Sadly Gay

A large new study has failed to find such a thing as a “gay gene.”

Given the rapid growth of our knowledge of the human genome over the past few years, a negative finding by now is pretty definitive. It turns out that homosexuals are not “born that way.”

This should not be surprising to anyone with common sense. Homosexuals do not reproduce. Were there a “gay gene,” it would eliminate itself from the gene pool over two generations.

But the current concept of homosexuality as a human right, against which one must not discriminate, is based on this false premise.

Yet we also cannot see homosexuality as something anyone is likely to choose as a lifestyle. Less than 3% of the population is homosexual. That means that, if you are, at least 97% of those to whom you are sexually attracted will be repelled by any approach. Not great odds for a happy sex life or a healthy self-image. Worse, you cannot easily tell by looking at them who is in the 3%.

So, if it is not genetic, and nobody would consciously choose it, how does anyone become homosexual?

The obvious alternative is that they are groomed into it. Given that homosexuals face almost certain rejection in most other circumstances, their obvious strategy is to approach adolescents not yet very aware of sex, or their own sexuality, and seduce them before they know what is going on. Or exploit some power relationship.

We are hard-wired to form an emotional attachment to whomever we first have sex with. This is easily explained in Darwinian terms. It is the basis for the oldest of pickup lines, “you remind me of someone.” If our first sexual experience is with a blonde, we will favour blondes from then on; if with a short woman, we will favour short women; and so on. See if it is not true for yourself.

A reason, not incidentally, why premarital sex is a bad idea. If you can marry your first sexual partner, the emotional bond will be far stronger.

But this also means that, if you are seduced by an older gay man when an adolescent, you may well become homosexual yourself.

Homosexuality, in other words, is contagious.

This is currently and often forcefully denied. Relevant authorities will insist that homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than homosexuals.

But the numbers in the sex scandal in the North American Catholic Church say otherwise. Eighty percent of victims have been adolescent males. And common sense says otherwise: given the odds of rejection otherwise, homosexuals must face a stronger temptation here. Moreover, the idea of an older man “mentoring” a younger one is the understood norm of homosexuality in places, like Ancient Greece or English public schools, in which it has been acceptable.

This might then explain in large part why most societies and cultures oppose homosexuality. It is cruel and predatory to turn a young man gay. That forces him onto the same obstacles to sexual satisfaction that drew the partner to this strategy. Not to mention opening him to a much higher risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, the inability to have children, the less comfortable match between two male psyches, and so on.

Putting it all together, it really looks like a remarkably bad idea to celebrate homosexuality, hold “pride” parades, and assign the practice inalienable rights. This has nothing to do with compassion towards homosexuals.

The real reason we have gone so far down this treacherous cul-de-sac, I suspect, is that seeing homosexuality as a human right allowed and allows us to pillory conventional morality as discriminatory. Satan forbid there should be any restrictions on our own sexual license.

There is already hell to pay.

Indecency

Joe Biden recently opined that US VP Mike Pence was “a decent guy.”

Uncle Joe Biden has been around a while. He still has something of the old school in him. Republicans, of course, still talk like that.

But not Democrats. Elizabeth Warren soon found a microphone and challenged him on this. Mike Pence was not a decent guy. Just look at his views on homosexuals. Biden quickly retracted his comment and agreed that Pence was not a decent man.

This is a good measure of how sick our public discourse has become. It was refreshing recently to watch debate in the British House of Commons over Brexit. There the rules still apply, and real discussion takes place. One does not question the integrity of an opponent. One addresses policy, not character. Sadly, it is no longer so even in the Canadian Parliament.

Even if that level of mutual respect were not essential to any honest debate, Mike Pence is indeed, by all accounts, objectively a decent guy. This is a man who will not be alone with any woman other than his wife. His “immoral” views on homosexuality are simply the views of all of the world‘s religions or long-established ethical systems: that it is sinful. Although he believes it should nevertheless be perfectly legal.

So we are at a point at which two high-profile presidential candidates feel comfortable in declaring all religious or conventional ethical beliefs “indecent.” Which is essentially inverting the meaning of that word.

Pence’s position on homosexuality is also the publicly stated position of either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as of 2008. Apparently everyone was immoral until some time after that date.

Or rather, Warren’s and Biden’s “decency” presumably consists in changing your morality as required to conform to those around you. That’s postmodernism. Reality is constructed on the go by the social consensus. And can otherwise be anything at all. Men can suddenly be women, you can suddenly be Cherokee if it suits you, and pigs might suddenly start to fly. And it then becomes immoral to see or say otherwise.

By this standard, of course, it would have been equally indecent and immoral to object to killing Jews in Nazi Germany, or to slavery in Alabama before 1865. Or to lynching before 1965.

Any way you look at it, this ought to disqualify either Warren or Biden from public office. To begin with, they are clearly objectively immoral. Even if you are too, what then is their function, if they are just going to conform to the views of whoever is around them at the moment? Why pay them the salary? What are they doing for us that an opinion poll couldn’t? And how can we ever predict what they will do in office?

The Right to Choose Your Own Sex

Sorry, folks, I guess I need to vent. The following cartoon came down on an international editors’ Facebook feed.

One of the rules of the list is that political posts are forbidden. And this one was apparently posted by one of the moderators. Nothing political here, it seems. Nothing that could be controversial. This is something all editors, around the world, are now apparently expected to impose on any authors seeking publication. One is not to designate anyone by sex until the person itself [sic] tells you which sex they choose.

True, it is not political, really. It would be more accurate to call it psychotic. This is the definition of psychotic: out of touch with the physical world around you.

Sex is a lot more a part of your biology than just the dangly bits. It is programmed into every cell. It affects the various organs. Female arms are different. Male brains are different. Females experience different symptoms before a heart attack. Men do not ovulate. And on and on.

Just try to extend this logic: if biology is irrelevant, and we may not say what a person is, regardless of biology, until they make a decision themselves on the matter, how can we possibly know, in the first place, who is a person? As opposed, say, to a gorilla or a watermelon? In this case, too, in just the same way, the difference is biological.

Some people have apparently already applied the logic to insist they are really cats or ponies. In Delaware, I read, everyone is now free to choose their own race. Which seems only right: race is far less biologically conditioned than sex.

So much for any justification for “affirmative action” programs.

But if you think that is still okay, you still have not thought it through. Look again at that comic strip. If we have no right to assume that someone is a male or female until they tell us so, even if they are evidently not capable of making that decision for themselves, then we have no right to assume that someone is a person and not a cat until they say so; and then we equally have no right to assume that someone is a cat and not a person until they say so. Until and unless each individual apparent cat, watermelon or wildebeest announces their decision, we can make no assumptions.

It follows that anyone who eats a watermelon should be tried for murder. Or anything else, for that matter. And why even recognize the biological significance of organic chemicals? Anyone who burns gasoline in their car, for example, or melts metal in a mold, or perhaps even moves a stone from here to there, is also a murderer.

The collapse of civilization would be the least of our worries. Within a month or two, all human life ends on earth.

Sure, you can get around this. You could remove all punishments for murder, and make it okay to kill and eat human beings as well. I’m not sure that would be much better.

I think this demonstrates, and not for the first time, that our current professional class, our “elites,” our modern Pharisees, are on the cusp of collapse. They have become too obviously flat-out insane. This present trajectory is not sustainable. It is as though they are crying out for an intervention from someone, somewhere.

George Michael in Hell

A bit of anti-Christian propaganda came down the Facebook feed of late. Twice, from two different sources. So I guess it’s getting good distribution.

Maybe there really have been comments somewhere that Michael is damned because he was gay. None are cited. But they certainly would not be in accord with Christian doctrine.

To be fair, I can only speak definitively for Catholicism here. Protestantism, with thousands of denominations, has no clear voice on anything. It is probably possible to find a self-declared “Protestant” who believes almost anything you choose, and accepts no higher authority to gainsay it.

But then, you need to be specific, and not call “Christian” a doctrine most Christians would consider heretical. Otherwise, all possible human views become “Christian.”

First off, for Catholics, nobody is certainly damned. Repentance is always possible. Accordingly, nobody is damned for, at any point, “being gay.” Damnation requires not just sin, but a final and definitive turning away from God. That’s what purgatory is about.

Second, “being gay” is not a sin. Homosexual sex is--as is any sex outside marriage, and any sex not open to having children. This includes extramarital sex, using artificial birth control within marriage, or masturbation. Or, for that matter, coveting your neighbour’s wife. Or looking at a woman with lust in your heart. Homosexuals are not singled out as sinners here. One might just as well say that being heterosexual is a sin.

Which is exactly why everyone feigns to care so much about supposed discrimination against homosexuals here. What it is really all about is heterosexuals wanting free license for lust without feeling guilty about it. If they can convince themselves that the church’s teaching on sex is just prudishness, they can salve their conscience.

You want sin? There is one unforgivable sin. That is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

That is, misrepresenting religion in an attempt to mislead.