Friday, 11 April 2014

Working backwards to find a genetic basis for homosexuality


It should be obvious to a child that the people saying there is a genetic factor to homosexuality do so to strengthen the case for social acceptance of homosexual acts. Try suggesting that there is a genetic factor in intelligence - which everyone knows is true - and therefore races have different IQ levels (not something I believe, by the way, before you lose your temper with me) and see the reaction. People start with a conclusion and then find a scientific argument to support it. When I see scientific evidence cited I always ask what political or philosophical position is it supporting - if it is supporting a fashionable one I make a rebuttable assumption that the evidence is flawed.  It reminds me that A.J. Balfour pointed out that none of the many philosophical arguments for murder being wrong had anything in common with the others except their conclusion. It is almost, he said, as if the authors started with the conclusion and worked backwards.

There was some preposterous scholar called I think Boswell who maintained that the third century church had no objection to homosexual couples and canonised a couple of saints who were homosexual lovers. Reviewers took this odd book very seriously.


  1. there is a lot of arguments against accepting homosexuality on a genetic basis inside the LGBTQ community. So this argument is only supported by some... I agree with your post.

  2. Murder is not the necessarily wrong which is why you have the range of homicide starting at the combat situation, meandering through justified homicide and manslaughter, taking a detour through diminished responsibility and crimes of passion before ending up on gold plated murder. John? Mortimer (wrote the Rumpole of the Old Bailey stories) reckoned murderers were his easiest clients because they had got rid of the one person in the world who really, really pissed them off.