Utter Nonsense: Concerned Women For America "Debunk" Science That Homosexuality Is Biological

The sex drive is one of the most powerful impulse in human beings. Male attraction to females, especially during adolescence, is very nearly painful. (For some, like Michael, it remains painful into adulthood.)

It simply boggles the mind that a man "chooses" to be attracted to men out of some strange contrarian sexual-appetite fashion choice.

I really hate that whole thing that some on the left do-- you know, where if you say anything bad about the gay agenda, they call you gay. (But insist they do so with tolerance and love!) However:

It strikes me as strange that some straight men are so convinced of the "choice" theory of homosexuailty. Can't they recall their own powerful attraction to girls at a young age? The pining over the smell of a girl in class? The stomach-churning crushes?

If they can remember that, how can they argue seriously that gayness is a "choice" for men? Do they imagine that some boys have the same intense feelings of desire for girls and yet, for reasons unfathomable, decide instead to subvert their natural inclinations and pursue the socially-disapproved, somewhat-dangerous gay lifestyle?

Or -- I hate to suggest this, because I hate that "well then you're a homo" argument -- but are some of the men who advance this argument doing so because they had some low level of desire for men but chose to ignore those impulses? I have trouble understanding how someone can imagine that there's a "choice" here unless that person himself made a small choice in the matter.

I can only extrapolate from my own experiences. I don't feel like I ever had a "choice." My sexual preference is hard-wired and pretty well immutable. (Well-- except if we're talking about, say, Matthew McConaughey in his Naval uniform from U-571. In the Navy? You betcha!)

If I didn't have a choice, why would I assume a gay guy did? If other straight men know they didn't have a choice, why would they assume others did?

The CWA article makes much of young women's sometimes changeable sexuality, but come on, women are hot, and most women are just three cocktails away from some hot girl-on-girl action. Female sexuality is just different from male sexuality, obviously.

Homosexuality And Religion: None of this means that religion has to rewrite its codes to bless homosexuality. If it's a sin, it's a sin, even if only some people are susceptible to sinning in this matter.

I wouldn't transform the Catholic Church, for example, as St. Andrew of the Sacred "Heart-Ache" insists, but I do think there's some room for more understanding. If homosexuality is a sin, it's a sin that only a tiny number of people are tempted by (and for the men "tempted" by it, it's not even a tempttation, it's a compulsion, same as straight men's attraction to women is a compulsion). People with metabolic deficiencies are less blameworthy for the sin of gluttony, for example, because they are more tested in this area. Same for gay people.

And I don't know. Sometimes I detect a certain amount of self-congratulations among those who are straight but oppose homosexuality on religious grounds, almost as if they're proud that they haven't "given in" to that particular sin. Well of course they didn't. It's not very hard to avoid a sin that doesn't tempt you in the least. It's praiseworthy when a smoker/niccotine addict goes a month without smoking; much less so for a non-smoker managing the same "feat." How much of a burden is it, really, for a heterosexual man to refrain from gay sex?

If eating Brussel sprouts were declared a mortal sin tomorrow, hey, I'd have a pretty clean slate on that score my damn self. Give up Brussel sprouts? Not a problem. Not a problem at all. And now snuggling is sinful? Oh, well. I guess I'll just have to perservere and swear off snuggling, as much as it will kill me to do so.

posted by Ace at 07:40 PM

| Access Comments