Saturday, March 06, 2004
Dean still believes in "Gay Gene"
I wonder how people who believe in the homosexual gene theory think about bisexual people. Do they believe bisexual people have a bisexual gene? Do they believe that in ancient Greece, where men were bisexual and were concerned with being "on top", that they had a "bisexual being on top" gene? Then, all of a sudden, there was a genetic mutation, and Greeks mutated into having a heterosexual gene through the Middle Ages and today? Does Dean believe that people who find a solution to their homosexuality and are able to live healthily as heterosexuals have suffered a gene mutation? Does Dean believe there is a pedophile gene? Does he believe there is a polygamy gene? Does he believe there is an S/M gene? How about a chocolate gene (for people who were "born" with a constant desire for chocolates)?
One of the problems I see with the current discourse to legitimize homosexuality is that it requires tremendous ignorance from the person who is to adopt this discourse. That is precisely one of the reasons why the discourse is so widespread. Most people are quite ignorant about human psychology, anthropology, sociology, and therefore, simplistic, ignorant ways of thinking appeal to them tremendously. Additionally, it presents the world in a way which they can understand. An understanding that is complex and requires a lot more knowledge and critical thinking is not immediately grasped by such people, even if it is correct and debunks the ignorant ideology which they use to interpret and see the world.
The Globe reported in article linked above: "'The overwhelming evidence is that there is [sic] very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality, Dean said in an interview yesterday. 'From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.'"
An interesting way to try to legitimize homosexuality through religion or God. However, if this is so for homosexuality, it is so for any other "sin" as well. If we apply this logic to pedophilia for example, we would say, "from a religious point of view, if God had thought pedophilia is a sin, he would not have created pedophiles (including bisexual and homosexual ones)." This same question was asked repeatedly by people who believe in God regarding the Holocaust and other such events. Why did God "let it happen," "allow it to happen?" It makes clear one of the fundamental flaws in believing there is a supernatural being out there that is orchestrating life on earth, and that is responsible for making homosexuality (and anything else) happen. Applied to the subject of trying to legitimize homosexuality, it´s a kind of "blame it on God" kind of logic, and therefore, since God ( construed as a supernatural being that knows all) cannot be wrong, homosexuality cannot be wrong. Simple-minded logic triumphs.
However if homosexuality cannot be wrong, than heterosexuality and bisexuality cannot be wrong as well, and therefore nothing can be wrong. Along this logic, nothing that happens within human sexuality, human psychology, and human relations is wrong. And we get back to one of the requirements for legitimizing homosexuality which is profound ignorance, denial, and a veritable dumbing down of the way to think about such issues. In order to legitimize homosexuality, this discourse forces upon us ignorance of everything that exists that is wrong with human beings and their sexuality and their psychological make-up, which points to what is wrong with a variety of things with homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. There is plenty wrong with human beings and current and past sexualities, wrong because it is dysfunctional, wrong because it is violent, wrong because it is a result of mental/psychological problems, wrong because it harms people, wrong because it is interpreted in an incorrect, ignorant way. Ignorance is always harmful. And ignorance applied to legitimizing homosexuality is not an exception.
From the Massnews article: It also makes one wonder why the huge caches of money which have put Dean ahead from the first day have not been examined by the press. There was a report by one television network that the money has come from homosexual activists, but we have found nothing in print about the source of that mysterious money.
Perhaps there is a gene that determines certain politicians will open their mouths to say anything that brings the cash in?
One of the problems I see with the current discourse to legitimize homosexuality is that it requires tremendous ignorance from the person who is to adopt this discourse. That is precisely one of the reasons why the discourse is so widespread. Most people are quite ignorant about human psychology, anthropology, sociology, and therefore, simplistic, ignorant ways of thinking appeal to them tremendously. Additionally, it presents the world in a way which they can understand. An understanding that is complex and requires a lot more knowledge and critical thinking is not immediately grasped by such people, even if it is correct and debunks the ignorant ideology which they use to interpret and see the world.
The Globe reported in article linked above: "'The overwhelming evidence is that there is [sic] very significant, substantial genetic component" to homosexuality, Dean said in an interview yesterday. 'From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people.'"
An interesting way to try to legitimize homosexuality through religion or God. However, if this is so for homosexuality, it is so for any other "sin" as well. If we apply this logic to pedophilia for example, we would say, "from a religious point of view, if God had thought pedophilia is a sin, he would not have created pedophiles (including bisexual and homosexual ones)." This same question was asked repeatedly by people who believe in God regarding the Holocaust and other such events. Why did God "let it happen," "allow it to happen?" It makes clear one of the fundamental flaws in believing there is a supernatural being out there that is orchestrating life on earth, and that is responsible for making homosexuality (and anything else) happen. Applied to the subject of trying to legitimize homosexuality, it´s a kind of "blame it on God" kind of logic, and therefore, since God ( construed as a supernatural being that knows all) cannot be wrong, homosexuality cannot be wrong. Simple-minded logic triumphs.
However if homosexuality cannot be wrong, than heterosexuality and bisexuality cannot be wrong as well, and therefore nothing can be wrong. Along this logic, nothing that happens within human sexuality, human psychology, and human relations is wrong. And we get back to one of the requirements for legitimizing homosexuality which is profound ignorance, denial, and a veritable dumbing down of the way to think about such issues. In order to legitimize homosexuality, this discourse forces upon us ignorance of everything that exists that is wrong with human beings and their sexuality and their psychological make-up, which points to what is wrong with a variety of things with homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality. There is plenty wrong with human beings and current and past sexualities, wrong because it is dysfunctional, wrong because it is violent, wrong because it is a result of mental/psychological problems, wrong because it harms people, wrong because it is interpreted in an incorrect, ignorant way. Ignorance is always harmful. And ignorance applied to legitimizing homosexuality is not an exception.
From the Massnews article: It also makes one wonder why the huge caches of money which have put Dean ahead from the first day have not been examined by the press. There was a report by one television network that the money has come from homosexual activists, but we have found nothing in print about the source of that mysterious money.
Perhaps there is a gene that determines certain politicians will open their mouths to say anything that brings the cash in?
