Posted on 03/13/2006 8:16:14 PM PST by presidio9
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.
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.
If gays are "born that way" then it must be genetic therefore how can they argue the point?
Damn, you can't talk about these things without sounding dirty.
But . . . . but . . . . aren't they the ones who claim to be born that way?
I think most of them are born that way, and parents shold be warned.
So9
I got lost when I saw that the story was about Frank Sin.
"I think most of them are born that way, and parents shold be warned."
There is absolutely no real evidence that sexual orientation is genetic. The "gay gene" has never been found, because it probably does not exist.
bttt
Can't have it both ways.
Democrats are in BIG trouble!!
I've heard this hypothetical raised before: If proof were found that there was a "gay gene," how would the homosexual/lesbian "community" feel about "birth screening" on the basis of this gene's presence?
I do enjoy it when the misguided rhetoric of liberals come back to bite them in the patootie. This gay gene business has all the makings of that, because is the scientists every claim to have discovered the gay gene, well...
The queers can.
I wonder if Dr. Sin is trying to prove a point:
If it's genetic, and there's a special gene, and people with it are considered a "race", entitled to "civil rights", then why not tell parents beforehand?
Parents are told the RACE of the donor.
Exactly. But I don't think there is a "gay gene". A gene for a narcissistic personality.... maybe.
I guess nature vs nurture is still part of the fight. Every gay, granted not many, that I know has some child abuse in their history.
Bottom line here, let the information out and we'll see what America really feels about "diversity". Obviously the gays have already figured out how the chips will fall.
WOW!!! A true Catch 22...
"NO NO NO I was BORN gay!!"
Then this news comes out... maybe certain people don't want the gay gene passed down to their offspring...
"NO NO NO... dang it! Stop making sense! I didn't mean it literally!"
Suddenly the room gets smaller. meh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.