At the Non-Gay Debate

The Democrats, if you don’t know it by now, are pro-homosexual. They actually believe that homosexuality is a natural sexual act that should be sanctioned by law. Former Sen. Mike Gravel and Congressman Dennis Kucinich, both from Ohio, delighted the mostly homosexual studio audience at the “gay debate” held in Los Angeles on August 9, 2007 because they are the only candidates who believe that homosexual couples should have the legal right to marry. The other candidates support civil unions. All of them would open the military to self-avowed and openly homosexual recruits. It wasn’t much of a debate.

Prominent homosexual activist and entertainer Melissa Etheridge asked Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico whether he thought homosexuality is a choice or biologically determined. At first, Richardson answered that he believed it’s a choice. Etheridge immediately sought to help Richardson to clarify his answer by nudging him in a follow-up question so he would concede the point and state that homosexuality is innate. It was obvious that Richardson was not aware of homosexual talking points. He flubbed badly.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexuals are right, that homosexuality is innate behavior determined by genetic markers. If I had a chance to question Etheridge, I would have asked her this question: “Are you saying that any behavior that has a genetic cause is by definition morally acceptable and rational?” If she had said yes, then I would have pulled out a list of articles that identify a number of behaviors as having a genetic cause. After reading a few of them, I would have asked this follow-up question: “How do these genetically caused behaviors differ from homosexuality?”

“Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science . . . carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.”[1]

“Why do gamblers often bet more after a losing hand? Or investors throw good money after bad? The answer may lie in the science of the brain.”[2]

“Is racism simply human nature or something learned from society? Neither, says a team of psychologists who, despite criticism, argue that racism represents an accidental side effect of evolution.”[3]

A recent article published in The Sciences, a New York Academy of Science magazine, stated that “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce.”[4]

Genetics alone cannot be the deciding factor in the real debate over homosexuality. Even though there may be a genetic link to explain aggression, rape, gambling, and racism, few would claim that these behaviors are acceptable. What makes homosexuality different?

Calling homosexuality a choice assumes that someone practicing the behavior can make a decision to change, that homosexuality can be “cured.” Homosexuals like Etheridge hate this type of talk. So how do they answer those who have rejected the homosexual lifestyle? They are either in denial or they were never innate homosexuals. How do they explain anyone who fights his or her urges not to steal, lie, or commit adultery? Homosexuals are like the rest of us. They want to practice certain sexual behaviors, and they rationalize by claiming that their genes made them do it. If homosexuals can do this, why can’t all of us follow their line of reasoning about what we want to do? Why is it that only homosexuals get a pass?