March 11, 2011
In 1998 the American Psychological Association rocked the world with its discovery of what some called the “gay gene,” concluding as one might expect, that homosexuality had a genetic cause. "There is considerable recent evidence,” the report read, “to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality." (www.onenewsnow.com) The announcement sent shock waves through the social and political halls of our nation as a supposed natural cause for the lifestyle seemed to emerge.
The significance cannot be underestimated because no sooner had the announcement been made that the militant gay movement began its offensive claiming “science” as its impetus. The lifestyle suddenly morphed from one of choice into a natural and unavoidable quality like gender or race, and that is where it got interesting. Additionally, noted the article, “Whatever its ultimate scientific significance…the study's social and political impact is potentially even greater….Some legal scholars think that if gays can establish a genetic basis for sexual preference, like skin color or gender, they may persuade judges that discrimination is unconstitutional.” (Gregory J. King of the human Rights Campaign Fund, one of the largest gay-rights lobbying groups; Time Magazine, July 26, 1993)
For quite some time now, oppression of gays has been equated with the oppression of blacks prior to the civil rights movement as those who do so equate the “condition” to race and gender eliminating human choice in the process. Now, with over a decade of research the foundational argument crumbles as the APA sings another tune. Concluding most recently that “…there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation…no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” (Onenewsnow.com) In other words, the lifestyle no longer excludes human free will (choice).
Now, here is my point. For a movement that has touted science as its knight in shining armor delivering it from the ire of public opinion, it might be time for a few changes. Since we are a nation that prides itself in “following the evidence wherever it leads,” and since new evidence is available, shouldn’t the militant gay movement surrender the territory it gained through a campaign established and advanced on erroneous grounds? Since human choice suddenly re-enters the picture, shouldn’t the current trend to give special protection to a lifestyle that is as much a product of choice as it is anything else, cease? That means, no more illegitimate comparisons of the lifestyle to race and gender, no more special laws to accommodate those who want to destroy the traditional, and biblical, boundaries for marriage and no more new laws giving special protection to a lifestyle of choice.
I understand the emotional fallout that will follow this column; but when the foundational argument, the impetus if you will, has been “science,” it makes me wonder just how deep that acclaimed allegiance really goes. In fact, it reveals the fact that “science” is actually the least of the movements concern because human rebellion can simply fabricate another reason to justify sinful behavior.