While Washington, D.C., and the American media have seen fit to take Idaho Senator Larry Craig to task for his misdemeanor guilty plea and subsequent attempt to withdraw it, there seems to be a convenient lack of discussion on why an otherwise seemingly well-adjusted, successful politician, who is married with children, would proposition a same-sex encounter in a public restroom. Is homosexual behavior the exclusive province of those who openly declare themselves to be "gay" or "lesbian," or is it simply an example of impulsive and imperfect human conduct?
In the legal arena, many groups attempting to further the homosexual agenda dodge this critical question. And the media will hardly touch it. But there it is: the elephant in the middle of the room that must be addressed, just as the Alliance Defense Fund has routinely done in its legal briefs defending marriage and the family. Political special interests filing lawsuits shouldn't trump what's in the best interest of families and children, who are affected by such things. This is the very issue that ADF and others are up against: the use of the courts to further an image that may not be reality and the ramifications that come from that when it comes to these issues.
For those of us who have been involved in these issues for years, the Senator Craig story portrays an actual and true sense of mainstream homosexual conduct. Those pushing the homosexual agenda, including their accomplices in the media, typically portray presentable and socially successful persons who have purportedly made a lifelong and stable commitment to another person of the same sex. Over time, the American people have been lulled into the belief that all persons engaged in homosexual behavior are open about, committed to, and comfortable with their choice. Such is why a growing number of heterosexual Americans are sympathetic to the perceived "rights" of those who engage in homosexual conduct.
However, for all of the clamoring about "rights" (demands, in reality) and the acceptance of behavior that they supposedly have no choice about, homosexual advocates have no proof. The elusive "gay gene" remains a figment of scientific imagination but cleverly slipped into society's stream of consciousness such that we are asked to believe that it exists. Yet, the science (or lack thereof) in this regard is unmistakable. A recent study by Columbia University published in the American Journal of Sociology concluded that the existence of any relationship between genes and hormones on "sexual orientation" is "inconclusive at best." Moreover, a myriad of publications like the Journal of Sex Research, Developmental Psychology, and the Journal of Clinical Psychology (just to name a few) have all published studies concluding that homosexual conduct is not immutable but comes in behavioral phases.
Though the American Psychological Association elected to remove homosexual behavior from its list of mental disorders, surprisingly lacking is the scientific proof showing it to be anything but inappropriate or unnatural human conduct. Rather, the APA dismissively says that "[s]exual orientation falls along a continuum. In other words, someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both genders" (www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf). Thus, homosexual behavior is just that—behavior.
What the Larry Craig story brought to light, in a way untouched by others, is the true story of homosexual behavior. When the advocates of homosexual expression attempt to sell us the all-American pictures of lifelong, committed same-sex couples, who participate in intimate behavior only in their bedrooms, it is important to know that this is the exception—not the rule. In their book The Homosexual Agenda, ADF President Alan Sears and co-author Craig Osten quote lesbian writer Camille Paglia:
After a period of optimism about the long-range potential of gay men's one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing "monogamy without fidelity"—the latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.
Homosexual "cruising," like that to which Larry Craig pled guilty, comprises an extraordinary amount of intimate, homosexual behavioral encounters in and amongst public society every day (www.popcenter.org/Problems/PDFs/Schultz_1998.pdf). So much so, that even the American Civil Liberties Union, in the context of the Larry Craig situation, came to the defense of such behavior as "constitutionally protected speech."
Lest we believe that the men's rooms in the Minneapolis airport are the only places that this type of conduct occurs, the Larry Craig case is merely the tip of the iceberg. "Cruising" can be found all over the country. In one study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of a major metropolitan area in the northwestern United States, 88% of men infected with STDs were engaging in homosexual behavior at public but anonymous venues such as bath houses. In another study by the CDC, 64% of men who contracted an STD were having sex with men in public places.
Still have doubt about the prevalence of "cruising"? Then consider the Little Black Book published by Lambda Legal (data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/262.pdf). The Little Black Book is a disturbing example of one of this country's largest homosexual behavior advocacy groups offering legal advice on how to "safely" act both illegally and unsafely. When the Little Black Book warns that "Remember cops may be 'cruising' too," I suppose that this is what Lambda Legal considers good, well-reasoned advice. Instead of helping its followers engage in illegal homosexual behavior, one would think Lambda Legal would genuinely attempt to help those about whom it professes to care by warning of the dangers of "cruising" and discouraging it as a practice.
Recently, significant news on the issue of "cruising" came forth from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where the mayor remains under extraordinary public scrutiny for suggesting measures to curb the out-of-control homosexual "cruising" in his city. After all, with him alleging that his city has the highest HIV infection ratio from homosexual conduct in the country, you would think that the mayor's efforts would be applauded, not condemned, especially by the homosexual community. However, Fort Lauderdale's problems bring to light the true face of homosexual behavior—anonymous and multiple sexual encounters in public places—something that the advocates of homosexual behavior do not want exposed.
The arrest of Larry Craig and the focus on him as a public figure recalls a few other public figures who pass in and out of homosexual behavior. To name just a few, Hollywood actress Anne Heche, one time same-sex partner of Ellen DeGeneres, subsequently married a man. Pop singer, Elton John, once married to a woman, now professes to be a homosexual. Actress Drew Barrymore has publicly pronounced that she is bisexual, as has Academy Award winner, Angelina Jolie. Can we really scientifically explain these sexual chameleons, and so many others, with inconsistent behavioral histories? Are we to believe that their "gay gene" is malfunctioning?
In the end, those who profess to be "gay" or "lesbian," or who have otherwise slipped in and out of homosexual behavior, including "cruising" for anonymous partners, are people who succumb to a dangerous temptation. We should not accept as genetics that which is a choice.