The Proof is Near the Pudding

Let me begin by saying that this blog post is part farcical, part observation, part objection to ridiculous conclusions, and part my own ridiculous conclusion posted straw maniacally. I say that tongue near cheek. Please don't get puffy and huffy over it. On a side note, puffins are cute.

So to begin, a BYU professor (of all people) has determined that being gay is caused by genetics and not a choice. This is kinda old news in the fact that mostly rednecks hold fast completely to the "ye chose to be a homoerotisizer. I only sleep with my daughters not sons" theory. Aside from these fanatical hillbillies in their prefabricated (read: mobile home) laboratories (read: lavatories) there is actual research which may actually come up with something better than what has been proven so far. Also don't refer to hillbillies' mobile homes as "prefab" because only the gays use the word "fab."

Anyway the proof is an interesting correlation between gays and "non-righthandedness" (the word from the scientist). Basically gays are more likely to be left handed. Also lesbians are more like to have man hands (wow what a surprise there). OK, I guess. So the gay gene is in the fingernails. Where's my holy nail trimmers! That is interesting but I wouldn't call that proof so much as either a possible (probable) connection or a very surprising coincidence.

His proof of non-choice: Gays are 38% more likely to use their left hands than straights. Leftist handism is not a choice: therefore being gay is not a choice.

Here is my proof of choice: 75% of gays join the fashion industry. They chose the fashion industry, so being gay is a choice.

Here is a fact: correlation does not equal cause and effect. Still I think he is probably right, and only because I already knew that it wasn't like gay people said to themselves, "I am gonna start talking in a high voice [or low voices for lesbian] and become attracted to my same gender." But then again, what aspect of our lives did we choose that way? I didn't decide to be "funny." I didn't decide to be fat. I didn't decide to be brown. I didn't decide to be a jerk. I never decided to do a lot of things that I am. At least not consciously. But here I am a result of a combination of my genetic makeup, my environment, and my choices (consciously or subconsciously made). I don't think we want to relegate ourselves to biomechanical robots running synchronized preset programs do we?

And it sounds like BYU professor really wants to prove it's not the gays faults so we will be nice to them. That's irrelevant for two reasons. 1) We shouldn't treat them any differently if it is caused by genes or environment or abuse or whatever (we should love them anyway) and 2) the hillbillies ain't gonna listen to your science when the good book tells them otherwise anyway.

So as we all know science has long been the Achilles hill of unorganized religion. But it shouldn't be just because science changes its precepts literally every day (minute?).

Now the libs (including our beloved fringe Mormons) desperately want gayness to be a genetic thing. And many conservatives want it to be a choice so they can call it a sin. Like the theory of evolution, there is only a perceived conflict. Multiple LDS general authorities have already stated that it might be related to genetics. Yeah and? So what if it caused by a "birth defect" as it must be the case. They have already shown that a myriad of other things are genetic (e.g., alcoholism). Doesn't make it a good thing.

I used the word birth defect because that is how the gay rights supporters are treating it. If they felt strongly that there was nothing wrong with their unchosen lifestyle, they wouldn't have to justify it all, let alone with the "it's not my fault; I was born that way" mentality. Why is it so important that everything about you is the result of a mere genetic roll of the die? It makes everyone's life sound trivial. Now I feel helpless. I have no control over who I am! Sorry, but I was born to shout that. Not my fault.

And natural evolution (ironically because libs love evolution) would show that the animals (humans are animals) that fail to mate and propagate with the opposite gender are the failures of the species (not my ideas here) but by that logic I guess bisexuals would still spread their genes. So by following that train of thought, the justification "I was born that way," it sounds like being gay is an evolutionary defect at best. Maybe that is how the dinosaurs died out; too many gays triceratops.

Not that we should hate evolutionary defects. If Nietzsche were alive he would say we are coddling all defectives. But we don't do that with our accidental eugenics program (AKA not letting people die AKA health care). Which is good because Jesus wouldn't want us to let the infirm or invalid die regardless of whether they were born that way or lost an arm in the war. Don't blame Nietzsche; he was born with no heart and an addiction to crack.

Besides people are born with all sorts of defects (I think mine are mostly self inflicted) which because of modern technology and the event of civilized economics, is largely a moot point.

So I am not sure if I understand why it is so important to prove that being gay is not a choice. The gays and supporters are basically treating their own lifestyle as a disease! That actually makes me sad. Especially the Mormon gays. They desperately want us to think, oh it's not their fault, they were born that way. Well they already have my deepest sympathy anyway. Their lives kinda suck. I wish their lives weren't so awful. I wish they didn't have to suffer so much. But when they know for sure they didn't choose to have this attraction, what will it change?

One day the proof might be in the pudding, but I guess the proof is just near the pudding for now. Mmmm pudding.