PeterDavid.net

Dosn't seem real, but they do say... Life is stranger than fiction!

Happy New Year PAD!

I take it no one warned the Iraqis about how badly the Spider-Clone saga worked out for Marvel.

1You know, the sad part is, they might just try to do this. Some people live with a need to either continue to punish thier abusers or relive their greatest moments. I could see Bush doing this because, and this not to be funny, rebuilding the world trade center and knocking it over again would just take to much time. And time is not on Bush's side.
I'd like to wish Peter David and his family and everyone who comes to this site the happest and safest of new year's.

Funny, PAD.

But seeing how I'm both pro-choice and pro-death penalty, I don't think I'm subjected to charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency myself. :)

It still warms my heart to see a guy of Saddam's caliber being executed for his crimes.

I think this settles the arbortion controversy in the US: fetuses can now be executed for the mass-murder of the 120 million sperm who lose out in fertilization.

I'm reading through the New Frontier books, and yesterday I happened to be finishing "Once Burned" (the Captain's Table one).

(SLIGHT SPOILER WARNING)

I didn't notice the parallels (only superficial, really) between Kenyon and Bush until their stories seemed to come together with the final scene on Anzibar Four and Saddam's hanging. It's sad that our^H^H^H the president identifies so easily with the archetypal villain, going nuts with a vengeance and killing thousands of people. I guess there's a whole bunch of history and stories that warn against what current events are repeating, and apparently we still won't have learned our lesson even 250 years into the future (assuming Star Trek is all true, even the "non-canon"). I'm sad now.

I guess I don't really have anything interesting to say about it, but here would definitely be the place to do it, so. :P Great book, BTW.

The Baathists from Brazil?

But Hey! At least now the war's over, right? I mean geeze, one more life to stop the loss of possibly tens of thousands more......I mean....wow guys....c-c'mon...

*sigh*

On the upside, only 750 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes and 18 seconds..17 seconds...16 seconds....on the Freedom Clock left!

Let me get this straight. The US, Britain and Austrailia landed on Iraq with both knees looking for WMD that wasn't there anymore, based on questionable evidence that even that den of the Liberal Elite (CIA) pretty much called so much fertilizer, even though most of it was from the US and Britain?

Of course he got axed. Hadda keep him quiet

Not a clone, but Saddam's ghost has had several sightings.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/14948.asp

Hmm. So we now execute a twin for what his "duplicate" does.

I know the post was in sarcastic jest, but assuming, for the moment, cloning was possible, why would you execute an infant Saddam? It would be because one believed that he was predetermined by genetics to repeat the crimes of his "parent."

I, for one, do not believe we are predetermined by our genetics. We make moral choices and are responsible for them. Therefore, a clone would be innocent.

Not to mention, the staunch pro-life crowd (of which I am a part) would never agree to the killing of the fetus or the infant clone. If you really think that is true (which I doubt), then you don't understand our position.

The death penalty is a topic for another day and thread.

Iowa Jim

"I know the post was in sarcastic jest, but assuming, for the moment, cloning was possible, why would you execute an infant Saddam?"

You, uh...wouldn't.

Are you SURE you knew it was a sarcastic jest?

PAD

Thanks for demonstrating that comedy is, indeed, very hard, and at times utterly elusive.

Alix, have you ever had an original thought? Because, y'know, the first time I saw you post here you asked PAD if he'd like "some cheese with [his] whine," which is straight out of a musty old Reader's Digest anthology of jokes my grandparents used to keep in bathroom next to the toilet in case anyone needed to be there long enough to flip through a few pages. And your post today is a rip-off of a come-back David Letterman used to fire off at hecklers (and it may not even have been original to him). And Letterman delivered it in a more concise and biting way: "This gentleman has taught us a very important lesson -- not everyone can do comedy. Thank you for that, sir!"

Aw, hell, I forgot to close one of my HTML tags in the post above. Oh, well, the point is still valid.

Here I just thought you were being passionate, Bill.

Of course, the final word on the life and death will be made on the place that truly captured his essence: SOUTH PARK.

James, James, James----

You had to do it. You just HAD to. You had to go there.

Now, I'm going to have the uncle song from rhe South Park movie AND an image of Hussein singing
"I Think I'm A Clone Now" in my head for at least a week.

DARN YOU!

The point of this post seems to be to point out the inconsistency of having both a "anti-abortion" and a "pro-death-penalty" point of view. But isn't it equally inconsistent to have both a "pro-abortion" and "anti-death-penalty" point of view?

I don't think either pair is necessarily inconsistent; both allow that "killing" is allowed in some instances, most moral codes do, (immediate self-defence being probably the most common instance), people just disagree about what those instances are. Vegetarianism and euthanasia are two other points of contention, I think you can choose your values independently of one another.

For the record, though, I am pretty much "pro-death" across the board, pro-abortion, pro-death-penalty, pro-meat, and pro-dying-with-dignity. I use the "pro" construction to be semantically consistent, I would not take joy in any of these types of presumably necessary deaths.

If Saddam's clone were aborted, could we use it for stem cell research?

The point of this post seems to be to point out the inconsistency of having both a "anti-abortion" and a "pro-death-penalty" point of view. But isn't it equally inconsistent to have both a "pro-abortion" and "anti-death-penalty" point of view?

Not at least until abortions cost $9 million a pop.

The "cost" of the death penalty isn't a good argument against it, since a very large part of that cost is because of the groups who are against it (making it as difficult as they can for the government to administer it). This is like saying that you are against abortion because it causes clinics to blow up.

A question was asked, and I answered it.

I have no idea what you are saying. All I know is that my answer to his question is still true.

Mike:

"All I know is that my answer to his question is still true."

Your answer may be true, but it's not an answer to my question. (Which by the way, was a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer). If I asked "What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution?" and you said "Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the United States," your answer would be true but not a proper response to the question.

I was questioning the idea that one must either believe or not believe in both abortion and the death penalty. Your answer, pointing out the cost differential, actually reinforces my point, that these are two separate issues.

"The Baathists from Brazil?"

Sorry, we don't have iraqis blowing stuff around here.

Mauricio straight from Brazil

Mauricio - I was referencing a movie "The Boys From Brazil", which is about a different dictator being cloned.

But isn't it equally inconsistent to have both a "pro-abortion" and "anti-death-penalty" point of view?

1)

I have never heard a single person argue what I would call a "pro-abortion" stance. "Pro-abortion" to me would mean someone who feels more women should choose to have an abortion, because abortion is a good thing, and we need more of it. Once again, I haven't heard this argument from a single person, ever.

2)

I am against the death penalty because it kills a human. A sentient life form. (Sentience requires a functioning brain.) Killing a sentient life form is irreversible. Mistakes can't be undone. Years in jail can't be given back, but at least the wrongly jailed individual can be set free.

Individual cases can always be brought up: but we know person X is guilty, so what about them? But individual cases are meaningless because we have to rely on a faulty justice system that is going to make mistakes because it's controlled by humans. If we were God-King we could make a decision on a case-by-case basis...but we're not, so we're against the death penalty.

3) a fetus is not a sentient life form. It is a potential sentient life form. So is a sperm. I know there are some churches that still are against birth control, but there is no law against the use of birth control, and there shouldn't be. Men and women should be allowed to choose to use birth control, even though it kills sperm. And abortion should be a choice too. It's a good thing to reduce unplanned pregnancies trhough more and better education, and therefore reduce the need for women to make this difficult decision.

I mean, I wouldn't want masturbation to be outlawed either...that kills potential sentient life as well...and darn it, I enjoy it.

I see no hypocrisy.

Perhaps what Iowa Jim should have said is that, while he knew Mr. David's post was meant as a joke, he was hard pressed to find something humorous in the attempt. Beyond that, he may have found the concept of executing a clone for the crimes of the original evocative of certain questions - questions PAD did not intend to explore, but which were nonetheless interesting to Iowa Jim, as well as to me.

The basic problem here is that PAD seems to feel that while he has the right to joke about whatever he pleases, and to criticize wherever he thinks it proper, the idea of someone else joking about him or, God forbid, criticizing him quite disturbing.

"The basic problem here is that PAD seems to feel that while he has the right to joke about whatever he pleases, and to criticize wherever he thinks it proper, the idea of someone else joking about him or, God forbid, criticizing him quite disturbing."

A premise put to the lie by the simple fact that I have a pretty open policy in terms of discussion. If I *really* found criticism or joking disturbing, I would simply forbid it. I would use this forum as a pulpit for my opinions and delete or block anyone I don't like or anything I don't want said.

Actually, it always breaks me up when someone accuses a professional writer of "not being able to handle criticism." It displays a staggering lack of awareness of just how much criticism and critiques are a part of a writer's day-to-day life. If one can't develop a thick skin about criticism, one shrivels very quickly in this business. At the very least, it manifests in self-destructive attitudes that become more and more pronounced (as the recent meltdown at the Byrne Board has shown.)

I've been making a living full time at this job for over twenty years and have an open-expression policy that extends to just about anything short of hurling vile epithets at my wife. That should tell you something.

In Jim's case, I really, truly didn't know if he knew it was a joke.

PAD

The point of this post seems to be to point out the inconsistency of having both a "anti-abortion" and a "pro-death-penalty" point of view. But isn't it equally inconsistent to have both a "pro-abortion" and "anti-death-penalty" point of view?

Not at least until abortions cost $9 million a pop.

Your answer may be true, but it's not an answer to my question. (Which by the way, was a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer). If I asked "What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution?" and you said "Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the United States," your answer would be true but not a proper response to the question.

"But isn't x?" is a boolean question. The answer is either yes or no. The answer to your question is still no.

Of the cardinal positions of your question -- pro-death penalty, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion -- pro-death penalty is the only option that costs over $9 million a pop.

"What were the effects of the Industrial Revolution?" is not a boolean question. Many answers answer the question.

I know the post was in sarcastic jest, but assuming, for the moment, cloning was possible, why would you execute an infant Saddam?

The joke is that where the invasion of Iraq was justified as a preemptive strike, an abortion of a Saddam Hussein clone is also justified as a preemptive strike. All you need is George Bush citing forged x-rays the mother's womb is hiding uranium bought from Niger in the state of the union address, or Hans Blix denying the mother's fallopian tubes can be used as a centrifuge.

I'm gonna hate myself in the morning for this, I can tell, but Mike might have something there. The state of the union address is NOT a place they would've looked for uranium bought from Niger. Still don't know how the speech got into a woman's womb, though.

"Of the cardinal positions of your question -- pro-death penalty, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion -- pro-death penalty is the only option that costs over $9 million a pop."

But what does that have to do with anything? What I'm talking about is whether you can be pro-death-penalty AND anti-abortion at the same time. You can be both pro-space-program and anti-talking during movies, only one costs several billion dollars, but so what? My point is that your argument is irrelevant.

And "John"; if you were to read my entire comment rather than just posting your standard arguments regarding abortion and the death penalty, you would see that I clearly say that "I think you can choose your values independently of one another." I did not suggest that anyone was hypocritical.

It's my own fault I guess...Mr. David made his point with a much more appropriate level of humor I think...

The state of the union address is NOT a place they would've looked for uranium bought from Niger. Still don't know how the speech got into a woman's womb, though.

¡No, Nurse Ratched, no lo dice a mi madre, por favor!™

Of the cardinal positions of your question -- pro-death penalty, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion -- pro-death penalty is the only option that costs over $9 million a pop.

But what does that have to do with anything? What I'm talking about is whether you can be pro-death-penalty AND anti-abortion at the same time.

You asked where holding pro-death-penalty and anti-abortion positions are considered inconsistent, is holding anti-death-penalty and pro-choice positions not also inconsistent.

The answer to your question is no, because you can object to executing a convict on the grounds of the extreme expense.

OK, Mike, I still don't get how that connects to the original argument, so instead I'll just take a quick look at what you seem to believe is the germaine part of the argument, the 9 million dollars it takes to execute someone.

First; that seems like kind of a cold way to look at things. Most people are anti-death-penalty for reasons of compassion to humanity. Even those who think the death penalty is necessary for the most part do so because they believes it serves the greater cause of justice. I think it would be a sad world if we all chose our moral positions based on which was the cheapest.

Second; your $9 million dollar figure doesn't come from the mechanisms of the execution themselves, (i.e. the noose, the electric chair, the firing squad bullets) The cost (and I'm letting you have that as an unsourced factoid) comes from the legal fees for the required series of appeals. Before we execute someone, we make sure they have every possible appeal. And the lawyers, of course, cost money. But that raises the question, shouldn't we exhaust every possible appeal for everyone? If I was unjustly accused of a crime, maybe it would be better for me if it was a capital crime, because I'd get the defense share of the $9 million dollars, instead of the much cheaper life sentence defense.

OK, Mike, I still don't get how that connects to the original argument...

It isn't my fault the answer to your question didn't make your point. That isn't my problem.

First; that seems like kind of a cold way to look at things.

Executions are times of celebration, are they?

But that raises the question, shouldn't we exhaust every possible appeal for everyone? If I was unjustly accused of a crime, maybe it would be better for me if it was a capital crime, because I'd get the defense share of the $9 million dollars, instead of the much cheaper life sentence defense.

So we're doing the defendent a favor by prosecuting to execute? Because they get more money for defense?

1. Is that really a concern of the taxpayer?
2. If the extra money is so much an advantage to the defendant, why are people still getting executed for crimes they didn't commit?

I like ice cream.

a fetus is not a sentient life form. It is a potential sentient life form. So is a sperm.

John, I think I have to point out that this is, really, not the case. A sperm can never become a sentient life form.

Arguably, an egg could, though it would have a high liklihood of genetic defects. (A komodo dragon recently pulled this off.)

True, a aperm that combines with an egg has that potential but it has ceased to be a sperm at that point. One could argue that through cloning (the real cloning, not the Sci-Fi stuff) ANY cell could be used to fertilize an egg and thus has the potential for sentience.

So, in conclusion, you can masturbate guilt free. Let's shake hands on it...no, nevermind.

(as the recent meltdown at the Byrne Board has shown.)

Oh, great, now I have to go look...yeah, yeah, I don't HAVE to but you can't just tell us there's been a headon collision between a cement truck and a volswagon full of clowns and not expect us to run out to see it!

I like ice cream.

Would you spend $9 million for ice cream?

Would you spend $9 million for ice cream?

I usually buy Haagen-Daaz. It's not that much less.

But I'd still have to insist on a sample first.

All right, I know that PAD considers himself extraordinarily open minded. After all, he says so quite frequently. I suppose it is true in so far as he seldom (I would say almost never, but really don't know the facts) bans posters who criticize him. The fact that I am posting is good evidence of that. Nonetheless, I still feel that he expresses an unsupportable certainty that his take on any subject is the only common sense position, and that anyone who finds fault with him "just doesn't get the joke." The way he has expressed himself here seems quite self-righteous, but he is accurate in characterizing himself as tolerant of opposition: He allows it, but thinks it is pretty silly for not seeing things exactly the way he does. He insists that his response to Iowa Jim came from a real uncertainty that he understood that the premise was a joke. I think he should have felt very certain that its intention as a joke was understood. "I know the post was in sarcastic jest" indicates that he knew it was meant as a joke. The real question is whether he found it funny. Perhaps he did not. I found it somewhat, but not extremely, funny, but it is each reader's prerogative to decide for himself. His post went on to raise a real question - whether a clone of a monster should be held responsible for the crimes of its "father." For me, the answer would be very simple: No, no one should be held accountable for someone else's crimes, but other people may feel differently. The fact that PAD didn't feel like addressing that particular subject at this time doesn't establish that Iowa Jim just didn't get it.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at January 3, 2007 12:29 PM

The way he has expressed himself here seems quite self-righteous, but he is accurate in characterizing himself as tolerant of opposition: He allows it, but thinks it is pretty silly for not seeing things exactly the way he does.

I find it interesting that you perfunctorily acknowledge that PAD's blog is open to anyone -- even people who choose to insult him -- and then try to follow that up with a "but." As though giving people a forum in which to speak their minds -- a privilege for which they didn't pay and to which they are by no means entitled -- isn't tolerant enough.

Expressing disagreement isn't the same as expressing a lack of respect. In fact, when I really don't respect someone I usually limit my interaction with them or ignore them completely.

Posted by: Jeffrey Frawley at January 3, 2007 12:29 PM

He insists that his response to Iowa Jim came from a real uncertainty that he understood that the premise was a joke.

Iowa Jim asked, "I know the post was in sarcastic jest, but assuming, for the moment, cloning was possible, why would you execute an infant Saddam?"

That question missed the point of this post. PAD was poking fun at what he apparently sees as a contradiction in Bush's philosophy. Bush opposes abortion based on the idea that "life is sacred," yet is a strong advocate for capital punishment.

Iowa Jim, you and I disagree about a lot of things, but I do respect you. So I hope you understand that this is not a criticism or a jab, but merely an observation: you missed the boat on this one. If it's any consolation, I've missed the boat here more than a few times myself. :)

There's absolytely no reason to believe that the clone of anyone would be likely to result in a rebirth of whatever it was that made that person worth cloning. Identical twins are clones and end up as different people--and this is usually with very similar upbringings.

Imagine we clone Lincoln. What do we get? A homely tall kid of above average intelligence. He will not free any slaves and his unnattractiveness may limit his political ambitions, if he has any, which is by no means likely. He was a fortunate product of his time and even if we clone the man we can't clone the time.

I suppose we might get good results from cloning purely physical traits, like athletisism, but personality traits are less likely and circumstances are impossible.

At least THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL made it clear that to recreate Hitler they would have to replicate his life events, to the best of their ability. Why they would want to clone a proven loser instead of, say, Rommel, is beyond me.

"Mauricio - I was referencing a movie "The Boys From Brazil", which is about a different dictator being cloned."

Right... Sorry, I would never remember that movie...

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 3, 2007 01:11 PM

There's absolytely no reason to believe that the clone of anyone would be likely to result in a rebirth of whatever it was that made that person worth cloning.

Well, thank God for that. I was scared someone might clone me and then I'd have to kick my clone's ass for doing all of the stupid things I already did. But now there's hope that someone might clone me and my clone might have a chance to get it right.

Go "other me!"

Bill Myers: PAD said "In Jim's case, I really, truly didn't know if he knew it was a joke," whereas Iowa Jim had already acknowledged that it was a joke - so I think it is either disingenuousness or careless reading to miss the cue "I know the post was in sarcastic jest." I have no reason to presume it is the former, so it could well be careless reading (with which everyone on this site, no one excluded, is sure to be familiar). PAD knows very well that "sarcastic jest" is a reference to a joke, and you may also. PAD's response "missed the point of the post," which was: "Yes, I know you're kidding, but if this were really, seriously, truly so, then..." It's a speculative leap, something like creative writing - you know, the sort of thing PAD does as a career.

"Giving people a forum in which to speak their minds" is far more generous than the practice of many blogs, certainly. That's lovely, and I appreciate it, but (Yes, "but" - a word you don't like) derision of opposing views can certainly exist even in a forum, such as this, which graciously permits such views' expression. Obviously, you and I disagree as to whether PAD is intolerant in this matter, or perhaps just on what we mean by "intolerant." What I think is this: 1. PAD goes far beyond any obligation to permit dissent on his site. That's great, and I thank him. 2. He is much like an old professor I had 25 years ago. He has a generally superior sense of humor and enjoys making jokes, but he responds very negatively to other people doing the same, even in direct response to his own jokes. This is irritating.

At first, I, too, thought Jim missed the point of the post, but upon reading it again I realized that he didn't miss the point, he just didn't appreciate the point. I think what he's saying is that the joke was stretched too far, that he didn't find any satirical value in the part about executing the clone, because that's not something conservatives would ever support.

I appreciate Peter's joke, but I can also see where Jim is coming from.

But now there's hope that someone might clone me and my clone might have a chance to get it right.

Imagine we clone Lincoln. What do we get? A homely tall kid of above average intelligence.

Even that's not guaranteed, as both intelligence and height are greatly influenced by childhood nutrition and environment. Raise Lincoln's clone on the Super-Size Me diet and let him play video games 24/7 and see what you get.

Iowa Jim, if Robert Fuller is correct, then I will gladly acknowledge that I missed the boat about you missing the boat. :)

Jeffrey Frawley, I find it ironic that you complain about PAD's demeanor. Using this blog's search function revealed what I suspected: you've made a habit out of looking for excuses to pick a fight with PAD. In one instance you even upset PAD's wife, which is extremely not cool.

If you find PAD so irritating it doesn't make sense for you to keep coming back. Just walk away. And stop trying to pretend you're serving a cause any greater than your own personal pique. Because frankly, there are a number of us who find PAD decidedly non-irritating. Like me.

Uh, Bill Mulligan, your last post has me a bit confused. Was there supposed to be more?

Yeah...and there was! But somehow I must've deleted it before I hit the post button.

Basically it was ruminating on the possible possibilities of cloning--a daughter giving birth to herslf, or her parents, and what a disater it would likely be. Tie that into the recent news of experiments on gay sheep and speculation by handicapped parents of the ethics involved in deliberately introducing defects into designer kids and it seems to me that we are in for one hell of a ride.

Won't be dull though.

I think the immediate risk of cloning is psychological. If sombody clones themselves or their dead child or a famous individual like Lincoln or Einstein, that clone wil always be pressured to be like the original.

Although it would be very interesting to clone people who have been dead for a long time, like Mozart or Newton, and see what happens to them in our scientific and artistic environment.

"recent news of experiments on gay sheep"

Is this an idea for an experiment or a hollywood movie?

Future quote from a delivery room somewhere near the Myers household--"I believe I will call him--Mini-Me. Wait, that's taken, how about Mini-My?"

And for Mr. Mulligan's scenario, the daughter cloning herself, in that case, who pays for the wedding?

Gay sheep--as though we Scots didn't have ENOUGH people laughing at us.

Bill Myers: I began to answer a few hours ago, but the post would have been more venomous than my real intention. As for upsetting PAD's wife, that was not my intention, but if I take his word for it, she was mortified that I mentioned that he had previously been married and, in fact, produced three daughters in the furtherance thereof. Well, I thought she already knew where those three girls came from; In fact, I still suspect she did know. Perhaps he just felt that such an appeal to her injured sensibilities would fill me with shame at criticizing him. It did not.

You counsel me to "stop trying to pretend (I'm) serving a cause any greater than (my) own personal pique." That might be good advice, if I were either "trying to pretend" or pretending in earnest something other than this: when PAD says something I think wrong, I say so. That's quite straightforward, and no pretense at all. Generally, when I criticize him my first post is rather direct, but not particularly foul tempered. Directly afterward, various devotees spring to his defense, proclaiming the monstrousness of disagreeing with such a fine, forbearing, incredibly wise fellow. After that (this hasn't happened just yet) the threats, accusations and characterizations of idiocy follow. Of course, my argument then becomes much more extreme. Anyone who wants to spring to PAD's side should remember this: When he feels it appropriate, he ridicules and belittles what he thinks craven, unfair or stupid. By doing so, he makes it very inappropriate to bemoan criticism of HIM using the same tools. Take him at his word: He is a grown man who proclaims that he is quite thick skinned, a man who hasn't yet been shriveled by criticism. I'll give him enough respect to believe he is telling the truth about that. Certain of his devotees do him far more damage than my criticism could ever accomplish, simply by linking their foolish tactics to his arguments and making it appear he would have said something so dumb. I'm no fan, but I don't think he's stupid.

"recent news of experiments on gay sheep"

Is this an idea for an experiment or a hollywood movie?

It's an experiment looking for a "cure" for homosexuality.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=experiments+gay+sheep

"recent news of experiments on gay sheep"

Is this an idea for an experiment or a hollywood movie?

It's an experiment looking for a "cure" for homosexuality.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=experiments+gay+sheep

Jeffrey, I'm sure I'd have something to say about your last post -- if I'd read it. But I've added you to my "ignore list." Troll away to your heart's content. :)

Hey, this "don't even bother reading the trolls' posts" thing is really cool once you get the hang of it! And the blog seems so much more fun once you filter out their nonsense. :)

Posted by: Michael Brunner at January 3, 2007 07:29 PM

It's an experiment looking for a "cure" for homosexuality.

Lovely. I remember reading a magazine in which an editorialist warned gay rights supporters (like myself) that studies suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality could lead to attempts to find a "cure."

You can cure a wound or a disease. But if you change someone's sexuality, you have altered who they are. At best, that's eugenics. And it disgusts me.

I have gay friends. They don't need to be "cured."

Sorry. Didn't mean to step up on a soapbox but prejudice against gays really, really, really burns me. Probably because it is one of the last "socially acceptable" prejudices.

"Lovely. I remember reading a magazine in which an editorialist warned gay rights supporters (like myself) that studies suggesting a biological basis for homosexuality could lead to attempts to find a "cure.""

Yet, thee is a purely scientific interest in finding out the causes of homosexuality. I think it ould be wrong to suppress scientific research because we're afraid the results won't fit our world view.

In any case, homophobes have been trying to 'cure' homosexuality when they thought it was psychologically motivated, and when they thought it was a choise. They are willing to use any scientific, legal or social method as a tool so long as it serves their prejudiced agenda. But it would be similarly wrong to try to force science to fit our agenda, even if it's a good one.

Basically it was ruminating on the possible possibilities of cloning--a daughter giving birth to herslf, or her parents, and what a disater it would likely be.

On the bright side, being pregnant with your own clone means it's no longer tacky to hold your baby shower at a Kinko's copy center.

Of course, if pre-natal treatment could reduce the tendency toward homosexuality, it could also be used to do the exact opposite. Is anyone willing to condemn a gay parent from seeing to it that their child is gay as well?

Before you answer that you have to consider a few things--would any of us, if we had the option to do so, refuse to allow a simple treatment of our children to be that would effectively eliminate any chance of severe birth defects? Probably not--we encourage women to take folic acid for just that reason.

Ok, what if we could ensure they would not get diabetes? Or bad eyesight?

(At this point there will be those whose mom's did NOT get enough folic acid who will be pursing their lips and thinking "Why that &%#@$! Comparing gay people to diabetes!" Patience, oh easily offended ones!)

What if we could make them smarter?

I mean, every parent’s child is a genius...but what if you could actually make it so?

I've mentioned this to parents and had them scoff at the very idea of doing such a thing...but they've blown loads of money on mobiles and books on tape and talking books for 5 month olds and assorted other crap that doesn't work. Apparently once the kid is born anything goes.

Ok, maybe intelligence...but not sexual orientation, certainly! Because...why? Is there anyone here who would rate the sexual orientation of a person as more important than their intelligence?

Sure, there will be people who will mean it when they say that they are willing to put it into the hands of God or chance or whatever. Their children will compete in a world where their peers were given the advantages of pre-birth enhancement...and they will lose.

The slope gets slippery...before you know it you are in a GATTACA world (one of the more underrated science fiction films, in my opinion). And that world is not all bad...and I'm not sure we can stop it...and I'm not sure I'm going to like it.

Posted by: Micha at January 3, 2007 08:07 PM

I think it ould be wrong to suppress scientific research because we're afraid the results won't fit our world view.

I never said we should suppress scientific research. Neither did the editorial I cited. The point is merely this: science is a double-edged sword. There are those who hope that the discovery of a biological basis for homsexuality will lead to acceptance. As the "experiment" with gay sheep points out, this will not necessarily be the case.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at January 3, 2007 09:40 PM

Of course, if pre-natal treatment could reduce the tendency toward homosexuality, it could also be used to do the exact opposite. Is anyone willing to condemn a gay parent from seeing to it that their child is gay as well?

Yes. Indeed, I would.

I don't think Star Trek was far off the mark in this respect. Eugenics is simply dangerous. The possible benefits are by far outweighed by the potential for negative consequences.

Of course, I find it amusing (in a good way) that this discussion was spawned by a post that really wasn't about cloning, but was about a perceived contradiction between supporting capital punishment and opposing abortion.

Cloning was certainly a disaster in Y: The Last Man: it killed everything on the planet with a Y chromosome!

(Um, that is, everything on the planet with a Y chromosome was killed, not that a Y chromosome was used as an instrument of murder, but I'm sure you knew what I meant)

I'm of two minds concerning the whole finding-a-biological-basis-for-homosexuality extravaganza. On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it's a "choice." On the other hand, it will allow those same people to have their children tested for homosexuality and have it removed. So, clearly, that's a high price to pay for shutting them up.

And, just to come to the defense of yet another poster, I don't think Jeffrey is a troll (I kind of hate that expression, actually), or that he deserves to be ignored (or, at least, not on the basis of his comments in this thread... I'm not familiar with his history of which Bill speaks). Just as I feel that Peter has a right to joke about what he pleases, I also feel that Jeffrey has a right to complain about the manner in which he does it, and I don't think that anything he said was out of line. Of course, I also think Bill has a right to follow his own advice and ignore someone who irritates him, so maybe I should just shut up now.

But first I'd like to address one of Jeffrey's complaints:

"The fact that I am posting is good evidence of that. Nonetheless, I still feel that he expresses an unsupportable certainty that his take on any subject is the only common sense position, and that anyone who finds fault with him "just doesn't get the joke.""

Of course he does. Anyone with any real conviction to their beliefs is going to possess a certainty that theirs is the only sensible position. Satire is more or less based on the idea that every other position but yours is nonsense (and the appreciation of satire is more or less based on the ability to laugh at yourself... it's the ones who lack the fortitude in their beliefs who take offense). But just because you think other positions don't make sense, it doesn't mean you can't, or don't, respect those who hold them.

Robert Fuller, if you use this blog's search function to look for "Jeffrey Frawley," you'll see what I mean. If you're not willing to spend that time (and I can understand why you wouldn't) please trust me on this: I do not lightly call Jeffrey a "troll." He's come here on more than one occasion to start trouble. Some of the other longtime posters in this forum can hopefully back me up on this.

Anyway, I consider putting someone in the "ignore pile" a "nuclear option." Right now there are only two in mine: Mike, and Jeffrey Frawley. I hope not to expand that number. Why? Because even people with whom I nearly always disagree can sometimes bring things to the table that forces me to look at something in a new way. Ignoring lots of people means cheating myself of opportunities to learn.

I'm of two minds concerning the whole finding-a-biological-basis-for-homosexuality extravaganza. On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it's a "choice." On the other hand, it will allow those same people to have their children tested for homosexuality and have it removed. So, clearly, that's a high price to pay for shutting them up.

They'll simply say it's a defect, like pedophilia or schizophrenia. It won't shut them up one iota.

And if we actually CAN influence sexual orientation in utero it opens the very real possibility that we will eventually be able to influence it in adults as well. One of the valid critisizms of efforts to "cure" gays is that it doesn't work. What if that is no longer the case? At that point, homosexuality would acually, finally be a choice, in the sense that one could choose to eliminate it.

Which probably behooves those of us who hope that gays will be acccepted as no big deal to get cracking, because the clock may be ticking on this.

On the one hand, it will finally shut up everyone who still thinks it's a "choice."

Wanna bet? These are some of the same people who say that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, the Grand Canyon was caused by the Great Flood, and bush is leading us to victory in Iraq.

Man, I was so unsure about posting this one after reading over it. Please try to read this as my honestly trying to work out whats "right" vs what "feels right" or "seems right" in a brain that's starting to fry itself by going back and forth over this.
__________________________________________________

"I have gay friends. They don't need to be "cured."

As do I and I agree.

"...but prejudice against gays really, really, really burns me."

As it does me.

But I've been reading those links and some others and this does bring up an interesting question. What of the yet to be born?

I know a guy who's in his late 40's who's been blind since the day he was born. From time to time, we've talked about advances out there in organ replacement and what not. In some cases, you can get your sight back these days. However, he doesn't feel that he lost his sight as he never had it to begin with. For him, being blind is the norm. Being blind is right for him.

He doesn't want to be able to see at this point in his life. Not only would it change or destroy who he is, but it would make him an alien on a strange world overnight.

Think about that a moment. He doesn't know and has never known what this world or its people look like. He has never, in 40 plus years, had the sense that we call "sight" to send pictures to his brain to match up with voices, sounds, people, places or things.

The idea of changing that at this point in his life scares him a little. Part of why he doesn't want some doctor giving him sight at this point in his life, and this is what he actually says, is because he doesn't know what that huge a change would do to him. He honestly doesn't know if he could handle waking up with sight one morning after decades of having never had it or really knowing what it was.

But, he has no problem with medical science coming up with ways to fix blindness for people who lost their sight or babies born blind. He sees neither of those cases as comparing to his in any way, shape or form.

Now, here's where it gets sticky. Here's where you have to think about your choice of answers and question whether you're answering based on prejudice, being PC, wanting to help people or whatever else.

What if we woke up Monday to newspapers around the globe putting this research on the front page and stating that they had in fact found a way to flip the chemical or biological "error" back to "normal" in not only sheep, but humans as well? What would we do?

Well, I know that I would fight to the death over the rights of my friends to stay who they are. I know that I would get involved with every group out there who opposed any politician or religious leader pushing to use this "cure" to "fix" gay men and women in the general population.

But I'll be damned if I can figure out what I would actually do if some doctor said that you could see if the chemical balance was off in an unborn child and correct it in the womb. My first thought was like Bill's eugenics comment. Not a good thing. But then it started crashing around in my head and plugging in to the devil's advocate sections of my thought process.

There are any number of things that we can now detect and fix in the womb or right after birth that people have no problem with having medical science fix. There are any number of things that people say that they would love to see get to the point to where some physical problems could be caught and corrected before birth so that a child can live a "normal, healthy life."

Well, can that be said to be the case here? Yeah, I know. Who defines normal? Even more debate pages just for that one. Lets just say that the answer, for now, is the parents.

"But it would be similarly wrong to try to force science to fit our agenda, even if it's a good one."

But is it a good agenda, a right agenda, or is it merely the socielly and politically correct response to the idea of the research?

Again, I wouldn't change a thing about any of my gay friends. They are who they are, I like them for who they are and, of far greater importance here, they like who they are.

But there's one thing that every gay man and woman I know has in common. They have all talked about how hard it was growing up and how badly some things went down when they fully came out to friends and family. They talk about, often painfully, what it was like growing up a square peg in a round world and how confusing it sometimes was because they didn't really know until much later that they were a square peg.

I have one straight friend who is very much pro-gay rights because of what happened in her own family. Short version? Years ago, her brother killed himself over several issues. The main one in his suicide note was the reaction of friends and his parents when he came out a year prior to his death (at either 17 or 18). He basically got the "we have no son" bit from his parents and several friends turned their backs on him. Apparently one of his older friends told him to F off and then underscored his point by beating the crap out of him.

Now, I'm sure if asked that most of my gay friends (or this one girl) would say that "fixing" in the womb was wrong. Ok. Devil's advocate again along with thinking outside of the box coming up.

What else are they going to say?

The basic idea of fixing something says that something is wrong and needs fixing to begin with. Well, if you look at it from a purely chemical, mechanical and unemotional way, something is wrong. But that's not how most of my friends have been told that they are "wrong" for their entire lives.

Our society has, and unfortunatly will continue for generations to come, been telling them that they are wrong because they're defective, evolution's dead ends, evil, without morals, abominations against God and nature, going to hell, etc, etc, etc. If you've been told your whole life that you were "wrong" in all those ways, could you look at such a question on a purely unemotional and mechanical way and not feel that the very idea was still in some small way a slap in your face and one further statement that your very existance is being said to somehow be "WRONG" in all those ways once again?

At this point, can the question or idea even be truly presented without those issues being a part if it? Can the idea even be looked at in a manner where it is actually meant to be helping people to not grow up with ten kinds of hell in their life that they would not otherwise have?

Again, I wouldn't want living person changed and I would fight to the death over keeping anybody from forcing change on others in this manner. But would offering the chance for some parents to correct what they may see as a problem caused by a chemical anomaly in their unborn child's brain be the same thing as offering to "cure" an adult?

Like I said, I'm not putting forth an opinion here. But I do find it to be a rather... interesting question. I also find it an unbelievably hard one to answer. And I really don't know on what side of this debate I would ultimately come down on.

My understanding is that the current theory on gender-preference is not that there is a drive to be homosexual or heterosexual, but the drive is to have sex with the male or female gender.

Just as likely as a therapy to change gender-preference is a therapy to switch genders. What girl-hungry guy would turn down the chance to experience a frenzy of lesbian action? I can only assume the same is true for the boy-crazy girls. As science advances, a homophobic agenda will only seem more and more pointless.

1I have not put Bill Myers on my ignore list, because I feel secure enough to read what he says without having palpitations.

Robert Fuller: Yes, it is true that people who think they are right tend to think opposing positions are inferior to their own. When they take this to the extreme of pretending any other argument is nothing but ignorance - to the point that they ignore their own prior statements or willfully misread the other person's - that's what I find objectionable. You are among the few here who have simply looked at all sides, expressed your opinion and treated others with respect. That shouldn't be such an exceptional thing, but it is.

Jerry C--very interestig comments.

Science has a habit of complicating the issues, doesn't it? Live long enough and it can make you a hypocrite. I have a friend, as hardcore a feminist as there could likely be and still be willing to put up with me, who used to be (and still thinks she is) as "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion as one could be. It's a woman's choice, any reason is a good reason if it's her choice, etc.

Confronted with what's going on in India--where abortion is being used to selectively eliminate daughters--and she's suddenly all for laws to eliminate the practice (Well, she's against it being used for sorocide or filicide or whatever specific cide this would be).

Me, I think it's a dreadful reason but being pro-choice doesn't mean pro-only approved reasons choice. Time and demographics will eventually solve this issue.

The point is, we are rapidly reaching the point where we may have more options than we ever wanted. It wil make for an interesting time.

Live long enough and it can make you a hypocrite. I have a friend, as hardcore a feminist as there could likely be and still be willing to put up with me, who used to be (and still thinks she is) as "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion as one could be. It's a woman's choice, any reason is a good reason if it's her choice, etc.

Confronted with what's going on in India--where abortion is being used to selectively eliminate daughters--and she's suddenly all for laws to eliminate the practice (Well, she's against it being used for sorocide or filicide or whatever specific cide this would be).

In that "30 Days" tv show, they sent an unemployed American to work as a telemarketer in India. He visited the overcrowded hovel of someone who worked full-time, suited, supervising a staff of a dozen.

India has an oppressive system of poverty and locked sex-roles that make your citation of hypocrisy ridiculous and self-serving.

Coercion is Choice. Lies are Truth. Denial is Normal Psychology.™ Typical.

"My understanding is that the current theory on gender-preference is not that there is a drive to be homosexual or heterosexual, but the drive is to have sex with the male or female gender."

Well, if that's the case--and since sex drive stems from the hardwired genetic need to perpetuate the species--then one wonders whether or not homosexuality...who's gay and who isn't...isn't arbitrary at all, but instead nature's way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn't.

After all, if someone is carrying some sort of undesirable genetic component, then isn't the simplest means of weeding out that component to "flip a switch" in utero and ensure that the carrier will have no desire to perpetuate it? Yes, dampening the sex drive of the individual is also a possibility, but that's so hardwired into humanity that it would be much easier simply to redirect it in a direction where creating progeny isn't an issue.

I'm not saying that *is* the reason for some people being gay. What am I, a geneticist? I'm just saying it'd be interesting. Has anyone ever postulated that?

PAD

PAD - Although you are likely to find some who are disturbed at the very idea of associating homosexuality with the weeding out of undesirable genetic material, it is an entirely valid area of investigation. Although you are writing more to those who already respect you than not, it still takes a fair amount of courage to say what may be unpopular or misconstrued. Neither of us really knows the whole truth, but it is very bad science to refuse to even consider such ideas. Another area that is very touchy is the consideration of any racially-based differences within the human population. Although my first impulse is to say that humanity is really so homogeneous that notable differences wouldn't occur between groupings, it is not an invalid field of study. If the "PC" view is correct - as I expect it is in this case - the only result of such investigation would be validation of the more progressive position. (I'm not saying this is the most worthwhile study to do, but rather that it isn't good science or good logic to forbid it, as some would.)

My personal theory is that it's nature's way of doing a little population control.

Well, if that's the case--and since sex drive stems from the hardwired genetic need to perpetuate the species--then one wonders whether or not homosexuality...who's gay and who isn't...isn't arbitrary at all, but instead nature's way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn't.

The impression I got was that the source of the drive to have sex with a man, while obvious in women, is what gets passed to men to make them gay. The drive to have sex with a woman, while obvious to every straight guy, is what gets passed to women to make them lesbians.

In terms of evolutionary advantages, women whose drive to have sex with men is so strong she passes it on make up for non-reproducing sons by having more children.

then one wonders whether or not homosexuality...who's gay and who isn't...isn't arbitrary at all, but instead nature's way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn't.

If this is true, then nature missed a whole LOT of people who shouldn't be re-producing.

Unfortunately, I'm only partially joking.

"India has an oppressive system of poverty and locked sex-roles that make your citation of hypocrisy ridiculous and self-serving.

Coercion is Choice. Lies are Truth. Denial is Normal Psychology.™ Typical."

Um, Bill's statement of hypocrisy was on the part of pro-choicers who suddenly oppose abortion on specific grounds (such as aborting potential daughters). He was not accusing "India" of hypocrisy.

Um, Bill's statement of hypocrisy was on the part of pro-choicers who suddenly oppose abortion on specific grounds (such as aborting potential daughters). He was not accusing "India" of hypocrisy.

I referrred to a specific accusation of hypocrisy. Where did I say it was to India?

Jerry, I agree with Bill Mulligan that you brought up some very interesting points. Normally, I try not to discuss myself in great detail in other people's blogs. But in this case I think a personal perspective might be appropriate.

I take five different medications every day. Three of them are for conditions that likely have a neurological component: Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), Depression, and Restless Legs Syndrome. My other two medications are for allergies and acid reflux, respectively. Sleep apnea requires me to use a CPAP device at night in order to sleep properly.

There are people with far worse conditions than mine. But compared with your average person, I've got more than my fair share of ailments.

My neurological conditions and my sleep apnea weren't diagnosed until I was an adult. This made for a difficult childhood and adolescence. People with ADD struggle not only with impulsivity and a tendency to talk too much and out of turn, but also a marked inability to interpret social cues. Between my social awkwardness and my lack of physical prowess, I was always at the bottom rung of the popularity ladder.

Believe it or not, I was labeled a "gifted" child at an early age and placed in accelerated learning programs. Many people had high expectations for me upon my graduation from college, but I floundered instead, getting stuck in unsatisfying jobs and finding myself unable to extricate myself from them. ADD, Depression, and sleep deprivation conspired together to limit my ability to realize my potential.

I can, to an extent, relate to your friend who committed suicide. When my depression was at its worst I would contemplate suicide on an almost daily basis. I never attempted it, but there are one or two instances where I came damn close.

For most of my life I have regarded myself as "fundamentally damaged." I have often wondered to myself if I don't belong on some genetic "scrap heap." Now, what if doctors had been able to "fix" my genetic structure before I was born? What if they had been able to ensure that I'd have a normal brain chemistry and a healthier body?

I suppose you could say it's anyone's guess. But having actually lived my life, I'm confident that I would have had an easier, happier time growing up without these problems. I would have been more popular, and more successful in school. I might even be further ahead in my career today.

I'd also be an entirely different person.

That's really what we're talking about. Ensuring that people like me never come to exist.

It's a chilling thought, at least to me.

See, things have been coming together for me over the last few years. I've been getting my health problems identified and treated. I'm finally starting to establish a career where I believe I can be successful and happy. I've been living with the same woman for the last five years. I have plenty of wonderful friends.

I had a hell of a time getting to this place in my life. It was largely an excruciating journey, and one I often hated while I was on it. But without those experiences, as awful as some of them were, I wouldn't be who I am. I wouldn't have gained the strength, the knowledge, the passion, and the emotions that I have today. I wouldn't be me.

Yes, it would be wonderful if the science of genetics would allow us to rid the human race of birth defects like Down Syndrome. But the other edge to that sword is that you'd likely be preventing people like me from ever existing as well. I mean, what loving mother would say, "Oh, no, don't correct my child's ADD, Depression, RLS, allergies, or stomach issues. I want him to have a shitty time of it growing up!"

I'd rather be given the chance to prove that I can contribute something to the world, even with all of my flaws, than to be turned into an uber-human.

I realize that my anecdotes don't provide any more answers than you were able to, Jerry. But that's okay. My intention was to ask more questions.

"My personal theory is that it's nature's way of doing a little population control."

Actually, I've read studies on wildlife where that theory was seriously discussed when the observers noticed an increase in homosexual activity in animals in areas where population began to outstrip resources and living area. In at least one paper I read (I'm sorry, but I can't remember who wrote it or from what group they were from so that I could quickly look up a link), someone was citing that as further support for gay rights. His (or her) position was that this is a naturally occurring phenomena in mammals to deal with overpopulation and should therefore not be treated as a stigma or abnormality.

It was an interesting piece. I wish I could give you all a better lead for tracking it down yourselves.

"I realize that my anecdotes don't provide any more answers than you were able to, Jerry. But that's okay. My intention was to ask more questions."

I think that's all I'm doing at the moment. When these things came up when my friends and I were growing up, some of these concepts seemed like things that would never be seen in our lifetimes. They were pure science fiction. Then progress, science and technology went through what seemed like dramatic explosions in their rate of advancement. Now, we have science fact forcing us to decide where it is that we'll all stand on issues that many people likely never seriously considered as anything more then a clever twist in a sci-fi novel.

Believe it or not, my household can kind of relate to what you were talking about. Jenn has a seizure disorder that developed in her mid-teens. She hasn't had one in years due to proper medication, but there was a time in her life when that was hitting her pretty hard. Thing is, she's thankful for what she went through and wouldn't trade it for anything.

She once told me that the woman I love wouldn't have been here if this hadn't happened to her. She's the youngest of three girls. She's the baby. She said that she was a bit spoiled growing up and that she would likely have grown up to be a right proper terror (her words) had this not hit her and forced her to deal with things in her life in a completely different way. Who she was and who she feels that she would have grown up to be are as different as night and day from who she is now.

So, yeah, I kinda know how much things like this can change how someone turns out and who they grow up to be. But, I've also met people who would trade what they grew up dealing with for a "better" life in a New York Second.

Me? Got nothing to speak of in these areas. I'm screwed up just because that's who I am.

But that's what makes these issues such a bear for some. I can't make an truly informed decision based on my own personal experiences. I have to learn from others and get their advice or perspective from their experiences. Well, like I said, I know people who would come down on both sides of this issue (like this should be any different then any other debate) and both sides can put forth equally compelling arguments.

This isn't like debating murder. I know very few people (and I really wish that I had never had to have any contact with those people) who would argue that the cold blooded murder of some random innocent is a good or right thing. This kind of falls under what is right for each individual person. That basically means that the debate comes down to deciding if it is right or wrong to deny those who would make a "right" decision for themselves or their families the right to do so in order to keep those who would make the "wrong" decision from screwing up. That, and figuring out what in the hell a "right" decision or a "wrong" decision really is here.

Kind of like I said above.... It's and interesting question and debate, but it's hard as hell to say who really has the "right" answer here.

In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read out mail.

Damn, I meant "our mail".

Too much insomnia.

Jerry, to muddy up the waters further, let's look at this from the reverse. What if I had been genetically altered so that I'd have had normal brain chemistry? I'd probably be quite happy that I'd been given such treatments and been allowed to be "normal." If asked whether I'd rather have been allowed to be born with neurochemical imbalances in my brain, I'd probably answer with a resounding "no!"

But that, of course, would be a different person.

As Bill Mulligan said, we're probably going to soon have far more options than we'd ever imagined -- and realize that that's not necessarily a good thing.

Posted by: Den at January 4, 2007 01:58 PM

In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read our mail.

As long as he pays my bills, too, he can have all of my mail.

Seriously, I've chided people in the past for exaggerating Bush's misdeeds. But if the article Den linked to is accurate, this is just beyond the pale. This power that Bush invented is contrary to existing law and the U.S. Constitution.

Seriously? I'm beginning to reconsider my position that Bush needn't be impeached.

In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read our mail.

We can only hope that one day Bush will pay the price for thinking he is above the law.

Preferably in a jail somewhere, on charges of war crimes or something along those lines.

This power that Bush invented is contrary to existing law and the U.S. Constitution.

So what else is new? Warrantless wiretapping, infinite detentions, signing statements, etc. bush has been making up his own laws & powers for the last several years.

It seems to me that there are three possible reasons for the existence of homosexuality:

1. Population control, a theory that I've always prescribed to. I rather like this theory, as it not only makes sense, but it makes me feel useful (even if I wasn't gay, I don't think I'd want to have children, because the world's human population is too large as it is, and growing way too quickly... and anyway, I hate babies).

2. Peter's "genetic control" theory, which I never thought about before, but which also kind of makes sense. It could certainly apply in my case, since I seem to have inherited a genetic bipolar disorder that almost everyone on my dad's side of the family has, and which has been traced back for several generations. So far I'm the only gay person in my family, but we'll see if any of my sister's kids or my cousins' kids turn out to be gay, and thus support this theory.

3. It's just a biological mistake, like nipples on men. I wouldn't have a problem with this, either.

Posted by: Michael Brunner at January 4, 2007 02:25 PM

So what else is new? Warrantless wiretapping, infinite detentions, signing statements, etc. bush has been making up his own laws & powers for the last several years.

The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law. On the one hand, they were committing acts of war and thus the Bush administration asserted they were not entitled to due process in our criminal courts. On the other hand, they were not part of a recognized national army, and thus the Bush administration contended they were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. A thin argument? Yeah, I'd say so. But completely meritless? I wouldn't go that far.

Many of the other powers the Bush administration asserted were granted to him under the Patriot Act. I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but I can't imagine impeaching the president for, y'know, acting within the law.

But if the article we're discussing is accurate, Bush is taking things to a new level.

As I keep saying, just because I don't loathe Bush with the same passion that many of you do doesn't mean I worship the guy. I've been saying on this board for months that Bush is a horrible president. I voted for his opponent in 2000 and 2004. And I agree that he's been playing fast and loose with the Constitution. But now he's just making up powers without even trying to justify it.

Hey, I just thought of something -- maybe he's not asserting he has the right to read our mail. Maybe he just completed "Hooked on Phonics" and he's excited because now he's actually literate. :)

A cheap shot? Yes. I'm allowed from time to time.

The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law. On the one hand, they were committing acts of war and thus the Bush administration asserted they were not entitled to due process in our criminal courts. On the other hand, they were not part of a recognized national army, and thus the Bush administration contended they were not entitled to protection under the Geneva Convention. A thin argument? Yeah, I'd say so. But completely meritless? I wouldn't go that far.

The problem with that argument is that Bush wanted a category C that didn't exist in any previous conflict. Either they're prisoners of war or they're criminals awaiting prosecution. There is no third option and eventually, you have to decide whether they fit in column A or column B. Bush didn't want that. He wanted, like he always does, to be able to do whatever he wanted free from any restrictions.

The administration argued that indefinite detentions of suspected terrorists was allowable because terrorists in essence fell between the cracks of the law.

Key word here is suspected . A perfect example is Jose Padilla. Notice that when he was finally charged with a crime, there was no terrorism charge. bush's description of a suspected terrorist is whoever he says is one.

Many of the other powers the Bush administration asserted were granted to him under the Patriot Act. I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but I can't imagine impeaching the president for, y'know, acting within the law.

Even if one accepts that the Patriot Act justifies the use of some of these powers, He's still claiming more powers & authorities than the Patriot act allows.

Further, his use of "signing statements" shows that he feels that NO law applies to him if he says it doesn't.

For example, Congress not too long ago passed a law saying that the president has to brief Congress on war progress on a regular basis. When signing it into law bush also signed a statement that bascially said "The president does not have to do this", a complete contradiction of the law he passed.

As for enacting within the law, since The Constitution (which bush twice swore to uphold) is still the supreme law of the land, Hiding behind the Patriot Act might not be a good defense.

"3. It's just a biological mistake, like nipples on men."

Wait, you're saying that my having nipples is a mistake? But, that.... that would mean that I'm not actually perfect in every way.

Damn you, Robert Fuller!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there was the law Congress passed after Katrina that said that any future head of FEMA had to have real emergency management experience. Bush signed it and attached a signing statement that basically said, "I'm still going to appoint whomever I want."

"Key word here is suspected . A perfect example is Jose Padilla."

Jose Pedilla? Hell, take it a step further and look at Maher Arar's case. Not only does that shoot down many of Bush's dimmer ideas, but it also adds one more case to the file marked, "Why torture doesn't work and does not give you information that you can trust."

Are those of you who are outraged about Bush's use of signing statements to alter the law aware that Bill Clinton did the very same thing?

The use of signing statements to alter the law goes back to Ronald Reagan. I think it's wrong, mind you, but it's not at all new nor is it unique to George W. Bush's presidency.

As far as my assertion that this particular act is more egregious than Bush's other excesses (you see, I agree that he has committed excesses; I am merely asserting that this is one of the worst excesses he has committed), I point to the following passage from the New York Daily News Article Den himself linked to:

"You have to be concerned," agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush's claim. "It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we've ever known."

It appears I'm not alone in believing that this "I can read your mail" schtick is taking things to a new level.

It seems to me that there are three possible reasons for the existence of homosexuality:

1. Population control, a theory that I've always prescribed to. I rather like this theory, as it not only makes sense, but it makes me feel useful (even if I wasn't gay, I don't think I'd want to have children, because the world's human population is too large as it is, and growing way too quickly... and anyway, I hate babies).
2. Peter's "genetic control" theory, which I never thought about before, but which also kind of makes sense. It could certainly apply in my case, since I seem to have inherited a genetic bipolar disorder that almost everyone on my dad's side of the family has, and which has been traced back for several generations. So far I'm the only gay person in my family, but we'll see if any of my sister's kids or my cousins' kids turn out to be gay, and thus support this theory.
3. It's just a biological mistake, like nipples on men. I wouldn't have a problem with this, either.

1 and 2 imply intent in Nature, and as far as I know there are no theories of evolution worth mentioning that depend on intent in Nature.

1. Where there is a surplus of a life-form, other lifeforms will continue to evolve until something can feed off of the surplus. As Ambrose Bierce noted, the King of the Beasts is the housefly. It lives off of everything. The idea that Nature would intervene to make human beings more comfortable has no observable support.
2. Where do you draw the line at genetic disorder? Genetically, what's the disadvantage in the formation of the zygote?

Stephen Jay Gould cited a creature in the early evolutionary stages of animal life on earth that had a mouth that operated like an iris, like the kind that opens and closes on James Bond in the opening of a film. It had no disadvantage in eating, it was just shit out of luck it didn't pass the trait along. Should a human baby also be born with an iris, I don't think there's any inherent reason to believe it couldn't mature like any other human.

3. All mutation depends on something going "wrong." The "mistake" either gives the lifeform an extended lifespan or allows it to mate more effectively, increasing the chances it passes its genetic traits on.

Vonnegut, specifically in Galapagos, characterizes humanity as an evolutionary abomination. The isolated surviving humans evolve into fish-diving seal-like creatures, and he challenges the reader to cite a survival advantage conventional humanity has over them.

"The use of signing statements to alter the law goes back to Ronald Reagan."

It's not really the use itself that some (like myself) find to be a problem with Bush. It's how often he uses the things and how often the use is so that he can do whatever he feels like doing, including bending the Constitution, based on the wonderful legal ideal of, "because I said so."

Vonnegut, specifically in Galapagos, characterizes humanity as an evolutionary abomination. The isolated surviving humans evolve into fish-diving seal-like creatures, and he challenges the reader to cite a survival advantage conventional humanity has over them.

I haven't read the book, so I have to ask: In the specific circumstances they're living in, or in general? Because (based on that brief description, anyway) it doesn't sound like they'd do very well living in the Himalayas or the Sahara; survival advantage is relative, not absolute, after all.

Are those of you who are outraged about Bush's use of signing statements to alter the law aware that Bill Clinton did the very same thing?

Well, nobody has accused the Bush administration of inventing them. That would take an original thought. But this administration has used them more often and more broadly than any previous one. Bush has used them to essentially say, "I'm going to do whatever I what, no matter what the law says." And that's the dangerous mentality of the Cheney doctrine of a "Unitary Executive". This president believes that he is supremely above the law.

I guess that's what happens when you believe you've been anointed by God.

Clinton did a lot of things I didn't like, either, BTW. Signing statements are of dubious constitutionality and, unless Bush eventually gets more sycophants like Harriet Myers on the SCOTUS, would most likely be tossed out if ever brought before the Court.

Are those of you who are outraged about Bush's use of signing statements to alter the law aware that Bill Clinton did the very same thing?

No one is saying that bush is the only one to do this. But his use of them is extra-ordinary, to say the least.

"Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them."

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

bush II as of April of last year: 750+

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/

bush II has used more than three times as many signing statments as the 42 Presidents before him combined

Correction to the last line of my previous post:

It should say "almost", not "more than".

Vonnegut, specifically in Galapagos, characterizes humanity as an evolutionary abomination. The isolated surviving humans evolve into fish-diving seal-like creatures, and he challenges the reader to cite a survival advantage conventional humanity has over them.

I haven't read the book, so I have to ask: In the specific circumstances they're living in, or in general? Because (based on that brief description, anyway) it doesn't sound like they'd do very well living in the Himalayas or the Sahara; survival advantage is relative, not absolute, after all.

I took it as both. While an evolved fish-diver is toast in the Himalayas, how many of us live off of only what we grow, gather, and/or hunt ourselves?

Well, if that's the case--and since sex drive stems from the hardwired genetic need to perpetuate the species--then one wonders whether or not homosexuality...who's gay and who isn't...isn't arbitrary at all, but instead nature's way of controlling who reproduces and who doesn't.

That's a good question and there is evidence that homosexuality in animals may be induced by stress during pregnancy--as in overpopulation.

I haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that there are higher percentages of homosexuality in Mexico City than in Pittsboro North Carolina, so this may not be much of a factor in humans. I tend to doubt that this is a genetic thing anyway; a woman likely to give birth to a gay child will do so regardless of outside conditions, if it's genetic. Now if it's hormonal or a combination gene/hormone thing then we could see some logic in this.

(though, given the length of time it takes for a human to reach sexual maturity, this seems inefficient. By the time the kid grows up the conditions that made it advantageous to limit population might be gone.)

After all, if someone is carrying some sort of undesirable genetic component, then isn't the simplest means of weeding out that component to "flip a switch" in utero and ensure that the carrier will have no desire to perpetuate it? Yes, dampening the sex drive of the individual is also a possibility, but that's so hardwired into humanity that it would be much easier simply to redirect it in a direction where creating progeny isn't an issue.

That's also interesting--but I disagree that it would be more difficult to turn off the sex drive than to redirect it. There are many diseases and situations that result in loss of sex drive--depression being an obvious example--but none that I know of that cause even a temporary tendency toward homosexuality. I've heard of situations where guys were dragged by their girlfriends to see THE NOTEBOOK one time too many with disastrous after effects but these are purely anecdotal.

I'm not saying that *is* the reason for some people being gay. What am I, a geneticist? I'm just saying it'd be interesting. Has anyone ever postulated that?

Not that I know of and yeah, it IS interesting...could be a very good plot point in one of the mutant books, if they'd let you explore it.

As an aside, some have argued that homosexuality can't be genetic because natural selection, which weeds out over time anything that reduces the ability to pass on one's genes, should have eliminated this by now. Even given the fact that yes, gay people CAN have children, it's hard to deny that they are likely to have fewer than straights, on average, and that's all natural selection needs. Even a 1% diminishment in reproductive potential over the alternative would likely result, in time, in loss of the gene.

Which would mean that homosexuality is either not purely genetic or that there are actually advantages that we may be missing in our calculations.

Lastly--since identical twins do not always end up both straight or both gay, that would seem to put the kibosh on a purely genetic cause.

(Note--even if genetics is not directly the cause of homosexuality, please don't make the mistake of assuming that the only alternative is "they choose to be gay". That's nonsense. There is far more to nature than just genes. That's why 20% of all identical twin pairs have one right handed twin and one left handed, even though they are genetically identical.)

Another area that is very touchy is the consideration of any racially-based differences within the human population. Although my first impulse is to say that humanity is really so homogeneous that notable differences wouldn't occur between groupings, it is not an invalid field of study.

No, though fraught with peril and likely to be abused by those with a mind to do it. Even attempts to see how, for example, some African-Americans may be more likely to be harmed by cigarette smoking than some other ethnic groups has come under criticism for raising the specter of racism. Most scientists don't need the grief (not to mention the difficulty getting grants).

My personal theory is that it's nature's way of doing a little population control.

It would be far easier to just make it harder for people to conceive. Not that evolution always takes the most logical approach.

Um, Bill's statement of hypocrisy was on the part of pro-choicers who suddenly oppose abortion on specific grounds (such as aborting potential daughters). He was not accusing "India" of hypocrisy.

Wow. That Christmas gift is already yielding dividends. Not knowing what the broadcast from Planet Mike was I can only say--Thom, yep, you got it...not that it was a very confusing point. Or so I thought. Well, live and learn.

Restless Legs Syndrome.
Bill, what do you take for this and does it work? I've been having a bit of this the last few months, though it may be residual nerve damage from the time I stepped on a 4 inch x-acto knife blade (remind me to tell this story the next time we have dinner together--it's much funnier when I act it out, complete with sound effects and simulated sprays of blood).

I was always at the bottom rung of the popularity ladder.

We would have welcomed you in the VTR Club ("Our Motto--Please Don't Confuse Us With The AV Squad")

For most of my life I have regarded myself as "fundamentally damaged." I have often wondered to myself if I don't belong on some genetic "scrap heap." Now, what if doctors had been able to "fix" my genetic structure before I was born? What if they had been able to ensure that I'd have a normal brain chemistry and a healthier body?

That's the thing of it. A good number of us have some defect or imperfection that would possibly have gotten us eliminated had our parents had that choice. A scary thought.

There's also a big risk in eliminating genetic diversity for the species though, in reality, there will always be a bigger chunk of the population that can't afford these procedures than can.

I'd better send this out before my internet punks out again.

His (or her) position was that this is a naturally occurring phenomena in mammals to deal with overpopulation and should therefore not be treated as a stigma or abnormality.

The only problem with that is that other normal ways animals deal with overpopulation include gerbils eating their babies and assorted similar activities that will probably remain stigmatized.

At any rate, logic is a weak weapon indeed to deal with something as illogical as bigotry. It's like using antibiotics to treat stains.

She once told me that the woman I love wouldn't have been here if this hadn't happened to her. She's the youngest of three girls. She's the baby. She said that she was a bit spoiled growing up and that she would likely have grown up to be a right proper terror (her words) had this not hit her and forced her to deal with things in her life in a completely different way. Who she was and who she feels that she would have grown up to be are as different as night and day from who she is now.

She's a very perceptive woman. It's funny though, when you have kids you want to desperately protect them from making the mistakes you made or facing the challenges you did...but those mistakes and challenges may have been the most important things that made you what you are. It's a conundrum.

As Bill Mulligan said, we're probably going to soon have far more options than we'd ever imagined -- and realize that that's not necessarily a good thing.

Well, as I mull over this, it IS a good thing to have the option. Acting on it, maybe not. But as you said, who would even NOT wish the best for their kid? (And consider the social implications--when imperfections are preventable, any parent of a child with imperfections will be perceived as negligent, poor or a fanatic. Which will mean the rich will almost all have perfect kids. Which will make them even MORE likely to succeed than the poor. Which will be the end of any chance of people being able to rise above their origins. Ok, yikes.)

2. Peter's "genetic control" theory, which I never thought about before, but which also kind of makes sense. It could certainly apply in my case, since I seem to have inherited a genetic bipolar disorder that almost everyone on my dad's side of the family has, and which has been traced back for several generations. So far I'm the only gay person in my family, but we'll see if any of my sister's kids or my cousins' kids turn out to be gay, and thus support this theory.

The problem is, I don't think there is any evidence that the genes are linked and it isn't like your DNA can think "Hey, this guy is screwed up thanks to gene #625. Better turn on gene #87, the Gay gene." Though that COULD be the way things work in Comic Book Universes--"My host body just fell into a vat of liquid nitrogen--time to turn on gene #883, the one that turns him into Frostbite: the Living Popsicle"

(I submit that it would be a better world were that the case, although there would be a lot of stupid people throwing themselves into liquid nitrogen or pools of molten iron....hmm, make that a much better world.)

It's just a biological mistake, like nipples on men.

Not a mistake, just the result of the fact that we are all initially female until and unless the Y chromosome gets turned on.

Signing statements are of dubious constitutionality and, unless Bush eventually gets more sycophants like Harriet Myers on the SCOTUS, would most likely be tossed out if ever brought before the Court.

Why haven't any of them ever been taken to court? This should be easy to do. Reagan was president more than 20 years ago and we are still arguing about the constitutionality of signing statements???

BTW, looking at the Wikipedia definition of signing statement reveals a few clarifications-- Reagan was not the first to issue one, James Monroe was (though Bill is correct that Reagan was the first to frequently use them as a way to alter the law). But how many Bush has actually signed is less than was stated-- As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements

It's the second part of that statement that accounts for the discrepancy--As of October 4, 2006, he had signed 134 signing statements challenging 810 federal laws As the entry states There is a controversy about how to count an executive's use of signing statements.[4] A flat count of total signing statements would include the rhetorical and political statements as well as the constitutional. This may give a misleading number when the intent is to count the number of constitutional challenges issued.

Another common metric is to count the number of statutes that are disputed by signing statements. This addresses a count of the constitutional issues, but may be inherently inaccurate due to ambiguity in the signing statements themselves, as well as the method of determining which statutes are challenged.

Personally I wish Presidents would just go back to vetoing bills they have a problem with.

Um, Bill's statement of hypocrisy was on the part of pro-choicers who suddenly oppose abortion on specific grounds (such as aborting potential daughters). He was not accusing "India" of hypocrisy.

I referrred to a specific accusation of hypocrisy. Where did I say it was to India?

Wow. That Christmas gift is already yielding dividends. Not knowing what the broadcast from Planet Mike was I can only say--Thom, yep, you got it...not that it was a very confusing point. Or so I thought. Well, live and learn.

Pitiful.

Wouldn't it be ironic if homosexuality was genetic but continued to survive because so many homosexuals were forced by society to conform and enter heterosexual relations, thus passing the gene on to the next generation.

I doubt this is the case. But it would have been poetuc justice if it was.

I'll leave the speculation about how homosexuality occurs, and whether it has a biological purpose to our resident biology teacher.

Is homosexuality a disability, like blindness, clinical depression or diabetes? It could be claimed that it is, since for homosexuals the biological faculty of sexual attraction is not functioning the way it's supposed to.

But, although homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, they are not disabled in any way. They are capable of being attracted, having sexual and romantic relations, and everything else that heterosexuals can do, except having babies. They are just not doing it with members of the opposite sex. In fact, with the exception of pregnancy, it seems that all the disability, and thus all the unpleasantness involved in being homosexual is the result of the prejuidice of society.

Furthermore, even if we were to assume that homosexuality is a disability, our morality today does not view disability as a cause for shame or contempt. We accord to disabled people all the respect we do to non-disabled people, including respecting their choice to seek or not seek cure.

So in an ideal society without prejudice, a person's decision to seek a 'cure' for homosexuality should not be because of the suffering involved in being homosexual. However, some may seek this hypothetical 'cure' because they belong to a religion which opposes homosexuality. I believe that many religions oppose homosexuality because they were developed by primitive people centuries ago. But if a homoseual person sincerely believes in a religion, he can either (a) seek a modern interpretation of the religion that will allow homosexuality; (b) accept homosexuality as an acceptable sin in the framework of the traditiona interpretation of the religion; (c) view himself as violating the rules of the religion and seek to correct it.

I don't think there is a risk of homosexuals being forced by the state to seak 'curé.' I doubt even the more repressive governments will make the effort. But in our society there are segments that would socially pressure homosexuals in their community to seek 'cure' if they think one is available. How can people be convinced not to seek such a cure (for adults or during pregnancy) without legal or ethical sanctions?

Bill Myers, it is good that you are in a place where you are happy that you exist. Your alternative healthy self would probably have been happy that he exists too. Future people who may have access to medical solutions we do not have today will probably find new challenges to shape them. The two greatest risks are those mentioned by Bill Mulligan: that the difference between the rich and the poor will become biological and mental, and unexpected consequences of altering genetics.

A lot of tough questions.

But, although homosexuals are not attracted to the opposite sex, they are not disabled in any way. They are capable of being attracted, having sexual and romantic relations, and everything else that heterosexuals can do, except having babies. They are just not doing it with members of the opposite sex. In fact, with the exception of pregnancy, it seems that all the disability, and thus all the unpleasantness involved in being homosexual is the result of the prejuidice of society.

That's true though from an evolutionary point of view anything that limits reproduction is the ultimate disability,

Of course gays are not actually "unable" to have children but they are less likely to in practice.

So in an ideal society without prejudice, a person's decision to seek a 'cure' for homosexuality should not be because of the suffering involved in being homosexual. However, some may seek this hypothetical 'cure' because they belong to a religion which opposes homosexuality.

I suppose some might choose to be straight to improve their chances of finding a partner. Living in a small town would seriously limit your options. (Conversely, maybe guys going to prison could choose to become gay, make the hard time a bit easier.)

As an aside, some have argued that homosexuality can't be genetic because natural selection, which weeds out over time anything that reduces the ability to pass on one's genes, should have eliminated this by now. Even given the fact that yes, gay people CAN have children, it's hard to deny that they are likely to have fewer than straights, on average, and that's all natural selection needs. Even a 1% diminishment in reproductive potential over the alternative would likely result, in time, in loss of the gene.

Which would mean that homosexuality is either not purely genetic or that there are actually advantages that we may be missing in our calculations.

There are a few other factors, as well. (I did my senior thesis on this in college, so although I'm over a decade out of touch with the current research, it's still an area of interest for me.)

One is that there are plenty of genes that inhibit reproductive success a lot more directly than homosexuality that are still in the human genome. Genetic conditions that can be fatal in childhood still exist, after all. A hypothetical genetic factor probably isn't a single, dominant gene that's always expressed, or it would indeed die out quickly; however, a group of genes, or a recessive one, could be passed on through siblings who reproduce even if the person expressing the gene doesn't.

(In my evolutionary biology class in college, we did an exercise where we calculated how long it would take albinos to be eliminated from the population if they didn't reproduce at all--it was something like 10,000 generations. Granted we weren't using real-world numbers, but the point is that a simple recessive gene, even with 0% reproductive success, doesn't die out easily.)

One possible theory I have is that there are different genetic factors that predispose toward homosexuality in different genders--so the hypothetical "gay male gene" wouldn't affect the reproductive success of the female line at all, and vice versa.

Lastly--since identical twins do not always end up both straight or both gay, that would seem to put the kibosh on a purely genetic cause.

Yeah--that's one of the complexities that tends to get left out of these discussions. Human sexuality is a lot more complex than a simple gay/not gay duality. A lot of things are--we may use brown/blue eyes as an example of dominant/recessive genes in science class, but humans have a lot more than two eye colors, and a lot of subtle gradations and tints as well.

As far as "advantages we may be missing in our calculations," it's been theorized (possibly tying into the population pressure theory) that a gay member of a family group can provide benefit to the group by helping care for their siblings' offspring without contributing to population pressure themselves. (On average, two nieces or nephews have as much of your genetic material as one of your own children.) It's not really testable, but it does demonstrate that there are more complexities than just one's own personal reproduction. (To toss another possibility out there, lesbians are theoretically less likely to die in childbirth, thus providing another possibly example of "benefit to the community at the expense of one's own personal reproduction.")

"The only problem with that is that other normal ways animals deal with overpopulation include gerbils eating their babies and assorted similar activities that will probably remain stigmatized."

Yeah, the theory put forward wasn't 100% perfect and it had more then a couple of "I'd like this to mean" moments in it. But there were still enough interesting and plausible notions in it to get the brain moving and pass the time in the waiting room.

"(though, given the length of time it takes for a human to reach sexual maturity, this seems inefficient. By the time the kid grows up the conditions that made it advantageous to limit population might be gone.)"

For humans now, yes. But, going with the idea that this may actually exist in our makeup, how long was the life span of our ancestor, human or human-ish, who would have first gotten this theoretical code bred into them? I wouldn't try and use this to add to or buttress an argument, but I did think it was an interesting notion and wouldn't have minded seeing some further research on the idea to either back it or bust it.

"Reagan was president more than 20 years ago and we are still arguing about the constitutionality of signing statements???"

We're not. Some of us are merely arguing the constitutionality of what's in Bush's statements and not the concept of the statements themselves. To me, these things are, in a way, no different then the laws that they're being attached to. Some can be good, some can be useless and seemingly a waste of ink and some need to be punted by at least five people in big black robes. Some of Bush's signing statements strike me as things that need to be challenged and tested.

"(Conversely, maybe guys going to prison could choose to become gay, make the hard time a bit easier.)"

Oddly, there's already something doing that. It's referred to as situational homosexuality. It adds even more confusion into discussions about what homosexual behavior's actual cause (choice VS biology) is. You'll find this in long timer prison populations a lot. It's strange in one way as some of the straightest males, and some of the most homophobic males, on the streets will engage in this behavior if in prison long enough and will then leave prison and switch back to being, quite exclusively, rabid skirt chasers again.

"It's the second part of that statement that accounts for the discrepancy--"

Yeah. The wildly different reports in the costs of the death penalty and in the number of signing statements are just two more examples of what some people mean when they talk about politics being relative. It's relative to who you are, what you want to say, whose math you want to use and what biases and preconceived notions you have and are trying to prove with your research.

Damn. Gotta go. Just took out another glass wall with that last stone.

As an aside, some have argued that homosexuality can't be genetic because natural selection, which weeds out over time anything that reduces the ability to pass on one's genes, should have eliminated this by now.

That's assuming the genetic pre-disposition is a drive to heterosexuality or homosexuality, which seems unlikely.

If the genetic pre-disposition is a drive to have sex with a favored gender, then the drive of the mother to have sex with a male can be passed onto her male children to make them gay, and vice versa for the father and his female children.

Lastly--since identical twins do not always end up both straight or both gay, that would seem to put the kibosh on a purely genetic cause.

Like gay people don't marry heterosexually.

I haven't found the paper I was talking about before, but these are actually pretty interesting.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life_sciences/report-72574.html

www.wholeearthmag.com/ArticleBin/338.html

I'm not sure about everything in the last one. Some of it I would have to look up on my own, but kinda cool nonetheless.

"Personally I wish Presidents would just go back to vetoing bills they have a problem with."

Ah, but no one can override a signing statement. Overriding a veto makes a president look powerless and is a political embarrassment. A signing statement provides much of the same advantages as a veto and none of the risk.

PAD

PAD: Good point.

(In my evolutionary biology class in college, we did an exercise where we calculated how long it would take albinos to be eliminated from the population if they didn't reproduce at all--it was something like 10,000 generations. Granted we weren't using real-world numbers, but the point is that a simple recessive gene, even with 0% reproductive success, doesn't die out easily.)

You're right. I should have specified that I was talking about some hypotheitical single gay gene (which is extremely unlikely).

In the case of albinism I wonder if one reason that it still exists is that it is advantageous to have the conditions that make albinism a possibility--the ability to change melanism in human skin has provided an evolutionary advantage to us as we colonized the world from Africa, But having that ability probably means that, occasionally there will be birth of kids with either too much or too little expression of the color producing genes.

It can be tricky to see some benefits in certain phenotypes but they may well be their (I recall one study suggesting that the gene for custic fibrosis might have given people some level of protection against TB).

"In completely unrelated news, Bush now says he can read out mail."

Really tempted to make a joke here about Bush not saying he has the right to, but that he's gotten that far in his remedial courses. But I wouldn't do that. Nope, not this guy.