10/24/2007
Tuscany, Italy in Gay Baby Controversy: Sexuality Not a Choice
Tuscany's regional government is set to post thousands of posters of a newborn infant wearing a wristband labeled "homosexual" as part of an anti-discrimination campaign.
The posters say "Sexual orientation is not a choice."
Said Tuscany region's civil rights councillor Agostino Fragai: "Homosexuality is not a vice and hence should not be condemned nor marginalised, or worse still persecuted."
Conservatives (and even some left-leaning politicians concerned with the lack of genetic proof) in Italy are up in arms. Said Christian lawmaker Lucio Volonte: "Exploiting newborns to suggest that homosexual tendencies are innate is a misleading and shameful act."
You may have missed...
Is There Such a Thing as a Gay Walk? [tr]
Gaydar: Do You Have A Counter-Clockwise Whorl? [tr]
Posted 11:45 AM EST by Andy in Advertising, Discrimination, Genetics, Italy, News, Tuscany | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
I guess Christians have a monopoly on exploiting babies...
Posted by: Wes | Oct 24, 2007 11:56:31 AM
Hey Andy:
The actual Italian on the poster reads, "sexual orientation is not a choice".
Posted by: Jack | Oct 24, 2007 12:20:03 PM
It's absurd! During these last weeks a mounting campaign sparked by media (in Italy exists an oligopolist system) and approved (silently) by a centre-left wing government on the brink of collapse, insists in prospect the so-called christian way of life and a frankly fascist and xenophobic policy. The example you reported is a clear demonstration both of a misleading reductionist science approach to sexuality and populist message. (From the 'full christian' town of Padua - the whitest city of the world).
Posted by: Giusepe | Oct 24, 2007 12:28:29 PM
I know that looking at sexual orientation as the pure result of an innate genetic characteristic is extremely useful for us politically. And as such, it's become an article of faith among gays and lesbians.
But I don't believe sexual orientation is 100% genetically determined, as a trait like eye color is. It may be more like height, which involves genes plus environmental factors such as nutrition (and maybe exercise).
I think Kinsey was onto something with his 0 to 6 scale of sexuality. There are Kinsey 3s and 4s (and 2s and 5s) out there, and their expressed sexuality involves some element of choice (especially, as long as society construes sexuality as some sort of sexual identity). Women, certainly, seem to have a more fluid sexuality than men.
I think it's likely that when we better understood genetics and sexuality, we will find that, while sexual orientation has a very strong genetic base, it also has an environmental component. And that for some people environmental factors weigh more heavily than for others.
At some point, the movement's rhetoric may have to be adjusted to reflect that reality.
(But I still think most ex-gays are kidding themselves.)
Posted by: 24play | Oct 24, 2007 12:31:50 PM
The Kinsey scale is garbage. Where would an asexual person fit on it?
(Sorry, it just bugs be when something so blantantly incorrect is used in an argument)
Posted by: Taylor | Oct 24, 2007 12:41:35 PM
The bottom line is that there is no scientific evidence to prove that being gay is genetic..... so therefore it must be a choice.... a disgusting one at that!
You guys always want to make it appear that you are more plentiful than you really are...you guys do not even make up 1% of the worlds population ...you are abnormal, and need help
Posted by: boot | Oct 24, 2007 12:46:08 PM
Define "asexual." Are you suggesting there are humans with absolutely no sexual urges or desires? Ever? That's not a genetic mutation likely to be passed down through the ages.
If by "asexual" you mean absolutely celibate for life, I'd say those people probably still have desires, and therefore a sexual orientation.
Posted by: 24play | Oct 24, 2007 12:48:45 PM
Well, Taylor, maybe an asexual person would be a "0" on Kinsey's scale. I dunno'? And who the hell is asexual, anyway?
Regis Philbin?
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Oct 24, 2007 12:53:27 PM
Even if we are 1%, Boot, and even if it IS a choice, we still have the right to exist, no matter what you or anyone else thinks. We are citizens with rights. This is a free country and if you don't agree with us that's fine, but I'll tell you what...I DON'T need help. I'm happy with who I am and my desires and sexual behaviors. Maybe you should look at yourself. Sounds to me like you are the one in need of help.
Posted by: TO BOOT | Oct 24, 2007 1:01:04 PM
Hey boot, abnormal means nothing. Heroes and genuises are abnormal, should they be 'helped'?
Posted by: Wes | Oct 24, 2007 1:03:46 PM
Boot, what you need is a good swift boot to the head...
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Oct 24, 2007 1:05:52 PM
Hey, Boot, Homos sure do make up more than 1% of the Republican Party. Looks like about 50% of 'em are closet cases.
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Oct 24, 2007 1:06:04 PM
"there is no scientific evidence to prove that being gay is genetic..... so therefore it must be a choice.... a disgusting one at that!"
That's totally illogical, btw.
There's no scientific proof that there is life on other planets, so therefore we must be alone in the universe!
You're mistaking ignorance for evidence.
Posted by: Wes | Oct 24, 2007 1:06:45 PM
Taylor dear, until you've conducted empirical research on sexuality and have a convincing argument against Kinsey's scale or body of work, then calling it garbage only shows your immaturity.
Are we to assume that you think sexuality is fixed? If so, prove it. Until then, Kinsey's work is the best explanation for sexuality we've got. Moral judgements have no place in science unless they proclude maltreatment of its subjects.
Posted by: TO BOOT | Oct 24, 2007 1:09:38 PM
Why is "Boot" even reading a "blog with homosexual tendencies"? Is he a queer in the making?
Posted by: Another Boot | Oct 24, 2007 1:17:30 PM
Boot-
Since your on a site that promotes itself as a site with homo tendencies then your preaching your hate to the wrong crowd. Sounds like you just need a good stiff dick up your tight ass to help you come out of your deep closet. Perhaps a visit to San Francisco or New York during gay pride with hundreds of thousands of gay men will help someone with your obvious self loathing come to grips with your homo hating ways.
Posted by: SFshawn | Oct 24, 2007 1:22:08 PM
Alright, I apologize for my brash comments earlier.
I personally believe that the Kinsey scale is far from the answer to explaining human sexuality.
People who are asexual are not celibate. That is an entirely different thing, and yes I would agree that in such a case the individual would still most likely have attractions towards one sex or another.
For the comments of someone being set as 0 on the Kinsey scale if they were infact asexual, this is incorrect. A person with the designation of 0 would be completely heterosexual.
Asexuality is not a genetic defect anymore than homosexuality is. It was shown in a study in the UK that 1% of the population had no sexual inclinations towards either sex. I hardly see 1% as a defect. Even animals have shown to have no urges to mate with members of either sex in their species.
I do understand the topic that we are discussing, and just because I failed to provide a well worded argument earlier doesn't make me immature or wrong. I just didn't have time to create a verbose response. I hope that this pleases those who I seemed to have offended earlier.
Posted by: Taylor | Oct 24, 2007 2:21:08 PM
Taylor,
You didn't offend anyone. We knew that you knew what you were talking about. As you said, you just didn't have time to elaborate.
It was that "booty" guy who was offensive. How do they find gay blogs?
Posted by: Derrick from PHilly | Oct 24, 2007 2:30:06 PM
Mr Lucio Volonte, just go molest a child or something! Wait, that IS a shameful act!! You 'tard!
Posted by: Shabaka | Oct 24, 2007 2:42:08 PM
Alright, I guess everything was just strung out from the comments that Boot made :)
Posted by: Taylor | Oct 24, 2007 2:47:21 PM
Taylor is correct, the Kinsey scale is worse than useless. For non-scientists the scale seems to map all the possible combos of human desire into a neat little distribution plot, whose shape is unknown, but the K-scale is not a "discovered" fact but rather an artificial "model". In science, you can't impose models on reality--you have to figure out how things really work. The K-scale has no predictive value whatsoever and artificially confines the way one would think about human sexuality. Asexuals, autoerotics, necrophiliacs, pedophiles, etc. all make such a simple scale useless, not to mention details like whether a gay man prefers blonds or not, fat or thin, black, white or other, etc. Psychologists/sociologists prefer the term "Men who have sex with men" instead of homosexual or gay anyway.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Oct 24, 2007 3:17:54 PM
I think people are missing the point here. Newborn babies are being exploited to prove a point. I don't like it when christians do it ("think of the children!") - I sure don't like it when we do it.
While I believe its a true point that sexual orientation is set at birth - real conclusive scientific evidence is lacking. That doesn't mean that its a "choice" - we all know better. But to say something that is scientific proven when it isn't and use newborns to push an agenda is just bad form.
Posted by: yoshi | Oct 24, 2007 6:37:55 PM
How in the world is this "exploiting" a newborn? It is a photo. It is advertising. It is not a living baby in a box put up on display. It is a photo.
"Exploiting" would imply that this particular baby's life is harmed by appearing in this ad. Something tells me that this baby was not "harmed" any more than they would be at a Sears Portrait Studio. Plus, he or she gets to use any modeling payment for future investment. Yeah. That's really exploitative.
Posted by: Gregg | Oct 24, 2007 10:44:05 PM
Quella foto?
è ridicolo mi sembro. Non mi piace quella bambino omosessuale!
Posted by: SojournerTruth | Oct 25, 2007 8:22:58 PM
This is actually from a campaign made in Quebec a couple of years ago. Exact same picture and slogan except here it was of course in French. To know more visit http://homophobie.org/default.aspx?scheme=3057 where you can also get the material in English.
Posted by: Daniel in Montreal | Oct 29, 2007 8:38:44 PM
Boot is reading this crap, because
1. boot is bored
2. boot is disgusted by arse bonkers
3. boot is disgusted by arse bonkers
4. boot resents the fact that poufs want to force their agenda down everyone's throat.
poufs have the same rights as every one else, why should the have special rights?
Posted by: boot | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:38 PM