Robert Knight on the "Born Gay" Idea

At the risk of getting myself labeled "bigoted" again for holding the same opinion that--what? Probably at least fifty percent of Americans hold? Considerably more, if you judge by the results every time homosexual marriage comes up at the ballot box--I give you Mr. Knight's closing thoughts on the subject:

The Washington Monthly’s Steven Benen described Buck’s views as “bizarre,” “cartoonish” and worthy of “national ridicule.” Well, of course. That must also describe the views of tens of millions of Americans who strengthened marriage laws in 45 states over the last 15 years. Or any parents who simply think it’s better that their son date a girl instead of a boy.

Science, biology, religion, history, common sense and human experience all argue against homosexuality, as do grim, persistent health statistics that the media ignore. They are apparently too busy painting as “haters” a lot of good people who know, love and worry about homosexual relatives or friends but are not “pro-gay.”

Since the facts overwhelmingly favor morality and normalcy, the only thing to do is to smear and shout. "After the Ball," a 1989 blueprint for gay power by Harvard-trained public relations experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, explains in detail how to “jam” opponents by charging them with “hate.” And it’s worked. Even most conservative talk show hosts ignore the issue or appease by ceding moral ground.

The “born gay” myth has been nurtured since the early ’90s, when a genetic component was suggested by some homosexual researchers’ well-publicized studies. But none has been credibly replicated, and several have been exposed as junk science, including Simon LeVay’s 1991 study of nodules on hypothalamuses, and Dean Hamer’s 1993 National Cancer Institute X chromosome study.

Even Dr. LeVay warned, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.”

In fact, virtually all studies involving homosexuality, from Alfred C. Kinsey’s fraudulent “Kinsey Reports” from the late 1940s and early 1950s and the Evelyn Hooker psychological studies from UCLA in the late 1950s, have been exposed as either fraud or misrepresented to convey what activists want the public to hear.

As with the now-debunked estimate that 10 percent of the population is homosexual, the “born gay” myth has fueled claims of parity with race or ethnicity. Never mind whether it’s true. And, whatever you do, keep those former homosexuals out of the spotlight, lest the public start thinking about this.

It’s been a grand deception, and they’re not going to let real science, Scripture, genuine compassion or “cartoonish” candidates get in the way of their script.

So far in my life, I have never seen an argument for "born gay" that didn't work just as well for any other sexual peccadillo.

"Considering all the garbage homosexuals have to go through, MOTW, why would anyone choose homosexuality? They wouldn't! They must be born that way!"

Well, considering all the garbage pedophiles have to go through, why would anyone choose pedophilia? They wouldn't! They must be born that way!

"Hater! Bigot! How dare you compare homosexuals to perverts!"

And so it goes. As far as I can tell, all the arguments for "born gay" suffer from this defect. If they prove that homosexuality is inborn, they prove with equal force that other sexual oddities are inborn. If you're not willing to concede, on the basis of what is substantially your own argument, that pedophiles, foot-fetishists, sadists, masochists, and so forth are "born that way," if your counter-argument amounts to "You're a bigot!" there's not a darn reason in the world that I should take your argument seriously when it comes to the issue of homosexuality.

Understand: I am not condemning homosexuals or denying their personhood--one critic suggested that I somehow didn't realize that homosexuals were people, too. Nor am I saying that straight people are necessarily without sexual sin. I am fairly sure that if you could get them to 'fess up to it, 'most everybody with a functioning set of glands would end up confessing to some sort of sexual sin, even if just the one about lusting after other people's spouses. I am simply saying that homosexual behavior is one more on the list of sexual behaviors that scripture clearly identifies as sin and that rather than pretending otherwise, we would do well to speak the truth about it in love and get on with helping those who want to come out of it--and with preserving the liberty of those who think it is sinful to make decisions in accordance with their convictions. For this, I will most likely be labeled a bigot and a hater.

Such is the state of discourse on the subject these days.