Saturday, May 16, 2015

The Wages of Homosexuality Are Death, Mmm'kay?

So I've been meaning to post something on evolution and gayness for quite some time, but never got around to it. And I'm not actually going to be able to address it as much as I want to today because busy, busy, busy. But here is a good starting point for a future discussion.

As you may not know if you're new to me, I'm a TeaParty #Conservatarian and I've got a Smoking Hot Asian Wife(TM).  What this means to you is that I'm an conservative libertarian constrained only by the ideals contained in the underpinning philosophy of the United States and that NO, I'M NOT GAY, MMM'KAY, BUT $20 IS $20!

Open me in new tab: South Park Elementary's Mr. Mackey Totally Forgets Where That Thing Goes, Mmm kay?

As rising star along the lines of the great William F Buckley, Conservative Brit writer for the National Review Online and future American Charles CW Cooke adroitly argues, homosexuals are natural fits for the inherent human liberties enshrined Constitutionally.  Whether they've been co-opted by Progressive ideology is irrelevant because as humans, they deserve the freedom to pursue opportunity and happiness as want--like all Americans. 

Social conservatives make the entire issue of homosexuality about religious morality, as if all morality comes from religion. If you are an Atlas Shrugged fan, an agnostic-leaner, or simply curious about human belief systems, you should also look into Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy for an alternative view on where morality is derived.

When Social Conservatives speak for conservatism and the GOP, they often do great damage to any possible reconciling we can have with groups who would be naturally welcomed into a big conservative tent. They general speak from a position of ignorance to boot (whether it's Todd Akin's "legitimate rape," or Foster Friess' "aspirin between the knees for birth control"), earning well-deserved derision from our Progressive enemies on the Left. Since the Left controls the narrative, new potential recruits to what I like to call "America," or what others might call "conservatism," learn to hate both as backwards and, well, "un-American." 

So, when I see Social Conservatives bring religious beliefs sans facts to a fight about natural human rights, I get pretty pissed because they're helping expand Progressives influence.  And I don't know if you've noticed, but at the Federal level and in many Blue states with a lot of electoral college power, and on campus, and in our elementary schools, and on our TVs... American exceptionalism is slipping away to the Modern Progressive movement. Watch ABC Family programming sometime if you need further convincing.

We Conservatives need to embrace sexual and racial minorities and wrap them in the love of liberty, personal independence, and the love of inherent human rights--they'll embrace God on their own if we show them respect.  And if they go to hell because they're pole-smoking sinners, so be it. You surely aren't winning them over with your current tactics. 

Before you think I'm a religion hater, I'm not. In fact I am a fervent support of Christianity although I am not myself religious.
I don't know if you've also noticed, Social Conservatives, but your base and potential recruit pool is dwindling very fast, and with it, your influence on what happens in this country, and our ability to fight back against the culture war on Christianity.  If you'd like to stop the slide, you'll need to modernize while maintaining your core faith--kinda like what we're telling the Muslims right now about their most-peaceful religion stuck very firmly in the pre-Middle Ages.

You might think homosexuals are warring against you and your faith, and it's true to a large extent--but you exacerbate it daily... religiously, even. And derisively against staunch Conservatives like myself and my British brother from another mother.  Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association can't even see when he has been owned by logical arguments, so blinded he is by his ignorance.

So, now we reach the raison d'etre of this this post.  Homosexuality as a choice.

I came across this The Spectator UK Health blog post from March 2015 this morning, while I was spewing right-wing hatred on Twitter, "Muslims, Jews and Christians use identical twins to ‘prove’ homosexuality isn’t genetic" and felt compelled to post to The Spectator and to repeat it here with a little extra.

Like The Spectator blog's author, who was rightly critical of the material he was examining, it jacked up several of my pet peeves simultaneously: lay journalists who try to play scientist, the improper cherry picking and abuse of science to push a political or religious agenda--like global warming, but in this case "homosexuals are not born that way so they must be choosing to be gay and if they are, then they are sinners or insane cause it just doesn't make any sense for a man to put his pee-pee into another man's heiney hole and stuff."

The Spectator post recapitulates an article from on 28 March 2015 called "Identical twin studies show homosexuality not genetic."

This article was recapped from another online webzine called "Jew News" in a 08 March 2015 article titled "Eight Major Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic."

Jew News ("It's not News if it's not Jew News") picked up the story from Red Flag News in an undated article titled Eight Major Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic

Red Flag News got it from Orthodoxy Today, in an article titled "Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality is Not Genetic" from June 2013. Red Flag News links you "to read more" at Social Conservative Pat Dollard's site here from December 2014. I had no idea this meme was so damn old and tired when I saw it on The Spectator.  Geesh.

Orthodoxy Today got the article from, a Christian site, in an article titled "Identical twin studies prove homosexuality is not genetic."

It isn't clear where, but got the article from myriad ramblings of a douche-bag named Dr. Neil Whitehead, of the infamous MY GENES MADE ME DO IT !!!!11!1!!!@! Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence, originally published in March 1999 and gently revised through time and is now in Kindle format as of July 2014. There have been remarkable advances in genetics and human behavioral science since March 1999, that Creationists tend to ignore as they continue to wage war against a British man long since dead (Charles Darwin), but I digress.

I guess the real point to make is that it always seems like I'm always late to the party. 

Whitehead's own website, Homosexuality and tohe Scientific Evidence claims that: "THIS IS AN ACADEMIC SITE, BUT ACCESSIBLE TO ALL SERIOUS VIEWERS Huge amounts of impartial scientific evidence now make it abundantly clear that homosexuality is not biologically hard-wired and that change is possible." 

Well, OK, then. Academic. At least it's not claiming to be a scientific site.

With regard to the entire tracing from The Spectator backward, what sorta fascinates me is that a Jewish paper picked it up, a Muslim paper picked up the Jew account, and then a Christian paper picked up the Muslim account, which all goes back to an insane Christian PhD (probably in theology, but I'm SWAGing here and don't care to waste anymore time checking his bona fides).  If these religions could only play so nicely when they weren't looking to cherry pick bullshit from each other... and then it all goes back to a widely discredited pseudo-sciencer on par with the best caricatures of Scientism and tactics used by the Left to promulgate their Progressive evils.

So, guess who you should never read any longer for objective news and qualified insightful opinion on anything?  

Well, here's a handy starting list:

Jew News
Muslim Village
Pat Dollard (I stopped following this fucking SoCon hate nut long ago on Twitter, and you should too)
Orthodoxy Today (now there is an appropriately named site)
Holland Davis (another PhD theologian)
Red Flag News
And anywhere else you find this meme infecting the Internet without due scrutiny.

For your pleasure, here are the comments I submitted to The Spectator Health Blog and which they didn't post, thankfully, because they came across as shooting the messenger in the context I placed them.
"This all erroneously assumes identical twins are 100% genetically identical and that homosexuality is heritable, has only one source, and excludes obvious morphological differences between homo- and heterosexuals.  
There is significant genetic variation among identical twins, including about 23% being "mirror images," which aren't even currently genetically detectable.  Also, thousands of commonly occurring (at relatively static frequencies) recessive genetic "abnormalities" arise from mutations at various stages of the reproductive cycle from gamete to zygote formation.  
All that "sciency" stuff aside, to ignore the obvious physical (morphology) appearances between gays and straights which CAN ONLY BE derived from the outward expression of their genes is incredibly morose for all people who argue homosexuality is ONLY a choice one makes, as if homosexuality is only defined by rational acts of sodomy versus irrational acts of the heart.
Any magazine who repeats this crap adds to the ever growing body of evidence that journalists (and especially those promoted to "editor.") are very average people--mediocre, even.  Leave science and its interpretation to we who are qualified--and most of us can't even do it right (e.g., global warming).  Thanks.
Oh, and I'm not gay, but $20 is $20."
Seriously, the argument for homosexual genetics is extremely simple and requires nothing more than a set of ocular instrumentation and intuitive cognition, that when combined together is highly accurate and is technically called "gaydar," by people in the know. 

Gaydar works by measuring where along a standard bell-curve someone morphologically appears as, or behaviorally acts like someone of the opposite sex (i.e., feminine or masculine gestures and interests) from "gay" to "not gay."  You DO NOT need to go out and buy expensive gaydar devices like this device:

An expensive Gaydar device you do not need to actually use your own natural gaydar.  Nope.  Don't need this.

Nor do you have to be highly trained to operate technical military-style hardware like this and spend years as the third squad member in an Arab military:

No, this is not actually gaydar, it's the Russian SA-15 Gauntlet surface-to-air missile system. Russians hate gays, by the way.

Let's see how gaydar works in real life:

Most likely a woman who digs chicks, NTTIAWTT.*

OK, let's examine another case illustration:
Possibly two women OR two men, in love, NTTIAWTT.

Philosoraptor pondering its gaydar
After just two photos, I think you're probably getting your gaydar very well calibrated and can clearly start seeing the physical differences in homosexuals that instinctively prove to you being gay is not just a choice, that, yes, people are born gay, or more or less male or female across a wide morphological and behavioral gradient we scientists like to call a normal curve.  Do not confuse your gaydar with obsessing over exceptions like straight-acting or straight-looking lipstick lesbians or hunky manly gay men--it's all part of normal variation in the system.  Any confusion is understandable, though, because there are some common misperceptions about homosexuality--even among gays themselves! 

Here are some:

OK, I didn't make this graphic, and I'm not really sure what the bottom middle photo is supposed to convey about what she thinks she does as a lesbian. On the surface, it looks to me that the graphic's creator imagines she can soothe her white hot #WhitePrivilege guilt by kissing the sorrow-faced cheeks of an oppressed black lesbian with another white lesbian. Notice the major contrast, though between this "What I think I do" photo and the one for Gay Guys below.  Based on these two photos, it seems to me lesbians tend to be angry feminists, whereas gay men don't get tied up in all that crap and are out to enjoy life and set high personal goals for their "mates," pun intended.

Thanks for sticking with me, but Peetey's gotta run. In a later post I'll offer some theories why homosexuality persists as a fact of biology despite it's apparent, paradoxical evolutionary disadvantages.

*Not That There Is Anything Wrong With That

No comments:

Post a Comment