For years I've been complaining about how everything we know is wrong because scientists believe in God. "Animals are pure and unspoiled, unlike people," they declared, "so naturally they're faithful and monogamous!" They were so positive they didn't bother to do any studies, and just blithely parroted that theory. And then some atheist wandered through a forest and noticed there were monkeys fucking everything that moved. Female monkeys, male monkeys, squirrels, scientists in fetching shorts.

The atheist tried to spread the word, but people refused to give up that warm and fuzzy picture. They didn't want some godless heathen shooting down their ideal of mating for life. The movie March of the Penguins went particularly moronic: literally two minutes after declaring penguins monogamous, narrator Morgan Freeman mentioned that, though penguins can recognize their mates among millions of lookalikes, they hook up with new partners every year.

Did I get the word "monogamous" wrong? Does it really mean "just sleeps with one thing at a time"? How can they claim this is majestic when it's the animal equivalent of a trailer park?

Unfortunately, a recent study of gaydar doesn't improve on things, though it's slanted in a pinker way. Scientists showed test subjects pictures of rectangles inside of squares and asked the subjects what they saw. The heteros quickly answered, "Squares!" which, of course, is kind of wrong. The gays, on the other hand, took more time, but eventually they correctly declared, "Rectangles and squares."

The scientists thought long and hard about this, and finally came up with a theory: gays are better than straight at noticing little details. And obviously we can extrapolate this theory, because if gays notice rectangles more than straights, wouldn't they be more likely to notice your stylish shoes? Your flattering haircut? Your David Sedaris books, and Liza Minnelli record?

Which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt: GAYDAR EXISTS!

Preposterous.

See, here's the catch: the heteros were faster than the homos to answer. Who knows -- maybe if they'd taken more time, they'd have gotten it right too.

I really hate to say this, because the researcher's conclusion would be powerful. If gays are better at noticing details, wouldn't they make better detectives? Lawyers? Soldiers? Along with, of course, dress designers and hairstylists.

So, my apologies to everyone, including Dr. Lorenza Colzato of Leiden University in the Netherlands. Better luck next time. Because the real conclusion, the unbiased conclusion, is this:

Heterosexuals are fast and stupid.

It ain't exactly gaydar, but it'll sure be easy to confirm.