The Gay Gene Conundrum

READER NOTE: Be sure to visit our newest outlet at SteemIt and the Twitter replacement at GAB as we make a stab to protect free speech and thought and stop supporting those who would squash them.

The more the Progressive agenda tries to assert itself, the more they tie themselves into logical knots.

Evolutionary theory states that Humans are the product of billions of years of natural selection. Certain genetic features and mutations became advantageous for survival of the species, and so allowed our kind to flourish and prosper.

Progressives argue that certain behavior, in this case homosexuality, are genetic and those who display these characteristics have no choice in the matter. They are born that way and no amount of environmental factors affect the expression of the behavior.

Homosexuality has no survival purpose. A sexual union of two (or more) members of the same sex cannot EVER produce offspring, nor does homosexual behavior impart any benefit to the survival of the species. In fact, just the opposite is true. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and a great many of our social and religious institutions call for shunning and/or killing homosexuals. Hardy a survival strategy, methinks.

As a social libertarian, I don't give a rat's ass what you do, as long as it doesn't take food out of my family's mouths. You are free to dress and act however you want, as long as it doesn't interfere with my rights to do the same, provided neither of us harms each other or destroy each other's property. In fact, this formula seems to me to be a reasonable strategy for survival and properity, and therefore fits perfectly with evolutionary theory.

Over the past couple of decades, the LGBTQ-XYZ "community" has insisted that their proclivities are genetic. They have no choice in the matter and it is not aberrant behavior, since they are genetically bound to follow this path.

Let us forget for a moment that they also want to argue that gender (not sex) identity and associated pronouns are choices, which I happen to agree with. You can ask to be called by any pronoun you choose, but I am not bound to make that choice, because to bind me would not be a choice on either of our parts. Argument settled.

Let's also keep in mind that SEX (male or female) is genetic, and that it is clearly indicated by the presence of an X or Y chromosome in an individual's DNA. Of this, there is no question nor argument. One can observe the fact with most high school biology lab equipment in a high-tax district.

Along comes this article today.  Note how the sub-heading introduces the logical fallacy from the very start.  Scientists claim to find a genetic basis for sexual orientation in men, but it's not genetic.  Huh?!

The whole purpose of the Human Genome Project (HGP) has been to map human DNA and, where possible, identify what traits each gene or group of genes control(s). Assuming, as evolution would have us do, that every gene in our DNA is the product of aeons of hit-or-miss development, where those with favorable traits survive and those without are removed from the gene pool, it makes exactly zero sense that a "gay gene" would exist, since it doesn't serve the purpose of procreation, nor any other valid survival trait, other than possibly the creation of a class of entertainers, although that assumes that the entertainer gene is passed on, which it cannot be with homosexual relationships.

This leaves us in a quandary. On the one hand, "science" declares that evolution is what has shaped humanity, but on the other, they are searching for a genetic trait that defies evolution. Either evolution is fatally flawed as a theory, or homosexuality IS a choice (environmental factors), or something completely different is happening. Think Intelligent Design, although that introduces a whole raft of new logical and rhetorical problems that fit some facts, but not all.

The problem with the Gay Gene Theory is that it destroys a whole lot of deeply entrenched ideologies - for better or worse. It sets up a philosophical conundrum: either there is a Gay Gene and both God and Evolutionists are wrong, undermining centuries if not millennia of human development, or there is no Gay Gene and those who embrace the No-Choice doctrine are completely bereft of social cache, undermining a popular social ideology.

The problem with allowing ideology to influence Science is that everyone loses in the end. The Big Bang Theory was developed to conform "science" with the religious dogma of "creatio ex nihilo." Because of the severe damage implied by falsifying the Big Bang, "scientists" are forced to deny and/or ignore all the copious discoveries that undermine the Big Bang Theory, which is NOT Science. If the Universe is infinite and stable, then there is no apparent moment of Creation, and both religious and scientific dogma are destroyed. Thus, self-evident facts must be denied to maintain the status quo, or a whole lot of work must be swept into the dust bin of history.

You can claim we live in a holographic Universe and build elaborate arguments to prove it, but standing in front of an on-coming train will quickly prove you wrong with catastrophic results.

Progressivism, which informs the dominant Western culture at this time, states that behavior such as homosexuality is a genetic imperative and that we must all accept it because these folks have no choice in the matter. However, to do so undermines the dominant scientific theory of human origins, which the Progressives also espouse as a means to dispense with religious prohibitions, even though evolution was formulated to conform science and religion.

One major problem is that evolution was also developed in order to give God a "scientific" method of creating humans without an obvious miracle being performed (though there are plenty inherent in the argument).

We are, in fact, at a significant philosophical cross-roads. There is a major clash forming between ideologies and real Science (observation and testing of facts). The dominant "scientific" theories are increasingly being exposed as based entirely on socio-political agendas and/or religious dogmas that must ignore inconvenient facts in order to survive. No matter which way we, as a civilization, turn on these arguments, it will destroy precious, long-held dogmas - perhaps all of them - in one fell swoop.

The only way out of this conundrum is to take a cold, hard look at our assumptions and observations. If our assumptions do not fit the facts, they must be deleted, no matter how painful that may be. Entire weltanschauungs are at risk. In fact, all of the extant worldviews may ultimately be destroyed in favor of something new. No matter how you slice it, the clash is coming. It cannot be avoided.

Contemporary "science" is founded on religious dogma, yet it denies this fact. Marxist/Progressivist dogma stands in stark contrast to "science" and religion. Real Science stands in opposition to all of it. There is no possible way to rectify this situation without destroying some basic assumptions within our society.

Every effort to patch up existing scientific and religious dogmas to fit the prevailing political sentiment simply kicks the can down the road so we don't have to be the "bad guys" that brought the whole system of assumptions crashing down.

We can dearly wish for something to be true because it makes us feel warm and fuzzy, but it does not and will never make it true. It simply places us in the position of denying reality until reality bites us in the butt.

If history is a guide, this corrective process will take a century or more to sort out, but it must and will be sorted out. The fact remains that we cannot have our cake and eat it too.