This just in. Scientists at the University of Tennessee propose a groundbreaking discovery: the gay gene. Their research suggests (or better yet, their interpretation of their research suggests) homosexuality is hereditary. Here’s how they explain their conclusions, upon which we are to rejoice that homosexuality is as biological as one’s hair color or height:
‘The genes for homosexuality have not been identified yet despite a very significant effort,’ said Sergey Gavrilets, a professor in UT’s National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis.
‘When you put it together in one very coherent framework, (the theory) is very logical and is supported by mathematical modeling. It is an explanation that seems to be working much better than any existing explanations.’
I am no scientist, but do profess to have a functional understanding of the English language. It sounds like Dr. Gavrilets is admitting, that despite “very significant effort” to find it, a gay gene has yet to have any scientific basis. Therefore, the only way to make homosexuality “natural” is through “mathematical modeling.” In other words, since scientific observation hasn’t produced the desired results, we can get at those results through mathematics.
While the study is undoubtedly far more scholarly and complex than I’m able to understand, I assume the study compared the probabilities of children with gay parents becoming such themselves. Children are more likely to become gay if they’ve had gay parents. Ergo, despite scientific evidence otherwise we are to conclude, via “coherent” reasoning, there must be a gay gene.
I’m naive enough to think research like this is about money and agendas. There is undoubtedly millions of grant dollars available to those willing to serve a broader agenda in the name of “scientific” research. That said, perhaps Dr. Gavrilets and team have opened up a whole new realm of scientific research to advance humanity’s cause and identity. Therefore, I would suggest there is a Baptist gene, a St. Louis Cardinals gene, a peanut butter-and-mayonnaise sandwich gene and a golf gene. If through “mathematical modeling” we find children of Baptists become Baptists then we have as much reason to conclude there is a Baptist gene as we do a gay gene. If everything is about mere biology rather than moral sensibilities then let’s go all the way and define all the genes that make us do what we do. Now, where to I apply for those grants?
Despite my intentional sarcasm, there is a fundamental double-standard in play. Scientific certainties notwithstanding, are we as willing to apply the same criteria to determine if a fetus is human or not as we are if “it” is gay or not? If through a “very coherent framework” and “mathematical modeling” we’re able to conclude homosexuality is hereditary, can we also use the same to conclude human-ness is hereditary?
Again, I’m no scientist but I suggest that using mathematical modeling we can conclude every fetus in a mother’s womb in fact human. That is, no human egg ever fertilized in a woman’s womb has become anything other than a living, breathing human being (despite newsstand tabloids suggestions otherwise!). Every fetus born to human parents is in fact a human. Of course, we have conclusive scientific observations and DNA evidence, which is more than we can say for the gay gene.
But despite that and with absolute mathematical certainty (which is also more than we can say of Gavrilet’s research) we can declare there is indeed a human “gene” that makes every fetus human. There is conclusive evidence that all children with human parents do, in fact and upon fertilization, become human and they never become anything else.
And in cases involving the killing of a pregnant woman and her fetus, the perpetrator is invariably charged with double-homicide, not homicide plus some other “cide.” So it seems the mathematical modeling suggests to both the academy and the law that a fetus is a human being. To quote Dr. Gavrilet, “It is an explanation that seems to be working much better than any existing explanations.”
For all their peer reviews, PhDs and publications, the scientific “establishment” is silly. They are willing to declare someone gay before even declaring they are human. Where is the science in that? Would it suddenly be declared murderous or a “hate crime” if a woman aborted a gay person? The slippery slope has frozen over, or is that somewhere else?