NOM’s Idea Of “Excellent” Analysis: Calling Homosexuality An “Addictive,” “Learned” Behavior
September 01, 2011 2:27 pm ET by Carlos Maza
In an August 31 blog entry, the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) Ruth Institute posted an interview between Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.tv, and George Gilder, a conservative author and commentator. While the interview covered a wide range of topics, the Ruth Institute was particularly impressed with Gilder’s “analysis of marriage abolition via redefinition,” calling it “excellent”:
GILLESPIE: How do you feel about New York legalizing gay marriage? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
GILDER: I think it’s a bad thing. I don’t think --
GILLESPIE: Why is it a bad thing?
GILDER: I mean, gays can do what they want to do. But I don’t believe that -- you know, now bisexuality is supposedly a factor. Duh. I mean, if --the fact is all of us are bisexual in various ways. This whole idea that homosexuality resembles race in any respect is nonsense. The whole idea that male homosexuality resembles lesbianism in any respect is nonsense. And so this whole idea of gay marriage is just a parody. It’s an absurd concept.
GILLESPIE: Well, but, do you think that, you know, a -- say two gay men who are married, would they be able to create a stable family situation that would raise children who would be -- who would flourish or be [inaudible]?
GILDER: Well, sure. Individuals can do all kinds of things. It’s different when you’re establishing principles that are going to govern the society. The chief problem with gay marriage to me -- I don’t particularly care what they choose to do -- but the result will be teaching young kids that gay sex is just as good as any other sex, which is --
GILLESPIE: Now have you ever had gay sex? Do you know is it as good or --
GILDER: I know enough. I’ve spent a long time studying this subject and I know about gay sex more than most of the people who talk about it with such authority. And it’s not -- it is not procreative; it cannot sustain the race. And young boys are quite responsive to it. And so, it’s a mistake to open this door for confused boys who have yet to crystalize their sexual orientation.
GILLESPIE: So, I mean, you believe --
GILDER: And it’s an addictive form of behavior and recent studies show that during the -- until about 21, our brains are very responsive to various forms of addiction. And the earlier they’re inculcated, the more --
GILLESPIE: So gay predisposition is really a learned behavior?
GILDER: Yeah. Gayness is about 50 percent genetic like everything else, like alcoholism. Any kind of behavior of this sort is, as shown by twin studies, about 50 percent genetic. And the other 50 percent is environment and choice and will. [emphasis added]
To summarize, Gilder’s “excellent” analysis of the same-sex marriage debate includes arguing that homosexuality is “learned,” “addictive” behavior that boys can be “inculcated” into thanks to their easily manipulated brains.
This is the same Ruth Institute that recently accused the “evil” American Civil Liberties Union of trying to expose kids to gay porn. It’s also the same Ruth Institute that criticized the “It Gets Better” Project for purportedly encouraging kids to embrace “deviant sex” and a dangerous “LGBT lifestyle.”
In other words, the bar for what counts as “excellent” analysis is set pretty low.