Those bent on justifying the homosexual lifestyle often claim that there are umpteen million – or somewhere thereabouts – species of “gay” animals in the world. This begs a few questions:
- Then how do they procreate? If these animals forgo natural mating behavior to, instead, spend nights hooking up in Yellowstone’s public men’s rooms, march in critter “gay pride” parades and decorate their nest in fabulous Art Deco pastels, then wouldn’t their species cease to exist after just one generation? So much for Darwinian evolution.
- Even if such nonsense were true, so what? There are plenty of species in the world that eat their young, too. Animals are animals. Does this mean we should act like them? (Besides, show me one species of animal that engages in the same kind of depraved homosexual conduct that can come only from the mind of man, and I’ll be impressed.)
Still, whenever some animal displays atypical nesting behavior or exhibits quirks that can be remotely called “gay” (We’ve all seen that dog), moral relativists – who desperately seek to justify objectively immoral behavior – will cry: “Look! Animals are gay, too. It must be natural!”
So, it’s not surprising that liberals have their feathers in a ruffle – that they’re egg-cited over recent news that another pair of same-sex penguins has flown the “gay” coop. (I wrote about a second pair in 2009).
Famous “gay” penguins Buddy and Pedro from the Toronto Zoo are the latest chirpy birds with happy feet to begin eyeballing chicks. They’re now “ex-gay” penguins. (Read about Buddy and Pedro’s “reparative therapy.”)
I know. For most of us this elicits little more than a chuckle. Yet there are those who actually believe this twaddle.
Unfortunately, this is all part of liberals’ desperate attempt to dredge up some natural, biological rationalization – of which science has found none – to validate demonstrably unnatural behavior.
That’s why we see such visceral hatred on the left for the ex-gay community. From a political and legal standpoint, it’s strategically critical that these same liberals undermine and marginalize the very real-life experiences of untold thousands of former homosexuals.
This mean-spiritedness represents a profound lack of respect for other people’s “right to choose.” Their favorite dig is: “You can’t pray away the gay.” Once you’ve self-identified as – or been labeled – “gay,” you’re stuck with it, you see.
Ironically, these same liberals will suggest with a straight face (no pun intended) that something that is innate – a person’s biological sex – can change. If you’re a man who, today, feels like a woman, why then, snippity-snip and voila! You’re a woman.
Many men and women with unwanted same-sex attractions have exercised sexual self-determination and have chosen to leave the homosexual lifestyle. As we make continuing advances in the science of human sexuality, it has become clear that “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are largely fluid, subjectively determined classifications. As to what may drive a person’s “sexual orientation” and/or sexual appetites, the highly liberal American Psychological Association (APA) has concluded: “Many [scientists] think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”
The scientifically reinforced fluidity of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” may help to explain why, as even the liberal APA has admitted, thousands (if not millions) of people have “altered their sexual orientation” with “varying degrees of satisfaction and varying perceptions of success.”
It is no longer open for serious debate. Despite tremendous political pressure to find otherwise, even the left-leaning APA has been forced to acknowledge that for people with unwanted same-sex attractions, change is possible. It’s not always easy, but change is undeniably and conclusively possible.
Recently, the most comprehensive study ever done on the ex-gay phenomenon was released in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy. In the study, researchers concluded that, for many who desire to leave the homosexual lifestyle, “change does indeed occur, although not for everyone.”
Some of the study’s conclusions:
- Success: Conversion: 23 percent of the sample reported substantial reductions in homosexual attraction and subsequent conversion to heterosexual attractions and functioning.
- Success: Chastity: 30 percent reported that homosexual attraction was still present, but only incidentally or in a way that did not seem to bring distress, allowing them to live contentedly without overt sexual activity.
- Continuing: 16 percent reported modest decreases in homosexual attraction, but were not satisfied with their degree of change and remained committed to the change process.
- Non-response: 7 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change; they had not given up on the change process, but some were confused or conflicted about which direction to turn next.
- Failure: Confused: 5 percent reported no significant sexual orientation change, and had given up on the change process, but without yet embracing a gay identity.
- Failure: Gay identity: 20 percent had given up on the change process and embraced a gay identity.
Most importantly, the study determined that, for those who struggle with same-sex attraction and wish to change, “some people can indeed move from homosexuality to heterosexuality, and that harm is unlikely to result from such efforts.”
But that’s people. Penguins? They’re probably just “bisexual” to begin with.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as vice president of Liberty Counsel Action. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)