The "Gay" Myth Starts To Unravel

So ... Paul Cameron Was Right
When most social scientists speak of homosexuality, they speak of sexual orientation and attractions with the understanding that homosexuality isn’t a choice.

This is true when it’s Focus on the Family, NARTH, and Exodus explaining homosexuality through the lens of modified Freudian theories.

This is also true when gay-affirming theorists promote a biological premise for homosexuality. The two sides rarely agree on anything, but at least they generally agree on this: Homosexuality is not a choice.

This is nonsense as far as Cameron is concerned.

Like most pro-hetrosexual activists, he dismisses outright the possibility that there might be a biological component to homosexuality. But unlike other anti-gay activists, he publicly scolds Dr. James Dobson and the entire anti-gay movement for promoting “the hocus-pocus of Freudian thought.” 

It turns out that in Cameron’s world there are only three causes of homosexuality: In FRI’s analysis, most of those who engage in homosexuality adopt these sexual activities and rebellious attitudes as a result of three kinds of experiences: (1) direct recruitment to homosexuality by seduction or molestation (particularly of the underage); (2) indirect recruitment via cultural institutions (e.g., the schools, media, churches) preaching that ‘homosexuality is another way to fulfillment and personal satisfaction;’ and (3) being around homosexuals as friends, acquaintances, or family members.

We would argue that these same mechanisms also account for most of those who take up smoking, drug abuse, or other common ‘bad habits.’

In Cameron’s world, homosexuality is not an orientation. It’s strictly about pleasure, a choice of entertainment: Homosexuality is particularly ‘sticky entertainment.’ Like drug addiction, it’s hard to break away from. But homosexuality transcends ‘sticky.’ It is so all-consuming that it tends to degrade the logic and character of those who indulge in it. …You have to be careful what entertainments you choose — what starts out as ‘fun,’ ‘interesting,’ or ‘a lark’ can end up controlling you. Societies have to be careful lest they aid and abet such foolishness.