Biology trumps Morality

It has always annoyed me that many of the most vehement opponents of lesbian and gay equality tend to be those with strongest religious beliefs.

The seems to be for a few basic reasons. Firstly, there is a religious text that is somehow interpreted to suggest or mandate that such a prejudice is not only acceptable, but actually a mark of the virtuous. Secondly, there is a theme around free will, choice, and the concept of original sin. This is the idea that, like Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve are making a choice to disobey a divine edict and, as a result, deserve to be kept outside the garden. And last, it's often a theme in any religion to fear "the other", those who are "not we".

The argument I hear most often is that same-sex attraction is a moral flaw or failure and that people "choose" to be gay or lesbian. The Catholic Church goes so far as to say that same-sex attracted people are "intrinsically disordered." The implication here is that gays and lesbians are unnatural and morally deficient. And for the most part these people get away with this defense. But the question remains, why?

That most vulgar plagiarist, Anne Coulter, proclaims that there is on the American political left a "doctrine of infallibility" holding that the proclamations of people like 9/11 widows and widowers cannot be challenged.

The American political right does, however, have it's own "doctrine of infallibility" that is uses to wrap their agenda in a cloak of religious and moral imperatives. When someone says simply that "It's in the bible" their are two benefits they immediately accrue. They can avoid having their own reasoned and cogent argument for their position, and they cannot be challenged on facts (there are none) or have their position disproved. Summed up it's the "Well, that's what I believe and you can't prove me wrong" defense. It doesn't hurt that religion is a protected class in much federal and state legislation, either.

But there is a huge and looming problem on the horizon for these arguments. The march of the scientific method is revealing more about the biological basis for same-sex attraction every year. The latest research to get play is the part that biological birth order plays in increasing instances of same-sex attraction in men. This research observes that there is an increasing occurrence of same-sex attraction as the number of biological older brothers increases. It demonstrates that post-natal social variables like the number of male siblings you are raised with do not contribute to the effect. This research "strongly suggests a pre-natal origin to the fraternal birth order effect." From PlanetOut:

Having several older brothers increases the likelihood of a man being gay, a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that there is a biological basis for sexual orientation.

"It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in Ontario, Canada. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis for" homosexuality, he said.

S. Marc Breedlove of Michigan State University said the finding "absolutely" confirms a physical basis. "Anybody's first guess would have been that the older brothers were having an effect socially, but this data doesn't support that," Breedlove said.

Put simply, as a mother has more male children, the probability that a male child will be same-sex attracted increases. Oh, and it is determined before they are born.

Odds are that someone here isn't getting what they really want.

It's not unknown for Holy Books to enshrine the scientific ignorance of the time and build laws around them. The Sin of Onan came from a fundamental ignorance about human reproduction and concerns about demasculinization from a deeply patriarchal society.

Human Sexuality is complex but one thing is certain. The biological basis for same-sex attraction makes any moral or religious argument about "choice" or "evil" or "unnaturalness" of same sex attraction moot.

Biology trumps Morality

There is a narrow isthmus between the advance of science and the march of human ethical evolution on which those opposed to gay and lesbian equality stand.

That isthmus is getting smaller and smaller all the time. You can track it's shrinking here.

They're not so bad...

...birthdays I mean.

When I got home tonight HWMBO had strung lights in paper lanterns in the birch tree.
Director's chairs sit under them on the stone patio.


The cats are, against all protocol, curled up on our bed.
There is pink champagne (alright, cremant, but it's really good).
Roast Chicken, carrots and red potatoes.
Sponge cake with fresh strawberries and cream with a hint of Cointreau.
And decaf espresso to finish.

He's just so wonderful.

Today I was Christine's bitch

We were out of Chili Jam. It had to be done. 2 hours of preparation. 12 hours of slow cooking. 2 hours to can/bottle the results. I blame that tyrannical woman.






I can't complain too much. The previous batch lasted more than 5 years so the intense investment has a long satisfying payoff.

Yea, verily, I'm knackered.

This puts something topical into perspective

If you haven't already seen it, this is well worth watching...



Simple. Direct. True.

The Truth in Print

Just when despair for my homeland begins to overtake me, The Age gets it right in this opinion piece...

It is this newspaper's opinion that the subject of recognising civil unions between gay couples is more rightly seen as a human rights matter rather than a political one (a view shared by those ACT couples who wish to affirm their rights at a civil union ceremony in the ACT even though they know the union may be short-lived - in the eyes of the law at least). By interfering in the ACT's laws, the Government has chosen to politicise the issue, doubtless because it believes there is some advantage in doing so.

Its actions mirror the political manoeuvres of the Bush Administration, which recently failed in its attempt to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. By deciding to place the prospect of short-term political gain ahead of principle, the Government is seeking to capitalise on an outdated prejudice that nevertheless continues to cause a great deal of suffering among people in long-term, loving relationships.

Thankfully, it is a prejudice that many in the community have overcome - as The Age reported on Saturday, the growing number of openly gay people respected for their achievements in public life is an encouraging sign that homosexuality is on its way to becoming an unremarkable fact of life.

Australia has always prized itself as an egalitarian society. It seems this push to crush any semblance of acknowledgement for lesbian and gay relationships by the Howard Government may have pushed the average Australian too far.

There are signs that inspire hope. From Saturday's article in The Age:

New research obtained by The Age and extrapolated from the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes, a poll of more than 2000 people conducted last year, suggests support for civil unions in Australia is about 50 per cent. Moreover, about two-thirds of Australians say they accept the idea of gay and lesbian relationships.

"It's improved markedly, with young people, in particular, overwhelmingly, supportive of both gay marriage and civil unions," says sociologist Shaun Wilson, speaking publicly for the first time about the poll.

Wilson, who conducted the research for the Australian National University, hopes to publish more detailed findings soon. His sample included 447 Victorian respondents, living in a state where Premier Steve Bracks is opposed to civil unions — and among this group support for such unions stood at 52 per cent, with only a third opposed outright. Among Victorians aged between 18 and 34, support soared to 86 per cent, which included 52 per cent strongly agreeing with the concept.

Nationally, Wilson found a narrow majority of Australians supported civil unions, with support exceeding opposition by about 17 per cent. "Support is similar to that found in other Anglo-democracies, like New Zealand and the United Kingdom, that have passed civil unions with little or no public controversy," he suggests.

And other signs that are less promising:

The new research, mirrors a Newspoll finding earlier this year that put backing for law reform at more than 52 per cent, while 36 per cent were opposed. But that research detected often stark fault lines between older, poorer and rural opinion on the one hand, and younger, richer, university-educated city folk. Hostility to same-sex civil unions appears to be strongest in groups touted as the core Howard demographics — including the over-50s, rural voters, blue-collar workers, people with apprenticeship or technical college qualifications and households earning under $30,000 a year.

I find it hard to believe that there are no GLBT people in the above demographics. If those people were able to be out to their peers, how different might these statistics and the world be?

Liar or Idiot?

Prime Minister John Howard is either an idiot or a liar.

From news.com.au we get this gem:

The ACT Legislative Assembly will take the unprecedented step of appealing directly to the governor-general in a bid to save its new civil union laws.

But the Federal Government has said it will advise the Governor-General to disallow the new law.

"The Cabinet discussed this at length and there is a very strong feeling in the Cabinet that we should make this move, not just me and the Attorney-General, as some people suggested," Mr Howard said. "I don't see it in any way as discriminating against homosexuals."

Was he high or drunk when he said this? Here is a quick recap of the situation:

1. Gay and Lesbian relationships are not legally recognised. Straight relationships are legally recognized. The distinction is traditional but unequal. That fits is the definition of discrimination in my dictionary.
2. The ACT Civil Union Law would remove this already existing discrimination.
3. Disallowing the ACT Civil Union law will cause the discrimination to continue.

Now watch someone make the argument that since the discrimination was already in existence there is no net increase in discrimination. Bah!

You gotta be kidding me...

Today we had not one, not two, but three people come asking for money on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. We've given them money in the past, but no more.

Not since they endorsed that shiver looking for a spine to crawl up - Joe Lieberman. According to the LA Weekly (hat tip to Pam):

Lieberman, who told the New Haven Advocate that “homosexuality is wrong,” joined with notorious homo-hater Jesse Helms in voting to take away federal funding from schools that counsel suicidal gay teens that it’s okay to be gay. On gays in the military, Lieberman has enunciated the now-discredited canard that “homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.” (Tell that to the dozens of countries, from England to Israel, that permit openly gay troops in their armed forces.)

In fact, Lieberman worked with Georgia’s Sam Nunn to fashion the destructive “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which resulted in escalating expulsions of gays from the military every year after it took effect. Its Catch-22 provisions have directly stimulated a rising wave of violent gay bashing and harassment in the military because victims can’t complain without “telling.”

Where do I send my money now if I want to do the most good for GLBT rights?

FDA values Women's Lives above Politics

Who knew?

In an inexplicable and moment of clarity, federal drug officials have approved the HPV vaccine (Gardasil) for cervical cancer. The New York Times has the good news:

"The vaccine prevents lasting infections with two human papillomavirus strains that cause 70 percent of cancers and another two strains that cause 90 percent of genital warts. But if girls have already been exposed to those strains, the vaccine has no effect, so health experts want the vaccine given before girls have sex. The median age at which girls have sex is 15."

This is all good news, but this worried me somewhat:

"A Merck spokeswoman said Gardasil, which was approved for girls and women ages 9 to 26, would be available in doctors' offices by the end of June.

The vaccine is not approved for use in boys, although Merck hopes one day to change that."

I know that boys don't have the specter of cervical cancer hanging over them, but a case of genital warts it no fun for anyone. I wonder if conservatives will oppose it for boys on the grounds that "it isn't potentially fatal, and it's a good punishment for boys being sexually active sick little perverts."

Bazootyheads.

An Australian Value: Unstoppable Prejudice

In other news, the government of Prime-Minister-for-Life John Howard is moving to quash an Australian Capital Territory law granting civil unions for same sex couples. Not content with banning same-sex marriage, Mr Howard is determined to slam the door on civil unions as well.

In an article in The Australian, Attorney General Philip Ruddock had this to say:

"The Marriage Act makes it clear that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others," Mr Ruddock said.

"That definition reflects the traditional understanding and was supported bipartisanly in 2004. The ACT's Civil Unions Act creates a statutory scheme in recognition of relationships which bear a striking resemblance to the commonwealth's regulation of marriage."

Here's a thought. Perhaps that "striking resemblance to marriage" is directly connected to the striking resemblance same-sex relationships actually *have* to marriage.

Bloody pillocks.

Tim Eyman: Failure Whore!

The Seattle Times is reporting that Referendum 65 has fallen short of the 112,440 signature minimum to make it on the ballot in November. Tim Eyman has reportedly said that they collected 105,103 signatures. From this, the message that his followers are intended to get is:

"Ooooh, we missed it by only 7,337 signatures! That’s just 6.5%! If only you had sent us a little more money. If only you had gathered just a few more signatures..."

In reality a 25% cushion is recommended by the Elections Division of the Secretary of State. So I figure the realistic number of signatures they needed to turn in was actually 140,550. So perhaps it would be more honest to spin it like this:

"Oh dear, we missed it by only 35,447 signatures! That's just 25.2%! If only we had received more than $4,000 in donations. If only those donations hadn't mainly been from the generous, but wholly self-interested pockets of Eyman, Fagan and Fagan! If only we'd been able to find more people who hate and fear GLBT people outside of churches.”

I’m happy that Referendum 65 failed, but you all know that we’ll see Reverend Hutcherson, little Timmy, and their ilk peering in our doors again soon enough. If it isn’t repealing landmark anti-discrimination law, it will be preventing the equality and fairness of same-sex marriage, or some other damned sensible and long overdue thing. But until then…

Tomorrow is Wednesday, June 7th. It is the day that HB2661, a law protecting gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender expression, takes effect in Washington State after a marathon 30 year struggle.

Celebrate...

Tim Eyman: Fame Whore!

Today was the day that Tim Eyman and the Family Fagan were supposed to hand in initiative petitions. Instead, little Timmy told the cadre of media that he hoodwinked into covering this non-event in Olympia that he'll actually be turning in his raft of initiative petitions tomorrow at 4:00pm. Hat tip to NPI:

Of course Little Timmy turned up in understated Darth Vader drag with his Fame Whore Stormtrooper chorus.

When asked how many signatures he had for the R-65 initiative petition the Northwest Progressive Institute reports that he said "he had no idea how many signatures might have been collected." Right.

And Eli Sanders from the Stranger is pissed.