Born This Way?

 

Scene from the Brooklyn Public Library

Friend Max asks, Are people born gay?

Unlikely. 

Back in the eighties and nineties, because the Human Genome Project was the big thing happening in science, genetics were imagined to be the cause of everything.

Just as, when electricity was discovered, it was postulated to be the cause of everything, of life and consciousness—so the novel “Frankenstein.”

Just as, when magnetism was first understood in a scientific sense, it was imagined to be the cause of everything; of consciousness itself. “Animal magnetism,” “mesmerism,” could cure “mental illness.” This evolved into modern psychiatry. Freud started with it.

Just as, when computers first appeared, saying something had been put through a computer established its unquestionable truth. I remember getting into structuralism back in the day, which argued that all human cultural artifacts could be analyzed into binaries and, theoretically, computerese. That claim gave the theory vast authority.

Just as, when the atom was first split, radiation was supposed to do all kinds of magical things, both good and, mostly, bad. The superheroes of the early sixties got their powers by being exposed to gamma radiation, being bitten by a radioactive spider, or the like. At the time, it all sounded plausible.

In a similar way, in the eighties and nineties, almost everything was supposed to be genetic: homosexuality, pedophilia, alcoholism, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, “antisocial behaviour,” whatever. A dangerous path to tread—it leads logically to racism and eugenics. But no plausible gene has yet been found for any of these. Since the white coats have been looking intently for over forty years now, with our understanding of the human genome growing exponentially, it seems unlikely they exist. There are no genes for thoughts, opinions, likes or dislikes. Apparently there’s this thing called free will. Who could have guessed?

But the gay lobby seized upon the moment back in the eighties to declare that homosexuality was an inborn characteristic, like skin colour, something over which they had no control, so it was unjust to criticize, let alone discriminate, on that basis. “Born this way.” Now that is frozen into law, even constitutional law, and we are not allowed to question or we are “homophobic.” 

But it was always illogical. If gayness were based on a gene, that gene would breed itself out within a generation—homosexual sex does not produce offspring.

There is one alternative possibility: that it is caused by some sort of intra-uterus brain damage. But what’s the mechanism?

Moreover, you may know, as I do, of “homosexuals” who have gone “straight” later in life. Kathy Shaidle used to claim that every “gay” friend she knew in high school later went straight. This used to be assumed to be the standard path in ancient Greece; young men dabbled in homosexuality before later settling down to have a family. It was also more or less expected in British residential schools back in the day. We often hear news of this or that prominent person, married with children, suddenly declaring in midlife that they are gay, and running off with a same-sex partner. If it can happen in one direction, surely also in the other. We might at most be dealing with an addiction, like alcohol, or tobacco, or any other sexual fetish.

How do people become gay? After all, you yourself probably have no desire whatsoever to have sex with another man; nor do I. The most likely explanation is some pleasurable early experience of gay sex; which then develops a habit, overriding the natural instinct for the opposite sex. Just as we reach for an olive because we remember how good an olive tasted once before. And prefer redheads because of some notably pleasurable early experience with some redheaded girl.

In other words, homosexuals are groomed into it by other homosexuals. This, and the need to maintain the population of the polis, is probably reason enough for most past societies taking a dim view of the practice. I note that in Saudi Arabia, while homosexuality is technically illegal, nobody will disturb you at it until and unless you approach a minor. Then the hammer falls quickly.

If you are gay, you face a fundamental problem: 97% of those people you want sex with will not want sex with you. There is no obvious way of telling who that remaining 3% are. Without facing eternal and possibly brutal rejection, what are your strategies?

Bath houses with a certain reputation are one. Being very publicly gay, acting effeminate, is another—so the classic image of a gay man lisping and mincing. Marching half-naked in a gay pride parade to advertise your availability is another.

Another obvious one, though, perhaps the most obvious one, is to groom someone too young to really understand sex. They will probably not reject you, because they don’t grasp what’s going on. You’ll initiate them into the habit, and perhaps have a reliable sex partner for a time. In any case, you have enlarged the pool.

Even if gayness is broadly socially accepted, this still may be the easiest path, and the one that needs the least courage. Why do all these transsexuals and transgenders and their advocates currently want so badly to introduce “drag queen story hours” in schools and libraries, and books referring to explicit gay sex to grade school children? We would never tolerate such sexual displays among heterosexual adults.

If it isn’t grooming, what else could it be?

To be fair, we cannot accuse all gays of going after children. Many gays understand that being gay is, at best a misfortune, and are as adamant as anyone about opposing sex with children.

Uncle Tom

 

Don't ask, don't tell

My mentally-retarded uncle was a bisexual pedophile. 

He is dead now; surely there is no harm in talking about it. 

To my knowledge, he molested one niece, three nephews, and a little girl next door. They say that pedophiles cannot reform; if true, I assume there were more. The family knew about it, but nothing was ever done about it.

His being a pedophile was predictable. He was always kept at home, never put in contact with other mentally-retarded people. He had no social life. He must have had sexual urges, as we all do. Where was he going to express them?

He harassed my mother, but that was not going to get him anywhere.

That sheer necessity explains his instincts jumping the fence against molesting children. Most of us would not be so tempted.

Yet, little girls being available, it does not explain jumping the second fence into homosexuality. 

By the reports I heard, he also seemed in his molestations to show some knowledge of gay sexual technique.

Being mentally retarded, and mostly sequestered, before the Internet, where did this come from?

If, as I posit in a previous posting, homosexual urges come from earliest sexual experiences, he must have been sexualized to this himself in early adolescence. And, given that he was kept away from any wider society, it seems to have come from someone inside the home—although some neighbourhood predator cannot be entirely ruled out.

He did not molest all his nephews, although all were more or less equally within his reach. He seemed to have a taste for blondes. All but one of those he did molest were quite fair of hair; so was the neighbour girl. The one dark-haired nephew he troubled with seems not to have been a favourite--he was left out of the will which Uncle Tom eventually somehow got drawn up. Others seemed to be rewarded in proportion to their perceived attractiveness. Not their cooperation, not their being “nice” to him. One of the biggest behests was to his sister-in-law, my mother, who always rejected his advances and avoided him whenever possible.

So it seems he would dally with a brunette in a pinch, but did not think much of them. Perhaps with my swarthy brother, it was just a one-night stand.

From this, we actually may have a portrait of the predator who sexualized the poor old guy. A male with blonde hair. With ready access.

Awkwardly enough, I have another uncle. Call him Teddy. For a time, he was an alcoholic, although he later, admirably, straightened himself out. He was at least three years older than Tom. He had blonde hair. He never married.

The fact that he didn’t marry is not, of course, proof that he was gay. He had girlfriends. If short of stature, with delicate features, he was a handsome man. He must have had many opportunities. I myself saw women flirt with him. At least a couple of times, he had a fiancée. But something always happened just before the wedding. 

Why did he never marry? Some men don’t; but it is a natural urge.

Teddy became an alcoholic by late adolescence. Again, why did he resort to escapism so early? What was troubling him?

It is suggestive. If he had gay urges, being gay was not okay in the 1940s; and with a strictly Catholic mother.  There were no obvious outlets. One had to keep it closeted. If some part of him were gay, no surprise if we never heard about it.

But what if you had a mentally retarded little brother around the house? He wouldn’t know enough to resist. He wouldn’t be easily able to complain to anyone; he wouldn’t dare tell his mother, even if he could understand. Boys experiment even at the best of times.

Getting drunk first might make it all easier.

I wonder. I speculate. They are both dead. Much damage has probably been done. And the truth died with them.

The Church Taken in Heresy

 

A Summerside, PEI, community church is in hot water, at least with the CBC, for hosting a talk on “how to protect children from what is happening during Pride Month.” Major attention from our national broadcaster, for one church in a town of 15,000 people. Good that they have their priorities straight. 

Scott Alan, the “youth programme coordinator” of a local gay group, is quoted lamenting, “I grew up always believing that church was a place for people to experience love and community and acceptance. So to see the complete reverse from a church is a little bit upsetting."

Scott Alan.

"What do you think Jesus would do? Would He cast the first stone? Or would He love and accept our community for who we are in hopes that the Holy Spirit would work through us?”

The church is not casting stones. It is simply protecting children from them. 

The relevant Bible passage is probably Matthew 18:6:

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

Even if it is debatable whether the Bible or Jesus indeed disapprove of gay sex, transgenderism, public displays of sexuality of any sort, and/or the sin of pride, it would still seem prudent to prevent children from being exposed to them. Even if they only might be against their faith.

And the passage from Matthew also explodes Alan’s claim that Jesus and Christianity is all about acceptance of sin. Jesus does not sound very accepting of bad parents in the quotation, does he?

The idea of “gentle Jesus” is from the Devil, not the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead. He calls Pharisees a “brood of vipers.” He separates mankind into sheep and goats, and the latter go to eternal punishment.

Alan refers to the story of the woman taken in adultery. But he misrepresents it. Perhaps he has not read it. Jesus refuses to cast the first stone—that is, literally, he refuses to put the woman to death. That does not mean he endorses the sin. He tells her to “go, and sin no more.”

If he said the same to gays or “Gay Pride” marchers and youth workers, would Alan really be satisfied with that? 

For it seems far more accusatory than the Summerside church.

Banning Conversion Therapy

 

Ex-gay Milo Yiannopoulis

Friend Xerxes has written a column opposing “conversion therapy,” which seeks to shift preferences among those with homosexual attractions in the heterosexual direction. Justin Trudeau has said that, if elected, a ban is an “absolute priority.” The Conservatives and NDP have also promised a ban.

Xerxes’s first argument against conversion therapy is that nobody ever convinced anyone of anything.

Our parliamentary system would not work if this were true.

People on the right, at least, enjoy exchanging accounts of their “red-pill” moments. The religious similarly exchange their conversion stories, most often due to a particular sermon, or a talk with a Christian friend.

Some people, it is true, cannot be persuaded by evidence or argument. These people are the insane. There are a lot of them, the number is growing, and it is not always obvious that they are insane. We tend to see it only when their core beliefs are challenged. They may then become violent or abusive, or they may just ignore what was said and repeat their point. Or they may begin speaking obvious nonsense.

Alcoholics, for example, are insane. It is never rationally coherent to be an alcoholic. 

Are homosexuals insane? That’s a harsh claim. If so, even so, we do not simply give up on other mental illnesses. We do try to offer therapy.

Xerxes’s second argument is that conversion therapy is coercive. 

“You set up a situation where the victim desperately wants a break from the constant barrage of pressure to change. Sleep deprivation. Tag-team arguments. Aversion training. Noise. Pain. Never left alone.”

No existing conversion therapy does any of this, because itr is already illegal. It would be the crime of coercion, or duress. Conversion therapy is necessarily far more like going to a diet centre, or a psychotherapy session, or an AA meeting. Should they be banned?

Another argument that might be made is that conversion therapy does not work: people are born homosexual, we are told, so how could it? Yet I know personally of former homosexuals who have switched; perhaps you do too. There are public examples. And there are many public examples of people who switch from a heterosexual lifestyle, suddenly divorcing and running off with a gay lover. How can we assume it only works one way?

There may be no solid scientific proof that conversion therapy works. There is no solid scientific proof that psychiatry works either, or psychiatric medicines, or AA.

The final argument that might be made is that nobody could possibly have a reason not to want to be gay. But this is obviously false as well. Leave aside for now all possible moral objections to homosexuality. Being homosexual makes it much more difficult, at best, to have a family, to have children and to pass on your genes. It severely limits your choice of partners, and sets you up for a lifetime of mostly unrequited love.

It is unjust and cruel discrimination against homosexuals to ban such therapies. If some homosexuals do not themselves understand this, and actually want such therapies to be made illegal, they are indeed insane.

How to End Clerical Sexual Abuse

Ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

A lot of Catholics are shaken by the recent revelations about Washington Cardinal McCarrick's resignation amidst allegations of sexual misconduct. This was someone exceptionally high-ranking and widely respected. The scandals and allegations just seem to go on and on. Can anyone be trusted? Will it ever end?

Aside from the appalling damage done to the victims of such abuse, physically, emotionally and spiritually, it is worth considering that financial settlements from such abuse risk bankrupting many dioceses. This is utterly unjust: money donated to the faithful for religious, charitable, and devotional purposes is instead being siphoned off to private pockets to pay for these misdeeds by those put in stewardship over the funds.

Every time a new scandal breaks, everyone editorializes that “we must no longer tolerate this. We must do something about it.” As if we had not seen this before, and said this before. Talk is cheap. But still the scandals go on and on.

To be clear, the incidence of sexual predation and abuse among Catholic clergy actually does not seem to be worse than that among other clergy of other denominations, or teachers, or the general public. But that is little consolation, if the scandals are destroying the faith of many and bankrupting the church. Can something be done?

Something can. Something rather simple.

The independent John Jay report in 2004 found that 81% of victims of abuse by Catholic clergy were male.

Consider that number. This necessarily means that the perpetrators were homosexual.

It is anyone's guess what proportion of Catholic clergy are gay, but nobody has suggested the figure is as high as 81%.

It seems likely that most of the problem could be eliminated at once by barring homosexuals from the priesthood.

This might seem unjust to gay men who want to be priests and are perfectly innocent of any misconduct. But nobody is entitled to be a priest; it is a calling. Accordingly, if it is for the good of the church and the flock, such a measure is justified.

And it would be possible to do. Psychological tests have been developed for the court system, to determine homosexual orientation.

Sadly, one can also see why, despite all protestations to the contrary, it must be difficult for homosexuals to avoid preying on the young.

Consider their situation. If 3% of the population has homosexual tendencies, the figure often cited, that automatically means, if you are homosexual, 97% of people to whom you are sexually attracted are repelled by the very idea of having sex with you. This is on top of the inevitable romantic rejections all the rest of us feel, trying to find a match among the other 97%. Enough of us often experience extreme sexual frustration and feelings of rejection. Just imagine what it is like for homosexuals; 97% of the time they can expect some expression of disgust, and quite likely to lose all contact with the object of their infatuation. The other three percent of the time, maybe a one in ten or one in twenty chance like the rest of us. And they have little way of knowing in advance who is who—unless, perhaps, by the coded message of a clerical collar.

What are you going to do? The temptation must be overwhelming to try to interest some young boy, someone too young yet to fully grasp what it is all about, and groom him to the practice.

It is just not credible to insist this cannot be going on. It must be.

This also suggests that, for the most part, homosexuality may well be a learned behaviour. Homosexuals probably often seduce others into homosexuality.

Why would it not be so? Aren't the rest of us deeply influenced by our first loves, and by our first sexual experiences?

Once a certain proportion of the clergy is gay, and sexually active, it will also naturally tend to poison the well. Other clergy who are not gay, in particular young men entering the seminary or starting out as altar boys, are going to be sexually accosted, and discriminated against if they do not play along. The more so if they go all moral and religious, and so seem likely to object to the conduct in others, or even be likely to report it.

And so, with due respect to all the decent people who are homosexual, it is time to ban homosexuals from the Catholic clergy. There are other career paths they can pursue.

The Truth That Dare Not Speak Its Name

It was pretty routine to the Greeks. Pederastic "courtship."

The problem with "pedophilia" in the Catholic priesthood, such as it is, has nothing to do with celibacy.

What nobody dares say is that it has a lot to do with homosexuality.

It is mostly a matter of gay priests "grooming" younger sexual partners.

It is quite natural for homosexuals, despite all the denials, to latch on like a limpet to young teenage boys. Since their sexuality has not yet been fully fixed and confirmed by experience, they are more lilekly to be open to homoesxual acts. Moreover, in case of any resistance, they are weaker. And less credible to the authorities.

It must, after all, be difficult for homosexuals to find sexual partners. Ninety-eight percent of those they are attracted to, and might approach, are going to be repelled by the idea, and may even react violently. Not good for your ego, at best.

Younger boys are the perfect solution.

Oscar Wilde with young Lord Alfred Douglas.

It also seems quite likely, given this dynamic, that nobody is born homosexual. They are turned homosexual by older homosexuals if they are gotten to at this early, impressionable age.

Early sexual experiences are likely to leave a deep impression.

Sadly, this means that a lot of gays have probably become priests out of no religious feeling, but as a useful way to meet and gain the confidence of such young men.

As many become teachers, or coaches.

Exit question: have you ever noticed that homosexual men are generally unusually good looking? Conversely, that unusually good looking men are more likely to be homosexual?

It makes sense: an older homosexual is going to approach the pretty boys first. The girls who come later get the leftovers.