This has recently been admitted from a couple of sources, but before I point them out I should mention that we all should already know this. Of course, people develop differently in conscious and unconscious ways, so saying that people “decide” to be gay is simplistic and false. But the claim that people are “born gay” just like they are born left handed or born to certain races or genders (leaving Transgender delusions to the side for a moment) is obviously a contrivance designed for civil rights legislation, not a truthful representation of human life.
In the New Republic, Brendan Ambrosino is quite up front about this in his headline: “I Wasn’t Born This Way. I Choose to Be Gay.” (Notice the present ongoing tense of the verb).
“And I can’t change even if I tried, even if I wanted to,” goes the chorus of Macklemore and Ryan Lewis’s Grammy-nominated “Same Love,” which the duo performed at Sunday’s ceremony while Queen Latifah officiated the marriage of 33 straight and same-sex couples. A seven-minute plea for tolerance (namely in politics and hip hop), the track has ousted Gaga’s “Born This Way” as pop music’s premiere Gay Battle Cry, rightly condemning “right wing conservatives [who] think it’s a decision, and you can be cured with some treatment and religion.” But the chorus bugs me. By its logic, none of us has any control over our sexual identities. We are what we are, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about that, so let’s just stop trying to change.
That’s wrong. It’s time for the LGBT community to stop fearing the word “choice,” and to reclaim the dignity of sexual autonomy.
The aversion to that word in our community stems from belief that if we can’t prove that our gayness is biologically determined, then we won’t have grounds to demand equality. I think this fear needs to be addressed and given up. In America, we have the freedom to be as well as to choose to be. I see no reason to believe that the only sexualities worth protecting are the ones over which one has no control. After all, isn’t trans activism fueled by the belief that the government has the responsibility to protect all of us regardless of our sexual choices? And aren’t protections for bisexuals based upon the same presupposition of sexual autonomy? Perhaps the L and G factions of our community would do well to follow the political lead of the Bs and Ts on this issue.
Ambrosino really seems naïve to me. There is simply no legal way to force homosexual marriage on the population if they don’t have access to an “equal protection” argument based on the superstition and transparently false idea that homosexuals are the equivalent of a racial minority. According to him, homosexuals can get married to the opposite sex, but they don’t want to do so. So why should we be forced to create that oxymoron of “same sex marriage” to accommodate your chosen sexual identities?
But even if he doesn’t understand the damage he is doing to the homosexual civil rights strategy, it is great that he is doing it. His essay deserves to be saved and sent to others.
The other article is a major paper at the Daily Caller. David Benkof writes,
Given the stakes, most gays and lesbians are dismissive or hostile toward anyone who doesn’t think being gay is an essential, natural characteristic of some members of the human race.
But a surprising group of people doesn’t think that – namely, scholars of gay history and anthropology. They’re almost all LGBT themselves, and they have decisively shown that gayness is a product of Western society originating about 150 years ago.
Using documents and field studies, these intrepid social scientists have examined the evidence of homosexuality in other times and cultures to see how the gay minority fared. But they’ve come up empty. Sure, there’s substantial evidence of both discreet and open same-sex love and sex in pre-modern times. But no society before the 19th century had a gay minority or even discernibly gay-oriented individuals.
(There weren’t straight people, either. Only our society believes people are oriented in just one direction, as gay history pioneer Jonathan Ned Katz, formerly of Yale, explained in his book The Invention of Heterosexuality.)
According to the experts on homosexuality across centuries and continents, being gay is a relatively recent social construction. Few scholars with advanced degrees in anthropology or history who concentrate on homosexuality believe gays have existed in any cultures before or outside ours, much less in all cultures. These professors work closely with an ever-growing body of knowledge that directly contradicts “born that way” ideology.
The article goes into a pretty long description of the evidence. People simply didn’t think of “gay” or “homosexual” as something you “were.” They thought of it as something you did. And they never expected it to be exclusive. We have loads of data about homosexual activity. We have no evidence of a “minority” in which members were only attracted to the same sex.
Like the article in the Republic, this one is worth reading slowly. In both articles you get the idea that everyone ought to believe this stuff. Yet, in the main headlines, we still see it trotted out against anyone who dares view homosexual activity as an immoral choice. Uganda, for example, is covered by the media entirely as a case of a sexual minority that is being persecuted. In this CNN story, for example, we read that Ugandan scientists came up with the bizarre idea that homosexuality was not inborn—an idea endorsed by many American “gay” scholars!
Dean Hamer, scientist emeritus at the National Institutes of Health, wrote an open letter to the Ugandan scientists in the New York Times last week urging them to reconsider and revise their report. Among his responses to their conclusions: “There is no scientific evidence that homosexual orientation is a learned behavior any more than is heterosexual orientation.”
Hamer should read more.