Conundrum!

"There are times when a big SAT word is absolutely mandatory"

By Serbico

There seems to be a race. A gay race. People are rapidly trying to prove the "naturalness" of homosexuality. The media is flooded with ideas of the 'gay gene,' gay animals, and cheesy slogans akin to 'Gay, It's Okay!' Some of the readers may remember a Times article that said that there is a part of the brain responsible for the homosexual attraction in gay men. Great. The problem lies in the lack of counter evidence that is supposed to make up a balanced media. Where are the scientists saying homosexuality is not natural? That genes play no role in which gender we lean towards? Anyone with a hint of these ideas seems to be branded as a 'damn Christian gay-basher' and immediately casted as members of the Nazi party. The liberal media is so caught up in trying to prove the naturality of homosexuality that most people never even think objectively. The readers see small print, big words, and correct grammar and automatically take it as the truth. Where's the debate? Why is no one except the crazy guy on the last cab on the subway willing to put up a counter-argument? I wonder if I've lost any readers already because I've hinted at the dismissal of the idea of the natural gay. Well, braving against further loss of liberal readers, I will say it outright. I don't believe homosexuality is natural. I said it. Am I closed minded for thinking this? Or is it that many "open-minded" people are actually "liberal minded," and I am one of a very small minority that saw the information in a new way, perhaps more "open-minded" than those who take an agenda and believe as fact everything that comes with it?

How? That may take a little more explanation. First we must define what exactly is natural. I perceive natural as the usual order of things. I hope most of you can agree. If the majority does not follow, it is not natural. Dictionaries agree with me. "Natural" is defined as "conforming to the usual or ordinary course of action." Simple enough. No? Why? Because it fails to include the homosexual population, who are in the minority? You can see my reasoning easy enough. It's the same way I see left-handed people as unnatural. Because they are. Most people aren't left-handed. There's no connotation involved, unlike when many others use the word "unnatural" as meaning "wrong." For example, read this quote: "She is unnaturally strong." How should "unnatural" here be defined? "Unusual" or "Not born that way?"

However, somewhere along the line, the meaning of "natural" was lost. Instead, an idea of "born with it" arose. "Natural," instead of "commonness," took on the significance of genetics. The homosexual population is now called natural, the word's meaning augmented to represent the purported non-choice genetic representation. This idea is quite popular among gay rights activists. I'm sure many liberal readers, if I still have any, have taken to this idea. I've already been to a few mandatory tolerance assemblies, hosted by the local PTA and the local Gays for Other Gays Foundation, where a minority person talks about this aspect of homosexuality on the stage. "How many of you woke up today, and decided 'I want to be straight?' That's the same way with gay people! They don't decide; they're born that way." That's the gist of what they say, and I'm sure you've heard it too one way or another. But that's just not true. Genetics cannot be solely responsible for homosexuality. How? I can point to a biology textbook. Evolution, the other topic filling the media, proves to me that homosexuality cannot be genetic. Simply put, the idea of 'natural selection,' the key of evolution, states that only the most prolific survive. Whether mutations, rapid climate change, or destruction/creation of 'niches' control who survives on and who doesn't. It also states that the most prolific produces the most number of viable offspring. Those that do not, die out. Let's try and match that example with homosexuality. How many viable offspring can a homosexual couple have? (Come on, adoption doesn't count) One, if I make a huge typo? If you believe in evolution, and most who believe in natural homosexuality apparently do, then this paradox throws a huge kink in either of the theories. If the matter was simple genetics, then the homosexual population would have bred out thousands of years ago, when the first Neanderthal man picked up a phallus shaped rock and decided that another man's rectum made a convenient and pleasurable holding area.

I've also heard from the Gaying Across America Foundation that homosexuality can be a recessive trait, like albinos. It is detrimental, but never quite bred out. But albino skin or not, the possibility for producing children is there. With homosexuals that possibility disappears. Ah, but what about those fickle diseases that causes sterility? Why do they do not go away? Because mutations are common, natural, I might say, and a certain number of those mutations are bound to happen, causing the diseases and the sterility until the code itself is somehow corrected. But even so, a look at the population with the sterility-causing diseases show no exponential growth. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has grown 10 times in the last twenty years. If homosexuality was merely a recessive gene, then it wouldn't grow as much, as those with homosexuality cannot produce children!

The next thing I usually hear from the Hurraydom for Gaydom Campaign is that humans are exempt from the evolutionary rule, because … we've stopped evolving. Hell, we've been throwing that idea around for years now; let's just take this to make if official, they say. Humans have officially stopped evolving, and gays are natural. End of story! Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back up a minute. Even if we accept the very, very depressing theory that this is as good as humanity is going to get, there's still a small problem to deal with. See, in the hurry to prove the naturalness of homosexuals, you've gone and gotten a whole host of information that animals are also gay. Remember the herd of sheep in Sweden that apparently mostly gay? (You think, thanks to evolution, that herd's going to last long?) So even if us homo sapiens have stopped evolving, the animals, with their evolution thankfully intact, and their homosexual tendencies flourishing, prove that genetics don't play a role in gender love selection.

Since there's no play of genetics in homosexuality, gay people aren't born, they're made. Like the six million dollar man. So does this mean that they're unnatural? Yes! It is time for the conservative party to throw their arms in victory and start torching every rainbow flag in sight? Hell, they do that anyway. Here is where a good ol' third party perspective comes in handy. I have no agenda with natural homosexuality. I don't need to push to get gay rights to people. I don't feel the urge to send gay people to hell. Since I have no agenda, I can take a step back and view things in an objective fashion. Why is it so hard to accept that maybe it is mere increased acceptance in society that leads to an increase in the number of homosexuals? Just because it's not hardwired into our genes doesn't mean that we cannot provide equality for those different. Why do we have to condemn gay people and tell them to change? Just a few verses from the 'homosexuality is wrong' verse in Leviticus 20:13, the bible condemns to death any man who sleeps with a woman during her period. Do we have to do that? Or can we just accept that both partners honor each other, which is also said in the bible? This article wasn't meant to incite anyone to take a stance. It was merely to provide information that lacked in the media today. Honest, scientific viewpoints against the naturality of homosexuality. Remember, naturalness or unnaturalness means nothing. It is our treatment of these characteristics that determine who we are.