Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 2

Time to expand upon the fourth point I mentioned in my first post on this topic: the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the late 80s and 90s. The people behind this campaign saw that the best way to halt the growing public aversion to homosexual behaviour (that resulted from the rising prevalence of AIDS) was to convince us it’s normal, and that it’s not their fault, that they didn’t choose to be this way. The following outlines some of the tactics they used in order to achieve this goal. The bulk of this information comes from Ian Wishart’s book Eve’s Bite (great read, I highly recommend it) with other sources as cited. The primary source Wishart draws from in his chapters on this topic is the 432 page tome After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Kirk and Madsen (still available from Amazon.com, published in 1990, but born out of a conference of leaders in the gay community in ‘88), in which the authors outline their plan to convince the public by means of a PR blitz that homosexuality is a normal behaviour and that any opposition to it is not to be tolerated by the public. They say, “the campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a programme of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof...”.

With regards to the “born gay” idea, they say “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate pre-dispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence...to suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen, is to open a can of worms labelled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.” In other words, even though they knew it wasn’t true, they wanted others to think that gays were born, not made! Why? Because this legitimises the behaviour, and brands as ‘gay-haters’ or ‘homophobes’ anyone who disagrees with that lifestyle choice. This is the line that we have seen pushed again and again in movies and on TV (which many of watch too much of...) and in the media and many people have assumed it to be true. A whole generation of children has grown up with these ideas and very little to counter this, except what ‘whacko fundamentalist religious nuts’ say.

Yet we are starting to see a change in the literature, and it’s coming from inside the gay community. Increasingly, homosexual authors are admitting that the idea that gays are born not made is purely a political one. Lesbian academic Dr Lilian Faderman acknowledges this when she said in 1995, “And we [the gay and lesbian community] continue to demand Rights ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever...”. She also makes this telling statement: “What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?” This is a tacit admission that many gay activists know their lifestyle is a choice, yet they realise that the way to gain public support and recognition is by convincing people that they were born gay.

In her book Queer by Choice, lesbian Dr Vera Whisman says: “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist (born that way) foundation, do we [even] have a viable politics?” Jennie Ruby, a lesbian writer, says this in her book Off Our Backs: “I don’t think lesbians are born...I think they are made...the gay rights movement has (for many good practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.” Again, from lesbian author Jan Clausen, “the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensible tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.” Need I say more?

This brings me to a final question: why am I writing this? What’s my goal? Well, it’s twofold. Firstly, I want Christians and others who are concerned about our society to be able to justify their opposition to things like gay marriage and gay adoption in a way that is more than just “the Bible says so”. We need to be able to counter the propaganda put forward by those on the pro-gay side of politics. Secondly, and this is so important, I want to offer those of you out there that might be struggling with sexual orientation a lifeline. You have been told by the media, by the government, by our schools, by our friends perhaps, that you were born that way and you cannot change. That’s not true! It is not in any way conclusive that sexual orientation is a product of nature, and I’ve shown good reasons here to believe otherwise. So, if you are struggling with this, or if you have recently become a Christian and are trying to extricate yourself from your previous lifestyle, take heart! There are people who can help you. Exodus International is a Christian group set up to help people find freedom from homosexuality - see their website (http://www.exodus-international.org/). And always remember – it is the healing power of Christ that sets us free, not anything else. Come to Him, cast your burdens on Him and He will help you!

In this series First | Previous