of…
The Yes On 8 groups are now at each other’s throats. The “official” campaign is trying mightily to keep what it describes as the lunatic “fringe” groups away from the Supreme Court. The campaign does not want the waters muddied with some interesting legal theories, like….
The one the Campaign for California Families advanced in its unsuccessful petition to intervene in the Supreme Court. The CCF argues that all constitutional rights in California are subject to the people’s initiative power. They argued that a simple majority of voters could legitimately take away constitutional rights such as freedom of speech or freedom of religion for specific religions and the courts would be powerless to do anything about it. There is no way the bigots who want to portray themselves as not bigoted want anything like that dumped in the Supreme Court. It would likely mean the overturning of Prop 8.
Mr. Taylor and his rant are just plain pathetic.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 24, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Agree with Perry on this one.
But here’s the funny thing. Those judges decided that homosexuals SHOULD marry, that denying us marriage rights was unconstitutional. Oh, SNAP.
And the reaction from these same people who want to uphold the “values” of America was an unconstitutional amendment passed by a simple majority, something that goes against America’s values..
No one was forcing Brad to get married to a guy, nor were we forcing his church to perform gay marriages. We had the civil right to marry, and now 18,000 families are in limbo because of Prop 8.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 24, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Agree with Perry on this one.
But here’s the funny thing. Those judges decided that homosexuals SHOULD marry, that denying us marriage rights was unconstitutional. Oh, SNAP.
And the reaction from these same people who want to uphold the “values” of America was an unconstitutional amendment passed by a simple majority, something that goes against America’s values..
No one was forcing Brad to get married to a guy, nor were we forcing his church to perform gay marriages. We had the civil right to marry, and now 18,000 families are in limbo because of Prop 8.
perry • Nov 24, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Handful of judges. That’s what they’re there for.
perry • Nov 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Handful of judges. That’s what they’re there for.
junior • Nov 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Jo,
I completely see where you’re coming from, However, answer me this: would you be happier if the majority decided that homosexuals should not marry, or if a handful of judges decided the same thing?
junior • Nov 24, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Jo,
I completely see where you’re coming from, However, answer me this: would you be happier if the majority decided that homosexuals should not marry, or if a handful of judges decided the same thing?
Jo Scalzo • Nov 24, 2008 at 10:17 am
Brad, you know other examples of judicial activism? Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that separate but equal was not. And let’s not forget Brown v. Board of Education, saying that schools could not be segregated. Loving v. Virginia, too, ruling that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and cannot be withheld from a couple merely because they are interracial.
In reality the Supreme Court was doing its JOB when it struck down Prop 22. It was striking down an unconstitutional law that made an entire class of human beings unequal and excluded them.
And you think that putting, right after the constitution’s commitment to equal protection of all, a statement EXCLUDING an entire group of people, is just fine and dandy? No. Amending the constitution is not the answer. It is against what our nation stands for, based solely on prejudice and hate.
The majority is not wise. The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of mob rule. That is why our Congress is composed of two parts and why we have an electoral college. James Madison, one of our founding fathers and someone credited with our federalist system of government, warned against the tyranny of the majority and stressed that: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” While you may not like us, the GLBT community is a minority group. We are human beings, deserving of civil rights. And matters as important as civil rights should not be decided by a simple majority vote.
Maybe our founding fathers would have an issue with homosexuality, but they certainly wouldn’t support a simple majority being able to alter the constitution in such a fundamental way. It goes against the nation they founded and the ideals upon which they founded it.
Jo Scalzo • Nov 24, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Brad, you know other examples of judicial activism? Plessy v. Ferguson, ruling that separate but equal was not. And let’s not forget Brown v. Board of Education, saying that schools could not be segregated. Loving v. Virginia, too, ruling that marriage is “one of the basic civil rights of man” and cannot be withheld from a couple merely because they are interracial.
In reality the Supreme Court was doing its JOB when it struck down Prop 22. It was striking down an unconstitutional law that made an entire class of human beings unequal and excluded them.
And you think that putting, right after the constitution’s commitment to equal protection of all, a statement EXCLUDING an entire group of people, is just fine and dandy? No. Amending the constitution is not the answer. It is against what our nation stands for, based solely on prejudice and hate.
The majority is not wise. The founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of mob rule. That is why our Congress is composed of two parts and why we have an electoral college. James Madison, one of our founding fathers and someone credited with our federalist system of government, warned against the tyranny of the majority and stressed that: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” While you may not like us, the GLBT community is a minority group. We are human beings, deserving of civil rights. And matters as important as civil rights should not be decided by a simple majority vote.
Maybe our founding fathers would have an issue with homosexuality, but they certainly wouldn’t support a simple majority being able to alter the constitution in such a fundamental way. It goes against the nation they founded and the ideals upon which they founded it.