Friday, June 01, 2007

The Politics Of Gay Genetics

Some people argue that, like skin color, homosexuality is something a person is your born with, and others argue that, again like skin color, homosexuality is something a person chooses. I think you can sense, from this analogy, where I am going with this. Essentially, I firmly believe that true homosexuality is something that a person is born with, and arguments of personal choice hold about as much water as arguing that skin color is a personal choice.

I'm tired of seeing politicians argue policies that affect certain demographics based on their own personal opinions. Opinions are like assholes. Not only does everyone have one, but they are all full of shit, and thus they all stink. Just once I'd like to see a prominent politician like, say, the President put aside his own personal opinions on a topic and decide it based solely on logic and cold, scientific fact. For instance, one could reason that homosexuals are human beings, and they are American citizens, so they should therefore be given every rights and privileges that any other free human being in America enjoys. That should be enough for any logical politician to take the only decent stance on homosexuality, but science continues to negate their personal choice arguments.

This month's issue of Discover magazine features an interesting five-page article all about the genetics of homosexuality. The article is not yet available
online, but when it is you can read it for a mere dollar, or you can just go out and buy the magazine, which I recommend because it's a really interesting scientific magazine to read on a regular basis. This article, though, lends real and true scientific insight into homosexuality in DNA. To give away a spoiler, they have yet to pinpointing the exact chromosome or chromosomes that determine sexual preference, but they're close. One researcher expects to have a definitive answer by mid-2008. However, through their studies they have found some other interesting information that determines homosexuality is far more genetic than a guy one day decreeing, "You know what food I really enjoy eating? Hot dogs!"
"William Reiner, a psychaitrist at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, explored the question of environmental influences on sexuality with a group that had been surgically shifted from boys to girls. These boys had been born with certain genital deformities; because it's easier to fashion a vagina than a penis, the boys were surgically made into girls at birth. In many cases they were raised as girls and kept in the dark about the surgery, and thought themselves female long into adulthood. Invariably, Reiner found that the faux females ended up being attracted to women. If societal nuddging was what made men gay, at least one of these boys should have grown up to be attracted to men. There is no documented case of that happening."
A primary argument against a homosexual couple adopting a child is that they might condition the child to be homosexual itself. As if it's some grand plot of the "evil gays" to turn every other human being gay, which, for the record, is moronic. This study proves conclusively that no amount of social conditioning is going to make a straight person gay. Conversely, nor is it going to make a gay person straight. We have women out there with four or five baby daddies. We have children lining orphanages because their selfish parents did not want them. We have abortion clinics set up for people who don't quite think through this whole sex thing fully, and the desperate ones who can't use an abortion clinic just chuck their babies in back alley dumpsters. We have broken homes and children raising themselves through crime and drug use on the streets. We argue that children need a stable home life with two loving, nurturing parents. Yet when two suitable parents actually want a child and would take good care of it, we deny them because two men to varying degrees of effeminate or two women to varying degrees of masculine are not as ideal as any of the aforementioned scenarios. The righteous, who are ironically, often wrong, protest that homosexuals just want to raise their children to be gay, but that has been scientifically proven to not be the case, and you know what? When their child does grow up to be straight, who is going to be more loving, understanding, and supportive than someone who had to struggle with their own parental persecution for their sexual preference?
"Ivanka Savic Berglund, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute on Stockholm, put gay men, straight men, and women in a PET scanner (not at the same time) and watched how their anterior hypothalamus lit up when presented with an odor similar to one found in men's sweat and one similar to a scent found in women's urine. The gay men's brains responded the way the women's brains did."
This tells me something I've long suspected, that gay men have a physiological make up closer to women and gay women have one closer to that of men. Even though we have yet to pinpoint the exact chromosome that determines sexual preference, it's long been overwhelmingly obvious that it has got to be a genetic determination. We know too much about DNA and how it determines they way our bodies and minds work to deny this possibility. We have women born whose DNA informs us that everything about them but their physical appearance should be a man, and men born the same way only with that of women. There is so much genetic coding going on in our bodies upon conception that it's easy for any little mistake to be made. Some of these are as readily apparent as Down's syndrome or a baby born without a skullcap, but why should we positively rule out sexual and psychological defects from the same causes? The truth is that we shouldn't, and only the truly ignorant would.

This also reinforces that to be beligerantly ignorant of homosexuality is stupid. To this day, I hear people say that if any homo hits on them, they'll beat the queer within an inch of his life. How stupid is this? Would you beat an ugly woman who hit on you within an inch of her life? Actually, probably, since many of these same neanderthals beat their attractive wives much the same way for infractions as small as not serving them their beer at precisely the right temperature. If it's true that gay men and women think much the same way, and it is, then wouldn't it be more reasonable to respond to their advances much the same way as you would those of a woman in whom you have no interest? You might get a psycho gay guy once in a while who's convinced he can change your mind, but you also sometimes get psycho women who are convinced of the same thing. You wouldn't beat a woman to death for hitting on you, so why would you a man? It's a rhetorical question, but just so there are no misunderstandings, I'll answer it: Because you're an idiot.
"The model shows that over centuries an affect you might call the homophobe's paradox has been at work on the human genome: The more intolerant the society, the more likely it is to maintain gay genes. If a society's conventions keep homosexuals in the closet, then they will be more likely to conform, get married, and have children. This is especially true of gay genes are also responsible for making women more fecund. Imagine, for instance, that for every extra child that such a gay gene-carrying woman has, a gay man can hae one fewer and the balance necessary for the survival of the gene is still maintained. The more children he has, thanks to what his contemporariesdemand of him, the less evolutionary pressure is there for his female counterpart to have more. 'As a society becomes more intolerant, there's more pressure to have offspring' says Gavrilets. 'The real [evolutionary] cost of being homosexual isn't too big if you're forced to have kids." On the other hand, the more tolerant the society, the more gay men can be free to be who they are, so the more likely they will be childless — and the more difficult it will be for any female in the family to make up for the loss."
Hahaha, oh wow. If this isn't the funniest thing I've read in a scientific magazine, I don't know what is. Society's intolerance of homosexuality is keeping homosexuals in the population. The more intolerant society continues to be on the issue, the more homosexuality will thrive in our culture. Bush wants to amend the Constitution and spouts ignorant rhetoric to practically guarantee that those people he loathes and fears most continue to plague his conscious paranoia concerning his own nether region. I guess it's a good thing for homosexuals that their continued existence depends on ignorance and persecution because it seems that as long as people determine issues based on personal bias and religious manipulation rather than on logic and facts, homosexuality will be around for a long time to come. We are a society that loves to flaunt our ignorance in the face of cold, hard facts, too. I mean we somehow inexplicably voted Bush for a second term, which was only after screwing ourselves by presenting John Kerry as the only other possibility.


Post a Comment

<< Home