Gay Genes and Gay Germs

As so often happens around here, a throwaway comment in a post generates almost as much (if not way, way more) discussion than the post itself.  In this case, it was pointing out the really, really, really obvious fact that Barack Obama is gay.

I just kinda assumed that was common knowledge.  Ever seen Him throw a baseball?  There’s nothing wrong with being hopelessly unathletic, but I’ve seen little girls with neuromuscular conditions toss out a better first pitch than that.  There’s really only one comparison to Obama’s effort.  Then consider The Media’s reaction to Him.  I’m pretty sure “fag hag” covers 50% of the female, and 75% of the male, reporterettes on the tv news, which tells you all you need to know about the bitter Hillary vs. Obama rancor back in 2008….

But whatever.  This whole thing reminded me, once again, that homosexuality is a huge problem for the Left (they won’t recognize it, of course, but that’s because if they could suss out consequences they wouldn’t be Leftists in the first place).  To wit:

It’s commonly accepted that gays are “born that way.”  Which is fine if you’re a realist about Human Biodiversity, but if gays are born that way, then there is obviously a “gay gene” lurking somewhere in the depths, waiting for CRISPR to ferret it out.  A “gay gene” clearly entails that gene expressions have vast impacts on human behavior, up to and including making us to act in all kinds of anti-social and self-destructive ways.  If that’s true… well, so much for “race is just a social construction,” eh?

There’s a renegade theory of gayness out there, the “gay germ” proposed by Greg Cochran.  Guys in Our Thing seem to like this one, no doubt because they think that Jonathan Haidt guy is right and “conservatives” are obsessed with purity (guilty as charged, I guess, as I find the majority of gay behavior as icky as the next hardcore throne-and-altar reactionary).  The problem, though, is if it’s correct, we’ve politicized disease in a way the Soviets could only dream about.

Sluggish schizophrenia,” like “mental illness” in general, was / is mostly made-up bullshit, but IF the “gay germ” hypothesis is true, THEN you’ve just identified a whole suite of obviously pathological behaviors that only manifest later in life after being contracted in infancy — in other words, sluggish schizophrenia.  Remember those FEMA camps George W. Obama was going to herd all the dissidents into?  Well, now he’s got a scientifically proven rationale for doing it.  Whoever gets the other side into the medical books first — Late-Onset Liberalism vs. Conservafluenza — can eliminate their enemies on public health grounds.  Given that the only folks who dare to look at the scientific basis of human behavior are Deplorables….

Finally, I suppose one can split the difference to “explain” homosexuality — half nature, half nurture, in the way that a person with a genetic propensity to alcoholism isn’t predestined to become an alcoholic, but should probably keep away from the firewater on general principles.  For the Left, this has the unfortunate side effect of reattaching consequences to actions.  Just as no one is going to argue that our society is morally compelled to break the bank getting an alkie a liver transplant, especially when he knew he was predisposed to the condition, so the 50/50 explanation of homosexuality means the end of all the ridiculous set-asides for HIV…. which means you’ve deprived the Left of another opportunity to organize a 5K fun run.  Think about that for a second — it’s practically a fucking hate crime.

I guess the only sensible thing to do would be not to worry about it too much.  To make, in effect, a social compromise — I won’t care about the “why” of homosexuality if you won’t force me, all day every day, to contemplate the “how.”  But since that’s how things basically went back in the past, when dinosaurs and Hitler roamed the earth, it’ll never happen.

Loading Likes...

8 thoughts on “Gay Genes and Gay Germs

  1. MBlanc46

    I’m a philosophy major with a fifty year old bachelor’s degree in mathematics, so this is way beyond my very small area of expertise. I don’t do meat. I believe that there are other explanations for homosexuality other than choice or heredity. In utero hormonal environment, for example. Even that would point in the direction of biology being destiny. I’m doubtful that we’ll know the answer in time that I’ve got left. However it turns out, it won’t be good for the Left. Perhaps they’ll have to rein in the biologists. Regarding Obama, is there any credible evidence that he is a homosexual? I’ve seen plenty of wackazanie videos on YouTube on the subject, but nothing that anyone with an ounce of scientific scruples would accept. He’s certainly lacking in machismo. But, then, so am I, and I’m a raging hetero.

  2. Pickle Rick

    There’s cultural factors that encourage deviant sexuality, or discouraged it. There is, certainly, some grooming involved, but homosexuals generally are predatory from birth, and gravitate to occupations that facilitate their predatory nature, such as the Catholic priesthood, radical politics, and Hollywood. They use their homosexuality, generally, as a vehicle for their self loathing.

  3. Frip

    MBlanc: “Regarding Obama, is there any credible evidence that he is a homosexual? I’ve seen plenty of wackazanie videos on YouTube on the subject, but nothing that anyone with an ounce of scientific scruples would accept.”

    I haven’t thought that technically about it. Gaydar observations are just fun predictions or impressions. I actually don’t think Obama is gay. But he could be. He’d never come out of the closet or show definitive signs, so good luck with your scientific scruples. I think he’s more asexual. I use the word gay loosely, in an old school way. Meaning effete, cheesy, annoying, or homo. Guys of my generation need to be careful. I know a guy who I got along with really well. We always talked music. Especially heavy metal. Half the metal bands he likes are pop metal hair bands. So I just instinctively tell him, “dude their so gay.” Meaning they just suck and are cheesy fakes. Problem is I think the guy is gay. But I always forget that when we’d get to talking metal. He’s not so friendly anymore. I feel bad.

  4. Martinian

    Male gays have always been around and pretty much did their thing on their own, as far as I can tell. In other words, if you wanted that thing, you knew where to go to get it. Otherwise, they didn’t go looking for trouble, so meh, big deal. (I’d have more to say about the Catholic church, where I think there was a largely successful attempt at infiltration over the last century–certainly not a “meh” situation. But that’s another kettle of fish…)

    The place I really get off the bus, though, is with the butch lesbians — those ones have a major ax to grind, and if you dig deep enough (and it doesn’t really have to be all that deep, cf. RS McCain’s research), you can find one of them at the bottom of pretty much all of the nasty anti-normie stuff (racial, sexual, you name it) of the past couple of decades that’s now filtered through a couple of generations of college grads.

    On that note, I think it would be fascinating to do some kind of structural/comparative study between the role of court eunuchs in the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires and homosexuals in the modern/contemporary Western university system. My hunch has always been that such people are primed to wield administrative power because they don’t need to spend hours of time and emotional energy on familial/romantic matters, and also because they’re bound to have strong in-group loyalties. But of course, anything serious and/or critical along those lines would be instantly torpedoed by the powers that be and one’s career utterly decimated.

    1. Frip

      Martinian: “Male gays have always been around and pretty much did their thing on their own, as far as I can tell. In other words, if you wanted that thing, you knew where to go to get it.”

      Disagree. That is the common easy-out for the hard old man Dissident Rightist. I’m telling you the gays had it bad. Nightmarishly bad. Remember how randy us regular guys we were from 13 to 28. And still are. Now picture society telling you you can’t get off. Until recently, that was the stifled life of the gay guy for decades upon decades. No wonder they’ve freaked out.

      That’s all I’m gonna say because I’m just here to enjoy on Sev’s trippy posts. Not to fight with people.

  5. WOPR

    Like most things in biology, homosexuality is probably due to a mix of nature and nurture. You have a small subset that have the gene settings that mean flaming homosexual. The rest most likely have genes that lead to homosexual tendencies. However, social pressure and upbringing are enough to suppress them. Praise homosexuality though, and the homosexual tendency people end up being homosexuals. A lot of homosexuals would be shocked to see what happens if the full court pro homosexual media propaganda blitz ever stops. Going back into the closet would look like a great option.

    Obama is most likely a homosexual. His marriage to Michelle is a marriage of convenience just like Bill and Hillary’s. He has the tendencies. He had Reggie his body man. Someday, probably after I am gone, we are going to find out that Obama spent most of his presidency high and having homo-sex.

  6. MBlanc46

    That’s pretty much my take, Frip. He’s effete. He’s prissy. But there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that he engages in sexual activity with men.

  7. Pingback: Placeholder Post | Rotten Chestnuts

Comments are closed.