TIME, you can take your condescending, insulting article and SHOVE IT.
Some infuriating lowlights from the article Why Some People Are Gay: Notes (and Clues) from the Animal Kingdom by John Cloud:
One particularly charged finding is that in most species besides humans, same-gender pairings rarely lead to lifelong relationships. In other words, when one attractive bonobo male eyes another in a lovely patch of Congo swamp forest, they occasionally kiss and then move on to other oral pleasures, but they don’t bother anyone afterward about trying to legalize their right to an open-banana-bar ceremony.
Oh I apologize that I bother any of the human species with my annoying desire to have equal rights. Why don’t gays just behave more like the animals to which they are clearly so closely related?
What all these theories have in common is that same-sex sexual activity is either an accident or a quirky genetic method of helping males impregnate females. Which raises the evolutionary question of why men and women who are exclusive gay and lesbian exist.
This comes right after they list several examples of animal species that do have “exclusively gay” individuals.
One answer is that exclusive gays and lesbians are a relatively new creation: the concept of exclusive homosexuality barely existed before modernity; even a century ago, most same-sex-attracted men and women got married and had kids.
This statement is made with no historical evidence, only heterosexist assumptions. And a dose of stunning blindness to not consider that same-sex-attracted individuals may have been forced to marry in the past and did not marry out of free choice.
In January, the journal Evolution and Human Behavior published a paper exploring the idea that certain alleles increase the likelihood of homosexuality by blocking the effect of androgens during fetal development. Having all those alleles hampers the masculinization of some parts of the brain that affect personality, making you gay, the theory goes.
Invisibilizing lesbians again. However, in some cases, such as this, I prefer being invisible to being subject to Cloud’s uninsightful analysis. This same invisibility is what allowed me to have sleepovers at my girlfriend’s house in high school. There are benefits.
Will “the liberation of homosexuals, which allows them to come out of the closet and not pretend to be straight” actually turn out to “contribute to the end of homosexuality?” We may not know for a thousand years, but it’s a great question.
That doesn’t make any sense, but really, none of the article does. I guess you can keep hoping, John.
Read the whole article only if you have previous experience withstanding dangerously high levels of bullshit. Then, discuss: which part of this article do you find most laughable?