This is awful, but with good intent. Man has a child who is gay; he’s accepting and positive, so good on him for that, but he immediately goes on a quest to figure out why this has happened to him, and assembles a hodge-podge of specious rationalizations for why gay people exist. I just wanted to yell “Stop!” and say that if you accept your child for who they are, you don’t need to find a scientific justification for their life. Especially not when all he’s got is a positive bias and a collection of weak correlation studies.
Good grief. Here are some bits that made me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
If this were a genetic error, natural selection should have long ago culled this from the gene pool.
This is simply false. Lots of genetic errors persist and accumulate, and the existence of a trait is poor prima facie evidence that it is adaptive. You’re looking at a prime example of the Panglossian fallacy.
About 20% of women never have children in their life, and that percentage is growing. It’s not being culled. Reproduction is not destiny. People can choose to be childless, and for some things, the mindless reductive assignment of fitness values is irrelevant.
Homosexuality is genetically programmed altruism. Gays were designed by nature to help us be kind to one another
Got that, homosexual people? You have a purpose, to be nice to all of the straights so that they can have more kids. You were designed by nature to be kind, so every time you are assertive or rude or aggressive, you are betraying the universe. Stonewall was contrary to your role in society.
I get where he’s coming from. He likes his gay son, and characterizes him as having “magnetism and charming wit”, but he can’t seem to accept that that is the way his kid is, and instead characterizes this behavior as something intrinsic to gayness. There are, apparently, no asocial or surly gay people.
So he talks about gay genes (or “male loving genes” on the X chromosome) and handwaves to justify all kinds of genetic associations. He also latches on the buzzword du jour, epigenetics, and turns that into an argument about intent.
Epigenetics chooses from among these [genetic programs] to determine which version of you is actually the best fit to the environment
Yikes. Substitute “god” for “epigenetics” and the teleology is more apparent, but it’s the same thing. Now epigenetics is an entity making decisions for you, and it always knows best.
And then there’s this stream of nonsense…
Nature devised homosexuality as a prescription for birth control
How does that work? An all-knowing Nature looks ahead and sees that your population is growing too fast, so as an alternative to making your generation stop breeding, it sterilizes the next generation? This is bad evolutionary biology. The rationale is nonsensical, too: you see, Nature is worried that your family might get too large, so it flips epigenetic switches on some of your kids so that they won’t produce grandchildren.
This one will not be overburdening the clan with yet more mouths to feed in the next generation
Aaaargh. Well, gosh, if Nature has a plan for your clan, what’s with the fidgeting around and making gay mouths to overburden you right now? Why not just go straight to spontaneous abortion? Oh, it’s because gay people are nicer.
He’s not going to be killing his brother in a fight over who gets the girl
Why would you expect that heterosexual children would kill each other over mates? Why would you expect that homosexual children would be free of jealousy and conflict? I have two brothers, and I never felt the urge to kill them for their women (they’re still alive, I didn’t murder them, so you can ask them). I’ve known gay people who were real assholes; there are gay people who voted for Trump. They’re not paragons, they’re human beings, with all the attributes of complicated individuals.
But I have to save the worst for last. This guy who believes in the extreme power of natural selection to optimize human populations for survival doesn’t like the idea of a “struggle for existence”, which is OK, Darwin didn’t much care for that phrase or “survival of the fittest” either. But then he substitutes a different misleading phrase:
a snuggle for existence.
Cue projectile vomiting. Oh, look, it’s rainbow-colored!