Governor Rick Perry picked the wrong venue—a hotel in San Francisco, of all places—to voice his opinion about homosexuality. Perry remarked that homosexuality is akin to alcoholism, in that both are compelled by genetics but both are ultimately volitional behaviors.
Predictably, the tolerance bullies lost their minds. How dare he compare alcoholism to “being” “gay!” As the arbiters of who can say what about homosexuality, they permit themselves to make the absurd comparison between sexual conduct and race but Perry may not make a comparison between sexual conduct and a destructive pattern of drinking. Male homosexuality is statistically more hazardous to your health than downing a pint of rotgut every day but speaking that truth aloud hurts the delicate feelings of homosexuals who are always and everywhere protected from offense.
Perry’s comparison is invalid, as I will elaborate on later, though not in the way that the tolerance bullies think.
The bedrock assumption of the so-called gay rights movement is that homosexuality is an identity. It’s not what you do, but rather who you are, which is not, they assert, a choice at all. This tenuous supposition begins to unravel after asking a few basic questions, which is why homosexuals tend to explode with righteous indignation and refuse to answer those pertinent questions.
Nonetheless, the thesis of sexuality as an identity rather than a behavior seems to be winning the public debate. “Homophobes” like me still hold the belief that homosexuality is a choice because people choose who they sleep with.
The “born gay” message is so vital to the homosexual movement because without it their sexual behavior is just another niche fetish, much like swingers or S&M enthusiasts. It was their inability to persuade the Supreme Court that they are “born that way” that cost homosexuals a major legal victory in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that prohibitions on sodomy were constitutional.
There is little evidence in fact that homosexuals are “born that way,” which is what makes Perry’s comparison so ludicrous. No “gay gene” has ever been found despite decades of looking. Demonstrating their antipathy toward science, homosexual activists argue that the gene is real and will surely be discovered one day, so let’s all just assume its existence. Translation: Believe the theory first, we’ll find the evidence later. This could take a while so get comfortable.
Is that how science works? No. At least that’s not how it’s supposed to work.
Geneticist Dean Hamer published a paper in 1993 claiming to have found the much anticipated “gay gene,” but his research quickly disintegrated under scrutiny. Another study intended to confirm Hamer’s found different results. Hamer was charged with “research improprieties” and investigated for essentially excluding subjects who did not confirm his findings. Another study from Drs. George Ebbers and George Rice found that there is no evidence of homosexuality being handed down via genetic code.
It should surprise no one that Dean Hamer is in fact a homosexual himself. Far be it from me to suggest that his study was agenda-driven.
The other problem with the “born that way” thesis is that loose-lipped homosexuals sometimes spill the beans. Benoit Denizet-Lewis, a homosexual journalist/activist, inadvertently betrayed an explosive truth in a recent column about bisexuals. Denizet-Lewis volunteered for a pupil dilation test that supposedly indicated what a person finds sexually stimulating. Though he had considered himself “mostly gay,” the test revealed that he was in fact attracted to both sexes.
“Might I actually be bisexual?” wrote Denizet-Lewis. “Have I been so wedded to my gay identity — one I adopted in college and announced with great fanfare to family and friends — that I haven’t allowed myself to experience another part of myself?”
“Wedded” to his gay identity? Since college? Surely that can’t be. I thought “gay” people always knew they were different. Notice he didn’t even say that he became aware of his supposed identity late in the game. He adopted it and “announced [it] with great fanfare.” Oops!
Actress Cynthia Nixon earned the ire of her fellow homosexuals when she announced that she was in fact “gay” by choice. She had wanted to deliver an affirming message to a homosexual audience that included the line, “I’ve been straight and I’ve been gay, and gay is better.” She says that she was pressured by other homosexuals to scrub that remark because it implied that homosexuality is a choice. “For me, it is a choice,” she argued. They urged her to stop talking that way because of how the “bigots” might receive it. Did it ever occur to them that the “bigots” might be right?
There are plenty of people who choose a homosexual lifestyle willingly and knowingly—people who are incarcerated, for example. Many women become lesbians after escaping from abusive relationships with men. Surely these people weren’t “born that way,” they merely chose an alternative sexuality because of circumstances which had nothing to do with genes.
The obsession with genetic homosexuality also ignores relevant environmental factors. For example, what role does childhood sexual abuse play in the development of adult homosexuality? Numerous studies indicate that an absurdly large proportion of pedophilia victims go on to self-identify as homosexual or bisexual.
How about toxins in the brain? Consider a University of Florida study that found that male ibises, a water fowl, turned to other males for sex after being exposed to low levels of mercury. The pink triangle crowd initially celebrated this study when it was released in 2010 because any report of homosexuality in the animal kingdom proves that homosexuality is “natural.” Sure, it’s natural, I suppose, if a toxic heavy metal has irreparably damaged the brain of the animal in question. Once homosexuals began to understand that this study didn’t help their cause, they dropped it.
I understand Rick Perry’s point, which is that a choice is no less a choice simply because we have an urge to choose it. He is dead wrong however, when he compares homosexuality to alcoholism because the genetic basis of alcoholism is grounded in actual scientific research. The same cannot be said of homosexuality