Pour Me Another One

Klingon Cloaking Devices and the Starship Ideology

Now we are being told that genetic factors account for about 30 to 40 percent of of whether a man becomes a homosexual or not.  We suspect that similar claims could be made about whether a man becomes a murderer.  But one thing is absolutely sure, apparently.  Environmental factors definitely, most definitely do not play any role whatsoever.  Moreover, choice is absolutely, totally, and completely excluded as a factor in becoming a homosexual.

But they [the research scientists] said this did not imply that upbringing or other social factors, or individual choice, had a bearing on sexual orientation.  “Sexual orientation has nothing to do with choice,” one of the lead researchers, Dr Michael Bailey, from Northwestern University in Chicago, said. [NZ Herald.  Emphasis, ours.]

Notice the emphatic assertion.  Homosexuality has nothing to do with choice.  When a scientist becomes this emphatic with respect to human behaviour, expect that science has elided into cheap propaganda.
  So, if one stops being a homosexual and becomes a heterosexual (as many have) it has nothing to do with choice.  It must be around 40 percent genetic and the rest  hormonal factors at birth.

The last thing you would ever take seriously, apparently, is the evidence and testimony of thousands of people who have given up homosexuality (Christians use the term "repented of") and develop normal heterosexual relationships.  When "science" starts excluding evidence before one's face, ideology has become the fox in the henhouse, and science has departed by the nearest door.

And as for "bi-sexuality", presumably genetic configurations account for around 40 percent of that perversion also, with the balance being supplied by the hormonal environment at birth.  How about serial heterosexual promiscuity?  Of course--what else would it be?

The previous generation toyed with the idea that all human behaviour was socially conditioned--just like Pavlov's dogs.  The behaviourists had a field-day in all sorts of social fields, such as criminology.  Lawbreaking was a social condition, brought about by society's conditioning.  The criminal was not to blame, nor bore any responsibility for his actions.  He, along with all of us, was an ethical robot. Gradually, as people reflected more upon this preposterous idea, comparing it with their own ethical decision making, the community eventually uttered a collective, "Yeah, . . . nah!".  Regarding humans as malleable and trainable as dogs did not wash--but not before society collectively wrung its hands with paroxysms of guilt over poor Johnny, the rampant axe murderer whose criminal offending was caused and conditioned by a father who spent too much time in the pub.

Now the theory has come forth in another form.  Behaviour is largely genetically determined, coupled with a bit of social conditioning.  No human behaviour, therefore, may be regarded as moral or immoral, ethical or unethical.  Genetic determinism means that one can no more be blamed or held accountable for homosexuality or theft or lying than one can be blamed for one's skin colour or height.  Genes don't lie or steal or lust.  They just are.  Choice, says our messianic mad scientist, has nothing to do with it.  Nothing, I tell you.  Nothing!  And if it were to be a factor, it would only prove that humans have a "choice" gene. 

This is not science.  It is ideology covered by a Klingon cloaking device.