Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'Gay gene' row over sperm donations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'Gay gene' row over sperm donations

    14 March 2006
    By NIKKI MACDONALD

    An academic has enraged homosexuals with his claim that recipients of the sperm of gay donors should be told that a "gay gene" could be passed on to the child.

    The suggestion has been dismissed as pathetic by a gay rights organisation.

    Genetics experts, however, generally agree there is evidence of a genetic component to sexual orientation – but argue the link is complex and ill-defined.

    After a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, New Zealand's biggest fertility service, Fertility Associates, has decided to accept sperm from gay men – previously barred because of a supposed higher HIV risk. Responding to the move, Canterbury University associate professor of genetics Frank Sin called for potential recipients of sperm from gay donors to be told that "the gay gene(s)" could be passed on to the child.

    Dr Sin told The Dominion Post that it was "not daydreaming" to suggest that sexual orientation could be inherited. Animal models had clearly shown the existence of a gene that controlled sexual behaviour, he said. Though there was nothing so conclusive in human studies, there was strong evidence – particularly from twin studies – of a significant genetic component.

    Environment also played a role, Dr Sin said. Though he had nothing against homosexuality, Dr Sin said people had the right to know the trait could be passed on.

    Gay Association of Professionals spokesman Allan-John Marsh said Dr Sin's suggestion was insulting and pathetic. Though the association agreed that being gay was something innate – rather than a choice – there was no proof of a gay gene.

    Neither was there good evidence that sexual orientation was inherited, he said. His sister, parents and uncles and aunts were "secure in their heterosexuality". In his entire extended family he knew of only one other gay person – a cousin.

    Even if there was an inherited component, it was insulting to suggest that people should be warned of it, Mr Marsh said. "It implies that being gay is somehow inferior. It's not a disease, not a handicap, even taking the view that you are born this way. So be it."

    All the genetics experts spoken to by The Dominion Post agreed it was highly likely that there was a genetic component to sexual orientation. However, the nature of that was complex and a warning that the characteristic could be passed on would be a slippery slope, they said.

    Wellington Hospital endocrinologist Robyn Toomath said it was widely accepted that both genetics and environment played a role in sexual orientation.

    However, there were many traits and diseases that had been shown to be inherited.

    Dr Toomath questioned why sperm recipients should be warned against one issue and not others.

    Victoria University molecular biologist Geoff Chambers said Dr Sin was "not the lunatic fringe" and right to say that sexual orientation was the result of interaction between genes and environment, but the genetics were likely to be very complicated.

    Fertility Associates Wellington medical director John Hutton said that, in the absence of any conclusive evidence of a gay gene, it would be irresponsible for his organisation to tell potential recipients that sexual orientation could be passed on.
    FROM HERE

    And here's a link to the 'Gay' response.
    Last edited by Parihaka; 15 Mar 06,, 01:19.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

  • #2
    I just think it's kinda funny that we can't say "gayness" is nurture and now we can't say "gayness" is nature.

    One can't "become" gay by hanging around gay people. It isn't a choice or a life style, so say the gays.

    One can't "become" gay by taking on a gay man's sperm. "Gay gene" is ridiculous.

    If one can't become gay by genetics and can't become gay by environment and it isn't a choice or a life style, what is it?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • #3
      "It's a lifestyle choice with a genetic disposition"

      Comment


      • #4
        A nice bi-sexual lady explained the "choice" question quite well recently. I saved it because it truly made the answer quite clear to me. Here is her reply to the question, and several you're going to hell posters, in full...

        Originally posted by Celeste @ idolforums.com
        It would take a real idiot to choose a sexual orientation that isn't respected or understanded by a large number of the population. Nobody wants to be intentionally disrespected. Nobody wants the ridicule or whispering, nobody wants straight people flattering themselves by thinking since someone is bi/gay they MUST be attracted to them and therefore be paranoid of them. Nobody wants to be looked down upon by society and not be able to legally marry the person they love or adopt a child with them. Nobody wants to not be able to go in to see their love in the hospital because they aren't related or married to them. Nobody wants jokes and generalizations made about them, and hate crimes against them. Nobody wants any of that. Which is why nobody would intentionally put themselves in a position to receive that kind of torture. Alternative sexual orientations are not a choice. They just happen, and some of you lot here make it extra difficult for us to exist.
        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
        I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

        Comment


        • #5
          gunnut, while I agree that it has to be one of those things, and that anybody who says it isn't one of those things has to be wrong, this part of the article cuts to the point:

          Even if there was an inherited component, it was insulting to suggest that people should be warned of it, Mr Marsh said. "It implies that being gay is somehow inferior. It's not a disease, not a handicap, even taking the view that you are born this way. So be it."
          That is the point of contention, not so much that it is genetic, but that by warning the people receiving the sperm about it they are calling it a disease.

          Comment


          • #6
            I don't believe the evidence for a "gay gene" is that strong, but let's assume that there is one. Why is it so bad for couples wanting sperm to not want "gay" sperm, and how is it any different to not wanting the sperm of black, unemployed or fat people?

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't believe the evidence for a "gay gene" is that strong, but let's assume that there is one. Why is it so bad for couples wanting sperm to not want "gay" sperm, and how is it any different to not wanting the sperm of black, unemployed or fat people?
              well, your question leads to a different subject, which is- what is the morality regarding "custom-built" or "designer" babies?
              There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

              Comment


              • #8
                That question has already been answered, I believe you can pick white or black only sperm, and not have to justify your decision. I'm going by that Whoopi Goldberg film, by the way.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                  gunnut, while I agree that it has to be one of those things, and that anybody who says it isn't one of those things has to be wrong, this part of the article cuts to the point:



                  That is the point of contention, not so much that it is genetic, but that by warning the people receiving the sperm about it they are calling it a disease.
                  I don't think any less of gay people. One of the nicest people I know is gay. One other gay I know is just an ass.

                  Personally I think homosexual is an evolutionary mistake. I believe in evolution. Evolution is based on the ability to procreate. Sexual procreation provides more diversity and adaptability to a species. A species incapable of sexual, or even asexual procreation is fundamentally flawed based on the principles of evolution.

                  I have nothing against gays. I have something against people who are inconsistant. By saying "gayness" is inherited and then to say "gay gene" is ludicrous these people are inconsistant. I have a problem with that.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think any less of gay people. One of the nicest people I know is gay. One other gay I know is just an ass.
                    I wasn't calling you homophobic, just saying that the article was more about the idea of warning people about "potentially gay sperm" (which would imply that they are defective) than the idea of where homosexuality comes from (although they are obviously related topics).

                    Personally I think homosexual is an evolutionary mistake. I believe in evolution. Evolution is based on the ability to procreate. Sexual procreation provides more diversity and adaptability to a species. A species incapable of sexual, or even asexual procreation is fundamentally flawed based on the principles of evolution.
                    Wouldn't homosexuality be a self-correcting "problem" according to evolution? As long as we don't force gays to be heterosexual and therefore have children (passing along the "gay gene") wouldn't homosexuality cease to exist, or at least be much rarer than it is now?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                      Wouldn't homosexuality be a self-correcting "problem" according to evolution? As long as we don't force gays to be heterosexual and therefore have children (passing along the "gay gene") wouldn't homosexuality cease to exist, or at least be much rarer than it is now?
                      Yes you are exactly right. But we have our wonderful medical technologies now that allow many people who couldn't have children otherwise to have children of their own.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        But what about prior to now? Yes, there was a long time where gays had to pretend to be straight. But before that (ie Roman/Greek eras, or before society was formed at all) wouldn't homosexuality have wiped itself out?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ZFBoxcar
                          But what about prior to now? Yes, there was a long time where gays had to pretend to be straight. But before that (ie Roman/Greek eras, or before society was formed at all) wouldn't homosexuality have wiped itself out?
                          Didn't the Greeks and Romans practice bisexuality? Their belief was men for lovers and women for kids. I guess in a way they insured that gay genes would be spread wide and far.
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X