Back to Basics

According to modern dogma, homosexuals are like sprinters: born and not made. Thus, even though psychology’s longstanding nature-nurture debate has concluded that many traits are the result of both factors, it isn’t politically correct to consider even this possibility with respect to homosexuality. But does this biology-is-destiny theory hold water with respect to same-sex attraction? And, if so, what does this say about the behavior’s moral status? Let’s examine the matter.

When discussing same-sex attraction’s cause, the first thing usually mentioned is the much touted “homosexual gene” theory. In fact, the idea has been repeated so often that many today accept it as fact. But the reality is this: Neither the groundbreaking Genome Project nor any other research endeavor has found any such gene. Moreover, it makes no sense from an evolutionary (or selective breeding, if you prefer) standpoint. After all, such a gene would greatly reduce the chances of its bearer procreating, would be unlikely to be passed on, and thus would be a dead-end mutation unable to survive many generations. And, I must say, it’s a testimonial to the emotion-oriented decision-making of secular modernists — who are generally staunch evolutionists — that they would glom on to a theory so contrary to Evolution 101.

Next we have the intrauterine development theory. It states that if a boy’s body fails to provide him with the necessary amount of testosterone in the womb, his brain won’t be fully masculinized. This, presumably, accounts for that rare boy we’ve all met who, from the word go, has very effeminate mannerisms. Anyway, the idea is that his more feminine brain will militate in favor of attraction to other males. It’s a logical theory, as far as it goes.

Yet it isn’t airtight. First, modern dogma would have us believe that all homosexuality is inborn when, as earlier indicated, those obviously effeminate boys are rarities. Second, ponder the phenomenon of feminine lesbians (not all are butch, and many appearing so have simply taken on a masculine look in response to their feelings). If a feminine woman can develop a psychological framework creating attraction to females, why can’t feminine men? Besides, the truth is that science does not claim hormones are destiny. As Dutch endocrinologist Dr. Louis Gooren stated in his 2006 paper “The biology of human psychosexual differentiation,” “A male gender identity can develop without a significant androgen [male hormone] stimulus.”

Now let’s continue. For argument’s sake, let us say that there can be inborn factors militating in favor of homosexuality. Nonetheless, we now know that many personality traits are a combination of both nature and nurture; why, a study even found that environment can influence gene expression, which, if correct, plainly means we aren’t prisoners of our genetics. Given this, is it reasonable to say that homosexuality is innate, inevitable, and unalterable in every case? Is it logical to insist that it cannot be purely psychological in even 1 out of 1,000 instances? Talk about jumping the behavioral shark.

Not just reason but also history — namely, that of the pre-Christian societies that institutionalized homosexuality — teaches that the reality seems quite the opposite. Consider the ancient Spartans.

In case you’re wondering, I’m using the word “cannot” properly in the above title. No, I don’t mean “same-sex couples should not marry” — rather, they aren’t capable of doing so. What am I talking about?

Barack Obama’s coming out party notwithstanding, the question in this debate should never be one of rights. It should be one of definitions. If we accept that marriage is, by definition, the union between a man and woman and nothing else, the faux-marriage-rights argument is moot.

For you cannot have a right to that which doesn’t exist.

This isn’t just semantics. If social engineers insist on pushing faux marriage, we must demand that they first attempt to redefine the institution.

“Have you gone off your rocker, Duke?! This is precisely what we’re fighting!” some will now say.

Actually, no, it isn’t.

This is because there is no widely accepted and professed alternative definition to fight. For the Left has not sought to redefine marriage.

They are “undefining” it.

After all, what is the Left’s argument? They don’t focus on definitions any more than the Right does; they don’t say, consistently and boldly, “Marriage is the union between any two adults; therefore, there is no reason to exclude same-sex couples.” They won’t tread there.

There are a couple of reasons why. First, leftists are confused: They never have a clear vision of what they want to create, only what they want to destroy (i.e., the status quo). Second, redefining marriage would be a tactical disaster for them, as they’d relinquish a huge hammer they pummel the opposition with: the accusation that traditionalists are being “exclusive” and “discriminatory” and are denying people rights. For if you establish boundaries — anywhere — you’re excluding and discriminating against whoever lies beyond them.

So leftists won’t offer any alternative definition; instead, they simply imply that the right definition is wrong. And this is where they lose the debate. For if you cannot say what marriage is, how can you be so sure about what it isn’t?

This failure to redefine marriage also puts the lie to the Left’s claim that their actions won’t lead to the recognition of other conceptions of “marriage,” from polygamy to inter-species unions (yes, this does happen). This isn’t as silly as it sounds. Remember that an undefinition excludes nothing. If you refuse to establish boundaries, then the sky — or Hades — is the limit.

Thus, while the Left’s focus on rights helps them win the immediate marriage battle, it also ensures the loss of civilization. After all, once you undefine something, you have destroyed it — at least in people’s minds. For if something exists, if it is real, it is a certain thing and thus can be defined. “Bird” refers to a specific creature, but if “bird” could mean fish, insect, chair or pepperoni pizza — if it could mean anything — the term would lose meaning. Likewise, if marriage can mean anything, it will ultimately mean nothing. It will simply be a “something” and be destroyed as a meaningful institution.

To understand the implications of this, realize that marriage exists not as a “right” that brings self-fulfillment but to stabilize the family. It encourages men and women to fulfill their obligations to each other and their children.

Many commentators have noted the irony of anti-bullying “expert” Dan Savage’s “bullying” (as defined by his ilk) of high-school students at a recent journalism conference in Seattle, Washington. Yet it seems that the most important points about the matter have not been made.

In case you missed the story, homosexual activist Savage called two dozen students “pansy-a***d” as they were walking out of his anti-bullying presentation last month. Their offense? They took exception to his profanity-laced criticism of Christianity, in which he equated biblical condemnations of homosexual behavior with the prohibition against eating shellfish and said “We ignore the b******t in the Bible about all sorts of things.”

Now, I could emphasize that Savage targeted minors with his bile, which was reminiscent of the 2000 Democratic National Convention attendees who actually booed a contingent of Boy Scouts who appeared on stage. And this typical leftist lack of class, self-control, and sense of propriety brings us to the first point. It’s not just that Savage issued intellectually vacuous criticisms of the Bible, conflating ceremonial and moral law, which was bad enough. It’s that he couldn’t even — while speaking to kids — manage to mind his tongue while doing it. He’s a good example of why adults no longer command youths’ respect: Adults are no longer respectable.

Savage’s criticism was motivated, ostensibly, by his belief that biblical condemnations of homosexuality lead to the bullying of homosexual kids. Okay, perhaps. But then doesn’t it follow that his ilk’s condemnations of Christianity could lead to the bullying of Christian kids? For that matter, all the fashionable criticism of obesity could beget the bullying of fat kids; anti-white and anti-conservative messages have led to the bullying of white youths and conservative ones in school; anti-corporate and anti-fur sentiments have inspired the firebombing of fur stores and a McDonald’s and the burning of SUVs, and anti-Giants messages have led to an attack on Giants supporters by Dodgers fans. Clearly, the only option is to avoid expressing any opinion about anything, anytime, anywhere.

As someone once said, stigmas are the corollaries of values: If certain things are to be valued, it follows that their opposites will be devalued. Thus, whenever you espouse a belief — any belief — it’s a given that someone, somewhere will be inspired to act wrongly based upon it. This is why our guiding principle for speech cannot be whether something is “offensive,” which is thoroughly subjective; it cannot be the idea that something inspires hate or hurts feelings, because invalid and valid ideas both can do that. The guiding principle for speech is a simple one: Is it true?

And how does one remedy the matter if the Truth sets a few off as it sets most free? With more Truth: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

(Some punishment doesn’t hurt, either.)

The answer also isn’t “anti-bullying programs,” and this brings us to the main point. We all probably knew what bullying was when we were five years old. We’ve all seen it; many of us have been bullied, some have been bullies ourselves and a handful have been both. So why do we suddenly need anti-bullying programs, experts, seminars, and laws?

Part of it, of course, involves our overall moral decline, which breeds increasing misbehavior across the board.

When I was 12 years old, I played tennis at a certain public park in the Bronx.  One day it got back to me that a black fellow at the courts, whose name I forget, said “Selwyn doesn’t like black people.”  This raised my eyebrows.  You see, I had never really thought about the man one way or the other.  And what occupied my mind were forehands, backhands, topspin and volleys, not race.  So the only thing I could figure was that I was probably in a funk one day and didn’t hear and acknowledge a greeting he might have extended.

Whatever the perceived slight, race was a factor.  After all, imagine the reaction if he had been white.  At worst he might have thought, “Selwyn is a self-absorbed brat,” which would have been closer to the truth.  Or he might just have concluded that I was having a bad day (I was an aspiring player at the time, but, lamentably, had a lot of bad days).  Instead, he saw bad intentions where none existed.

Of course, any time someone noticeably different from us appears to slight us, it’s natural to wonder if it may be because of those differences.  But when you consider what many black Americans believe, it’s clear something else is afoot.  Just consider, for instance, that when Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright accused white people of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color,” he was not expressing a new belief in the black community.  After Hurricane Katrina, Louis Farrakhan claimed that the breached levees had been blown-up by the government; Spike Lee said that his theory wasn’t “far-fetched”; and even before Looney Louie had weighed in, black residents on the street stated that the flooding was part of a conspiracy to rid New Orleans of black people.  On a more frivolous but equally ridiculous note, I’ve heard black golf fans claim that the late-1990s equipment revolution that enabled players to hit the ball further, and the subsequent lengthening of golf courses, were engineered for the purposes of undermining Tiger Woods, a black man dominating a white game.  Of course, given what we now know about Woods’ extra-curricular activities, targeting him with HIV might have been easier.

To illustrate the phenomenon causing people to believe such inanity, consider a woman in a bad marriage who hates her husband.  She may see him through colored glasses, and then his trespasses are never just innocent mistakes, are they?  Instead, much that he does will displease her – and all of it is part of an effort to upset her.  “Why, that’s just the kind of thing he would do!” thinks she.  Now, don’t get me wrong.  He may be lacking or even a cad, and he may sometimes actually try to get her goat.  But that isn’t the point.  It is, rather, that whatever he is or isn’t, she won’t perceive it clearly through those colored glasses.  Hatred is like darkness: the more there is, the less you can see.