tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post3184187481120984861..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Case Studies of Aesthetic Morality: Abortion and Gay MarriageBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45217977396816711492014-11-21T09:36:42.369-05:002014-11-21T09:36:42.369-05:00Thanks for reading. I do assume there's a gene...Thanks for reading. I do assume there's a genetic basis for homosexuality, but it's more a presumption based on my knowledge that heterosexuality has a genetic basis. It stands to reason that if the genes can produce one kind of sexuality, they can produce another. Still, that implies only that a gay gene is possible. Whether there actually is one is, of course, an empirical question.<br /><br />I'm not familiar with Paglia's view on homosexuality, but I googled it and found that she says "No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait." That's actually consistent with the view that homosexuality is genetic, though, since likewise no one is born heterosexual. Babies are obviously asexual, so our sexual identity at the moment of birth is irrelevant. The question is about our genetic potential, something which becomes actualized at puberty and which depends partly on our environment. In the same way, we have a genetic potential to learn a language, but if we're not put in the right environment as children, we can become feral rather than civilized.<br /><br />In any case, I don't claim to know how homosexuality is caused. What I really want to say in this article is more conditional: even IF homosexuality were entirely genetic, there would still be something wrong about gay pride. The attitude of that pride is as existentially appalling as the happiness of modern folks who should know better. I'm not saying we should be gloomy all the time, but the ways in which nature, the undead frickin god toys with us in its alien, impersonal manner isn't something for us to take pride in. A better kind of pride would be that of the transhsumanist who creatively overcomes nature in something like Nietzsche's sense. Maybe some gay folks do overcome their sexuality, or at least creatively make it their own, but most are lazily proud of what seems to be a genetic quirk or a byproduct of what the genes do best, which is to produce bodies that reproduce themselves to preserve their genetic code.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-35136463245895814802014-11-19T21:08:07.066-05:002014-11-19T21:08:07.066-05:00Hi Ben, I am a big admirer of your blog but I have...Hi Ben, I am a big admirer of your blog but I have to say I am rather disappointed with this entry. You take for granted the existence of a homosexual gene, even though to this date no evidence of such thing has been found! In your article on the emptiness of postmodern art (and its consumers) you begin by quoting Camille Paglia from a radio interview. I wonder, are you familiar with her work? More specifically, are you familiar with her conception of homosexuality as delineated in her book Sexual Personae? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com