Playing the Gay Card

National Anxiety Center ^ | August 6, 2003 | Alan Caruba

[presidio9]

I have never been keen on singling out a particular group to be ostracized because of something over which they have no control. Racism fits this description. You’re white or you’re black, yellow or brown. You’re Hispanic or you’re Latino, Chicano, whatever. And, of course, there’s the old reliable bias against Jews. Catholics catch a bit of this and just about any church-going Protestant. It is equally idiotic to lump all women or men into a single category.

So I approach the issue of sexual preference with some trepidation because, throughout history, homosexuals have always been regarded as an aberration and, more specifically, a threat to civil and social norms.

With considerable bravery and skill, homosexuals in America have fought to secure an equal footing under the law. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…" It does not, however, refer to sexual orientation.

In recent days, the Supreme Court extended homosexuals the right to be free of a law in Texas that defined their sexual behavior as a crime. This decriminalization of that State’s and all other’s laws seems to me correct. The most private and personal thing anyone engages in pertains to one’s sex life. I think, too, that extrapolating this decision to include pederasty or bestiality is mistaken, as these are clearly either a threat to children or a perversion of Nature. Such laws remain intact for these reasons. And should.

What we have all witnessed, however, is a growing body of "entertainment" in which homosexuals have been offered to the public as a "normal", i.e. a variation of heterosexuality, component of society. Shows like "Will & Grace" and the plethora of new shows featuring homosexuals now fill the airwaves. Clearly a greater tolerance has resulted from such programs. The acceptance, indeed, teaching about homosexuality in our nation’s schools, has become widespread. A recent proposal for an all-homosexual school in New York City, however, shows what happens when "acceptance" is used to secure a privileged status. Not only is this an idiotic idea, it is comparable to the segregation of blacks that was struck down by an earlier Supreme Court or the assertion that girls must be educated separately from boys.

The result, however, has been a notable backlash of public opinion. A recent poll taken by USA Today showed that, whereas 60% of adults previously thought homosexual relations between consenting adults should be legal, only 48% concur with that now. The opposition to homosexual "marriages" had risen to 57%, the most since this was first polled in 2000.

What I suggest is that there are limits that any society must put on the "mainstreaming" of homosexuality. Marriage is the core of all societies and is universally recognized as a union between a man and a woman. This is as Nature dictates. Despite the argument put forth by homosexuals that their sexuality is "normal" ignores the obvious. It is not. To deny such couples the "right" to marriage is correct. Just because two people share homosexual relations does not accord them the "right" to attack society’s most fundamental relationship.

Criticizing "right-wing, Christian fundamentalists" or any other religious group for their opposition is a diversion from the simple, obvious truth that marriage exists for the maintenance of society. Indeed, this is neither a Republican, nor Democrat issue. It is, however, a liberal versus conservative one in the sense that conserving society’s values and rules are necessary to protect it against the anarchy that exists where the time-tested, long established rules cease to exist.

Homosexuals, of course, do not see it in this manner. They argue that their sexual preference is "natural" to them and poses no threat to society in general. My view is that homosexuals are "wired" for their sexual preference and, most likely, are homosexual from birth. That does not, however, render it "natural." Sex is the means by which Nature insures the continuation of a given species. Homosexuals do not engage in sex for that purpose, nor can they procreate. This is not a question of their "choice."

Heterosexuals understand this instinctively, even if homosexuals protest their "right" to marry. Unspoken, too, is the wider threat to society posed by AIDS, a disease that occurred first among homosexuals, remains primarily within the homosexual element of society, and since spread to the heterosexual population. In Africa, it represents a major health threat to millions throughout that continent. It has spread widely in Asia as well.

Society, predominantly heterosexual, has not only a right to protect and preserve itself, but the duty. This does not mean persecution of homosexuals, but it does mean that it is absolutely necessary to define and set limitations on the assertion of homosexual "rights." Primarily among which is marriage and, thereafter, questions regarding the issues such as adoption. Among the many ways a society can be set on the path to decline is the failure to protect the concept of family.

The Fourteenth Amendment was later amended by the Fifteenth that stated "The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It does not specify sex. The Nineteenth Amendment addresses the right of women to vote.

Nothing in the Constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry, nor should it be interpreted as such.

I do not see any great conspiracy among homosexuals to rewrite the Constitution or even to undermine society, but, in effect, that is what is occurring by their demand to be extended rights based solely on their sexual preference, one that clashes with the stability, preservation, protection and continuation of a civil society based on the common sense understanding that marriage and family is fundamental.

I do see a vast propaganda campaign, particularly coming out of Hollywood, and aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, to grant homosexuals both social and legal acceptance and rights that run counter to the general well-being of society. Newspapers such as The New York Times and the Washington Post routinely run photos of gay couples who have asserted they are "married." This is corrodes the established concept of marriage between a man and a woman. And it is deliberate.

Therein lies the problem and therein lies the reason to reject the many politicians who today who are "playing the Gay card" in exchange for votes. If that were the only reason to vote against them, it would be a good and valid one.

[Onelifetogive]

It is facinating to me that the same people who promote homosexuality as being normal (and innate), also accept Darwin's theory that the reproduction of the "fittest" members of society is what continually advanced species....

Gays, per Darwin's theories are aberrations that should be removed from the gene pool by their reduced rates of reproduction.

[thoughtomator]

Author must have been reading my posts on the subject!

[Always Right]

My view is that homosexuals are "wired" for their sexual preference and, most likely, are homosexual from birth.

The article isn't bad, but I reject this notion. There may be genetic influences, but the fact is every one is different. Many gays become recruited into the lifestyle while they are developing sexuality. Grown gay men love to prey and adolences who maybe confused, lack self-confidence, and have very active hormones. Our sexual preferences is not something that is just borned in, but absolutely develops and changes over our lives. Weird fetishes just can not be explained by genetics.

[Tabi Katz]

"Nothing in the Constitution grants homosexuals the right to marry,"

Nor to engage in sodomy. I do not personally believe such behavior should be prosecuted, but as Clarence Thomas rightly said, in essence, silly laws such as this one should be overturned by the legislature and not the courts. Every time we encounter a law we don't like, do we have to bring the Constitution into it?

[upcountryhorseman]

I thought it had been established that homosexuality
was not genetic. I firmly believe that it is caused
by environmental factors and can be treated by extensive
therapy and counseling.

[cwb]

I agree completely. It's only obvious that with the "normalizing" of a behavior and the removing of a stigma, your going to get more of that behavior. Heck, you have young girls experimenting with lesbianism becasue it is now the chic thing to do. In the old days when you didn't get love and attention at home, you joined a gang...today, you join with others of the same sex.

[Always Right]

I thought it had been established that homosexuality was not genetic.

No, just the gay-gene study was completely disproven. With our current understanding of genetics, it is impossible to disprove something like that. There probably are in some cases, genetic and biological factors that influence sexual preference, but there are absolutely undeniably environmental and personal choice factors that are a major factor.

[Rytwyng]

Supreme Court extended homosexuals the right to be free... extrapolating this decision to include pederasty or bestiality is mistaken, as these are clearly either a threat to children or a perversion of Nature.

And homosexuality isn't?

[cwb]

While genetics wasn't completey repudiated, the homosexual community did hit a setback when one of their champions, Dr. Spitzer, came out and said that homosexual behavior can be changed. After studying 200 subjects, he said that 67% who under went therapy never felt any further homosexual attractions. This was quite an announcement since Spitzer was one of the doctors who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the "mental illness" list.

[hillaryisevil]

Homosexuality is a same sex attraction disorder. That means it is a choice--but not a choice like "Am I going to wear the brown shoes or the black shoes today?" Instead, it is the result of a number of choices, generally beginning at an early age and based upon the lack of appropriate identification with the same sex parent.

Homosexuals were not born that way. They are not forever condemned to this sad lifestyle. They can change through extensive therapy and most importantly by giving over their will to the Almighty.

[King Prout]

I don't agree with you. Genetics can account for a whole buch of highly specific mental, physical, and social disorders.

Nor do I agree that one is necessarily "born" hardwired to be either hetero or homo. I tend to believe that a large number of genes express in various combinations to produce a range of sexual preference outcomes, as follows:
1. "born" and inconvertable heterosexual
2. natural but convertable heterosexual
3. bisexual
4. natural but convertable homosexual
5. "born" and inconvertable homosexual

Socialization and life experience have their effects, but they are by definition tertiary to genetic coding (primary) and phenotypic expression (secondary). Some folks might have been "confused" and convertable to homosexuality while adolescent. I certainly was not, nor have any of the adult heterosexual men I have asked accepted that they might have been. Homosexuality is entirely too anathemic to the average hetero male for me to believe that many such could ever have been converted to homosexuality in their formative years.

I really do wish people would wake up and realize that human development is not simply "nature vs. nurture" but is instead much more likely to be various combinations of nature AND nurture.

[Always Right]

I don't agree with you....................
...................
I really do wish people would wake up and realize that human development is not simply "nature vs. nurture" but is instead much more likely to be various combinations of nature AND nurture.

Funny, that's pretty much exactly what I said....

[King Prout]

"I don't agree with you" applied specifically to the statements "Our sexual preferences is not something that is just borned in, but absolutely develops and changes over our lives. Weird fetishes just can not be explained by genetics."
For some of us, sexual preference may very well be set from birth. ome fetishes and other deviances might have needful and sufficient genetic causes.
The remainder of my post was a statement of the way I look at the issue, not specifically related to anything you said in your post.

[Always Right]

For some of us, sexual preference may very well be set from birth.

Well that contradicts your comment that it is "much more likely to be various combinations of nature AND nurture." There probably are some in-born tendancies that affect various people to varying degrees, but nothting is set. Life-experience plays a role, a person's free will and their values plays a roll, and the external community plays a roll. Let's not forget that sexual orgamisms are probably the most powerful positive reinforcement mechanism that there is. To suggest that these sexual experiences and sexual fantasies do not effect sexual preferences is counter our most basic understanding of human behavior. I can not believe these hard-wired theories are advanced by seemingly well-educated people. They must either be rationalizing their behavior or they have an agenda, IMHO.

[KCmark]

I really do wish people would wake up and realize that human development is not simply "nature vs. nurture" but is instead much more likely to be various combinations of nature AND nurture.

---

Oh the arguments I have had on this issue. The world is not black and white. There are millions of factors involved.

[King Prout]

Reread my initial post - there is no contradiction.
I listed five basic results.
One of them is "born and inconvertable heterosexual", another is "born and inconvertable homosexual".
The remaining three options are phenotypes giving rise to the possibility of a wide variety of observable behavior regarding expression of sexual preference and can be influenced by socialization.
Some things in our makeup are immune to life-experience, barring physical trauma.
Case in point: My genes coded for two eyes. Those genes were successfully expressed in-utero to create the phenotypic presentation of two eyes. My "life-experience" cannot effect that structural trait, barring some violent removal or other physical (cellular or organic) assault on one or both of these organs.
Basic brain structures are created by the same type of sequence of processes, and are equally immune.
Whether these structures function properly, on the other hand... that can be strongly influenced by life experience. Whether these structures function properly in combination with each other as an organic whole is likewise subject in some ways to socialization and life-experience.
To what extent and in what ways, however, is not known.
However, if my understanding of various studies of separated identical twins is correct, what data is available suggests that basic personality traits and preferences are largely immutable or unaffected by socialization processes. I am vaguely aware of some recent data suggesting that the fad of gender reassignment coming out of the '50's has proven to be a total and truly dismal failure.

Sex-drive is about as basic, primitive, and central to sexually reproductive animals as hunger. Though the genetic coding and expression mechanisms have yet to be defined, it stands to reason that the pheonotype of sexual preference is set by the genes, with a range of possible expressions.
I tend to support this hypothesis. Some -perhaps most- are hetero, immutably. Some exceedingly few are homo, immutably. Some are hetero by default, but have within them the flexibility necessary for social redirection. Some, likewise, are homo by default, with a similar flexibility. Some are (or might be) true bisexuals. I am postulating a set of an unknown number of gene sections creating at least one pair of related factors, which for simplicity's sake can be considered "binary" codes for gender-preference AND flexibility, each of which is independently expressed as a phenotype dictated by genetics, which in combination produce the range of possible observable patterns of sexual preference in the adult human male.
This hypothesis is supported by my own observations as well as all of the formal studies of which I am aware, once they are stripped of the agenda-driven interpretations of the authors.

All of the above, of course, is limited to a discussion of desires. ACTIONS, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter. Moral free-agency and social indoctrination are much more applicable to the latter than to the former.

[Always Right]

Sex-drive is about as basic, primitive, and central to sexually reproductive animals as hunger. Though the genetic coding and expression mechanisms have yet to be defined, it stands to reason that the pheonotype of sexual preference is set by the genes, with a range of possible expressions.

Why does it stand to reason? I am not gonna argue that there isn't a genetic component, but you are way too willing to assume that it is the dominant mechanism that can only be altered slightly by external factors. People are sexual by nature, how they act out on their sexuality is largely determined by environmental. You could throw three so-called 'born and inconvertable hetrosexual' males on to a deserted island at a very young age, and you could darn well bet they would act homosexual. You can try and downplay the role environment has on sexual behavior and even desires for that matter, but you are dead wrong. People's sexual desires and behaviors change throughout their life and that can ONLY be explained by learned behaviors which get reinforced through actions or fantasy. You can NOT be born with rubber-fetishes or fill in the blank, these actions/desires are learned. The born-in gene theory just falls so short in so many areas.

[King Prout]

read more carefully.
born-in genes -PLURAL- with multiple possible combinations giving rise to a range of observable phenotypic outcomes.

my hypothesis: two phenotypic factors posited.
one is the basic sexual orientation.
the other is level or degree of flexibility or malleability.
Neither can be inculcated or removed by socialization. The latter factor allows for socialization effects on the final expression in desires and activities.

I will make this as mathematically (and overly) simplistic as possible, though I am quite doubtful that in real life it is quite this clean.

genotype.............phenotype
A...............heterosexual orientation
B...............homosexual orientation
1...............inflexible
0...............flexible

permutations
A1 yields hetero inflexible
A0 yields hetero flexible
B1 yields homo inflexible
B0 yields homo flexible

This reflects the observable range better than any other hypothesis I have yet seen.

I could go further and postulate that for these two notional factors there are paired alleles, the representations of which are as follows:
AA11, AA10, AA00, AB11, AB10, AB00, BB11, BB10, BB00
Which could in turn expand and refine the gradient of the range of observable expresions of innate desire and responsiveness/vulnerability to socialization, as well as account for the possibility of true natural bisexuals.

***

As to "people's sexual desires... chang(ing) throughout their lives" I call bull. Mine haven't. Women are "it" and always have been. The thought of homosexual congress causes visceral revulsion and always has. I was brought up in a tolerant environment by a single mother... and I didn't turn out even slightly gay.

A single disproof is all that is required to void an absolute statement. I have just gutted the "male role model" paradigm, as well as your assumption that you can speak to the sexual orientation and its development of every human being on earth.

Do, please, not presume to know anything about anyone's inner workings but your own.

As to fetishes - you confuse the development of materials which can satisfy what might be pre-existing desires with the possibility of those desires being pre-extant. Fuzzy thinking. Please be more careful.