But the point is we don't KNOW
just as you had no idea about sickle cell, scientists have no idea about many of the genes in our genome. Not only that, but when it comes to groups of genes the stuff gets even MORE confusing. You, though, choose to assume that one behavior, the results (we suspect) of several genes, has no adaptive value based on ... nothing, except your imaginings.
IMO the only position that makes sense is to say, "We don't know". Harmless? Beneficial? Harmful? We don't know. We can have our suspicions, but to Assume, in any doctrinaire way, that something as complex as homosexual behavior is harmful, is a really uneducated assumption. So to make this uneducated assumption and then use it to support a law that is prejudicial, well....what can I say? I don't want to be rude. Can I simply say it makes absolutely no sense at all?
Much better to say "I want this law because I just believe homosexuality is wrong." Using fake science, imo, is never a good idea. |
