A standard argument now often lifted up by lesbian, gay and transexual (LGT) groups is that recent scientific discoveries have proved that homosexual preference is all genetically determined – it is inborn, not a choice, therefore LGTs cannot and should not be blamed/responsible/held accountable for their sexual choices, any more than heterosexuals. And though it is genetic, it is not a sickness, disease or disorder.
But recall that the standard sexual reproductive strategy in all life forms requires a coupling between individuals of the opposite gender, not the similar gender. So how does pure homosexual preference (that rejects all heterosexual couplings) work out in the evolutionary scheme of nature?
Illustrated below:
January 31, 08 at 3:57 pm
In the hope of edification, I present the following summary in response to this blog posting. I will note that there was (as you will see) an apparent logical fallacy with your deduction that lead to your assertion that a genetic basis for homosexuality is unlikely. Also, I wanted to show that there is at least one reputable other option besides a genetic and environmental cause.
There are four major schools of thought as far as the emergence of homosexuality in an individual goes:
(1) Genetic basis: As you’ve mentioned, this is one of the more popular options among the GLTB community as it appeals to the idea that, “A person is not to blame if it is inherent in their genetic structure” concept (a.k.a. “Not my fault.”) Psychological appeal aside, there is evidence that in some species (fruit flies for instance) it turns out that a single genetic trait in fact *is* the cause of homosexual behavior.
Now, if something similar does exist in humans (this has neither been proved nor disproved) it may well have two complexities that your posting doesn’t address. First, that it may be more complex than an on/off switch (such as with eye color, muscle structure, etc.). Second, at some point, the ability to have members of a species be of one inclination or another very probably *does* have some survival advantage, otherwise the trait would not have been retained in such a state that it is easily able to activate.
Natural Selection with the satellite theory of Cooperative Evolution could potentially explain why a trait that renders an individual effectively infertile could be desirable to continue to pass on. As a simple case, why would it be beneficial to a bee colony for the majority of the genetically female worker bees be born* and remain infertile? The answer, according to Cooperative Evolutionary theory, is because the survival as an overall hive is increased when a single member, the queen, doesn’t have to compete for a mate and the workers, freed from the desire to compete for a mate and instilled with a desire to protect “their own,” defend the queen and each other with selfless ferocity. Each bee is a potential suicide bomber, unceasingly loyal to the protection of the young. The result: A queen who has the genetics that create a strong “guard” in her followers is more likely to survive and pass on her genetics than another hive’s fertile worker/queen constantly competing for a mate and trying to find honey herself.
If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, humans tribes, being a pack animal and thus likely benefiting from Cooperative evolution, may well have a reason to have effectively infertile members. There are many ideas as to what these reasons could be. One is that a homosexual member can serve as a “wild card” member, able to take the place of either a fallen hunter or a dead mother. Another is that a homosexual member allows for population control without tampering with a desire to breed, which could be important in areas with limited resources. Yet another is that a homosexual member, freed from cross-gender attractions, can be more impartial in recognizing and enforcing tribal regulations (hierarchy, mate loyalty, etc.)
Of course, this is all still speculative and theoretical, but there in fact could very well be a genetic reason to pass on a trait that could turn a certain percentage of the recipients infertile.
*All bees are in fact born infertile. While still in larval form, future queens are feed a special substance secreted from the glands of worker bees that causes sexual development.
(2) Environmental basis: Obviously, the most disliked by the GLBT community because of its implications that it could be either prevented or reversed, this is the theory that states that something happened in the childhood, puberty, or adult life that forced an individual’s brain to “switch wires” and turn them from a physically heterosexual individual into a psychologically homosexual individual. Again, setting aside the psychological aversion to an idea, this is another explanation (in addition to genetics and developmental) for why the emergence of homosexual members often occurs in families and seems to happen in some geographic areas more often than others. Like genetics, “tracking down” exactly what makes the switch is incredibly complicated because it’s probably not a single event. Unlike genetics, there could be hundreds of thousands of reasons why an individual is “switched” by his or her environment.
Due to the inability to ethically have control studies to determine whether or not environment is a cause of homosexuality, researchers are forced to rely on observation, including the ever-unreliable patient self-reporting. Thus, even if a correlation is found between, say, an “overbearing mother” and a homosexual child, controlling for all the other variables in the environment or indeed even defining what exactly an “overbearing mother” remains problematic at best. So while environment could be a cause or a factor, this will likely only be widely accepted after all other potential causes have been ruled out.
(3) Developmental basis. This is a somewhat newer theory, based on recent observations that two genetically identical creatures allowed to develop inside different wombs (implantation) or the same womb and different times (freezing one egg and re-implanting into the mother) produce genetically identical yet physically and temperamentally varied offspring. It was recently realized that while genetics are a set of instructions, the “construction company” (womb) in which those instructions are followed influence the end-result. Not all wombs are created equally. Suppose, for instance, a mother has a high level of testosterone for a woman. This could change any number of things in the developing fetus (a slightly larger heart and smaller fingers, etc.) Some of these things, particularly when the brain is being developed, may never be capable of being “un-done” by “growing out of them” (such as a large heart growing more slowly after birth until the child has caught up with its size when it begins to then grow at a standard rate).
If, perhaps, the presence or absence or overabundance or scarcity of certain hormones in the mother at specific stages of her fetus’ development caused the fetus to result in a homosexual child, this could both be uncontrolled by the child (choice), by the environment, or by the child’s genetics. Additionally, what controls hormonal levels is even more complex than genetics. Thus, the presence of sunshine during a particularly cold winter combined with the nitrogen content of the pickles being munched on and a male fetus, may be the determining factor of the sexuality of the child. As you can see this is much like chaos theory for all the predictability it renders, yet, it is still more easily identifiable than an environmental cause.
(4) Choice-based. This “theory”, reviled by the GLBT community, is that gays and lesbians are only as they are because at some point they “chose” (consciously or unconsciously) to go against their natural instincts, perhaps because they were rebels or perhaps because they were no longer filled with the spirit of God after committing other “sins.” Nearly-universally scientifically mocked, this theory likely shouldn’t be called a theory in the sense that it has no falsifiability. Generally, it’s followers tend to think that “regardless of whether it can be demonstrated or not” it is true. According to this idea, the reason homosexuals don’t naturally “grow out” of their homosexuality, as most humans grow out of their rebellious behavior over time, is because they convince themselves that this is “who they are.”
The obvious offshoot of this theory is the “ex-gay” movement where individuals can go to be “corrected” from their “self-imposed prison.” Undermining its validity, however, are the facts that ex-gay movements rely exclusively on religious “methods” of “therapy,” which are psychologically often indistinguishable from inculcation practices. As evidence of this, ex-gays usually find they are not actually “cured” but instead constantly ‘battling urges,” which the overwhelming majority eventually “give in to.” So despite its alarming continued popularity, this idea remains scientifically unfounded and thus is for my purposes ignorable.
Conclusion:
As is often the case, the further we study something, the more mysterious it seems to become. Physics—generally considered the most concrete field of the sciences due to its extreme accuracy in its predictions—contains within it two currently irresolvable sets of laws governing the universe. I.e., if our most reliable science can’t seem to get the story straight, what can we expect from the others? Like this, genetics has gone from a simple probability chart (that we all learned to figure out in Elementary School) to staggeringly complex inter-relationships requiring supercomputers to make any meaning out of, and we know we’re only scratching the surface with the field. Thus if we cannot yet make accurate predictions based on genetics, how far are we from being able to quantify the human experience to the point where we can show that environment is the cause of a person’s sexuality? The answer is clearly that we are very far indeed.
Author’s Note:
The question has always been to me, why does it matter? Certainly, I understand the scientific intrigue of the problem, but in terms of the daily lives of citizens—heterosexual or homosexual—why would the basis of their sexual inclinations be important? If a person is homosexual they have no less validity in their thoughts, feelings, ideas, or relationships than a heterosexual person, regardless of whether they are the way the are because they were dropped on the head as a child or genetically descended from the first bisexual.
The biggest outcry I hear cite “special rights” and “traditional values.” Well, perhaps extending marriage to two men does actually redefine what has been thought of as marriage in the past, but I have yet to be presented with any convincing evidence or logic as to why this should not happen. Just as we realized that owning humans as slaves was ethically indefensible and denying women the right to vote was sexist, extending full-society integration to homosexual members seems an ethical necessity.
With regard to “special rights” I am hard pressed to find someone who can demonstrate that any homosexual-benefiting law or policy proposal is in fact a “special right.” Having the right to marry someone of the same sex wouldn’t be a special right, because, if they wanted to, heterosexuals could do it as well! Of course, it is unlikely that they would, but if more than the beneficiary group of a law change could opt to take advantage of the law change, it ceases to be a special right by definition. Similarly, practicing inclusive instead of exclusive language inside of a classroom isn’t special because it could be used to ensure gay teachers when they say “parents” instead of simply assuming all parents are “two mommies” or “two daddies”. Again, as the statistical norm is a heterosexual upbringing by opposite-gendered parents, it is unlikely that a homosexual teacher would chose to use exclusively-homosexual diction; though, inclusive language would combat this if it did.
Obviously, I cannot argue against someone who claims to base their morals off “the bible” or other religious work so I won’t try. I avoid discourse with people who have already assumed the end-result and are looking for evidence to support it. To that I would only point out that the Bible—New or Old Testament—seems to directly or indirectly support a lot of what we overwhelmingly consider wrong today, e.g. slavery, female inferiority, murder in the name of belief. Personally, I am glad that we appear to have “raised the bar” on our ethics from what exists in the Bible.
January 31, 08 at 5:23 pm
Thanks for taking the time and effort to craft this very informative post, Nikolas.
Some clarification: This blog post was in response to another blogger who was of the opinion that homosexuality in humans is entirely or almost entirely due to genetics, and not enviroment or choice.
Thus, if my post seems combative, it is because it was meant as a direct response to that other blogger’s attacks on me.
———————–
If there is a genetic basis for homosexuality, humans tribes, being a pack animal and thus likely benefiting from Cooperative evolution, may well have a reason to have effectively infertile members.
But how does the infertile member pass on its genes that caused it to reject heterosexual breeding?
One theory says that it is through siblings who carry the gene in a dormant state, and whose offspring (also with that gene) would have survived better due to the uncle’s caretaking.
What say you?
—————–
Certainly, I understand the scientific intrigue of the problem, but in terms of the daily lives of citizens—heterosexual or homosexual—why would the basis of their sexual inclinations be important? If a person is homosexual they have no less validity in their thoughts, feelings, ideas, or relationships than a heterosexual person, regardless of whether they are the way the are because they were dropped on the head as a child or genetically descended from the first bisexual.
The conservative response is that the traditional male-female family structure has been the norm for millenia. In fact, our very genetically inherited traits may require a father and a mother to aid a healthy emotional and psychological development.
You can see the mental/social problems that arise from single-parent or divorcee households. With two fathers or two mothers, will this possibly have a similar effect as having one parent missing? Will political correctness even permit an objective scientific study into this matter?
—————–
The biggest outcry I hear cite “special rights” and “traditional values.” Well, perhaps extending marriage to two men does actually redefine what has been thought of as marriage in the past, but I have yet to be presented with any convincing evidence or logic as to why this should not happen.
I believe that many religious believers will be appeased if homosexuals are granted civil unions, but not religious marriages which would be viewed as a threat and attempted territorial grab.
The Christian definition of a marriage is restricted to ‘one man, one woman, ordained by God’ as described in Genesis and by Jesus Christ. Any other sexual relations are forbidden. So you can see the religious dilemma posed by ‘two men’ or ‘two women’ to God’s ordination of the marriage.
But don’t worry about special rights – political correctness is an unstoppable force, to the point where a homosexual is charged with homophobia for hitting another homosexual (!!!!).
—————–
Obviously, I cannot argue against someone who claims to base their morals off “the bible” or other religious work so I won’t try.
Guilty as charged.
However, allow me to clarify: I find nothing ethically wrong with homosexual relations between two consenting adults from a humanistic basis. I only contend that it is not permitted by the Bible, and therefore those who claim to be Christians should likewise reject homosexuality (on a personal basis, in their personal lives).
—————
To that I would only point out that the Bible—New or Old Testament—seems to directly or indirectly support a lot of what we overwhelmingly consider wrong today, e.g. slavery, female inferiority, murder in the name of belief.
The caveat is that it SEEMS to. But a skilled apologist can easily clear up those misconceptions. I’ll give it my own best shot:
First up, most of what is objected to in the Bible is found in the pre-Christian Mosaic Laws (Old Testament). These laws are specifically for Jews, and in any event have been suprceded by the New Law that Christ introduced.
See http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/03/29/response-to-the-letter-to-dr-laura-on-homosexuality/ and the comments at http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/06/26/communism-atheism-relative-morality/#comment-22938 for explanations on why Old Testament law is not followed by either Christianity or modern Judaism.
On the subject of slavery, in New Testament times slavery was a deeply instituted economic system. To aggressively oppose it would have led to disaster. Instead, what the Christian is advised to do is ‘Love man as yourself’ as described by Paul in the book of Philemon.
Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back for good – no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a man and as a brother in the Lord.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=64&chapter=1&version=31
I’s a very short read, just one chapter long, so I suggest you browse it for yourself. In any case, the Christian way of abolishing something is with gentle persuasion, not force.
… Then again, Christian-based ideals also helped to end the slave trade with Britain’s forceful military opposition – though after a long period of apathy. Hmm.
On women, some argue that the Pauline guidelines were culturally based. Others such as the Brethren churches hold to the veiling of the head and women not ‘speaking’ (i.e. leading) in church.
But having been to Brethren churches, the practical result is merely colourful and light handkerchiefs on the hair, and women doing a whole lot else to help in running the church.
In any case, I don’t think there’s very much inferiority there – unless you count the oft-quoted verses saying “Wives, submit to your husbands” which is balanced by seldom-mentioned “Husbands, love your wives as your own body and as Christ loved the church” (paraphrased). Remember that Christ died for the sake of the church…
As for murder in the name of belief, this is not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible. Not New Testament or Old Testament. I believe you have that other religion in mind?
February 1, 08 at 1:27 pm
Thanks for time you took in responding to my comment.
I hope you don’t mind if I choose not to respond to the bible discussions. My reason for not doing so is thus: For me to argue various biblical points of the bible would be a waste of energy, and I probably shouldn’t have even brought it up in my original posting. I don’t acknowledge the bible as being an inspired document, nor do I acknowledge it as having a great deal of historical validity. It may in parts be accurate, but I am disinclined to exercise inductive reasoning by extrapolating that “all parts are accurate.” Rather, I think it more likely to be an ancient collection of books containing either myths or facts or a mix of both. So if I cannot demonstrate that one verse is “more true” than another verse, it makes no sense for me to go back and forth on it.
Secondary to that I would feel somewhat disrespectful. I am not Christian, though I was raised so. However, having rejected Christianity a long time ago, it seems to me to be either hypocritical or pointless to lecture others on how to live a religion I either could or would not. So I will avoid bringing up any Christian dogma.
“In fact, our very genetically inherited traits may require a father and a mother to aid a healthy emotional and psychological development.”
I will acknowledge that it is possible that future studies may give evidence that a child raised by a straight man and a straight woman gives a statistical advantage to the child. Unfortunately as is the case with nearly every sociological study (like that would require), narrowing down the variables becomes near impossible and would rely on a regressive analysis, which is a notoriously problematic form of evidence. In fact, the problem in this situation is the same that would be faced detecting an environmental cause of homosexuality.
So in the absence of evidence, I submit the logic to be fairly sound that a child raised by two parents, regardless of their gender, will probably fare better than a child raised by one parent. Of course exceptions could apply: two-parent homes involving neglect or abuse, single-parent homes with a great deal of fiscal security, two-parent homes where neither parent is well-educated, etc. However, being fair, I have to admit that this is an assumption or “hunch” colored by a fair knowledge of neurological development, but without direct-evidentiary support.
The basic reasoning is this: children’s minds are pretty-near indestructible in the sense that they can adapt to a mind-boggling number of situations and function normally. Indeed, their minds are so plastic, that attempts to determine the “best way to raise a child,” despite generous funding, have turned up so many contradictory results that a new parent actually attempting to go by a book could lose their mind trying to figure out whether or not a child should or shouldn’t be played music, or what kind, or how often, or how loud… So if a child can be raised in war-conditions and still grow to be a functioning adult (as happened to the children of London parents during the Blitz), it seems extremely unlikely that having a “Dad and a Pop” or a “Mom and a Marm” (or whatever cutsie way the parents want to distinguish themselves) would result in any psychological stunting.
However, suppose we were able to demonstrate clearly what does and doesn’t harm the raising of a child. In such a scenario, we could have a great deal of social upheaval. What if, for instance, it turns out that indeed having same-sex parents harms children, but going to Church does too? What if it turns out that children fare best when a household is run like a fascist dictatorship, including arbitrary and random punishments? Or what if it turns out that children fare best when taught to use Samurai swords and trained to kill those of other races? Obviously, some of these are extreme, but they illustrate a second issue with the idea of the “best for children” clause. Namely, who says what is best for children? Is it what causes them to earn the most money as adults? Is it what causes them to have the most children or avoid medications? Is it what causes them to believe firmly in a religion, or what causes them to reject all religions and remain secular?
The answer is it depends on who you ask. If a Christian parent had a child, there is no way he or she could be convinced that they should not expose the child to any religion until after the child’s mind has fully developed (around age 25). Why? Because the Christian parents believe that exposure to religion is essential for the child’s welfare. The same goes for a child of atheist parents. Thankfully, there are some things almost everyone can agree on being good for children (self-actualization, self-confidence, fiscal security, etc.) which is why even new parents who never pick up a “how-to” book can train their child to become a functioning adult in society.
Thus, children tend to reflect their parents. Only a tiny fraction of people actually practice a religion different than what they were raised. Only a small fraction of people change social classes from what they were raised. Children are generally not much smarter than their parents, nor are they more stupid. So it may be that a child by same-sex parents is more likely to accept or promote their parents socially-liberal views, but the same happens already to children in opposite-sex parents family structures with varying politics, interests, and hobbies. In short (too late) demonstrating an inborn “need” for a heterosexual home life will be difficult and potentially meaningless to anyone who doesn’t already agree with the idea.
“I believe that many religious believers will be appeased if homosexuals are granted civil unions, but not religious marriages which would be viewed as a threat and attempted territorial grab.”
That is certainly possible, and I can understand the distinction. I think the motivation for homosexuals wanting “marriage” and not a “civil union” is they don’t want to be treated separately. If “marriage” is a religious ceremony why is it legal for the state to say who can and cannot have it? Certainly, if it is religious, then an ordained reverend or priest or whoever should be able to perform one on whoever they wish. Whether it is legally binding or not is a separate issue. In that sense, when heterosexuals get a married, they have the religious ritual, but receive also, as a bonus, a “civil union” from a legal perspective. Only, two separate names aren’t used. If the state effectively considers a civil union equal to a marriage, why use two separate terms?
Many have already drawn the parallel to “colored drinking fountains” and the days of “separate but equal” social structures. I acknowledge that marriage has a traditional meaning, but saying to other people who are in all-but-name married that they can’t use the shorthand seems like going out-of-ones-way to discriminate. Now, I acknowledge the importance of linguistic clarity. I am one who understood why it was a *good* thing that we decided that under the new, clarified definition of “planet” that Pluto never was a planet. But Pluto doesn’t *want* to be a planet. Its inanimate. Plus, it has almost none of the characteristics of a planet (only its spherical shape). Correcting people when they say “Pluto is a planet” is another matter entirely from correcting a man who refers to another man as “his husband.”
The problem is this. It has recently become apparent that a religious marriage is separate from a civil union. While they often overlap, there are conditions when they don’t. This is a somewhat modern concept, but its existence is indisputable at this point. The question is, how do we solve the problem governmentally without stepping on the toes of religion? Most homosexuals I’ve encountered offer two solutions. One, redefine marriage to include same-sex unions. Two, have the state refer to everything as a civil union, then leave it up to the individual religions to decide what they call a marriage in their congregations. Personally, I think the second option is the preferable one because it doesn’t attempt to impose a religious viewpoints on unwilling citizens.
“But how does the infertile member pass on its genes that caused it to reject heterosexual breeding?
One theory says that it is through siblings who carry the gene in a dormant state, and whose offspring (also with that gene) would have survived better due to the uncle’s caretaking.
What say you?”
The theory you cite seems to me to be the most logical one.
Think of it like this. Pretend I contained within me a genetic structure that gives a moderate chance of my offspring being super-loyal killing machines who have no desire to mate. Pretend the chief of a rival tribe does not. After a few decades, assume we have effectively equal levels of population. Now, at this point, his population could pull ahead of mine in growth because more of his children all wish to and can breed. However, If we go to war, each fertile soldier has the instinct of staying alive so they can pass on their genes, while each of my infertile soldiers has only the instinct to keep me alive at any cost. Using self-sacrificial techniques, my soldiers could lower the numbers of the opposing force to a greater amount than they could ours, potentially destroying the other tribe, securing my genetics through my offspring who *do* wish to breed.
The elegance of this theory is that it implies some “population balence” of homosexual and heterosexuals that maximize the survival of the genetic lines. As you noted, if too many homosexuals were born, the population’s growth could be slowed too greatly, thus making them susceptible to attack from other tribes. Conversely, if too few homosexuals were born, the larger tribe may be less politically stable (mating rivalries) or less capable of adapting to unanticipated situations. Of course, being elegant doesn’t make the theory more valid, but it does make it more likely to be accepted by laypeople.
The takeaway from this is that while Darwin’s and Mendel’s proposed theories of Evolution and Natural Selection and Inheritance (quick explanation: Evolution is now considered scientific fact or “Theory” and Natural Selection is currently the most widely recognized likely “theory” for achieving Evolution) were absolutely shocking to the core in how much they explained when first proposed, science has moved on since them and improved on the original theories. Darwin never imagined Cooperative Evolution and Mendel never conceived of complex genetic inheritance structures.
Closing:
I hope that clarifies some stuff from my original post. I also want to note that I mean no offense when I decided not to debate various interpretations of the bible. Have a good one!
February 1, 08 at 1:40 pm
Nikolas, it is extremely refreshing and a very welcome change to receive scholarly comments. Recently I have been getting several trolls whose main aim is to make me admit I am a baby-killer and belittle my beliefs.
February 1, 08 at 3:18 pm
Thanks for your compliments. I occasionally get similar guff from both sides. My more liberal friends call me “heartless” and “overly idealistic” and my more conservative friends call me “immoral” and, ironically, “overly idealistic”. It’s the life of the Libertarian, I suppose.
Departing from the realm of the scientific, I personally have very little problem having a discussion with someone who believes what I perceive to be strange things. If their reasoning is sound for the purposes of our conversation, I could care less whether they go home and pray to their Barbie dolls. Thus, I am usually unphased by a person’s religion. (Note, if you actually do have nightly infant-slaughter-sprees, I don’t approve…)
That being said, I do quickly become agitated when someone can’t separate empirically derived fact from belief or who override fact with belief. The interesting thing about this, though, is that in my observation, this cognitive error happens nearly as often to the non-religious as it does the religious. How often have you seen a sociologist draw fantastically damning conclusions from a body of work that can’t even show causality? That’s every bit as illogical as someone insisting the Earth is only a few thousand years old.
All-in-all, I think people generally aren’t as hostile as the anonymity of the internet allows them to be. I’ve had heated discussions and even arguments, but nothing has ever even hinted of escalating, and both sides almost always stayed within the “gentleman’s arena” and rarely trade insults. If insults started though, I can’t think of a time when we both agreed almost immediately that the conversation should probably end.
So when I read blogs or comments, I try to translate what it would be like in-person, then respond. My responses are often lengthy because I’d rather say something completely, than regurgitate the half-developed ideas already on the internet. I figure people who are actually reading the blog for self education or edification will appreciate the longer, more thoughtful entries, while those who are online just to “piss in someone’s Cheerios” after a long day would have found a reason to get upset anyway. So I give the “pissers” lot of words, and they nearly always contain phrases or sentences that, when taken out of context, can make the “pissers” sufficiently pissed. I’ll correct them as long as it amuses me, for I almost never take it personally.
February 1, 08 at 3:47 pm
(Note, if you actually do have nightly infant-slaughter-sprees, I don’t approve…)
Oh yeah, I have another murder spree appointment at 5 down at the local Planned Parenthood clinic. Ironic lol!
As far as I know, Libertarians just want to live their lives with as little government (and other people) meddling and interference as possible. Hence the ‘liberty’ in their title. They support just enough government intervention to run the country smoothly, build amenities and keep lawful order. I respect this conviction.
So I’m curious to know, what does a typical Libertarian support regarding the following?
Tax rate
Health care (free market or socialized)
Welfare
Abortion
Gun laws
Immigration
Death penalty
Euthanasia
Homosexual civil rights
Teaching of Intelligent Design in schools
Presence of religion in public
Iraq
The war on terrorism
Guantanamo Bay
Waterboarding
Wiretapping
Israel/Palestine issue
Global warming
Anything else you think is relevant that I missed out
The typical Liberal and the typical Conservative will have antipodal views on the above.
February 2, 08 at 5:52 am
Oye, instead of actually stopping and answering all of those, let me point you in the right direction.
Wait… it appears I’m not able to put links into the comment.
In that case, if you still wanna discuss specific issues, email me. The email address I used to comment on your site is my junk email. Shoot me an email there and I’ll reply from my regular email.
February 2, 08 at 9:20 am
Nikolas, you can comment with as many links as you like. I very regularly check my Akismet Spam to recover any legitimate comments. Akismet automatically holds any comment with more than one link.
August 11, 08 at 11:14 pm
eh, i know i am a bit slow in coming here, but is there any chance you could post the links too. I am quite interested in your thoughts on these.
Thanks in advance.
Goodness i hope someone who can help reads this.
August 12, 08 at 9:05 am
I’m still awaiting the links… Hopefully he checks back here and posts them.
August 14, 08 at 4:18 pm
eekk….oh well. he does write rather well thought out arguments.
November 18, 08 at 2:42 am
Quote”All bees are in fact born infertile. While still in larval form, future queens are feed a special substance secreted from the glands of worker bees that causes sexual development.”
So , what your’re telling me is that these “queens ” while still children (in larval form) ingested something that causes them (in the case of males) to s*ck c*ck?
January 17, 09 at 7:04 am
okay….my best friend is a lesbian and she is not bad. I think that the world needs to stop treating homosexuals is some kind of disease. they r human. just like you and me. If everyone just excepted homosexuals then people like my friend can stop being harassed and made fun of. When a girl and girl (who are straight) make out all the guys cheer them on but when a real lesbian kiss in public people freak out and call them “Fags” or “Stupid Gays”. Same with Guys. People freak out when two guys hold hands. come on people, We are more mature then to point and stare. They deserve the same treatment heterosexual’s do. If you always think of homosexuals as a “Disease” that can be “Cured” then you need to try and hangout with some gays and lesbians, they are normal and cool. If a 12 year old can figure it out then you adults need to get a life.
January 17, 09 at 8:45 am
The author of this blog posting makes it very clear his lack of understanding the fundamentals of classical genetics. Apparently, he’s never seen a Punnett-square!
January 19, 09 at 11:08 am
Momo, I oppose discrimination against homosexuals in public life. I however oppose indoctrination of children that homosexuality is the default ‘natural’ way.
I also oppose homosexuality in the context of Christian doctrine. On a humanist basis, it is fine with me.
January 21, 09 at 4:27 am
um wow. Okay well i never said it was a ‘natural’ way. Too be totally honest sir i think that you need to be a bit more open minded. Do you think its right to judge people that you don’t know or begin to understand? I myself can’t judge to much but i have grown up with homosexuals in my life at all time.
January 21, 09 at 9:39 am
Well, my code of morality is based on the Bible, so I judge according to what it says regarding homosexual acts.
And that is all I judge homosexual persons on using only the Bible. I do not presume to judge their character, their ethics, their personality and so on.
January 31, 09 at 9:01 am
You base a book that was made in china? I am Catholic, I admit I have never picked up a Bible because of the different points of view in it.
February 2, 09 at 9:17 am
In that case, you might as well abstain from the Harry Potter series, Star Wars movies, the new remakes of Transformers, Ultimate Marvel comic books, any film versions of novels, meat eating, vegetarianism, all religions, non-religion, politics, what clothes to wear in the morning….
What is there in the world that everybody agrees on? Differing points of view abound! If we don’t check it out for ourselves, how do we form a meaningful and educated viewpoint?
I humbly suggest to you that you purchase or borrow a Bible (and further suggest the New International Version) and read through it. Browse online for both supportive and critical viewpoints about any Bible passages that perk your interest, doubt or curiosity. Then you’ll be able to decide for yourself whether the differing views about it are valid or not.
March 23, 09 at 9:15 pm
[...] cannot produce offspring. If homosexual preference really is all in the genes, the trait will quickly disappear from the gene pool, as no offspring will ever be produced from a homosexual pairing. How does that help show that [...]
February 2, 12 at 6:50 pm
Hello, I check your new stuff like every week. Your story-telling style is witty, keep it up!
March 6, 12 at 8:33 am
inspired…
[...]Heredity Chart: Evolutionary Dead-End of Pure Homosexual Preference « LEADING MALAYSIAN NEOCON[...]…