You can change your gender but not your behavior? That’s right — at least according to those always entertaining social issues liberals who never seem to lack for nutty propositions. In its Spring, 2007 edition, Salvo Magazine ran this terrific post under the title, “Bizarro Sexuality”:
The going wisdom of the cultural elite, particularly those cut off from the real world within the ivory tower of academia, is that one’s gender is an ever-changing, internal sense of being male, female, or a combination of these. Indeed, they would say that, plumbing aside, there is no difference between men and women at all, only stereotyped roles into which we are socialized by the culture at large.
Conversely, these same people contend that sexual orientation-whether straight, gay, lesbian, or bisexual-is an absolutely unyielding human characteristic. We are born with an attraction to the opposite sex, our own sex, or both, and no medicine, therapy, or spiritual epiphany will ever change this predisposition.
Now what happens when a heterosexual man starts to feel like a woman? Does his continued attraction to women mark him as a lesbian? And let’s suppose that a homosexual man is attracted to a man who believes himself—and who dresses like—a woman; shouldn’t the former just declare himself a heterosexual and be done with it?
Such permutations are all possibilities in the Bizarro world of the intelligentsia. For only in a sequestered imagination could something as patently innate as gender be considered a malleable product of personal feelings, while sexual preference is considered an unalterable fact of life.
As more individuals leave the homosexual lifestyle, the immutability case is as weak as ever. Did you miss the controversy surrounding the wife of the very liberal New York City mayor? She considers herself an “ex-lesbian.”
Even the phrase “sexual orientation” has been discredited — writers Laurie Higgins and Scott Lively blew up the phrase. The American Psychiatric Association, it must be said, likes to use the term “paraphilias,” and the APA has a list of at least twenty-three varieties (you can see the list here).
There is no credible scientific evidence that anyone is born a homosexual, but if such births did take place, I would certainly feel sorry for those who were born “coprophiliacs.” I’ll let you look it up on Google. Necrophilia is another of those listed. Decomposition, no doubt, puts a strain on long-term relationships.
The Wikipedia we’ve all come to know and love doesn’t disappoint, providing both dutifully and in all seriousness an even longer list (read it here). If you are still lacking proof that mankind is fallen, check it out — it’s not an easy list to wade through. Just wait until the toxophiliacs start to demand equal rights. There will be hell to pay. (And you wondered why you liked those Robin Hood movies so much!)
Thank God for the good news — which is that a sleeping giant has awakened, and more rational people are being reached with a few easy to understand facts.
• Race is 100% heritable, homosexuality is not.
• Race is immutable in all cases, homosexuality is in many cases mutable (capable of or susceptible to change).
• Race has no behavioral implications that are legitimate objects of moral assessment; homosexuality is centrally defined by subjective experiences of desire and volitional acts that are legitimate objects of moral assessment.
Anyone looking for the counter-argument to the left’s premise can discover the truth on the web. The social issues political right isn’t being silenced, it’s getting louder.
Doug Mainwaring, writing at American Thinker, takes it a step further:
This is not a ‘clash of religious and civil rights.’ This is a clash of freedom and untenable, outrageous demands.
The left is seeking not only equal status to enumerated constitutional rights, but a position of superiority. When you have “rights” that have been magically pulled from the emanations and penumbras of the Constitution — such as the “right” to an abortion — that compete with fundamental rights not created by our government, but rather endowed by our Creator, the contest should be quite simple. But when you dislodge the bedrock of our culture, found in our First Amendment, you create a sinkhole of relativism and totalitarianism and anarchy.
There is something much, much deeper going on here. Same-sex marriage is a trial balloon of sorts, being used to test how far Americans will allow their consciences to be suppressed by the State.
If Christians can be compelled to lend a craft to something their conscience objects to, what can’t they be compelled to participate in? We’re talking about precedent; and the cases before us are bellwether test cases about whether private actors can be forcibly mandated to go against their conscience (“Of Consciences and Cakes,” First Things, Feb. 20, Andrew Walker).
Mainwaring also writes this:
This battle is much bigger than anybody thinks it is. We cannot see the forest for the trees. We are not witnessing a clash of rights; we are in the middle of a massive social experiment. This is a test for the viability of incremental totalitarianism. Nothing less.
And this:
A media less hostile to religious liberty would think less about scoring cheap political points, creating uncivil political climates, and disparaging institutions that help humans flourish. A media with a higher regard for truth would, it turns out, have a higher regard for religious liberty.
Sadly, we seem to have left the world of reason and tolerance. Could our media climate demonstrate that any better? And what lies ahead, if left uncorrected, is illogical and tyrannical. Freedom of religion was the central principle in the moral case of our country. Once that’s gone, how long can the Republic stand?
That doesn’t sound like silence to me.
Up next: No surrender. No white flag. Ever.
