For some time now, gays have attributed their sexual behavior to genetics. They attempt to bolster their point by strangely lamenting, "Why would anyone choose this life?" Said Rosie O'Donnell, for instance:

I don't think you choose whether or not you are gay. Who would choose it? It's a very difficult life. You get socially ostracized. You worry all the time if you are in physical danger if you show your affection to your partner. You worry that you're an outcast with your friends and society in general.

I think life is easier if you're straight. I hope that they [her kids] are genuinely happy, whatever they are. But if I could pick, would I rather have my children have to go through the struggles of being gay in America or being heterosexual? I would say heterosexual.

Really?

(Column continues below)

The Associated Press reported March 14 on the rising "furor" over an article by Rev. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, for "suggesting that a biological basis for homosexuality may be proven, and that prenatal treatment to reverse gay orientation would be biblically justified," according to the AP.

Mohler has upset both liberals and conservatives. Liberals are angry he would suggest correcting a homosexual predisposition, which infers it is a disorder. Conservatives are angry Mohler would suggest there is a homosexual predisposition to begin with.

I am more interested in this quandary Mohler presented, which the AP overlooked:

Feminists and political liberals have argued for decades now that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion, for any cause or for no stated cause at all. How can they now complain if women decide to abort fetuses identified as homosexual? This question involves both abortion and gay rights – the perfect moral storm of our times.

Conservatives sought to head this off a couple years ago by introducing legislation in at least one state to prohibit homophobic abortions if a gay gene were ever found. At the time the legislation was dismissed as a stunt. It likely was.

But now liberals are taking notice of the potential for homosexual feticide. Wrote Tyler Gray in this month's issue of Radar, a liberal magazine:

Conservatives opposed to both abortion and homosexuality will have to ask themselves whether the public shame of having a gay child outweighs the private sin of terminating a pregnancy. ... Pro-choice activists won't be spared either. Will liberal moms who love their hairdressers be as tolerant when faced with the prospect of raising a little stylist of their own? And exactly how pro-choice will liberal abortion-rights activists be when thousands of potential parents are choosing to filter homosexuality right out of the gene pool?

Mohler reminded us: "Homosexual activists were among the first to call for (and fund) research into a biological cause of homosexuality. After all, they argued, the discovery of a biological cause would lead to the normalization of homosexuality simply because it would then be seen to be natural, and thus moral."

The day will never come when homosexual behavior is considered moral, because our revulsion to it is internally placed, not externally.

And I don't believe the day will come when a gay gene is discovered. But what if?

On that day homosexuals would regret ever promoting this idea. Because on that day the embryonic stem cell research they now support as liberal activists would be upon discarded swishy blastocysts. And on that day the unfettered access to abortion they now defend alongside abortion activists would result in the annihilation of lots of little lesbians.

Thus, on that day the pro-life community would find itself joining with the homosexual community to save the lives of those preborn children. Because we believe every life is precious.

These days may not be gay, but they are certainly interesting.

---

Related special offer:

"On Message: The Pro-Life Handbook"