The homosexual movement went from “sexual preference” to “sexual orientation” overnight when Amy Coney Barrett used “sexual preference” during her Supreme Court nomination inquisition. Homosexuality is now a protected class. The Orwellian editors of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary “added the word ‘offensive’ to its entry and usage guidance of ‘preference’ and ‘sexual preference’ when referring to sexual orientation after the issue came up during Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.” (USA Today)
Let’s not forget that it was the homosexuals who adopted the phrase “sexual preference” for their, well, “sexual preference.” Homosexuals have done everything they can to hide their behavior from the public. “Gay” rights? What does “gay” have to do with certain types of sexual behaviors? Nothing. The word is designed to obscure what is indecent and immoral.
Before Frank Schaeffer went over to the Dark Side, he had some good things to say about how liberals think and act. His analysis of language is still applicable even though he most likely regrets writing it:
Think of the use of labels to categorize political activity. Some labels are used to neutralize the actions of certain groups; others denote being “one of us,” acceptable. The words “right wing,” “fundamentalist,” “pro-life,” “absolutist,” and “deeply religious,” are put-downs more than categories. Conversely, think of the unspoken pat on the back and blessing that the following words convey: “moderate,” “pluralistic,” “liberal,” “civil libertarian,” “pragmatic,” and “enlightened.” 
Wikipedia will no longer permit editors to criticize or call into question homosexual marriage.
Why is pushing “sexual orientation” being adopted as the new go-to term to describe all types of sexual abnormalities? Because if a person is born that way, he or she is absolved of all criticism.
The argument is being made that there is “mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice.” Actually, the “mounting scientific evidence” is inconclusive at best and fraudulent at worst. Articles that question the evidence are being erased from the internet.
Don’t you find it curious that a person is celebrated for leaving a heterosexual life and becoming homosexual, but when someone abandons a same-sex lifestyle, he or she is ignored or ostracized? LGBTQ is a one-way street.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume there is “mounting scientific evidence” for a “gay gene,” a genetic orientation. Is there a bisexual gene? A transgender gene? A gene for each of the more than 70 genders? If there are identifying genes, please produce them. Scientists won’t because they can’t because they don’t exist.
There is a problem of other behaviors that are an “orientation” that claim to have a genetic cause.
For years I have been collecting articles on genetic explanations for various abnormalities. Some are behavior related (eating too much) and some are disease-related (prostate and breast cancer). In each case, however, the genetic cause is viewed as undesirable. Extraordinary measures are recommended to fix the flaw. When scientists say they had discovered a “fat gene,” “the finding was hailed by other researchers as pointing to a day when drugs might correct imbalances that cause some people to be hounded by food cravings and extra pounds while others remain lean.” 
If the cause of fatness is genetic, as homosexuals claim is true of their “orientation,” then why isn’t the diet industry a hate group? If you’re fat, it’s not your fault. Anyone who proposes that a fat person should get thin, considering homosexual logic, is “fatophobic.” An advertisement for Ultra-Metabolism carries this claim: “Learn how food can change your genes!”  If being fat is genetic, why change your genetic oriented condition?
Of course, the advertisement implies that genes can be changed. If this is true regarding being fat, then it can be true for engaging same-sex orientations.
Eleven cousins had their stomachs removed because they carried a “rare hereditary stomach cancer that killed their grandmother and some of their parents, aunts and uncles.”  Women often take drastic measures if they found out they have a gene that indicates breast cancer. At age 37, Angelina Jolie underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer due to a defective BRCA1 gene. Why do this if being born that way does not carry any negative connotations?
Just because something is genetic does not make it a desirable trait. Here are some examples of gene-related conditions that are undesirable:
- “A genetic double-whammy rarely found in whites dramatically increases the risk of congestive heart failures in blacks.”
- “Scientists say they have found a gene that predicts whether prostate cancer will develop into its most lethal form.”
- “Researchers at McGill University in Montreal have discovered the gene that causes a devastating neurological disorder that is found almost exclusively among families along Quebec’s North Shore.”
- “A research team at two Mideast universities has developed a new way to genetically alter cells in living mice; offering new possibilities in the war against cancer and other diseases.” 
- “Apparently healthy men with normal weight and cholesterol levels are at three times higher risk of a heart attack if they have a common variation of a particular gene, researchers say.” 
- “Salk Institute scientists say they have uncovered a gene that triggers certain forms of Leukemia, a discovery that may lead to the development of a screening test within the next few months.” 
- “Researchers have found a brain chemical that boosts the craving for fat—and a way to block it without affecting the appetite for healthier foods.” 
Note that in these cases, a gene has been found. This can’t be said for the supposed 72 genders that are said to exist. These and many more examples show that not all genetic traits are benign. Just because a trait is genetic does not mean it is good or moral.
Consider the following behavior genes:
- “Some of us, it seems, were just born to be bad. Scientists say they are on the verge of pinning down genetic and biochemical abnormalities that predispose their bearers to violence. An article in the journal Science … carried the headline EVIDENCE FOUND FOR POSSIBLE ‘AGGRESSION’ GENE.” 
- “Why do gamblers often bet more after a losing hand? Or investors throw good money after bad? The answer may lie in the science of the brain.” 
- “Is racism simply human nature or something learned from society? Neither, says a team of psychologists who, despite criticism, argue that racism represents an accidental side effect of evolution.” 
- A recent article published in The Sciences, a New York Academy of Science magazine, stated that “rape is a ‘natural, biological’ phenomenon, springing from men’s evolutionary urge to reproduce.” 
Why is it that only homosexuality gets a genetic pass? If we follow the orientation logic, should we decriminalize violent acts, racism, and rape?
The orientation line of argument reminds me of a scene from the movie The African Queen (1951). Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart) and Rose Sayer (Katherine Hepburn) are traveling down the very dangerous Ulanga River in German-occupied East Africa during World War I in an attempt to avoid capture by the Germans. Rose is a conservative Christian missionary and Charlie makes his living operating a mail boat hauling supplies throughout the region.
In contrast to Rose’s character, Charlie is what we might describe as a “social liberal” who likes his gin a bit too much. After passing out after one of his regular bouts with the bottle, Charlie wakes up to see Rose pouring the contents of one of his precious gin bottles into the river. Charlie is visibly upset as he appeals to her with a less than convincing argument:
Oh, Miss. Oh, have pity, Miss. You don’t know what you’re doing Miss. I’ll perish without a hair of the dog. Oh, Miss, it ain’t your property.
Seeing that he’s getting nowhere with his take-pity-on-me pleading, he appeals to the Bible:
Uh, how’s the Book, Miss? [referring to the Bible]. Well, not that I ain’t read it, that is to say, my poor old Mum used to read me stories out of it. How’s about reading it out loud? I could sure do with a little spiritual comfort myself.
After getting the cold shoulder, Charlie lets his emotions fly and yells at her:
And you call yourself a Christian! Do you hear me? Don’t ya? Don’t ya? Huh?
She shows only a slight reaction but doesn’t say a word. He backs up and goes about cleaning the relief valve on the boiler that’s shaped like a cross—symbolic of the impact Rose is having on him and his circumstances. He asks for mercy:
What ya being so mean for, Miss? A man takes a drop too much once and a while; it’s only human nature.
Without looking up, she says the following:
Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.
In the end, Charlie reforms. Gives up the battle and marries Rose.
- Franky Schaeffer, A Time for Anger: The Myth of Neutrality (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 15.
- Jeff Nesmith, “Dieters’ dream: Gene to control fat found,” Atlanta Constitution (December 1, 1994), C1.
- The advertisement appeared in the June 20, 2006 issue of USA Today (4D) for Mark Hyman’s Ultra-Metabolism (New York: Scribner/Simon & Schuster, 2006).
- “11 cousins have their stomachs removed,” USA Today (June 20, 2006), 6D.
- These four examples were taken from the “Science News” section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (October 10, 2002), A9.
- Amanda Huted, “Gene variant could mean higher risk of heart attack,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 15, 1992), C3.
- “Gene discovery could lead to leukemia screening test,” Atlanta Journal/Constitution (October 3, 1992), E8.
- Tim Friend, “Brain chemical may feed craving for fat,” USA Today (October 29, 1992), 1A.
- Dennis Overbye, “Born to Raise Hell?,” Time (February 21, 1994), 76.
- Faye Flam, “Study: Reckless gambler, blame your brain,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (March 22, 2002), A18.
- Dan Vergano, “Racism may have evolutionary link,” USA Today (December 11, 2001), 11.
- Dan Vergano, “‘Natural, biological’ theory of rape creates instant storm,” USA Today (January 28, 2000), 8D.