Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Houston Voice, No. 844, December 27, 1996
File 021
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Voice, No. 844, December 27, 1996 - File 021. 1996-12-27. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. December 2, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/915/show/902.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(1996-12-27). Houston Voice, No. 844, December 27, 1996 - File 021. Montrose Voice. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/915/show/902

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Voice, No. 844, December 27, 1996 - File 021, 1996-12-27, Montrose Voice, University of Houston Libraries, accessed December 2, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/montrose/item/915/show/902.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Voice, No. 844, December 27, 1996
Publisher Window Media
Date December 27, 1996
Language English
Subject
  • LGBTQ community
  • LGBTQ people
  • Gay liberation movement
Place
  • Houston, Texas
Genre
  • newspapers
Type
  • Text
Identifier OCLC: 31485329
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries Special Collections
  • LGBT Research Collection
  • Montrose Voice
Rights In Copyright
Note This item was digitized from materials loaned by the Gulf Coast Archive and Museum (GCAM).
Item Description
Title File 021
Transcript ree ubergine -^■x SS. A«&e*acirte /^\ iTiiNERARy: Bon VoyAqE SupER Bowl BARbECUE & DocksidE DiVERSiONS 4:00 pM SuNdAy, January 26 9:00 pM - BermucIa TRiANqlE Revue Gentry - 2505 RichMONd DivAs of tIie DeIta Oueen: An OuTRAqsous NiqltT of a TltousANd Stars 10:00 pM SATURdAy, FsbRUARy 1 Gentry - 2505 RichMONd TIie EvERREAdy Show whit Ports of CaII at tIie Venture-N, BRB, RipcoRd, CIiances, RascaIs, EJ's & Gentry 8:00 pM FRidAy, FEbRUARy 21 Treasures of AtIantIs SHent Auctjon Opens 9:00 pM SATURdAy, MarcIi 1 Gentry " 2505 RichMONd AdlVliRAl's RECEpiiON ANd Bu(Fet 6:00 pM FRidAy, MarcIi 1 Gentry " 2505 RichMONd The H.M.S. Oueen Mary CoiillioiM FEATURiNq LivE Entertainment & RaFHe DRAwiNqs 5:00 pM SuNdAy, MARch 9 BPB - 2400 Brazos All pROCEEuS bENEfiT BERJNq Care Center ancJ BERiNq DentaI Clinic Corporate Sponsors: Bistro Cuisine, House of CoIeman, Houston Voice, Montrose SofrbAll League, The Map, ANd TWT Gay Gene Continued. ... .Continued from page 6) At a conference on molecular genetics while researching my book, 1 saw the future, A young, rather cocky biotech wizard told his audience of 25 senior oncologists how his lab had injected 20 rats with carcinogens. He flashed a slide on a screen. There were 10 of the rats, cut open, their insides infested with rancid yellow cancerous lesions. Then, said the biotech guy, they injected the 10 other rats with viruses they had engineered, viruses into which they had loaded an anti-cancer gene. He flicked to the next slide, taken six months later—the cancer had vanished. Twenty-five oncologists gasped in unison. Now. this work was being done to fight cancer. But the technology is applicable to any gene. Apply it to GAY-1, and you have genetic surgery to eliminate homosexuality. Even sooner than this scenario becomes possible, however, the gay gene may provide ammunition to conservatives in the debate over abortion. We know genetic surgery will require progress in a number of different scientific disciplines before it is practicable. That may take a decade or more. But all the technology for selective abortion already exists. A test like amniocentesis may soon be able to determine whether a fetus will become a gay adult—and given the fact that there is an almost unlimited right to abortion, parents will certainly be able to terminate the fetus on that basis alone. This truth turns the politics of abortion upside down. Liberals will be faced for the first time with the fact that the "right to choose" might be used to target one of their own constituencies. And the possibility that abortion will be used as a form of sexual eugenics might make liberals who have long fought for the right to abortion in every circumstance think twice. Furthermore, genetic research may yet lead to the discovery that the gay gene is a disease gene. The most carefully considered theory on how GAY-1 might operate positsthat it is a defective gene, one that in 5 percent of the population fails to carry out the biochemical function for which natural selection chose it. Result? Homosexuality. ** Pat Robertson often claims that ■obviously" there could not be a gay gene because nature only selects for genes that "increase reproduction." Robertson knows nothing about the subject. Any first-year college genetics student could point out that anti-reproductive traits are "selected for" all the time. How'.1 Through something called "ple- iotropy," the fact that genes have side effects, as do drugs. Nature not only could easily select for a gay gene, but it can, and does, regularly select for genes Ihat kill us One example: the gene that nature selects to protect us from malaria. This gene has a devastating pleiotropic side effect-it's called sickle-cell anemia If it turns out that the "gay gene" is simply another example of pleio- tropy, this would suggest that homosexuality is, like sickle-celt disease, nothing more than a biochemical fluke. Why, then, should conservatives cower before the idea of a gay gene? Huntington's disease is caused by a gene, and thai makes Hunting ton's neither "good" nor "acceptable." In addition to the biomedical payoff, [here is a more important reason to embrace gay-gene research—an ideological one. This is the second long- term gain for conservatives. The fundamental battle between Right and Left since the modern era began is aboul one thing: Whose view of human nature is correct'1 The great majority of us never think aboul it, but every policy, every program, every law regulating everything from guns to homelessness to taxation is predicated on how its for mutators see human nature. The liberalism that emerged from Locke and Rousseau holds that everyone is born tabula rasa , as a blank slate upon which society and environment write the adult that emerges. This is liberalism's most fundamental assumption, and in late-20th-century America it is the intrinsic and usually unstated justification for taxpayer-funded social programs. Pass enough programs, spend enough on them, and we can equalize the sexes, equalize the races, level all professional playing fields, wipe out criminality, make the lazy industrious, the stupid smart, the violent pacific, and the poor rich. The research on homosexuality says: No. It says: In fundamental ways, we are born with many important aspects of the way we are. And nothing—no Head Start program, no midnight basketball, no welfare check, no well-intentioned but misguided clemency from the bench— can modify that or make it better. It is evidence for the most important assertion that conservatism makes about human nature: We are, in some ways, born different. Men are different from women. Sometimes the violent need to be locked away. Intelligence is, to a certain degree, a given. The brand of liberalism ihat now dominates public policy is futile because it ignores human nature. Its philosophical leniency is an assault on society and on common sense. Journalist James Fallows, himself a liberal, put it to me this way: "Liberalism, which has, f°r the past four hundred years ridden to triumph on science, is now at odds with science, which is showing deeper remnants of our animal past lhan liberals are comfortable with." The implications of biology's findings have not escaped scientists. Laurence Frank, a zoologist at Berkeley, exclaimed to me with disgust, "I can't even call myself a liberal anymore!" Frank had given a lecture on animal endocrinology and the way hormones determine maleness and femaleness, "and a young woman came up afterwards and she was shocked,shocked that I would say such a thing." In her view, "maleness" is just macho posturing "socially construcied" by socieiy, "femaleness" a myth created by the Neanderthal patriarchy. But to biologists, gender is as real as oxygen. Frank sighed and said, "The observation that behaviors are biologically directed is scary to liberals because that means people aren't infinitely malleable. Il means you can't pass laws and do social engineering to change the nasty people, and liberals—and Marxists in the more extreme sense—are completely and totally committed to the notion that we can change anything. All we need is good will." He concluded: "It seems to me just extravagant stupidity to pretend devoutly that humans are totally cultural and environmental creatures." In fact, the traditional conservative position on homosexuality—"lifestyle"—loes exaclly this liberal line. Fallows observed piquantly and with some pleasure that the "lifestyle" argument "has always forced conservatism, a philosophy holding thai the environment has little to do with outcomes—and that liberal programs meant to alter it are a waste of money—to make an inconvenient exception on homosexuality and argue, contradictorily, that young people can be pushed one way or another into profound aspects of their personalities by education and society. Which is exactly what liberals have wanted them to admit." Dump the internally illogical traditional position for a stance the liberal Fallows describes as "truly repellent to the liberal mind." and conservatism becomes stronger, not weaker. (Continued on Page 25) 20 HOUSTON VOICE /DECEMBER 27, 1996 m
File Name uhlib_31485329_n844_020.jpg