Anyone would is familiar with the basics of evolutionary ethics/biology could not ignore this argument out of hand. It’s indisputable that homosexuality reduces evolutionary fitness; after thousands of years it should have been wiped out. But it isn’t – and the virus argument might help to explain that. Some people will take the opposite view that evolution has selected for a behavior which prevents over-population. But overpopulation is a relatively modern problem – citing it for what happened a thousand and more years ago is like calling King James a homophone (yes, someone is my local paper just did, sigh).
It seems to me that the environmental determinants of homosexuality will always be around, no matter what happens on the biology side. We already have an idea about how to raise a child in a manner which minimizes (to the extent that we can) the likelihood of homosexuality later in life. I’d like to see those bit formalizes, and distributed.
As long as homosexuality is seen as a lifestyle determined by biological factors, there is no chance that literature on how to raise straight children will make it to the mainstream. It might find an audience in Christian bookstores, but I think that would only serve to widen the divide between right and left. There needs to be first a solid debunking of the "gay gene" theory. Viruses - fascinating little creatures!
Sure homosexuals could no longer say, "I was born that way" (unless the mother had a virus while pregnant that could have caused the unborn fetus to become homosexual), they would still somehow find a statement to the fact that "I can't help it. That's just how I am."
The majority of the homosexuals I've had discussions with said that if given a choice, they would be heterosexual. I'm certain they weren't the only homosexuals to make a claim such as this. If a cure were found, we'd learn just how honest they were being.
But let's assume no cure is found as with other viruses, wouldn't their homosexuality still be out of their hands? Although homosexual actions are controllable, I don't think homosexuality itself is.
Out of their hands, yes, but enough so that SSM would still be on the table? I don't know, but I think many would say not. The difference is that the claim "god made me this way, why can't you accpet it" would no longer work. It would be clear that something wasn't right, which is such a thorny part of the debate now.
Well, the "I was born that way" would still work - most of the stuff I've read suggests a virus in utero...
As an -- ummm -- "practicing" homosexual who is out, cheerful enough, partnered, stable, etc., I'd still back research into a vaccine LONG before I'd back abortions for carriers of a gay gene.
It's not that I'm not cheerful enough, but it's NOT an easy life in lots of ways and if others could be spared the social problems without UTTERLY turning society upside down (what most of my gay* acquaintances would like to do) I'm for it.
*I'm homosexual. They're gay.
Thanks for sharing that. It's good to hear things from the front, so to speak.
It'd be more like the vaccination campaign against rubella, rather than cochlear implants. Prenatal rubella used to cause about half of congenital deafness.
Commenting by HaloScan
