- The Washington Times - Friday, October 22, 2010

Never have so many politicians spoken so weirdly about something of which they know so little. On Oct. 14, President Obama trotted out “born gay, always gay” rhetoric to back his aim to force the military to accept open homosexuality.

At a televised town-hall meeting, Mr. Obama said the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy “will end, and it will end on my watch.” Roger that. Or is it Roger and Roger that?

Then he went on to declare God a liar, in so many words. That would be the God whom Mr. Obama professes to worship. The Bible makes it clear that sex is only for marriage and that homosexuality, like other sex acts outside marriage, is a sin.

“I don’t profess to be an expert - this is a layperson’s opinion - but I don’t think it’s a choice,” Mr. Obama said. “People are born with a certain makeup. We are all children of God. We don’t make determinations about who we love.”

This is comparable to Mr. Obama’s mangling of the Sermon on the Mount in 2008, when he claimed that Jesus would favor legalizing homosexual unions. Hey, if it’s not in the Bible, so what? The drive-by media aren’t going to know the difference. They think Sodom and Gomorrah are a stand-up act in the East Village.

Three days after Mr. Obama’s venture into deterministic sex, NBC’s “Meet the Press” featured a debate with Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrat, and Republican challenger Ken Buck. Host David Gregory began by asking Mr. Buck if the Tea Party movement was “extreme” and cited at length a left-wing think tank’s report that Tea Parties attract “bigots,” “anti-Semites” and “white nationalists.” Mr. Gregory might as well have asked Mr. Buck, “Kooky, dangerous people flock to your campaign. Why?”

After flogging the Tea Party, Mr. Gregory turned to other issues and then asked Mr. Buck: “Do you believe that being gay is a choice?”

“I do,” Mr. Buck answered. “Based on what?” Mr. Gregory quickly asked.

Momentarily surprised, Mr. Buck answered, “Based on what? I guess you can choose who your partner is.”

Mr. Gregory pressed: “You don’t think it’s something that’s determined at birth?”

Mr. Buck: “I think that birth has an influence on it like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you have a choice.”

Mr. Gregory then threw Mr. Bennet this softball: “Does that put [Mr. Buck] outside the mainstream?” Mr. Bennet cheerfully answered, “I absolutely believe he is outside the mainstream.”

Clue: The “mainstream” is anything that advances the left’s political and cultural agenda.

After the segment, the “mainstream media” turned Mr. Buck into a pinata. They trotted out homosexual activists who linked his “hateful” comments to gay teen suicides. And they quoted pro-homosexual academics, who, like their global-warming counterparts, proclaimed that the “science is settled.”

The Washington Monthly’s Steven Benen described Mr. 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 past 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 apparently are 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.”

Because 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 1990s, 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 Evelyn Hooker’s psychological studies from UCLA in the late 1950s, have either been exposed as 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.

Robert Knight is senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and the author of the recently updated book “Fighting for America’s Soul: How Sweeping Change Threatens Our Nation and What We Must Do” (Coral Ridge Ministries, 2009).

Copyright © 2022 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide