And then it hit me.
There is a lot of debate on whether or not there is a “gay gene”. I think it’s important to question why we are even looking for said gene—would it become something we could test amniotic fluid for, and to what end? Would babies with a predisposition towards homosexuality find themselves unwanted or aborted by some families? Would genetic therapy take place instead of bible-camps? Would homosexuals use such biological “proof” to their own end, throwing it in the faces of the fundies who have argued that no one is born gay? And then there is the indication that while there is a genetic predisposition (in lab mice, mind, where most of this research is being done), there are still environmental factors that contribute to different ends. Still, like many things that can be tested for in-utero, being gay has always been a matter of degree. Would you abort a child if it was shown to be autistic, knowing very well that high-functioning autistics do quite well in society? There is that fear that revealing such a gene would put homosexuality on the same level as very real disabilities and diseases—I certainly have that concern.
On the other hand I say “go ahead!” As science and technology develops we become more able to map and construct the genes of future generations. Instead of discarding gay-embryos, I think we should use them. In fact, if we can manage it, I think at least half of the next generation should be gay. Give the embryo soup that predisposition and put the resulting fetuses into situations that will help them along their genetic destiny! Why? Having a largely-homosexual human population will save the world.
Overpopulation is the key to most of the Earth’s problems right now. It is ridiculous how breeding is still seen as something necessary for the continuation of the human race by individuals—do they actually think that is they don’t squeeze out babies, no one else will? Our worldwide problems with pollution, resource scarcity and poverty could be solved by halving or even cutting down the worldwide population to a quarter of what it is today. Mass murder is a rather messy way to go about saving the world, so I’m rallying for homosexuality to be encouraged and selected for in the human gene pool. If 50% or more of the people on Earth were gay, there would be a whole lot less breeding. On top of that, with the re-working of the adoption system, I think we could solve the crisis of unwanted children in the States at the very least. Think about it: fewer children are born, which leads to an overall population decline, which in turn leads to a healthier planet for every living thing. We could truly follow the maxim of “it takes a village to raise a child”. And wouldn’t that be amazing! One or two children for every ten adults would mean they are surrounded with a support system that doesn’t exist today. A child would have exposure to many different points of view, ways of living, professions and cultures. Such a child would stand in where there had once been ten uncivilized brats. In this vision I have, the future is bright. Heck, even though I don’t like kids, I would love to be part of a system where children are brought up and nurtured by the “village”. We shouldn’t be breeding so that we replace our current population—our 6.77 billion bodies are not sustainable. Even if we did everything right and recycled, drove hybrids, and used solar power, our very need to eat and have shelter would suck the life out of the Earth.
Of course, certain things would have to change. Gay marriage would need to be legal in every sense of the law (and seriously, I have yet to hear a competent argument against that. Separation of church and state, right?). As I mentioned, the adoption system would have to be re-worked—because why is it that a teenage couple can pop out three children before they are allowed to drink alcohol, but a well-adjusted couple can’t adopt a baby? And of course, gays would have to contend with no longer being special or unusual. Sexuality would become unimportant to society as a whole—nothing to be bothered with as long as those people who are still breeding are having gay children. It would be something valuable to individual identity, not something to be feared or denounced on public radio. Because really, the typical biological urge lead us to want mates, not to carry children ourselves (I know there are individuals with those desires—I’m just arguing it’s unusual). With a 50/50 spread of straight versus homosexual persons, developed over a manner of years, the world population would steadily decline and remain more-or-less constant. We could actually develop technologies that would help our ailing environment without having to re-calculate for our own snow-balling population.
I’m tempted to make a bumper-sticker that reads: “Be homosexual. Save the world.”
But maybe I would need to put it into better context than that. I'd rather not have my car keyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment