Lately it seems that one cannot start to read the news without one item or another talking about gay rights, marriage, adoption, or entertainment. On the latter, Slate offers a column that borders on mourning for the loss of some programs that featured gay characters. As it stands, based on actual population, television still will be offering viewers a stilted view of society, with more than 4% of the characters in a given show being gay. Yes, that may seem harsh, but reality often is.
And before latching onto that particular statistic too much, one needs to understand what the Williams Institute at UCLA did to reach that particular conclusion. Their numbers include individuals that self-identify as gay, transsexual, lesbian, or bi-sexual – the latter they admit holds a simple majority. But, even that is misleading, because their standards for having this “sexual identity” simply involves admitting to same-sex attraction at some point in adult life – apparently not necessarily acting physically on said attractions. Now, uncomfortable as it may be for some to admit, same-sex attraction is normal, as in every human being experiences it at least once in life, typically in early childhood. That attraction is how normal gender identity is developed, as in a child is attracted to an adult of the same sex, and seeks to emulate that individual’s behavior. It occasionally happens later in life (without ending in sexual behaviors) for essentially the same reasons. People occasionally end up with crises in their lives, and become attracted to other individuals they would like to emulate – people they perceive as more successful, for example. So, the Williams Institute might very well be inflating the number of non-heterosexual adults in America, by including individuals that simply have some degree of attraction for others of the same sex, but no intention of ever acting on it.
Before moving on from the “Psychology 101” concepts here, there has been a video floating around, offering what many are calling anecdotal evidence that a lesbian couple should have the right to marry, because they were obviously such wonderful parents to their son.
Riley Roberts probably does believe every word he said. What struck me immediately was his emotional reactions. It might be tempting to rationalize that as nervousness and an extreme emotional reaction due to his personal attachment to the issue at hand. However, what if Roberts is living, breathing proof of the problem with a male child not having male role models early in life? Regardless, his situation remains anecdotal at best, and now that I’ve pointed out the oddity of his over-wrought testimony, I have no doubt that contention will spread, perhaps in the form of some comments on his being “over-feminized” as a result of having two mothers. That is not my intent here. It is my intent to point out that policy decisions should never be made purely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Additionally, while government in theory should protect the rights of minorities, that should not mean normalizing a behavior that increasingly is showing that it will result in harm to others.
And that brings us to another headline involving gays – the Boy Scouts of America partially reversed a policy forbidding gay scouts or adult leaders. Gays are still banned from being leaders. As for the boys, it is essentially a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that permits gay members, but forbids discussion of sexuality, and as should go without saying, forbids sexual behaviors. While gays might consider this some great victory, it may very well cause severe problems for the organization – may very well spell the end of it. Or, it may force the issue of religion within the ranks. While not all units have religious affiliations, there is a religious aspect to the programming. Honestly, it is surprising that over the years, the BSA never did explicitly re-charter itself as a religious organization, since the leadership obviously had to know that this battle would have happened sooner or later. Exclusion based on religious tenets is protected by the First Amendment. Regardless, this is something that proves yet again that the liberal public and media are nothing if not schizophrenic. Turn back the clock 20 years, and they were screaming to the rafters about molestation by scout leaders. Now they’re screaming that the BSA needs to inject sexual content into their programming by allowing “out and proud” gays in the organization. Bonus points will be given to anyone that can manage a logical explanation for that shift!
And since we’re hovering near the concept of corrupting the morals of minors, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Romanticizing an 18-year-old girl going after a much younger girl, against the wishes of that girl’s parents, is barely better than turning a blind eye on arranged child marriages in Islam. That may seem a harsh assessment, but it is truthful. And as for the cries that Hunt’s life will be ruined if she is marked as a sex offender, that’s probably what really is needed, if the facts do turn out as reported – that she continued to attempt to engage in sexual behaviors with the younger girl after being told by the girl’s parents twice to stop. Let’s not forget what we’re talking about here – sexual behavior that is considered “normal” by less than 4% of the population of this country, so therefore, by definition, it is aberrant sexual behavior to at least 96% of the population (maybe more, in the cases of those who practice these activities, but still recognize that it’s not necessarily normal.)
I am not promoting the homosexual answer to racism here – this isn’t homophobia. It is a statement of facts, uncomfortable as they may be for homosexuals. There is nothing normal about feeling a compulsion to push one’s sexual preferences on the masses, proudly flouting societal conventions. In case someone got confused here, the only people that think heterosexual people wander around showing off their sexuality are homosexuals. And again, heterosexuals are the majority. Life isn’t always fair. In this case, the minority is doing more harm than good. Maybe it could be a little more tolerable if instead of attempting to normalize their lifestyle choices, they would freely admit that their real difference. Stop making children speak on their behalf. Stop suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with attempting to influence impressionable teens toward their choices. Yes, it is a choice – to force one’s lifestyle on the masses, or to some degree of modesty, self-respect, and respect for others by not trying to play this game. Take the hint – “The New Normal” was cancelled.