Homos: You Can Find Them By Measuring Their Fingers and Stuff

There has been a lot of buzz around this article in New York magazine about the science of gaydar. Basically there are some studies that link certain physical traits to being a straight man or lesbian and other traits to being a straight woman or gay man. Things like, having a longer ring finger than pointer finger is a “masculine” trait, which means you are more likely to have this if you are a straight man or a lesbian, and if you are a straight woman or a gay man, you likely have a longer pointer finger than ring finger, which is a “feminine” trait. My ring and pointer fingers are exactly the same length, so maybe I am bisexual. There’s another one about hair whorls going either clockwise or counter clockwise to indicate gayness or straightness. The details escape me, but you can read the article and get the low down if you are curious.

Interesting stuff, and I know the idea here is to prove that homosexuality is a genetic thing and not a “lifestyle choice” which I absolutely believe and I am all for proselytizing about that all the time. But there is something about this whole set of studies that, to me, smacks of creepiness and seems like it is a slippery slope to eugenics.

There is already a Southern Baptist leader, Rev. Albert Mohler blogging about what a Christian expectant mom is to do if she found out that her fetus/unborn child had some sort of biological predisposition to being gay. What if there were a hormone patch one could wear during pregnancy to ungay the baby? I like watching deeply religious people perform the logic contortionist moves necessary to resolve issues where religion and science come up against each other. I would assume, for example, that if a “gay gene” were discovered and isolated, that many of the arguments against homosexuality would become moot. Thirteen years of Catholic school gave me the impression that you have to make a choice to commit a sin. And if you don’t choose to be gay then how can it be a sin? Don’t worry, I’m well-versed enough in Catholic doctrine that I know there is the whole shbang about being gay isn’t a sin but acting on your gayness is. And to his credit, Mohler is careful in his language abotu condemning homosexual actions, not homosexuals. Fine. Whatever. I’m talking about Reverend Mohler’s ideological cousions, those of the whole “God hates fags” rhetoric. You would absolutely have to abandon that stance if there were a genetic basis for homosexuality, right? Well, this is where it gets fun. Reverend Mohler gives his audience several points to think about in considering what to do, if, hypothetically there were a biological basis for sexual orientation. Here are some of them:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God’s judgment.

I especially like the part about the human genome showing the effects of the Fall. Yikes. Also:

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible’s moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

It’s very possible that I am reading this wrong, but it seems to me to say something very very close to, “God can still hate homos even if their homoeyness is genetically determined… and so can I!”

Well that’s all for now. All this talk of science and religion is making me tired, and I have to go walk around my office examining hair whorls.