In looking at a recent legal document, I came across the following paragraph; (If you don’t believe that someone would actually write this, feel free to Google the words.)

Tense; Gender. As defined herein, the singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular. Likewise, a reference to any gender also applies to any other gender.

Truly a sentence that only a lawyer could love. It may, however, explain why Bill Clinton had so much trouble defining the word “is”. He also couldn’t properly define as “sexual relations”, a two word phrase, despite the fact that the second word of the phrase was sex; something that would certainly have been a clue for most people; that, and I have to assume by inference that he also had trouble with the phrases “forsaking all others” and in a broader sense; “marital fidelity”

And liberals wonder why we don’t want Politicians defining words like Marriage?

I will say, however, that if Abu Ghraib and Saddam Hussein’s execution have taught us anything, I for one am glad that cell phones with video capability weren’t yet in vogue during the Clinton Administration, or we would likely have been subjected to a viral video floating around the internet showing Bill, Monica and the Presidential Cigar, thus adding a whole new meaning to the phrase “Our Long National Nightmare”

Not so long ago, I was listening to Neal Boortz on the radio and he was on an anti-anti-Gay tirade. I say anti-anti-Gay because the point that he was trying to make was not so much in support of Gays, but rather in opposition to those people who oppose Gay Marriage. First, he parsed the word “persuasion” with regard to the phrase “Homosexual Persuasion” (Neal was probably a lawyer by training) and then he went on to make the point that People were “Homosexuals” (presumably a noun) because of their genes and that just like “Heterosexuals” (also a noun) they were not “persuaded” to have sex with others of their own gender, but rather they were just being what they were. He then posed a (presumably) rhetorical question as to whether anyone could explain to him when they had “chosen” their own sexual orientation with the clear conclusion that he was trying to make being that if people did not choose to be Heterosexuals, then that was de facto evidence that Homosexuality was likewise not a choice.

I had to think about this for some time because I wanted to determine in my own mind if he was in fact correct and not just react viscerally.

First of all, neither Neal, nor I are Doctors or Psychologists, so neither of us can state professionally if people exhibit Homosexual (an adjective) behavior based on their upbringing, or if they are Homosexuals (a Noun) because of their Genetic makeup. I was therefore somewhat surprised to hear Neal opine upon it so matter-of-factly so I did a Google search on the terms “Homosexuality” and “Nature vs. Nurture” and got over 57,000 hits. Searching under “Homosexuality” and “Genetic” leads to 958,000 hits, and Searching under “Homosexuality” and Choice” gives us 1,240,000 hits. Clearly the debate is not nearly as settled as Mr. Boortz would seem to assert.

In this light, let us examine the very logic of Neal’s question. Words have power, and Neal’s question was framed in such a manner as to logically assume only one answer. The word Homosexual either refers to a choice, in which case it is an adjective, as in “He engaged in a homosexual act”, or if sexual preference is genetic, then a noun would be appropriate as in “He is a Homosexual.”

When Mr. Boortz rhetorically asks “when does a person choose to be a Homosexual”, he has already assumed that only one answer can be correct as the other would be an inherent paradox.

Furthermore, as Mr. Boortz has done, if we start with the assumption that Homosexuality is a thing that a person can be (the noun Homosexual) it is all too easy, but logically fallacious to then use the observation that there are people that engage in Homosexual acts as evidence to support that such people are in fact Homosexuals (the Noun) and that therefore Homosexuality is not a choice.

If a person can be so easily defined by merely observing their choice of sexual partners, then by this same flawed logic, we might as well use the fact that if a man chooses to confine his sexual activities exclusively to Sheep and Goats, then he must logically be a Farm Animal rather than simply deducing that he has chosen to engage in sexually deviant behavior.

Without conclusive scientific evidence, Mr. Boortz has assumed that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are both equally valid, such that if one isn’t chosen, then the other cannot be. Without conclusive scientific evidence, however, it is also possible that one is the natural disposition of man, whilst the other is merely one of many unnatural choices to which man is often inclined. That difference is the reality inherent in the Nature vs. Nurture debate. Accordingly, when Mr. Boortz begins by assuming equality between Heterosexual and Homosexual behavior, when he sees no “Choice” in his own heterosexual behavior, he naturally concludes that that must logically confirm that Homosexuality is likewise not a choice.

Alternately, however, if you begin with the assumption that Homosexuality is in fact a choice, then finding yourself attracted to women without having made a conscious choice thereof is simply a natural assertion of the correct moral and scientific order. Leviticus states that “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is abomination.” Likewise, the natural conclusion of Darwin’s theories is that any sexual act that does not lead to the propagation of the species (i.e. one between one man and one woman) is inherently pointless. In this regard, both Religion and Science are clearly in accord.

Unfortunately, in this Brave new “all choices are valid” world that the liberals would have us live in, logic is apparently anathema. To demonstrate this, I only have to point to a pamphlet that I recently received from my Son’s Catholic school that was purportedly aimed at protecting children from sexual abuse. Much of it was quite sensible, explaining what were acceptable activities for adults to engage in with children, and what shows of affection were likewise acceptable or not. The entirety of the document, however, was rendered completely logically flawed by the obligatory “diversity paragraph” where it was stated that we needed to be respectful of all people regardless of (among other things), their sexual preference. I guess that the writer did not stop to realize that pedophilia was a sexual preference, as is necrophilia, bestiality, gang rape, forcible sodomy and a whole host of other violent and sexually deviant behaviors. Logically, then, how can I respect a person’s Pedophilic sexual preference while still taking such pains to keep them away from my children?

In the end, I do not know if Homosexuality is a choice or the result of Genetic wiring, but I do know the religious and historical definitions of Marriage. (Hint - they are both the same.)

Words are important, and the word Marriage represents one of the most important concepts in the history of mankind, steeped in tradition & ceremony and encompassing as it does concepts such as love, sharing, sacrifice, respect, caring and constancy.

Bill Clinton may not have respected his own Marriage and some Politicians may not respect the institution as a whole, but for those of us who do, like America itself, it is worth respecting and defending.