Mr. Colson, the special today will be your ass on a platter, served with a side of snark
In a piece decrying the Gill Foundation's "Born Different" campaign -- which, for those in the dark, involves a cartoon dog named Norman who "moos" instead of "barks," as a means to demonstrate that some people are born to be gay, just like Norman was born to moo -- conservative columnist Chuck Colson says of the "Are people born gay?" question:
We don’t need a ventriloquist with a puppy to answer that question. Time and again, the scientists whose studies are cited as evidence for a gay gene have been careful to point out that their research does not support that theory. Even a link on Norman’s website to a press release promoting the born-gay premise states that “the genetic mechanism for a homosexual orientation is unclear.” That’s the best they can say.
“Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation.” [UIC researcher Brian Mustanski]
“Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual” ...“The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.” [Mustanski]
"... genetic factors may provide an important influence on sexual orientation." [American Journal of Psychiatry]
"... sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered..." [American Psychological Association]
...“the genetic mechanism for a homosexual orientation is unclear” text to which Colson refers is nowhere to be found! In fact, if you Google that text string, you'll find the quote in only one UK article on pair of researchers, Qazi Rahmann and Glenn Wilson, where the passage reads, in full:
Although the genetic mechanism for a homosexual orientation is unclear, its persistence, say the authors, suggests that the genes responsible for some ‘gay' behaviour, such as sociability, empathy and charm, confer evolutionary advantages. In other words, gay men don't have many children but straight men with ‘gay' genes – and therefore a greater dose of ‘gay personality' - are more reproductively successful than those without because women favour these men.
So yes, while we've yet to lock down all the evidence for the existence of one or several "gay genes," "the best we can say" to back up our claims is not, as Mr. Colson would have you believe, one abstract sentence taken out of context! We have mutiple, highly-degreed folks on our side! So it's really interesting when he next asserts that gay people can actually "change" their sexuality, a concept he supports by saying:
Just ask Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a ministry that helps men and women break free of homosexual behavior. Alan knows firsthand the stranglehold of the born-gay mindset. He says, “I was told by people in the gay community that I couldn’t change, that there was no hope for that.” Thankfully, Alan found hope in the words of a preacher who assured him of God’s love and in the commitment of Christian friends who held him accountable and walked with him through the process of breaking his addiction to a sinful lifestyle.
Alan and Randy [see The Good Life] are just two of those who have found hope and healing through Exodus International and ministries like it. While his gay friends told him he was born that way and should accept his fate, caring Christians convinced him that practicing homosexuality was something he did, not something he was, and with God’s help, he could leave that lifestyle behind.
Oh, so you can just ignore all of the scientific evidence and professional opinions that the gay community has to back up their truth, yet to justify your "gays can change" ideas you only have to cite testimony from those who MAKE A LIVING speaking the virtues of the (unsupported by every professional association) "ex-gay" movement??! Mr. Colson, that's like a child replying, "but my mom says I'm skinny" when a doctor tells them that their 250 pounds! So the "ex-gays" claim they've stopped sleeping with their own gender -- BFD!
Moreover, since Mr. Colson so boldly tried to ignore and discredit the articles used by the "Born Different" campaign to support their rationale, why don't we take a second and look at the "evidence" the "No Moo Lies" campaign -- which was set up by Focus on the Family to challenge the mooing Norman -- uses to support their "Can Gays Change?" question? Well, in addition to the aforementioned professional "ex-gay, Alan Chambers, FOF links to only one other person -- Researcher Dr. Spitzer. They say of Spitzer:
Only problem? The following are all quotes from Dr. Spitzer himself:
"I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did. However, to my horror, some of the media reported the study as an attempt to show that homosexuality is a choice, and that substantial change is possible for any homosexual who decides to make the effort." [Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2001]
"Our sample was self-selected from people who already claimed they had made some change. We don't know how common that kind of change is. . . . I'm not saying that this can be easily done, or that most homosexuals who want to change can make this kind of change. I suspect it's quite unusual." [CNN, May 9, 2001]
"...I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation." [Wall Street Journal, May 23, 2001]
"...the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]... "[only] a small minority -- perhaps 3% -- might have a "malleable" sexual orientation." He expressed a concern that his study results were being "twisted by the Christian right." [Advocate, July 17, 2001
And back in June, Spitzer said to activist Wayne Besen about FOF's misuse of his study by one of their "ex-gay" speakers::
"Unfortunately Focus on the Family has once again reported findings of my study out of context to support their fight against gay rights"
So it's really quite intersting that Mr. Colson says "[t]ime and again, the scientists whose studies are cited as evidence for a gay gene have been careful to point out that their research does not support that theory," when the reality is that is is THEIR position for which they have NOT ONE BIT OF CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE (that isn't from the likes of NARTH, Paul Cameron, or one of their usual stable of junk scientists)!!!!!
In his closing paragraph, Mr. Colson says of the gay community and their allies:
If they can convince us that they’re simply born different, they will argue that it is a civil-rights issue, a tactic they are already pursuing in Colorado and elsewhere around the country. It’s an argument that is convincing more and more people, which is why you and I need to know the facts and be able to refute the false idea that some people are just born gay. We need to tell our friends and neighbors, especially gay ones, about the hope we all have for real change through Jesus Christ. And if you live in Colorado, send Norman back to his kennel where he can “moo” until his heart is content.
So there you have it, folks -- Mr. Colson wants you to ""know the facts." The question is whether you going to rely on the ones that are supported by one group's religious conviction, or the ones that are supported by...oh, i don't know --FACTS! Personally, we'd bet on the "mooing dog" before the "morphing gay" any day of the week!
When a Dog Says 'Moo' [Christian Post]
comments powered by Disqus