by N. A. Halkides 7/9/15
It’s been a rough three weeks for us Conservatives, although neither of our two recent losses in the Supreme Court were exactly unexpected: it would have been surprising if Chief Justice Roberts had grasped the opportunity offered by a generous Fate to correct his mistaken opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius by simply taking the plain language of Obamacare at its face value in King v. Burwell, or if Associate Justice Anthony “Sweet mystery of life” Kennedy, having previously divined a “right” to abortion where none existed in the Constitution had failed to divine a “right” to same-sex marriage there as well (Obergefell v. Hodges). Roberts seems determined to save Obamacare at all costs and equally determined to savage his future reputation, while Kennedy seems unable to constrain his inner Jonathan Livingston Seagull (would that he would simply one day fly away) – and since I have no immediate plan of action on how to permanently fix a broken Supreme Court that is as lawless and incompetent as Barack Obama himself, I thought we might find some relief in turning the Left’s professed embrace of science against them on the subjects of homosexuality and same-sex “marriage”.
All of us know well the insufferable air of superiority the Progressive exhales: “We’re so good, you’re so bad; we venerate science while you Conservatives bitterly cling to unreasoning faith; etc.” Actually, until relatively recently few Progressives even majored in the sciences, finding more welcoming surroundings in the humanities where far less rigorous thinking was required (to put it too mildly), although today we find that even the hardest of “hard” sciences is becoming corrupted by Leftism. Still, the typical Progressive knows far less than he thinks he does about science (of course he knows less than he thinks he does about anything). And this gives us an opportunity, for while debating Progressives is generally a waste of time, their own supposed respect for science is quite easily turned against them. An obvious target is Anthropogenic Global Warming, but that’s too complicated to get into here (and the science itself has become too corrupted to be analyzed easily). Let’s instead have some fun now beating Lefty over the head with the logical implications of one of his favorite scientific theories, that of Evolution by Natural Selection. We will assume for this discussion that the theory is absolutely true.
To begin with, the physical differences between the human sexes and the different amount of time each has invested in the process of reproduction implies that the two should have differing reproductive strategies and therefore different sexual psychologies – and perhaps even different capabilities. (The idea is that natural selection will tend to optimize male and female sex psychology separately, increasing the differences as a result.) And this is buttressed by the known differences between homologous structures in the male and female human brains, for such a difference in structure implies a difference in function. But this must mean – horrors! – that gender is not a social construct after all! (And by the way, let’s all start using the term “sex” instead of “gender” since it seems to so upset the feminist Left).
Next, let’s consider another Progressive bugaboo, “heteronormativity,” the hate-filled, culturally-biased idea that heterosexuality is normal. Of course, if by “normal” we mean behavior which supports the continued existence of the human species (indeed, any species), then we run into an obvious problem with homosexuality: it can’t lead to reproduction. Indeed, if homosexuality were normal, say the proportions of gay and straight were reversed with homosexuals forming 99% of the population and heterosexuals only 1%, human extinction would be inevitable. Behavior that leads to the extinction of the species cannot be considered “normal,” and since no one can suggest any necessary purpose served by homosexual relations, homosexuality should be regarded as deviant, abnormal behavior.
Homonormativity advocates sometimes point to the animal kingdom, but of course the same argument applies there: homosexuality, if practiced instead of heterosexuality, would lead to extinction. And with animals, there is another factor: being non-human, they may imitate sexual behavior without a true sexual intent (see The Animal Homosexuality Myth). And there is another argument, based on homosexual sodomy, that at least strongly suggests homosexuality isn’t normal, but I won’t get into it here because, frankly, it isn’t very nice to think about. Sorry, my Progressive friends, but hetero is normal.
So homosexuality is abnormal after all. But what is the cause? If genetic, it is obviously beyond the control of the individual just as having, say, six fingers on a hand would be. But if not genetic, and if it should be chosen voluntarily, then it becomes a matter subject to morality (only that which is not within the realm of human choice is beyond morality and moral judgment). Much research has been done trying to pinpoint a genetic cause, but to no avail. A complex argument, which I’ll outline here, explains why we should expect the negative results we’ve seen.
Evolution imposes strict penalties on genetic attributes that are deleterious to an organism’s ability to reproduce. Because homosexuals leave no descendents (unless they abandon homosexuality at least for a while), they suffer the maximum evolutionary penalty of passing on no genetic material, including any “gay gene” that might have been present. But this implies that the homosexual population would soon die out, unless spontaneous mutations of the “gay gene” continued to occur, and at a high enough rate to explain the 1% or so of the population that is homosexual. In other words, homosexuality would be created anew each generation. Unfortunately for this theory (and this is where it gets complicated), the best estimates of the human mutation rate are simply not high enough to explain so many homosexuals and still account for all the known genetic abnormalities that are known to arise through mutation. I won’t provide linked references here, but they’re available.
Actually, there’s an easier argument, but the one above has the advantage of likely causing the typical Progressive’s head to explode as he tries to grapple with concepts (and – ugh! – mathematics) he’s never heard of (even though he should have, if he were as big on scientific learning as he claims). It is simply this: studies of identical twins have proven that homosexuality does not have a genetic cause.
The Left hasn’t really started to push polygamy yet, probably because it’s still trying to calculate how much more damage it can inflict just through same-sex “marriage,” but it’s really only a matter of time before some of them do since that was their plan all along. Can we devise any scientific arguments against polygamy? Yes! Evolutionary biology comes to our aid once again if we compare humans to chimpanzees.
The indelicate fact is that chimpanzee males have much larger testes than human males, allowing them to produce a much larger quantity of sperm for more frequent mating (with different females). Since Man does not have this evolutionary adaptation, clearly Man is not meant to live the chimpanzee lifestyle.
So Darwinian Evolution, which every Progressive accepts as true (you can bet most aren’t familiar with the arguments pro or con), tells us that (1) men and women are different, (2) homosexuality is abnormal, and (3) polygamy is not the correct rule for our species. Indeed, a reasonable hypothesis based on these facts is that since monogamy, and with it a degree of commitment, is the rule, the male and female should have evolved different and complementary skills when it comes to raising children – in other words, the best environment for children is a household headed by one man and one woman who stay together.
Now all of the foregoing, while absolutely logical according to the dictates of evolutionary biology, is not meant to replace the priceless wisdom gained only through long experience, which is another of those things we Conservatives are fighting to conserve. Over thousands of years, mankind learned that the welfare and continuance of his society depended on children being raised properly in households (even if they were only grass huts) by a man and woman who were joined together by social expectation and by whatever traditions and laws had evolved up to that point. More recent experience has only confirmed these ancient beliefs (e.g. polygamous societies are unfair to the multiple wives and inferior to the monogamous West). But if we find ourselves in a debate with those who stupidly ignore the received wisdom of their ancestors, or who understand as well as we do that the destruction of marriage will help bring down our civilization but proceed with their attack upon it anyway, we may take a certain satisfaction in turning their own professed adherence to science against them.
Nik is a freelance writer, former professor, and has written for FrontPage Magazine.
About Author Author Archive Email