Equality Matters to George Gilder: “Shut up.”

Commenter Ashley pointed me to a post by Equality Matters (EM).  It bashes a post I did several months ago at the Ruth Blog on the George Gilder interview posted here recently.

EM’s response to my post mainly involves the shrieking and swooning normally associated with Leftist criticism of debate it disfavors.  EM’s summary of the relevant parts of the interview was as follows:

To summarize, Gilder’s “excellent” analysis of the same-sex marriage debate includes arguing that homosexuality is “learned,” “addictive” behavior that boys can be “inculcated” into thanks to their easily manipulated brains.

I’m guessing EM believes his readership to think these propositions to be so patently silly as to refute themselves.

I disagree.

I have no idea as to what causes homosexuality, heterosexuality or any other human desire or behavior.  Not, at least, when you get down to the neuroscience of it.  Could EM name the parts of the brain associated with sexual desire?  How about the parts of the brain that alert the owner of that brain that he’s in the presence of a sexually exciting stimulus?  How those brain parts are modified over time via experience or how they change with the fluctuation of body chemicals?

I doubt it.  Neither can I.  I doubt anybody can nail all this stuff down precisely.  I may be wrong.  But I doubt it.  I would love to be corrected if I am wrong.

Anyway, seeing as how the brain science is not settled, EM’s shrieking and gathering up of skirts type reaction to my post seems to me to be a way of yelling “shut up” at debate that can yield fruitful knowledge about human nature.

Think about it.

Sex exists because a population can better itself by the genetic mixing that happens with sexual reproduction.  This is the sole reason that sex exists to begin with.  The existence of people (or animals, for that matter) who have little, if any interest in reproductive sex is an interesting question.  One that has not been fully explored.

For this reason, the real reason why homosexuality exists is an open question.  It will remain one for some time to come.  Until such time, I for one, like to hear all kinds of speculation as to the origins of this (as well as any other interesting) phenomenon.  I especially like to hear those opinions that are off the beaten path.  I resent those who tell those with different opinions on this issue to “shut up” rather than engage them in debate.

Is homosexual behavior an addiction?  I don’t know.  But it certainly has some things in common with addiction (as does some forms of heterosexual sex).

Can a young person learn to prefer homosexual sex rather than heterosexual sex?  I’m not completely certain on this one, but I strongly suspect that one can.  After all, societies like Sparta had a higher prevalence of homosexual activity than one would normally expect in a similar population.  I suspect that culture had a lot to do with it.

Is homosexuality exclusively genetic in origin?  Probably not.  If so, research into identical twins would have conclusively proved this.  It has not.  Is it partly genetic?  I strongly suspect it is.  Are other biological factors (such as the hormones present in the womb during gestation) in play?  I would strongly suspect they are.  Are environmental factors a cause?  Again, I strongly suspect them.

The reason that people like EM are yelling “shut up” at those trying to have a discussion about this issue discussed more fully in Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.  Buy it on Amazon today.

But before I leave you, let me point out this:  it was not long ago that lefty “enlightened” opinion was firmly convinced that homosexuality was not inborn.  Here’s Ann Althouse on the issue:

I remember back in the 1980s, in the radical enclaves of the University of Wisconsin Law School and similar places, when it was heresy to say that sexual orientation was inborn. I remember getting snapped at by a very prominent left-wing lawprof for referring without scorn to research that showed some evidence that sexual orientation was innate. It was all about choice back then, and the choice model was deemed to be the framework upon which gay rights would be built.

(If it was inborn, I was told, then it will be perceived as a disease that might be cured, and therefore there can be no talk among decent people about the possibility that it is inborn. But what about science? What about discovering what is true? The official left-wing answer to that question, I learned, is: shut up.)