Crisis Magazine notes how Rachel Maddow tried in vain to pin Rick Santorum down on the so-called ‘immutability’ of gayness – as if she doesn’t know. People are much more than sexual organs; their loves and preferences are much more than physical, but if you’re a woman, and you don’t like the idea of sex with men, it probably has less to do with the fact that you don’t like heterosexual sex and more to do with the fact that you don’t like men so much. And that of course is most certainly a choice.
When Rick Santorum recently appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, the host spent quite a bit of time during the interview trying to pin down Santorum on the question of whether sexual preference is an immutable characteristic.
Maddow: Can I ask you if you believe people choose to be gay?
Santorum: Ya know, I’ve sort of never answered that question. But I suspect there’s all sorts of reasons why people end up the way they are, and I’ll sort of leave it at that.
Maddow: But it matters in terms of whether or not—I mean, legally, in terms of the types of things that we’re describing here, in terms of whether or not the Congress should challenge the Supreme Court on these issues. I mean, if it’s an immutable characteristic. You don’t know if it’s an immutable?
Santorum: I don’t know. [Later in the interview] There are people who are alive today who identified themselves as gay and lesbian and who no longer are. That’s true. I do know—I’ve met people in that case. So, I guess maybe in that case, may be they did.
So is sexual preference, whether heterosexual or homosexual, theoretically immutable, or is it subject to change?
From here the writer, Kevin Clark, discusses the APA’s definition of homosexuality, which is entirely biased, unreliable, and recently changed from a mental disorder to an ‘immutable characteristic.’ Polling data in this area is also, I believe, inconclusive for many reasons.
On being interrogated, Santorum correctly cites examples of gay celebrities and others who have switched their stated orientations as evidence of ‘mutability,’ but he declines to draw the obvious conclusion because he’s a politician. Yet, the fact is gay sex could never have been considered a sin and a moral failing for thousands of years up until now if it were not also a choice and a perversion of sexuality. You can’t pervert something that is naturally there. Gay people are groomed into the habit of gay sex; fall in with groups of gay friends; or respond to family situations so bleak that they reject their own nature and their roles as men or women. People also have more gay sex in situations where there is no one of the opposite sex around, like prison.
Gay attraction is an inclination, but it’s also a cultivated habit and a choice. Still, pretending otherwise is key to the gay agenda, which seeks to normalize and spread gay sexuality. They say you can’t make people gay, but it’s exactly what they want to do. That wouldn’t be possible if homosexual attraction were simply an immutable reality of nature, but they can’t achieve their gay-topia if they don’t convince everyone that they’re just ‘born that way’ first.
The vast majority of people with gay attractions never act on them. The next biggest group of those people act on them but settle into a natural male/female lifestyle. Experts might call all these people ‘bisexual’ if they responded honestly to polls, but they’re really not, since they generally lead heterosexual lives.
The smallest group of people with SSA have sex almost exclusively with others of the same sex and reject the opposite sex. Just like that other victim group, ‘the poor,’ this consists of a shifting group of people. Nevertheless, we all know someone who lives a gay lifestyle for practically his or her entire life.
That rejection is a much deeper choice than sexual because men and women are much more than their bodies. It’s a rejection of the opposite sex and the role of husband, wife, mother or father. It’s also a rejection of one’s own nature as a man or a woman, of who one was born to be. Like someone in prison, for various reasons this person has lost all hope in the possibility of a happy heterosexual relationship. It’s not an ‘acceptance’ of a natural immutable orientation like they say, but a rejection, and it’s enabled and encouraged by the habitual sin of sodomy.