Scientists discover what they claim is the smoker's gene.Following the logic of the militant wing of the homosexual rights movement after the discovery of the (now discredited) "gay" gene, we shall, of course, demand that all public discussion of the health risks or morality of smoking cease, expect the government to recognise that smoking is an identity and not a choice, repeal all anti-smoking laws, provide support groups to make young smokers comfortable with their smoking, teach in schools that smoking is a valid alternative and provide "safe smoking" instruction (perfectly okay if you use a filter tip), and institute aggressive smoker recruiting in government agencies, private businesses, the police, and the armed forces. Needless to say, "no smoking" signs will be henceforth regarded as discrimination and asking someone not to smoke or arguing that smoking isn't good for you will be declared a hate crime.
Unless, that is, the whole rationale was more of a smoke... Oh, well.
This sort of absurdity is the reason why the gay rights movement bores me to tears. It became a logic-free zone sometime in the '70s and since then has built up such a house of cards that were I of the persuasion I should be terrified of the whole edifice collapsing under its own weight. Better to argue your choice than claim you have none. After all, arguing "I have no choice" is one tiny step away from "If you are not responsible, then you will not be allowed responsibility."
6 comments:
Well, what is the gay rights movement's "house of cards?"
I refer you to the last sentence.
The main question is not whether it is genetic or whether it is a lifestyle. The main question is neither whether it is cool or repulsive. The main question is: Is it harmful?
Being a homosexual (or lesbian) is sui generis not harmful. Smoking is.
Smoking causes cancer to both subject and people around the subject with passive smoking. Smoking also pollutes air, makes places and things stink and is extremely harmful to asthmatics. Smoking also gets a gourmet like me really pissed off as it destroys the enjoyment of good food. All in all, smoking is a negative trait.
Homosexualism leads either to childlessness, fake marriage, promiscuity with wildly porking around, stable relationships or into Lesbian bed death. While those things are nasty, they are not harmful (except if porking around may get you some nasty VD). While those traits may be repulsive, they are not potentially lethal. Rather they are tragic to the subject.
Then again, what is the alternative? Living in celibacy, voluntary castration or suicide? On smoking, the choice is either getting sober, using substitutes (snuff, nicotine patches) or not beginning to smoke at the first place. Sexuality is a different thing. You will grow sexual, no matter what you do - and becoming sexual is something you cannot avoid.
If buggery is genetic, then it is something we have to tolerate, since any alternatives are even more destructive - and attempt to make it as harmless as possible. But if getting addictive to nicotine is genetic, then the primary subject should be preventing to get addicted at the first place and then to protect the innocents as strongly as possible, since tobacco smoke is harmful and potentially lethal to bystanders.
It is just like obesity. Getting fat is a choice but tendency to get fat is genetic. Genes are no excuse nor a cause to moralize. If you have genetic tendency to get obese, then it is your responsibility to avoid carbohydrates, which are the key to obesity. Not nutritional fats.
Getting hooked to smoking is genetic. Smoking itself is a choice. Harming other people with the cigarette smoke is offensive. If one cannot get unhooked, then s/he should use snuff instead as it is not harmful to bystanders. Simple as that.
Ironmistress:
"S/he"? Alfons, bring me my blue pencil.
Short answer because I'm busy today: A homosexual lifestyle is actually very unhealthy (as in potentially deadly) compared to a normal one. If the same health standards used for other risks were applied to homosexual activities, the latter would be banned outright.
You say that choice is not a relevant factor and then you invoke precisely that argument. They have no choice, so we must accommodate them. That is precisely the point I refute. If they claim they have no choice, then once the political worm turns, as it inevitably will, then they might not be given a choice. Hoisted on their own petard, as it were. Drug addicts do not write drug laws, after all, so why should sexual deviants have any say in what they claim they have no control over?
As to the mythical "gay gene" providing no alternative to tolerance (which the gay rights movement abandoned long ago, by the way, in favour of outright endorsement or else), there is an alternative: Cure. If there is a genetic cause (there isn't), then it is entirely feasible that there is a prenatal cure. Within a generation, homosexual predilections would go the way of smallpox. I sincerely doubt, however, that news would cause a round of cheering in the Castro district.
Arguing from incapacity in never a good idea. There's always a danger that people will take it seriously.
David, you are confusing homosexual lifestyle with promiscuous lifestyle.
Homosexual lifestyle per se is not dangerous. Promiscuous lifestyle is. Regardless whether it is straight, bi or gay. (Actually Lesbians have the lowest incidence of VDs of any group).
If one lives in promiscuity, s/he should be aware of the risks. An adult person knows the consequences of his/her actions and bears the responsibility. Ergo: if one is gay, better to move together with one steady loved one partner and share the rest of one's days with that one single partner - just like the straight people do when they go steady. Triviality, but still true. Lesbians usually do just that.
There is nothing to be defended in promiscuity as promiscuity is an extremely dangerous lifestyle. No matter if it is straight or gay.
If we think of what is the way of the lesser evil on homosexualism, the tolerance on homosexualism (but not promiscuity) is the least evil - compared to death penalty, prison, castration, forced celibacy, aversion therapy, fake marriages or other things people have tried throughout the history and invariably failed.
To put it bluntly: it is not my business what two adults and consentious persons do in their bedrooms when their curtains are drawn, if it is voluntary and nobody is hurt. (That excludes paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia and other clearly criminal activities off.)
You write: "why should sexual deviants have any say in what they claim they have no control over?" and I answer: "It is not my business what an adult person does as long as nobody is harmed". Sexual deviancies usually are harmless. But if they are indeed harmful - such as paedophilia - then treatment against one's will is plausible because of the common good.
The flip side of tolerance is responsibility. If we are to tolerate homosexualism, then the responsibility of the homosexuals is to refuse from promiscuity and get steady. Again a triviality, but still true.
Gene therapy may help us to get rid of another - even nastier - sexual deviation, namely transsexualism - in the future. A genetic defect connected to transsexualism was found a couple of years ago, and hopefully in the future that anomaly can be treated prenatally before it manifests itself in the patients.
Ironmistress,
You miss the point. I make no case for or against homosexual activities or lifestyles. That is a completely different subject for another day. My brief is with the special pleading put forward by the gay rights movement. I simply take their argument to its logical conclusion.
Post a Comment