This is a fascinating article. A few years ago, in the context of his concerns about the general ability to redesign ourselves, I had a question for Stanley Kurtz:
Suppose we find that there is something different about the brains of gay men and women (a proposition for which there’s already abundant and growing evidence). If we can come up with an affordable, painless therapy that “fixes” this and converts them from “gay” to “straight,” should we a) allow them to take advantage of it, or b) forbid them from doing so, or c) require them to? And should “straight” (i.e., exclusively heterosexual) people be allowed to become gay, or bi?
I have a lot of thoughts about this but (to paraphrase Pascal) insufficient time to write them down right now (meetings all day). I will say, though, that in this particular case, I think that many of the “bioethicists” in question are less concerned about the ability of parents to design their children to be “normal” than they are about stigmatizing homosexuality.
[Update a while later]
Sorry, link’s fixed now.
I’ve long wondered about this. It’s going to be a tough choice for religious conservatives and maybe for others too.
We should know pretty soon how strong a genetic basis there is and if I recall correctly, partial results are already in. To the degree there are demonstrable physical causes they are not the same for gay men and lesbian women, and there appears to be more than one type of cause for lesbian women. What I read about gay men was not genetic in the technical sense of that word, though it is congenital. Something to do with hormone balance in the womb, which supposedly explains why men with older brothers have a higher probability of being gay then those without them.
On a vaguely related note, about ten years ago I read something about the ethical dilemmas associated with producing “spare organs”. It was expected that pretty soon we would be able to grow partial human bodies (without a head, so presumably – to religious individuals – without a soul) whose organs could be harvested for transplantation. Maybe even without limbs, basically a sack of spare organs. But a sack of organs produced in the womb of a living and breathing woman, perhaps for a loved one, perhaps for herself. And with all the hormones and feelings that go with pregnancy.
I’ve read (no cites) that studies done on chimps in the ’70’s indicated that homosexuality resulted from over-exposure to opposite-sex hormones during gestation. IE, it’s not genetic, but it *is* biological. If this research was correct (and my memory likewise), then homosexuality should be treatable *now* in utero by monitoring the uterine hormone levels and regulating them via drugs.
I’d argue for allowing straight parents to do such monitoring to prevent, but not cause, homosexuality in their young, and I’d prohibit homosexual parents from using the technique to induce homosexuality in their children. No matter how we dance around the issue, homosexuality is a reproductive disadvantage, and confers no compensatory benefit to the individual or society at large. Anyone attempting to impose it on their offspring would be guilty of assault IMO. Much like those deaf parents who try to ensure that their children are born deaf. I look forward to the lawsuits by the children of such intentional crippling.
No matter how we dance around the issue, homosexuality is a reproductive disadvantage, and confers no compensatory benefit to the individual or society at large.
I read one potential explanation recently: homosexuality in men is the result of something that does have a reproductive advantage, namely attraction to men. It sometimes gets expressed in men too, where it is counterproductive from an evolutionary point of view, but that effect is dwarfed by the evolutionarily productive effect it has in women.
So far, so good.
Random busybodies and chin-scratchers who will in no way be helping to raise such children none-the-less chime in with useless opinions to protect their egos. Yawn.
I read one potential explanation recently: homosexuality in men is the result of something that does have a reproductive advantage, namely attraction to men.
Sounds like one of the “just-so” stories I keep reading that try to justify homosexuality as having some hidden evolutionary advantage. Absent some good experimental or physical evidence, I’m going to go with “not proven” on such claims.
Sounds like one of the “just-so” stories I keep reading that try to justify homosexuality as having some hidden evolutionary advantage.
Not an evolutionary advantage, but the occasional result of something that has an evolutionary advantage. That’s something quite different.
Have you wondered if the current state is a result of industrial pollution by feminizing chemicals?
Do you think there is more homosexuality today than in the past? My guess is that it is the same, but until recently people kept quiet about it for fear of being stigmatised or worse.
Sounds like one of the “just-so” stories I keep reading that try to justify homosexuality as having some hidden evolutionary advantage. Absent some good experimental or physical evidence, I’m going to go with “not proven” on such claims.
It’s likely that anything prevalent in the human population has had an evolutionary advantage, else it wouldn’t be here. That includes nasty things like the aging process. Sure it’s “not proven”, but why is something around that seems to have such a negative effect on reproduction?
BTW, what happens when parents start curing heterosexuality? Keep in mind that heterosexuality is a leading cause of one of the more serious sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy. It’s not as lethal as AIDS, but a case of pregnancy can have effects that last decades and affect not just you, but everyone around you.
Not an evolutionary advantage, but the occasional result of something that has an evolutionary advantage. That’s something quite different.
That’s plausible. Some defects do pop up on a regular basis as an accidental result of other things, and fetal development is a complex process. It’s a wonder that it works properly as often as it does, though when it doesn’t the results tend not to survive.
Keep in mind that heterosexuality is a leading cause of one of the more serious sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy.
Life is a 100% lethal sexually transmitted disease – some bloke on the internet
It’s a wonder that it works properly as often as it does, though when it doesn’t the results tend not to survive.
Which can be a heart-wrenching experience, as happened to a close relative of mine recently. I remain in favour of the “sack of spare organs”, but I suspect there will be enormous psychological complications.
It’s likely that anything prevalent in the human population has had an evolutionary advantage, else it wouldn’t be here.
Not really. There’s no advantage to poor eyesight, yet it happens. There’s no advantage to multiple sclerosis, yet that happens too. Nature doesn’t have our interests in mind, and reproduction is often a hit-or-miss process. Lots of misses, defects, flaws. Some that turn up regularly, but still confer no advantage (Down’s Syndrome comes to mind).
That includes nasty things like the aging process. Sure it’s “not proven”, but why is something around that seems to have such a negative effect on reproduction?
Aging doesn’t prevent or reproduction, it simply sets a time limit. Beyond that I have no idea why it happens. Flawed design probably. Nature is a very ad hoc craftsman.
“[Being Gay] confers no compensatory benefit to the individual or society at large.”
You’ve never had a gay guy cut your hair, have you?
BTW, what happens when parents start curing heterosexuality?
Most parents want grand-children. And given that heterosexuality is not a defect by any reasonable definition, anyone trying to “cure” it would be guilty of trying to cripple their own children.
You’ve never had a gay guy cut your hair, have you?
:-). Not to my knowledge, but I’m not metrosexual, and sexuality has no impact on the standard buzz-cut that I favor:-P
Sexual orientation selection if feasible, like sex selection, can be expected to be bought, whether legal or not.
The controversy will become particularly interesting under Obamacare. I suspect that such treatment will be prohibited under a Democrat administration-congress regime, and compulsory under a Republican administration-congress regime.
That all assumes that a newly-expectant mother can get through the waiting line for prenatal treatment before the fetus is drawing Social Security.
Save that “Right to Refuse” makes the latter impossible. The former: not so much.
The bigger issue is why are the most important decisions in life made when we are least qualified to make them?
At what point does the childs decisions outweigh the parents?
Mr. Bontrager –
Aging can be rather simply explained in evolutionary terms. All living organisms suffer molecular-level damage throughout their lives; from such sources as oxygen radicals that “escape” the reactions that get energy out of food using oxygen and ionising radiation (the latter can’t be escaped as the potassium in your blood is radioactive).
Naturally, all living organisms have mechanisms to repair this damage – but the mechanisms aren’t perfect, and they take energy. The more thorough the repair, the more energy and raw materials it takes. But energy and materials from food (which is difficult to get in natural conditions) are also used to build the next generation; the nutrients to build a baby have to come from somewhere. It is also true that sometimes the damage is not repairable, as in predator attack or simple bad luck such as falling off a cliff.
Essentially, a human body is “designed” to be just good enough to reproduce itself and see the next generation through to adulthood. It would appear that the long maximum lifespan of humans compared to other animals of comparable size may have something to do with the grandparents also being able to help on the occasions that both parents are busy – which is quite a lot of the time, in primitive societies.
If you die of old age before reproducing, you’ve lost. But if you live to 200 in perfect health, and don’t reproduce, and die by accident, you have lost in that case as well.
The way I see it, the real question is not whether parents should be allowed to select for or against either trait (I think it should be up to parents to decide what it means to “protect” their children, and how) — the question is what the reaction would be if it were also possible for persons born with either trait, to reverse it later in life.
In particular I’m thinking of the outcry from some quarters against curing deafness. Regardless of whether one views homosexuality as a defect or just a difference, the deafness-ists should pose a cautionary example for both sides.