# The gay gene



## David K. Thomasson (Jun 11, 2014)

[Another column from my newspaper daze. This one ran June 1995 in the Mobile Register.]


*The gay gene: It might bear fruit ... but will it fly?*

          When Time magazine devotes two pages to fruit flies, as it did in the        June 12 issue, there’s something in the wind besides bugs. A large photo        shows 10 male fruit flies linked prow to stern in a wreath around the headline,        “Search for a Gay Gene.”      

 The facing page carries a photo of four male humans linked in a manner        that is more than friendly, with the U.S. Capitol rising in the background.        This prepares the reader for a story that links (at a minimum) gay fruit        flies, gay humans, genetics and law.      It seems that two scientists at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda,        Md., fiddled around with the genes of some fruit flies and brought off an        arresting result: The males lost interest in the ladies of the species.      

Now this would pull any geneticist up short, for fruit flies are remarkably        virile by nature — even more so than Italians. The average male _drosophilia_        starting cold can approach a female, chat her up and cross the Rubicon,        so to speak, all in about eight seconds. Two weeks later he is bouncing        baby fruit flies on his knees and planning another family.      

But the fruit flies that had their genes tinkered with ignored the girls        right there in the same jar. The boys locked together in circles and serpentine        rows that resembled conga lines. They buzzed and rubbed against one another        in what the scientists said was dirty dancing. As the dancing grew hotter,        the females cowered in clusters at the top of the jar — and who could blame        them?      

The scientists concluded that the males were gay and, further, that the        gay gene transplanted into the flies is what turned them around. From here,        the story charges boldly into speculation about a gay gene in humans and        about the moral and legal implications of such a finding.      

 By now the story had left me far behind. I was still on that wreath of        fruit flies, which was described as a “circle of love” and an “orgy.” Were        the scientists perhaps hasty in attributing such human sentiments and purposes        to little bugs? Why, for instance, was this seen as gay behavior brought        on by a gay gene rather than, say, dancing behavior brought on by a dancing        gene?      

 It isn’t an idle question. Imagine space aliens as tall as the Eiffel        Tower happening upon a football stadium at game time — a very bowl        of fruit flies from their vantage point. Might not such observers be misled        by the activity in the bowl?      

“Look at those males in the middle, Cyrus, linking up in rings and lines.        Look how they grab and clutch at one another. Hotter than pistols, and not        a female in the lot.”      

 “Yes, Ed, and notice how all the others are keeping their distance, cowering        around the sides of the bowl. Who could blame them?”      

 “That little brown seed seems to be the key, Cyrus. When the males crouch        around it for even a few seconds, it puts them in a frenzy. They can’t keep        their hands off each other. Whichever one picks up that seed becomes an        irresistible target for male gang-lust.”      

“By heavens, Ed, I believe we’ve discovered a gay seed.”      

 Even if the Bethesda scientists are correct about a gay gene in fruit        flies, one cannot conclude that there is a similar gay gene for humans.        And if there is such a gene, the moral status of homosexuality would be        no less problematic than before the discovery. Whether the _desire_        for homosexual behavior is explained by environmental or genetic influences        (or both), there’s still the troublesome question of whether one ought to        _act_ on that desire. It isn’t clear how a genetic explanation of homosexual        desire might help answer that question.      

If such an explanation were formulated, it would still face a logical        hurdle. Scientists hope to prove that if a specific human gene is altered        just so, a person becomes homosexual. Given such proof, however, it wouldn’t        follow that if a person were homosexual, his genetic makeup would lie at        the bottom of it. To suppose so is to commit what is called the fallacy        of conversion.      

Here is another example of it: If you feed a man strychnine, he will die.        But it does not follow from this that if you find a man dead, then he must        have eaten strychnine. For all we know, he might have died from shock at        the sight of male fruit flies doing the lambada.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Jun 11, 2014)

Well science has basically proven proven it's genetic, but even if it wasn't (even to go so far as to say if it was a choice, which it's not) there is no excuse for the lack of LGBT rights. Like, this shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It's just basic human rights.


----------



## Misty Mirrors (Jun 13, 2014)

I only read the first 3 sentences. I stopped reading your article after that.


----------



## Greimour (Jun 13, 2014)

Then you missed out Misty... the post is basically a review on an article by Time Magazine.

They claim scientists put the gay gene into some fruit flies and then after watching the result, wondered about it's ramifications in humans. But that's neither here nor there - the funny football anecdote afterward was awesome. Haha.

Thanks for the smile and the read David. ^_^

***

Regarding if one should act on homosexuality or not. The answer is simple.

1. Without God, everything is permissable. 
~ This means, that if God does not exist, there is no morale compass to which we currently base all civilized ruling on. Good and Bad is formed at the very core thanks to a belief system in a higher power- that is a conversation/debate that I would rather not open, but whatever. The only _real_ objections raised on Gay people and Gay rights are from religious people or close minded fools. I have yet to see contrary to that... whatever lets move on to point 2.

2. God is infallible.
~ Religion states that God does not (can not) make mistakes. Can you not therefore conclude that God made them Gay if you are of the religious disposition? 
Under that statement, if God made a mistake, the Universe would end.

3. If the government expects _all_ to obey _their_ laws, then _their_ laws should benefit _*all*_ equally. 
~ self explanatory I think. 
If homosexual people don't get the same fair treatment from law; why should they follow the same law as heterosexuals?


-Edit-

The answer if you missed it, was that the choice is to each person. Act on it if you want to, you are what you are. No point being trying to be a zebra if you were born a lion.


----------



## Blade (Jun 13, 2014)

OP said:
			
		

> If such an explanation were formulated, it would still face a logical hurdle. Scientists hope to prove that if a specific human gene is altered just so, a person becomes homosexual. Given such proof, however, it wouldn’t follow that if a person were homosexual, his genetic makeup would lie at the bottom of it. To suppose so is to commit what is called the fallacy of conversion.



I think that this seriously misses the mark. It is not a matter of a single gene acting like a simple on-off switch that will determine either/or whether a persons orientation is either primarily homo or hetero sexual. It is going to be a collection of different genes interacting at different activity levels and dominance patters that as an overall effect concludes in a condition one way or the other.

If it were a case of one gene - on/off it would be easy, just take samples and find the switch. In fact it is not easy and may not even be possible to disentangle cause and effect to the point that an accurate understanding is established.


----------



## Pandora (Jun 13, 2014)

Great review, great article written. Entertaining, humorous, perhaps thought provoking, tongue in cheek. All the while, through some ridiculous images, I hoped I as a taxpayer wasn't paying for this study. Leave it to the government, 20 years ago waste, today waste. My assumption, grants were used for this research. I also kept thinking who cares, no reflection on the author. I also wondered why fruit flies? was that a pun intended? that wasn't nice. I would think a different bug would have had a much bigger impact, ha! Fruit flies so annoying to red wine drinkers. My only why's on this subject is why does it matter so much? Why the need to prove the why's. Why not live and let live? Why not understand that everyone is searching for love and equality? Why is that too much to ask? 

We've come a long way and it's Evolution baby! :semi-twins: that reminds me of a song.


----------



## Mudgeon Ramblings (Jun 15, 2014)

What do i know?I cant offer much of a critique as i still dont know whether i can write. The conclusion was very funny though -caught me by surprise which is pretty much the basis for 90% of humor IMHO.

As for me i believe there is a gay gene that is the cause in lets say 80% of homosexuals imo. I have seen 4 year old's who were clearly gay by that time and had nothing but straight brothers and sisters. To fight your sex drive is nearly impossible if it were desirable. Unfortunately this leaves a troubling situation for pedophiles whom science is now discovering that their beds are made by age 6-7 quite often.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Jun 15, 2014)

Blade said:


> I think that this seriously misses the mark. It is not a matter of a single gene acting like a simple on-off switch that will determine either/or whether a persons orientation is either primarily homo or hetero sexual. It is going to be a collection of different genes interacting at different activity levels and dominance patters that as an overall effect concludes in a condition one way or the other.
> 
> If it were a case of one gene - on/off it would be easy, just take samples and find the switch. In fact it is not easy and may not even be possible to disentangle cause and effect to the point that an accurate understanding is established.



The researchers actually did alter just one gene, called _pollux,_ to get these results, though the alteration was far from simple.  But whether it was one gene or a thousand, my point about the fallacy of conversion is valid: If it's true that P causes Q, it doesn't follow that Q resulted from P -- because Q might have come about from something entirely non-P. Radiation therapy makes the hair fall out. But baldness isn't proof that the person has undergone radiation therapy.

Scientific debates about genetics and homosexuality rage on and, like debates about global warming, have become entangled with political goals and motives.


----------



## ejrosetta (Jul 7, 2014)

My twin sister and I are both gay. This is an interesting (and will one day become timeless) debate that no one will ever win. I think it's more nature/nurture. Our mother found our being gay fashionable and interesting, whereas if we'd had more "traditional" parents then perhaps it would have been suppressed. 

I've yet to meet someone who hasn't admitted to having a few homosexual thoughts. It's just that society's pressure to be straight is something most people choose to confirm to, whereas I choose to be happy and follow my heart. 

So yes, I think there's a GAY gene, it's just that everyone has it, including you. It's just a case of whether you're open minded enough to explore it or if you meet the right person who brings it out.


----------



## ejrosetta (Jul 7, 2014)

Also, an excellent article by the way. I tip my very-gay hat to you.


----------



## Blade (Jul 7, 2014)

ejrosetta said:


> I've yet to meet someone who hasn't admitted to having a few homosexual thoughts. It's just that society's pressure to be straight is something most people choose to confirm to, whereas I choose to be happy and follow my heart.
> 
> So yes, I think there's a GAY gene, it's just that everyone has it, including you. It's just a case of whether you're open minded enough to explore it or if you meet the right person who brings it out.



I think it is generally a 'go with the flow' with most people. I would figure that a person who was 95% straight would naturally stick with that and ignore or suppress contradictory impulses given that including the other 5% would result in extensive and probably futile complications. If the case were 50/50 that would be an entirely different thing.:fatigue:


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Jul 7, 2014)

ejrosetta said:


> My twin sister and I are both gay. This is an interesting (and will one day become timeless) debate that no one will ever win. I think it's more nature/nurture. Our mother found our being gay fashionable and interesting, whereas if we'd had more "traditional" parents then perhaps it would have been suppressed.
> 
> I've yet to meet someone who hasn't admitted to having a few homosexual thoughts. It's just that society's pressure to be straight is something most people choose to confirm to, whereas I choose to be happy and follow my heart.
> 
> So yes, I think there's a GAY gene, it's just that everyone has it, including you. It's just a case of whether you're open minded enough to explore it or if you meet the right person who brings it out.



Thank you. I suppose if there's an over-arching point to the piece, it is (as you say) that this is a debate that no one will ever win. Neither the scientific nor ethical questions are ever likely to be "settled."


----------



## Kevin (Jul 7, 2014)

Deaftly dancing around a subject fraught with fluffy political minefields. I imagine the footballers might take umbrage (if they knew that word) or... the G-mafia might tie you up and beat you with.... ribbons. Oh dear... I may have stepped on something. Humor, please. It was only humor.


----------



## Deafmute (Jul 7, 2014)

Well written summary with a good humorous analogy. I agree with the conclusions, but that doesn't mean the research done here was a waste. 

The scientist were attempted to establish the possibility that homosexuality could be influenced genetically. Whether or not it always is, or solely is, is not really the purpose of research like this. The general issue is many religious groups believe and use as their primary argument that homosexuality is a choice and as such should not be encouraged or given equal rights. 

Personally as I don't believe in free will in general, for me whether its genetic or not doesn't change my opinion, but I can see how people whose whole world view revolves around free will can come to this conclusion. 

Effectively this article is a good piece that can be used as evidence to support the possibility of genetic causes of homosexuality, from this more research would obviously be needed with species closer related to us and eventually research on other humans. This could be used as cannon fodder for both sides as progay will say it proves its not a choice and antigay will say this proves its an illness that should be cured. Its a mired social issue that is steeped in both social stigma and religious traditionalism. Current social trends seem to suggest it will slowly become less of an issue, but as is the case when ever any moral issue arises there is not really any easy or even possibly provable answer.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 7, 2014)

Deafmute said:


> Well written summary with a good humorous analogy. I agree with the conclusions, but that doesn't mean the research done here was a waste.



As a recovering scientist, Deafmute's point about the research not being a waste is huge. There is so much fingering pointing and heckling of research that seems silly or pointless at a superficial level without considering the larger picture of scientific inquiry. Experimental science is *highly *granular -- only one variable at a time is tested, even if that variable seems silly, and each and every variable has to be tested before you can know which parameters are interrelated. When you take almost anyone of those experiments without context, it can easily seem silly. I know enough researchers to even admit that some of them are silly and do bad research, but scientific knowledge is almost always built not brick by brick, but grain of sand by grain of sand. We all benefit from the resulting knowledge, even if we chuckle at some of the underlying research.


----------



## Shaudawn (Jul 18, 2014)

I have read this article many times.  I suppose that is part of the nature of newspaper articles and op-ed pieces--to evoke a response.  My brain went into overdrive late into last night, wanting to concoct a number of elaborate essays.  But it occurred to me that I could not without falling into my typically convoluted quasi-poetic style that ends up using too many electrons and produces far too many pages of text.  But as I thought more about this article, there was something else nagging at me that finally coalesced into a nagging question.  I'll spare you the convoluted response, but have to ask the question.  Forgive me, because it may sound a bit harsh, but I mean the question with as much critical objectivity as I can humanly muster.

What is the point of your article?  

In the end, I did not feel that I could nail down one or more points with enough certainty.  If it was that the writer of the Time article committed the fallacy of conversion, then I guess I can see that as the point.  But if that is so, I found the spotlight on the "gay gene" and the stereotype cliches dulled that point.  The misuse of logic by the Time magazine writer was probably the strongest of possible points.  

I wondered if your point might have been about Time magazine itself and this was a way to show that their writers are logically unsound, but that point wasn't made clear to me either.  While you mentioned the magazine in the beginning and "the story" once in the middle of your article, you kept referencing the researchers.  It seemed you had more of an issue with them than the writer, inferring that it was the researchers who made the logical error.

And if the point was to argue about the possible existence of a gene and the scientific proof and method used, then I couldn't help but notice that you were using a couple of logical fallacies too: namely that an argument is invalidated if it is poorly argued (I am not a philosopher, so I am unaware if it has a specific moniker), among a few others.  You asked a valid question about what the researchers had actually found--why a "gay gene" and not a "dancing gene?"  But your source, your lens of information is in the venue of Time magazine, which is by no means a peer reviewed scientific magazine.  And while the analogy of the giant aliens watching a football game did use humor to illustrate the fallacy of conversion, using that example as a means to argue the actual science of whatever study the Time writer got this from has its own issues: a sociological game created by humans with arbitrary rules as observed by giant aliens cannot be compared to biological behaviors of fruit flies driven by altered instinct as observed by genetic researchers.  ...unless, again, the point was an illustration of the conversion fallacy.  

I suppose, perhaps, your usage may be a conversion error itself:  "Here is one way to commit the fallacy of conversion (fruit flies), and here is another way to commit the fallacy of conversion (football).  Therefore, since both are the same kind of fallacy, and we know that the football one is ludicrous because we watch it devoutly on Sundays and sometimes Monday nights in the autumn, the possibility of a 'gay gene' must also be false."  

This is not to say that the researchers did not make an error.  Given the source, Time magazine, we simply do not have the information to make that conclusion.  Now, if I ever read the article back in 1995, I certainly don't remember it, so I do not know if it was actually the researchers who made the error, or if that is how the writer of the article who made the assertion characterized their findings.  

But I digress.  The point of my question has to do with the writing of your article.  I just had difficulty trying to figure out what your actual point was.  Forgive me for looking at this as a critique of writing (I realize you did not ask for it), but I find that a clearly stated point helps in nonfiction.  And if your point was how easy it is to make a logical fallacy, then I would have understood your article better if that was made more clear.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Jul 18, 2014)

Shaudawn said:


> What is the point of your article?



See my reply above to *ejrosetta.*

EDIT:


> And while the analogy of the giant aliens watching a football game did use humor to illustrate the fallacy of conversion,...



That isn't an illustration of the fallacy of conversion, nor is the piece primarily about that fallacy. The point of the football anecdote was simply that appearances, especially of new and unfamiliar phenomena, can be deceiving. Correlation isn't necessarily causation.


----------



## Shaudawn (Jul 21, 2014)

David K. Thomasson said:


> See my reply above to *ejrosetta.*
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> ...



Alright.  I will take your word for it that you did have a point to the article, which you explained to both *ejrosetta* and *Blade*.  Likewise with the "football" illustration.  But neither were clear in your article to me.  The only fallacy you named was conversion, and for not being a piece about it, it sure did take up a bulk of your article.  

Otherwise an interesting piece, even if I questioned it's construction and conclusion.


----------



## David K. Thomasson (Jul 21, 2014)

Shaudawn said:


> The only fallacy you named was conversion, and for not being a piece about it, it sure did take up a bulk of your article.



I mention that fallacy only in the last two paragraphs -- hardly the bulk of the article.


----------



## Shaudawn (Jul 23, 2014)

I think I see my error.  Your last two paragraphs were about the "conversion" fallacy.  But that is not the same as your whole football cartoon, which, if I am starting to piece it together, is about causation.  Am I understanding that right?  Again, it was unclear.  It sounded like the entire second half of your article was about the fallacy of conversion because that's the only one you explicitly mentioned.  But there are two different lines of reasoning going on there, right?

I guess what I still don't understand is how attacking an article from Time magazine invalidates the scientific study.  My question is about the clarity of your article, but perhaps this will give a little insight into why I'm having trouble figuring out what point you were trying to get across.  It still seems like a leap for me to conclude that "this is a debate that no one will ever win. Neither the scientific nor ethical questions are ever likely to be 'settled.'"  It's still very apples-and-oranges to me to make a solid case for that as it pivots on an article from Time.  It would be like looking at an artistic drawing from a high-school kid of a building, and then determining that the building is structurally unsound.  Time magazine is a political magazine, not a peer-reviewed journal.  And this is what concerns me--in order to get an upper hand in our society politically, a writer need not win an argument--simply to cast enough doubt to make us shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well.  Nothing we can do about it.  Might as well just keep the status quo.  'If it ain't broke, don't fix it,' I always say.  We know better."  

Now, I could see if you were critical of the author of the Time magazine article.  It's tempting to use half-understood scientific studies and make your own conclusions about them based on your political leanings.  We human beings are great at proof texting.  But you explicitly mention the scientists, not the Time writer.  Now, if I had the Time article in front of me, then maybe I could use that as a guide to tell me what your article was about.  But it still isn't clear on its own.  I suppose that in a newspaper (and any other traditional print for that matter), space is king and so you couldn't reproduce all of the points of the time article.  But I found it difficult to figure who you were criticizing and using what logical arguments.  I grant that it was a clever, imaginative illustration, but it still didn't settle it for me.  Was there any point in the article where you could have come right out and flatly stated what your "over-arching point to the piece" was?


----------

