Alan Keyes’ renewamerica.us web site published a rubbish-strewn article by Nathan Tabor on Sept. 8.
Without attribution, the article relies upon:
- ostracized Dr. Paul Cameron’s claims that gay men tend to die by age 42;
- rightist hate groups’ myth that gay rights advocates say their lifestyle is genetically determined and claim they have no choice over their behavior;
- the myth that “most homosexuals reject God,”;
- scientifically illiterate distortions of the theory of evolution.
Libertarian blogger Jon Rowe corrects the Keyes-Tabor distortions of science with a link to Edward M. Miller, PhD’s 2000 study, “Homosexuality, Birth Order, and Evolution: Towards a Equilibrium — Reproductive Economics of Homosexuality.”
Rowe also finds several other hate groups recently using Cameron’s phony research, despite readily available articles debunking the man’s propaganda.
Joan E. Roughgarden
2004, Roughgarden, J., Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. University of California Press. Berkeley CA. 474 pp.
About the author and book: On the Originality of Species.
Article excerpts:
Many scientists—indeed, many people—take solace in binaries: male and female, gay and straight, sperm and egg, black and white. Roughgarden takes heart from the complicated beauties of shadings, gradations, mixtures. It’s why she has so little patience for geneticists’ quixotic attempts to find a single, magic-bullet “gay gene.” And it’s why she has a major beef with Darwin, whose sexual-selection theory, she believes, encouraged his successors to ignore the sexual and gender diversity right in front of their eyes.
She knows her thesis won’t be an easy sell. “So many institutions are committed to the idea that the sole or natural purpose of sex is procreation,” she says. “And that’s just clearly false. I don’t know what they’re going to do when a foundational tenet like that is incorrect.”
And:
There is no consensus about the extent of same-sex behavior. Roughgarden draws on Bruce Bagemihl’s 1999 book, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, which reports homosexual behavior in some 450 species.
I am so sick of the continued focus by anti-gay forces on the, at most, 3 dozen people who held a symbolic “Southern Decadence” parade in New Orleans, as well as the similarly informal “parade” elsewhere in Louisiania (Baton Rouge?) put on by gay refugees of the NOLA flood. They characterize these events as callous, refusing to see that, particularly for the refugees, the events were an attempt to reclaim some sense of normalcy in a horrific situation. But more importantly, the anti-gay groups once again take the behavior of a few gay people as examples of ALL gay people, refusing to see our individuality and differences.
I am also sick of hearing about how the existence of homosexuality is contrary to Darwinian evolution – guess what, so are bee and ant colonies, where only one individual actually reproduces. Darwinian evolution also cannot account for altruism or several other behaviors that are present in humans and throughout the animal kingdom.
That is why Darwinian evolution – that is, the basic theory espoused by Darwin, has been supplanted and expanded. The mechanisms of natural selection are still held to be valid, but the existence of non-reproducing members of species have been explained time and again by evolutionary theorists.
I find it refreshing that a few would celebrate–just as it is great that some are praising God. One of the best ways to deal with serious situations is to celebrate and party. But it is true that a few should not represent the whole.
CPT, just to point out, the claim of the homophobes that the existence of homosexuals disproves Darwinian evolution is about as dumb as their claim that Darwinian evolution violates the 2d “law” of thermodynamics.
I was trained in physics, and I know what the 2d “law” of thermodynamics refers to. The homophobes don’t.
On the point of the post, as far as I’m concerned, Alan “Motormouth” Keyes is nothing more than a self-promoter. That’s the long and the short of it.
BTW, I hope that the web master can turn off the underlining. Apparently someone failed to provide an HTML terminate tag.
Raj,
I don’t think they are trying to say that gays disprove Darwin. I think they are saying something like:
“If you believe Darwin, then you have to believe homosexuality is not natural; since gay people don’t procreate, the genes would be less favorable and be eliminated over time”.
There are soooo many reasons why this displays gross ignorance about natural selection that I won’t make any attempt to list them.
But my favorite retort is: “Oh, but evolution isn’t over. Once natural selection is complete, EVERYONE will be gay. After all, it’s all about selecting superior genes”.
– (no need to retort, kids, that’s just silly sarcasm)
Timothy at September 12, 2005 10:02 PM
Actually, it’s impossible to tell what the ‘phobe’s argument actually is. Actually, I have seen them make several arguments, none of which make any sense.
Point one: I have seen them make an argument to the effect that, if same-sex attraction was genetically determined, then Darwin’s theory of natural selection would have suggested that the trait would have died out years ago. This argument shows a startling ignorance of genetics, since, if the trait is passed matrilinearly, the same set of genes that affect same-sex attraction, may very well enhance reproduction by the mother.
Point two: I have seen them make the argument to the effect that the genes affect only structure, not behavior. This is also patently absurd, as any dog breeder would tell you. The myriad breeds of dogs shown at the Westminster Dog Show were all descended from wolves, and they were bred primarily to select their behaviors. Their differing structures helps with their behaviors, but it is well known that one’s genes affect his or her behavior.
If it wasn’t so intensely influencing what a good percentage of Americans think about gay men and AIDS…Cameron’s stupid study would be hilarious.
Boy, some people’s misguided information boggles my mind.
I have been participating in the Black Woman’s Health Study for about eight years.
Initially I got their attention because of reproductive health problems.
Black women suffer more from uterine and ovarian disease more than any of their counterparts of similar age, income and with access to health care.
I was diagnosed with SLE (systemic lupus euthrymisis) about seven years ago and all over again black women suffer from and die more often from this disease.
This is aside from the HIV/AIDS affected among us.
The age discrepancy is wide too among us women, black to white.
A black die younger, at greater numbers and have less access to quality care and forgo it more often than our white counterparts.
Would Cameron suggest then that because of this discrepancy, black women are unworthy of marriage, or bothering to live full, loud, lives because our lifespans are shorter and our lives less well maintained?
People like Cameron herniate themselves to find a fault or two or three in gay men, in particular.
And they literally MUST, because there is so little that’s there worth using against the gay male population.
Comparable populations don’t have this information used against them to discriminate or enact new laws that do.
The health study calls me regularly and such groups have to reach out for participation. Volunteers who would disclose this information are at a premium.
Cameron didn’t do his research for the BENEFIT of gay populations.
When it comes to public health studies, interested parties should have oversight, precisely because of socio political abuses.