Dear Mr Saletan:

While I'm sure you think you are being objective, you have given every homophobe hope that someday, one day soon, we can rid the world of the scourge of homosexuality.

And while claiming to be objective, there is some hopeful sound in your writing about homosexuality that leads me to believe that you just don’t “get” gay people and the world would be a lot simpler if they could be cured.

Your reporting amounts to junk science. You have divided the world, I believe, prematurely into the straights and the gays. It is hopelessly myopic in that it fails to even consider sexual contact to serve any purpose other than insemination, something that watching maybe even a PBS nature show or two might cure you of.

Please stop discussing us in your simplistic manner. It’s such a complex topic that your jokey writing style lends itself to easy solutions and rash judgments.

Yes, shoot the messenger. That'll make the scientists stop their research.

He's not a good one. What scientists research and how is a related matter, not my main issue with his posting.

While I don't like feeding trolls on either side of the political spectrum, I do feel like Saeletin just likes poking at nests of wasps for clickthrough ratings.

Witness all the other inflamatory articles on homosexuality from Saeletin; this theory of "increase female fertility" is hardly new, nor are many of the less grim theories as to the origin of homosexuality. "Biological Exuberance" comes to mind <link>

But then again Saeletin comes across as someone who is less interested in the truth than in witty Cocktail conversation. He enjoys simeltaneously patronizing and condescending on the issue, but is no where near invested in it on a personal level, or even an empathetic one.

How about talking to a few actual, real live homosexuals, since we're obviously obsessed here at Slate? How about asking one what it's like to be a side effect, error, mystical reminder from a Native American God, abomination, or just another creature seeking Nirvana.

He's not discussing homosexuals. He's discussing the research about homosexuality.

Which article are you having a problem with? Today's about the genetic theory or the one from last week about hormones and the potential for therapy?

Perhaps bdthedell@hotmail.com puts it more diplomatically than I did. Before the science is done, Saletan is rather keen on discussing its implications.

I have to say I disagree with you. I think Saletan articles are very interesting; they give us a view of all of the different scientific theories on homosexuality.

In particular, this is an article about a new genetic theory for male homosexuality. So it stands to reason that the focus of the article would be on "sexual contact that leads to insemination" since thats the way you pass on genes! This study is NOT (a study which Mr. Saletan is reporting on...he didn't do it) invested in explaining why men are gay culturally. This isn't queer studies 101; this is genetics.Of course geneticists would wonder why a sexual behavior, such as male homosexuality, (which isn't just confined to humanity) exists since it goes against what geneticists beleive to the be the whole reason we animals exist: Procreation. Passing on our genes. They are the ones with the myopic view, not Saletan.

I know that a lot of gay people might be conflicted upon hearing there is a genetic or hormonal reason for male homosexuality, but unfortunately, scientists are studying it, and its important for all of us to know what they are saying since science does inform government policy. (i.e. When homosexuality stopped being seen as a mental disorder things changed for gays in this country.) You don't have to beleive it, but I for one am happy that Saletan is reporting on it.

The study makes a good case (one which I've intuited for quite awhile) that male homosexuality does serve an evolutionary purpose rather than being a genetic dead end. It also argues against the idea that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. I can't see why this particular study would upset you.

But to each his own.

"How about talking to a few actual, real live homosexuals, since we're obviously obsessed here at Slate? How about asking one what it's like to be a side effect, error, mystical reminder from a Native American God, abomination, or just another creature seeking Nirvana."

You think they don't talk to real live homosexuals at SLATE? A very left-leaning news website doesn't have any gays working there, doesn't have any gay contributors, etc?

And why do both you and aborta-gay assume Saletan isn't himself a real live homosexual? Did he say he was (or wasn't) in an earlier article? Maybe his interest in the subject is because he wants to make sure that gay and straight people know about the studies going on out there. Not the cultural studies bullcrap, but the scientific ones.

Again, my problem is that he is presenting a study here and a study there as "science." If by "cultural studies bullcrap" you mean the touchy-feely side of being gay, as it were, then I agree with you. But I also don't want to hear about one or two studies' implications on a group of people when no "science" has even really been able to define the homosexual completely.

Then don't. Don't hear about these studies.

That is your choice. I, for one, find them interesting. I was completely immersed in queer theory throughout my college years and was completely adverse to any genetic explanation for homosexuality. Now that I've gotten older (and I no longer live in a gay friendly environment) I'm pretty much open to anything that explains homosexuality as something other than 1) an abomination against God 2) the result of childhood sexual abuse

I know a scientific explanation won't matter to the first group (but God said kill the Gay, but he made the Gay, and poof their heads explode) but the second group, with its smarmy, what about the CHILDREN OH YOU POOR MOLESTED GIRL, might benefit from hearing its not only culture that makes the "GAY".

The loose use of the term "junk science" is a pet peeve of mine. It is frequently used to describe science "that does not conform to my ideology," or science with political/ethical implications. Here are some of the hallmarks of junk science. Some of the objective signs of junk science are as follows:

1) Lack of a control group or comparison condition

2) The methods of investigation are not clearly described or reproducable

3) Claims are not falsifiable (why even though I believe in God, it is clearly impossible to incorporate His influence in to my science).

4) Processes sound scientific (e.g., homeopathy), but do not correspond to known biological/natural processes.

This is a short list of what are considered the "warning signs" of junk science. Exactly which of these criteria do you think the study in question violates?

Furthermore, the stated purpose of Saleton's forum is not to merely report science, but to explore the moral and ethical implications of research.

As others have noted, I don't think Saleton's arguments in any way reflect his views of homosexuality so much as he is attempting to refute the non-scientific beliefs of a VERY vocal minority.

Your point about bisexuality is to a point valid. This study does not acknowledge the complexity of sexuality. But, a single study can NEVER explore all levels of complexity of any phenomenon. That is why science is a PROCESS-we work toward the truth. We never claim to have achieved it.

nancyh:

The loose use of the term "junk science" is a pet peeve of mine. It is frequently used to describe science "that does not conform to my ideology," or science with political/ethical implications. Here are some of the hallmarks of junk science. Some of the objective signs of junk science are as follows:

1) Lack of a control group or comparison condition

2) The methods of investigation are not clearly described or reproducable

3) Claims are not falsifiable (why even though I believe in God, it is clearly impossible to incorporate His influence in to my science).

4) Processes sound scientific (e.g., homeopathy), but do not correspond to known biological/natural processes.

This is a short list of what are considered the "warning signs" of junk science. Exactly which of these criteria do you think the study in question violates?

Furthermore, the stated purpose of Saleton's forum is not to merely report science, but to explore the moral and ethical implications of research.

As others have noted, I don't think Saleton's arguments in any way reflect his views of homosexuality so much as he is attempting to refute the non-scientific beliefs of a VERY vocal minority.

Your point about bisexuality is to a point valid. This study does not acknowledge the complexity of sexuality. But, a single study can NEVER explore all levels of complexity of any phenomenon. That is why science is a PROCESS-we work toward the truth. We never claim to have achieved it.

well, some branches of science are questionable no matter how carefully scientific the research being done is. for instance: "is the shroud of turin authentic?" "finding noah's ark", "is intelligence related to race?" etc. the bias comes in the formulation of the question to be answered in the first place; if you didn't already have at least a half-belief in the shroud in the first place, you wouldn't target it as something to be investigated.

whereas, focusing more on genetics, if you just want to be on the cutting edge of real science, you aren't going to focus on things like intelligence or homosexuality, we're nowhere near any kind of understanding the complex chain that leads from an alteration in DNA sequence to what kind of person you're attracted to. you'd focus on something where what you're measuring is more reliable related to what you're trying to characterize; something like what genes affect number of nose hairs or some such.

as is obvious, the environment is hugely important in influencing sexuality; the behavior you're studying isn't really a simple yes/no variable (how do you class men who are attracted to "mannish" women vs those attracted to "womenly" women, men who are attracted to manly men vs womenly men, men who adopt female characteristics vs those who maintain manly characteristics but are attracted to those who have female characteristics, men who have sexual relationships exclusively with women but their relationships are never satisfactory and shrinks say it's because they're repressed homosexuals, [gentle souls may avert their eyes here] men who like women but prefer women to anally penetrate them with a strap on, etc.?)

sure, there's probably several genetic components which can be correlated with homosexuality. for instance, those which have been identified as leading to antisocial behavior and resulting in a higher frequency of incarceration, will therefore be found to be associated with a higher frequency of homosexuality. but nobody sane is going to call that a gene for homosexuality. to get to the kind of tightly linked chain of cause/effect that most folks expect for this kind of claim will require much more understanding of the chain of cause/effect between DNA sequence and behavior than we now possess.

Pet peeves aside, it is odd that reasearch is conducted on the cause of homosexuality when no one can measure, test, or scan, or what have you, and identify a homosexual.

That is my objection to all this discussion about what's going to happen to the homosexual when parents can identify one in utero.

You can test blood and determine who's got sickle cell anemia. The impression given by this series of articles is that behavior and self-reported behavior at that are good enough ways to group test subjects.

I get your point, but think you are wrong. Here is why:

1) If you can formulate a hypothesis (meaning you can make a statement such as if my hypothesis is true than I would expect to find X. If I don't find X than my hypothesis should be discarded). Using this definition of science, I could use science to disprove that the Shroud of Turin dated back to the time of Jesus. But, I could not use science to show that the image on the cloth was Jesus or divine in nature (neither hypothesis is disconfirmable).

2) Looking for genetic contributions to a particular behavioral phenomenon in NO WAY discounts the probability that a behavior is in part determined by environment. However, if you are a geneticist, this is the piece of the puzzle that it is your job to focus on. For instance, recent genetic studies have identified a gene that predisposes individuals to developing lung cancer IF THEY SMOKE. This is an example of a gene environment interaction and is the NORM not the exception.

I understand and share your concerns about the implications of the research. However, it does not make the research itself bad research or that it is wrong to ask the question. Almost every discovery has the potential to be used for good and evil. That is why it is incumbent upon us to have these kinds of discussions about science.