Comments on: On the (Non-)Politics of the "Gay Gene" http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/04/on-the-non-politics-of-the-gay-gene/ A Stitch in Time Saves Nine ... But Haste Makes Waste Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:23:54 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Tony http://www.kipesquire.net/2005/04/on-the-non-politics-of-the-gay-gene/comment-page-1/#comment-48 Tony Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:56:57 +0000 http://www.kipesquire.net/?p=994#comment-48 I agree, it doesn't matter. It's important to pursue, if for no other reason than intellectual/scientific curiousity, but it's irrelevant for how we approach the question of rights and liberties. Waiting for the outcome is misdirected and useless. <BR /> <BR />Specifically, how should science go about proving that it's <i>not</i> genetic? If there is a gene that exists, it can be proven, but just because it hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it won't or can't exist. If we haven't found it, at what point do we say conclusively that it doesn't exist? <BR /> <BR />The important question is how does society deal with what is obvious and real, regardless of why it exists. Does it mean that assuming it's true is unacceptable for public policy until it can be proven? Ignore it (or legislate against it) just because specific proof hasn't been found? That's sort of like acknowledging God, I suspect. No proof there, but most still believe. Maybe we should make the bigots prove that God exists before we let them fight to save society. I wonder how they'd feel about that... <BR /> <BR />Whatever direction this goes, if Britney Spears videos become the indoctrination for heterosexuality, I'm skipping school that day. I agree, it doesn't matter. It's important to pursue, if for no other reason than intellectual/scientific curiousity, but it's irrelevant for how we approach the question of rights and liberties. Waiting for the outcome is misdirected and useless.

Specifically, how should science go about proving that it's not genetic? If there is a gene that exists, it can be proven, but just because it hasn't been discovered doesn't mean it won't or can't exist. If we haven't found it, at what point do we say conclusively that it doesn't exist?

The important question is how does society deal with what is obvious and real, regardless of why it exists. Does it mean that assuming it's true is unacceptable for public policy until it can be proven? Ignore it (or legislate against it) just because specific proof hasn't been found? That's sort of like acknowledging God, I suspect. No proof there, but most still believe. Maybe we should make the bigots prove that God exists before we let them fight to save society. I wonder how they'd feel about that…

Whatever direction this goes, if Britney Spears videos become the indoctrination for heterosexuality, I'm skipping school that day.

]]>