« "Everywhere around the world / They're coming to America | Main | Voting the bums out is a failed strategy. »

July 24, 2013

The Unsettling Science [BUMPED]

GayGene.jpg

We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon.
And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. Biological basis for homosexuality. The fraternal birth order explanation could be bad news for gay people. - Slate Magazine

Posted by gerardvanderleun at July 24, 2013 1:21 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

This will lead to the discovery that marriage is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Todd at July 22, 2013 8:37 AM

What if its not biological at all? And if its biological somehow, where's the line drawn?

What I mean is this: if biology determines our sexual inclination, why is homosexuality to be protected but not, say, a yen for goats? If biology somehow makes it natural and proper, why do we stop at homosexuality?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 22, 2013 8:38 AM

One day, they will find themselves actually harassing scientists and parents-to-be in order to avoid or even deny access to a cure, and even becoming "pro-life"... just like those in the deaf community who only want to have children who are also deaf.

Once again, Rush was right!

Posted by: newton at July 22, 2013 8:39 AM

I wouldn't hold my breath for this to cause any pro-life tendencies. Blacks are aborted at an almost genocidal rate and the left shrugs at it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 22, 2013 8:57 AM

Save this one for the next time they tell you that conservatives are "anti-science".

Posted by: Fat Man at July 22, 2013 9:04 AM

Many dwarfs oppose research to end the mutation which causes dwarfism (I'm not making this up), just as many deaf couples resist cochlear implants for their deaf children (they will lose them to a larger community). Communities arises around profound disorders that are closer than other communities and feel threatened--justifiably--by a cure. The fact that they rely heavily on the taxpayer for their lives and lifestyles never enters their minds because they were born into it.

The homosexual, who on the other hand is a taxpayer, relies on "breeders" for the replenishment of his community because in spite of his rhetoric he does not wish to go to the trouble of raising children. When the time comes that breeders can actually choose, they are very likely indeed to reject all the usual bullshit pc directives and put homosexuality on their blacklist of biological characteristics. Homosexuals know this, and know they will in fact finally have no say in their future without walking the walk, which reveals why they feel very threatened indeed.

Posted by: james wilson at July 22, 2013 9:35 AM

I thought some more from the linked article would provide even more humor:

"If homosexuality is truly biological, discrimination against gay people is bigotry, plain and simple. But if it’s a birth defect, as Blanchard’s work tacitly suggests, then being gay is something that can—and presumably should—be fixed.

"That’s a toxic view, and one that must be abandoned. We might not yet understand the exact biological mechanisms underlying sexual orientation, but we will one day soon. And if, at that point, homosexuality is seen as a disorder, the next step will be a search for a cure. That would be a tragedy—for society and for science. There’s nothing wrong with being gay: You know it; I know it; the Supreme Court knows it. But so long as large swaths of the country believe otherwise—places where homophobic families still ostracize their gay sons and brothers—any research into its biological origins is fraught with peril for the cause of gay rights."

Posted by: Walter Sobchak at July 22, 2013 9:57 AM

Perhaps gays will come to the point where they will pay for children taken to term with their genetic marker. Or, perhaps, all the science from one direction or another will prove to be so much crap. A kind of "ether theory" of genetics.

Posted by: vanderleun at July 22, 2013 9:58 AM

Wait... If 30% of gay men might be gay due to the "birth order" effect, doesn't that mean that 70% of gay men are firstborn males? Doesn't that suggest that birth order is irrelevant, or am I missing something?

Posted by: Julie at July 22, 2013 10:53 AM

To this day I am certain that straight couples who are the biological parents look into the crib of their newborn, and never, ever say: "Golly, I hope he turns out to be GAY!"

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at July 22, 2013 11:31 AM

"a yen for goats"

Which, these days, is like "a penny for your goats".

If I ever start up a goth emo grunge band, we're definitely calling it A Yen For Goats (AYFG). We'll send you royalties.

Posted by: mushroom at July 22, 2013 11:34 AM

Liberals now claim sexual orientation is fixed and biologically determined from birth. Gender, on the other hand, is variable and may change at any moment. If you feel like a girl, you are a girl, never mind the plumbing and the chromosomes.

Posted by: Scott M at July 22, 2013 12:31 PM

What if I just feel pretty?

Posted by: mushroom at July 22, 2013 2:07 PM

james wilson - One further comment. Even if male homosexuals want to walk the walk, they can't. Not without making elaborate surrogacy arrangements, anyway.

And one more thing: I hereby suggest that anyone of right-of-centre political leanings, and especially anyone who is against same-sex marriage, stops using the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals. Many homosexuals are very far indeed from being gay in the old, true, sense - and in any case I object to the hijacking of what used to be a useful word by somewhere between 2% and 5% of the population.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at July 22, 2013 3:18 PM

Don Rodrigo Singer Moby has hoped his son is gay.

Posted by: Potsie at July 22, 2013 4:26 PM

Fletcher, you have a great point, but I'm afraid it's too late. The word has been tainted; if it ever reverts to its original meaning, it will only be because some other innocent word has been hijacked for the same purpose, and is somehow simpler to say.

I feel much the same way about rainbows, which as a symbol once represented (to Judeo-Christian believers at least) a sacred covenant between God and man. These days, any progressives aware of the original symbolism probably take a great deal of pleasure in its perversion.

Posted by: Julie at July 22, 2013 8:05 PM

Potsie, Singer Moby might be a closet pedophile. There IS a reason for everything.

Posted by: Peccable at July 23, 2013 2:36 AM

Obviously we are no longer on the slippery slope; we are four feet deep in packed fudge. Perhaps the British Royal lineage will end because the new prince turns out to be a a little light light on his loafers? OTOH, history shows that to be not an insurmountable obstacle (so to speak).

Posted by: Frank P at July 23, 2013 4:50 AM

Frank P - Not insurmountable at all. For one thing, them being a reasonably normal couple (apart from the privilege and being forever in the glare of publicity, of course) the new baby is unlikely to be William and Katherine's only child.

In any case, the issue of said baby becoming King is likely to be 60 years (at least) in the future. Who knows how attitudes and human biology might have changed by then?

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at July 23, 2013 6:29 AM

There is a sickness in your soul, and you think you are the healthy ones. I pity your blindness.

Posted by: Stan at July 24, 2013 5:12 AM

Mebbe so Stan, but at least the blind haven't become useful idiots for the Long March; and blind though they may be, most can find their arse with one hand, rather that randomly locating someone else's of the same gender with their dick. In other words most in the care of St Dunstan at least know their fundamental orifices from their elbows - or indeed a box of fudge. And personally I'd rather have sickness of the soul than pox of the a-hole. But then you're obviously a very nice person - and even more obviously, I'm not.

Posted by: Frank P at July 24, 2013 6:30 AM

Potsie:

Moby is a dick, and because of his profession, is not a real human being. Like with almost all "artistes" his opinions count for nothing.

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at July 24, 2013 8:28 AM

I wonder upon what spiritual basis Stan declares soul sickness. What ethic, what authority?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 24, 2013 2:39 PM

Science backs religion. We now know the reason behind this passage in Exodus 12:12-30 -
And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon;
Something for you pro-lifers to think about in your quest to create a righteous society. Or as another utopian, Robespierre, said: You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Posted by: Frank (akaDagny) at July 24, 2013 8:13 PM

Most lesbians I know are also pro abortion. Once the prenatal test is found the only people that will have gay kids for the most part will be christians who are anti abortion.

Posted by: BradnSA at July 24, 2013 9:40 PM

BradnSA, if so, we can just ship the little poufters to OZ; they have some penchant for bumboys.

Posted by: Peccable at July 25, 2013 2:55 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)