Bryan Fischer
Gays aren't "born that way" - - a lesbian says so
By Bryan Fischer
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, "The Atlantic," openly "queer woman" (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, "In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way."
Tellingly, she argues that saying people are "born this way" is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers 'can't help it,' and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity."
I've got news for Ms. Miller — it's not straights saying that you can't help it, it is your co-belligerents in the homosexual movement. In the pro-family movement, we entirely agree with you that sexual behavior in the end is always a matter of choice. We have no condescension towards you in the least — we regard you as men and women made in the image of God who are perfectly capable of making responsible and mature decisions regarding your sexuality.
Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, "The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake — it's a life I chose."
Homosexual activists must be seething at this point, since Ms. Miller has blown their entire civil rights argument — we're just like blacks — to smithereens. Blacks did not choose to be black. Race is immutable, assigned at birth. But homosexuality is not immutable and it is not fixed at birth. Ms. Miller has chosen lesbianism, which means she is perfectly capable of choosing sexual normalcy if she becomes so inclined.
Ms. Miller confirms what Colin Powell said long ago, that the comparison between race and sexual preference is "convenient but invalid."
It's time to send the "born that way" myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.
And we don't just need to take Lindsay Miller's word for it. Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models." In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.
As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The "concordance rate" should be 100%.
But it's not. One early proponent of the "born that way" thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.
Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.
They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject "genetic influence independent of social context" as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, "..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."
As Sprigg observes, "If it was not clear in the 1990's, it certainly is now — no one is 'born gay.'"
The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.
The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.
Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It's a choice, and a bad one at that. It's long past time for our culture to say a simple and direct "No" to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
September 14, 2011
Follow me on Twitter: @BryanJFischer, on Facebook at "Focal Point"
In an astonishing column published in the winger-left publication, "The Atlantic," openly "queer woman" (her words) Lindsay Miller says flatly, "In direct opposition to both the mainstream gay movement and Lady Gaga, I would like to state for the record that I was not born this way."
Tellingly, she argues that saying people are "born this way" is a form of condescension, and she resents it mightily. "I get frustrated with the veiled condescension of straight people who believe that queers 'can't help it,' and thus should be treated with tolerance and pity."
I've got news for Ms. Miller — it's not straights saying that you can't help it, it is your co-belligerents in the homosexual movement. In the pro-family movement, we entirely agree with you that sexual behavior in the end is always a matter of choice. We have no condescension towards you in the least — we regard you as men and women made in the image of God who are perfectly capable of making responsible and mature decisions regarding your sexuality.
Ms. Miller concludes her piece by saying, "The life I have now is not something I ended up with because I had no other options. Make no mistake — it's a life I chose."
Homosexual activists must be seething at this point, since Ms. Miller has blown their entire civil rights argument — we're just like blacks — to smithereens. Blacks did not choose to be black. Race is immutable, assigned at birth. But homosexuality is not immutable and it is not fixed at birth. Ms. Miller has chosen lesbianism, which means she is perfectly capable of choosing sexual normalcy if she becomes so inclined.
Ms. Miller confirms what Colin Powell said long ago, that the comparison between race and sexual preference is "convenient but invalid."
It's time to send the "born that way" myth to the graveyard of misbegotten ideas, buried in the plot next to the myth that the sun revolves around the earth.
And we don't just need to take Lindsay Miller's word for it. Psychiatrists William Byne and Bruce Parsons wrote in Archives of General Psychiatry (March 1993) that, "Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychosocial models." In other words, nurture plays a greater role in sexual preference than homosexual activists want you to believe.
As Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council points out, rigorous studies of identical twins have now made it impossible to argue seriously for the theory of genetic determination. If homosexuality were fixed at birth, as the misguided thinking of homosexual activists goes, then if one twin is homosexual, the other should be as well. The "concordance rate" should be 100%.
But it's not. One early proponent of the "born that way" thesis, Michael Bailey, conducted a study on a large sample of Australian twins and discovered to his chagrin that the concordance rate was just 11%.
Peter Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, researchers from Columbia and Yale, looked at data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and found concordance rates of just 6.7% for male and 5.3% for female identical twins.
They determined that social environment was of far greater significance, and their research led them to reject "genetic influence independent of social context" as an explanation for homosexuality. They concluded, "..[O]ur results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences."
As Sprigg observes, "If it was not clear in the 1990's, it certainly is now — no one is 'born gay.'"
The implications, of course, of this simple truth are far-reaching. If homosexual behavior is a choice, then our public policy can freely be shaped by an honest look at whether this behavioral choice is healthy and should be encouraged or unhealthy and dangerous and consequently discouraged.
The elevated health risks associated with homosexuality are by now so well established that not even homosexuals pretend otherwise. The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association warns that active homosexuals are at elevated risks of HIV/AIDS, substance and alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety, hepatitis, a whole range of STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, Human Papilloma Virus, and anal papilloma, and prostate, testicular and colon cancer.
Bottom line: this is not behavior that any rational society should condone, endorse, subsidize, reward, promote or sanction in domestic policy or in the marketplace. It's a choice, and a bad one at that. It's long past time for our culture to say a simple and direct "No" to homosexuality and the homosexual agenda.
(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)
© Bryan Fischer
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
