Ben Carson got himself into some trouble a couple of weeks back for remarks concerning homosexuality that he made during an exchange with CNN\u2019s Chris Cuomo.<\/p>\n
However, I\u2019m not sure what exactly it is that Carson said that ignited such controversy\u2014or any controversy.<\/p>\n
Carson expressed his position that homosexuality\u2014presumably, homosexual desire, <\/em>not just conduct\u2014<\/em>is the product of choice. To substantiate his thesis, Carson alluded to the phenomenon of (ostensibly) heterosexual prisoners who, upon engaging in homosexual relations while incarcerated, \u201cbecome\u201d gay.<\/p>\n Cuomo agreed that such a phenomenon occurs. But\u2014for reasons that he failed to specify\u2014Cuomo disagreed that this example vindicates Carson\u2019s view.<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, so-called \u201cconservatives\u201d in the media, including those who claim to be Carson\u2019s admirers, pounced on Carson with all of the fury\u2014and more\u2014unleashed upon him by the usual suspects on the left. Carson, one pundit insisted, was finished.<\/p>\n All of this was extremely odd. Granted, Carson is about as eloquent as he is a strong speaker: he\u2019s not eloquent at all. And while he is doubtless a man of great intelligence, this doesn\u2019t mean that he\u2019s either politically savvy or a critical thinker. Carson shouldn\u2019t have insisted that homosexual orientation per se, <\/em>i.e. in all instances, is a choice. It was also a mistake to use the example of male prisoners, rather than, say, lesbians, to legitimize his point.<\/p>\n Still, if we were as remotely interested in logic<\/em> as we are interested in emoting and scoring partisan points, things would\u2019ve unfolded much differently than they actually did.<\/p>\n First, Cuomo would\u2019ve been forced to resolve the apparent inconsistency between his bio-centric vision of homosexuality and his concession to Carson\u2019s commentary on the experience of male prisoners. After all, Cuomo, apparently, thinks that gays are \u201cborn that way.\u201d Insofar as he agreed with Carson\u2019s assessment of male prisoners, he must acknowledge that phenomena of these sorts pose a counterexample to his belief.<\/p>\n Second, in this Age of Enlightenment on all things sexual, a day when homosexuality is loudly and proudly proclaimed to be just as viable and healthy an alternative to heterosexuality and \u201chomophobia\u201d is decried as among the gravest of secular \u201csins,\u201d it is the Ben Carsons<\/em> of our world who sound \u201cprogressive\u201d on this issue. In stark contrast, Chris Cuomo sounds like a retrograde.<\/p>\n In other words, the new Zeitgeist on homosexuality would seem to demand that we relegate to the dustbin of history the idea that homosexuals don\u2019t deserve to be judged for their homosexuality because they were \u201cborn that way.\u201d On the other hand, insofar as the new orthodoxy on homosexuality is supposed to be a function of sexual liberation generally, the idea that gays choose <\/em>to be gay seems much more in keeping with the latter.<\/p>\n This is not just hypothetical reasoning on my part. For nearly 25 years, <\/em>at least, gays themselves have been saying as much.<\/p>\n Back in 1991, Lindsy Van Gelder, a self-avowed lesbian, warned in Ms. <\/em>Magazine against falling for what she described as \u201cthe \u2018born that way\u2019 trap.\u201d Against those proponents <\/em>of \u201cgay rights\u201d who dismissed \u201c\u2018the prejudice and ignorance\u2019\u201d of the view \u201c\u2018that homosexuality is a matter of choice,\u2019\u201d Van Gelder is at pains to convince readers that for her, \u201ccoming out was\u2026a conscious decision\u2014every step of the way.\u201d<\/p>\n She also insists that she is no \u201caberration, at least among women.\u201d<\/p>\n Van Gelder identifies \u201cthe public relations edge\u201d of the \u201c\u2018Born That Way\u2019 line\u201d:<\/p>\n \u201cAt the root of a lot of homophobia is a fear that gayness is somehow contagious. If people really did fit into neat little either\/or sexual pigeonholes from birth, no one would be able to say that gay teachers could possibly \u2018recruit\u2019 their students. Parents of gays would be off the blame hook. Straights wouldn\u2019t have to feel threatened by passing queer attractions.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition to these benefits, Van Gelder notes that the genetic view of homosexuality implies that \u201cif we [gays] could <\/em>help it, we would.\u201d This, she elaborates, is \u201cwhat a fair number of straight people hear, including some of our allies.\u201d But what this means is that gays are then perceived \u201cas bearers of a genetic flaw\u201d rather than \u201csexual equals.\u201d The \u201cBorn That Way\u201d line conveys the message \u201cthat it\u2019s O.K. to regard us as sexually defective.\u201d<\/p>\n Van Gelder poses a thought provoking challenge to the proponents of \u201cBorn That Way\u201d approach: Suppose, she asks, \u201cthey discover that there\u2019s no <\/em>biological basis to sexual orientation? Are we willing to promise that on that day, we\u2019ll give back any gay rights we\u2019ve managed to win and march off to the psychic showers\u201d to be \u201c\u2018cure[d]\u2019\u201d of [our] \u201chomosexuality\u2019(emphasis original)?\u201d<\/p>\n In 1992, homosexual and \u201cgay rights\u201d activist Darrell Yates Rist penned an instructive article in The Nation. <\/em>Rist alludes to the \u201cHungarian activist doctor\u201d who coined the term \u201chomosexual\u201d in the 1860\u2019s. The doctor, writing under the pseudonym K.M. Kertbeny, addressed a letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in response to a new penal code that would criminalize sexual relations between men. Kertbeny opposed the proposed measures, arguing that homosexuality is an \u201c\u2018inborn, and therefore irrepressible, drive [.]\u201d<\/p>\n Rist quotes authors John Lauritsen and David Thorstad who summarized Kertbeny\u2019s position as such: \u201c\u2018If homosexuality is inborn\u2026it cannot be regarded as a punishable offense by rational persons who respect the mysterious laws of nature.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n My objective here is to defend neither Ben Carson nor his position on this complex matter. The point, rather, is that given our rapidly changing mores with respect to homosexuality, Carson\u2019s position that homosexuality is chosen appears to be more in keeping with the spirit of these new mores than is the belief that homosexuality is biologically determined.<\/p>\n My prediction is that it won\u2019t be long until the self-sworn guardians of \u201cprogressive\u201d thought on homosexuality will have succeeded in branding the \u201cBorn That Way\u201d line as an expression of virulent \u201chomophobia.\u201d Soon, no \u201crespectable\u201d person will dare to regard homosexuality as anything but an enlightened, courageous choice.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Ben Carson got himself into some trouble a couple of weeks back for remarks concerning homosexuality that he made during an exchange with CNN\u2019s Chris Cuomo. However, I\u2019m not sure what exactly it is that Carson said that ignited such controversy\u2014or any controversy. Carson expressed his position that homosexuality\u2014presumably, homosexual desire, not just conduct\u2014is the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1270","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n