Yep, They're Coercive

The more I hear of supposedly reputable sources such as Time magazine which, despite claiming to be unbiased (as all news sources impotently claim), blatantly (though with the pretense of being sneaky) throwing their agenda around in a way which convinces the average American that their view is the only sensible one, the more I want to a) bash my head in against a wall, b) stand on a roof with a megaphone shouting "Why don't you try reading, doing your own research, and making an actual informed decision?!?", and/or c) become a hermit who sits alone all day writing about the absurdities of our race.

Seeing as how I've already got a head start on "c", I'll just stay on that track.

Time magazine recently put out an article about 8% of rams being homosexual. They explain that scientists never doubted homosexuality's existence in the animal kingdom, show that the difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is a mere biological variation of the brain, and show that "curing" homosexuality is an absurd notion that needs to be dismissed.

You might be wondering why I have a problem with this article. It seems harmless, right? It's just talking about gay sheep, right? Wrong.

This article reads, at first, like a simple interesting finding about a small percentage of sheep being gay. Then it moves to talking about evil scientists who are butchering sheep to see if they can create drugs or procedures that ensure heterosexuality. Then it goes on to insist that homosexuality is a mere biological difference. Then it takes a twist, oh my! If these scientists find out more about homosexuality (and, as the author assumes, prove that it's nothing that the gay person can fight) then we will spend less time "nourishing Old Testament anachronisms about sex." It concludes with a heroic stance of a gay man who touts hope for gays all over the world to actually be accepted and not rejected by their very parents, rouses the troops by showing homosexuality persisting even through the likes of Hitler and the evil Nazi regime (as well as Will and Grace, we can't forget that), and ends with a smug don't worry, we can't be stopped.

The start of the article is fine. Go ahead. Talk about sheep being gay. Gay animals are an anomaly in the animal kingdom and heck, it's interesting to study. It takes a Greenpeace, PETA-esque twist and you think the article is going to be about how bad it is that sheep are being killed to understand the "gay-gene." Even that is more than acceptable.

Then it takes a twist that is too thinly veiled by a man who, in his own article, explains that he is gay and, therefore, shows his hand.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS JUST GENETICS!!! Hmm. Ok. This is a conclusion that an article assumes after one group found that homosexual sheep have differentiations in their brains when compared to heterosexual sheep. Never mind the difference in sheep and humans. That disparity can be overlooked. The more amusing aspect is that the genetics argument is still being used. So what? Who cares if homosexuality is genetically caused, psychologically caused, pathological caused, or caused by eating too many tomatoes before the age of 4...that has no bearing on the ethical and moral issue of homosexuality.

If we one day accept that homosexuality is morally and ethically acceptable on the basis that one is genetically predisposed to it, then we have allowed a slippery slope that accepts murderers, rapists, obesity, alcoholism, pederasty, incest, torture, etc, etc, etc. All of the atrocities just mentioned can easily be linked to genes. Does that make them ok? Can a man who rapes and murders toddlers sit on the stand and say, "I'm sorry, I couldn't help it, I'm genetically wired that way"? No. The American people would laugh and then inject the lethal drugs themselves if they could. The issue at hand is not whether one has impulses towards something; it is whether it is right or wrong, harmful or helpful. Give up on the genes.

Even more infuriating is the line about anachronistic quips about sex from the Bible. First of all, the main Biblical argument used against homosexuality is from I Peter which, if you don't know, is in the New Testament. Go ahead, call every instance of the Bible condemning homosexuality an anachronism, it doesn't halt the case that homosexuality goes against a eudaimonistic God-centered life. Also, the only reason the Old Testament's view of sex is being called an anachronism is because people don't want to believe it. If one day our culture "evolved" to a position where murder was acceptable, someone would look back at the original laws of the US and say, "Whatever, those were just outdated views unenlightened by the modern information we have."

There are universals whether you want to believe that or not. You are under them whether you want to be, or do not want to be. Changing rules, laws, universals, because you don't like them, will lead to an anarchistic society of total destruction and inhumane living (until, of course, we destroy ourselves completely).

The end of the article finally gives way to what the author wants us to know: gays are not going away you damned right-wingers, so get used to it.

I'm sorry, but citing that homosexuals have survived Hitler is just a tad bit demeaning to the Jews who are actual survivors of Hitler. That would be like saying, "Despite Circus Maximus, homosexuality prevailed!" No, idiot, Circus Maximus is where Christians were killed for their beliefs. Homosexuality still being around after all this time is touted as a victory even though one could just as easily say, "Homosexuality, like murder, is still around after all this time." The author has given no reasons, no explanations, no proof that anything good has ever come from homosexuality and therefore his conclusion is hasty and immature.

If you want to write an article about homosexuality, how it will always prevail, how it is just genetic, and how hopefully one day everyone will accept homosexuals, then write that article...but don't hide it in a "science" story about sheep.


p.s. Let's not forget the photoshopped picture of the two rams looking lovingly into each other's eyes. Just another tactic. If they had shown this:


would you even have cared?