|Linda Harvey and the power of stupid|
LifeSiteNews is so profoundly anti-LGBT that they will provide an outlet for any screed that is sufficiently bigoted. No matter how crazy or outlandish, they have become to go-to for LGBT denigration. Today’s most awful diatribe is titled CDC survey: More homosexual, questioning teens than ever. The subtitle reads:
America is doing a terrific job of pushing homosexuality in schools, and as a result, more of our kids are engaging in this behavior and adopting the identity.
In other words we are manufacturing gay people. This idiocy comes from the ever-batshitted hate group leader, Linda Harvey with her impressive intellect.
A major Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study provides the gruesome stats.
This disastrous news should be major media headlines. A few progressives are happy, I’m sure, along with radical homosexual groups like GLSEN as well as the corrupt teachers’ unions, the NEA and others.
But for most of us, the CDC Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) paints a grim picture with dire consequences for the long-term well-being of our nation’s youth.
Nationwide, 85.4% of students identified as heterosexual,
2.4% identified as gay or lesbian, 8.0% identified as bisexual,
and 4.2% were not sure of their sexual identity (Supplementary
Looking at the table there seems to be something in the water in Arkansas reporting 6.4% gay. 10.3 % of Nevada kids are bisexual (heavily weighted towards females). Personally — and I have said this for a long time — I don’t care about the numbers. Whatever they are, they are. However, whatever they are I expect every LGBT person to enjoy equal protection and due process.
Ms. Harvey, on the other hand, seems to think that there is some kind of conspiracy among evil people to create more gay kids. Evidence of that conspiracy doesn’t seem to be available. Nor has Ms. Harvey explained what incentive exists for the conspiracy to exist.
Harvey writes “most of us.” I wonder if that is the 70% or so of Americans who now support same-sex marriage. Harvey can go around claiming that the existence of gay kids is “gruesome” along with the idea that they depict a “grim picture” with “dire consequences.” In polite society and for most Americans she will be dismissed as an idiotic religious zealot. Consider, however, the plight of LifeSiteNews which is an ultra-orthodox Catholic site.
The most ardent prelates in the Church including the current and former pope have expressed concern for the respect and dignity of gay people. I think that it is a bunch of crap to make them appear less bigoted but those folks at LifeSite are true believers. Their pope was installed at the will of God. How does Ms. Harvey’s irrational tirade coincide with respect for gay people? According to Harvey:
In 2017, almost 15% (14.6%) of teens labeled themselves “gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure.” In 2015, that figure was 11.2%.
Ms. Harvey is wed to the belief that sexual orientation can be influenced by others which perfectly explains why the late Phyllis Schlafly has a gay son and there are many other examples. There is no evidence that sexual orientation can be changed by someone wanting to change it. The idea that other people can influence sexual orientation is even further removed.
Once one accepts that sexual orientation is a natural variant of human sexuality that is likely formed at birth then all of this nonsense gets a flush down the proverbial crapper. On the other hand, if Ms. Harvey wants to paint this “dire” picture then she is obligated to provide some evidence that sexual orientation can be influenced, or even changed.
Don’t hold your breath because religious conservatives have been trying to do just that (prove that gay is a choice) for many decades. None have ever succeeded. Nevertheless, we go to the 2015 CDC survey:
Nationwide, 88.8% of students identified as heterosexual,
2.0% identified as gay or lesbian, 6.0% identified as bisexual,
and 3.2% were not sure of their sexual identity (Table 3).
There is a 3.4% difference in heterosexual students over the two years. I suspect that is well within the margins of statistical insignificance. If not, it might express the fact that kids are more comfortable admitting to themselves that they are gay rather than waiting a few years to reach that conclusion. The Harvey hypothesis is that we are better at “indoctrinating” or “recruiting” students. There is no evidence to support that either.
Homosexual, bisexual or unsure teens were more likely to have drunk alcohol, even before age 13; to be current cigarette smokers; to drive a car after drinking alcohol; to not wear a seat belt when riding in a car driven by someone else; or to ride with a driver who had been drinking alcohol.
The CDC data seem to support that although in most respects the margins aren’t very significant. What is Harvey’s point? Oh, I know. We should stop recruiting all these students so that they do not drive drunk. She does not realize just how absurd that sounds. She will never be able to accept the simple fact that sexual orientation is not a choice. Furthermore, we do not know why gay, lesbian and bisexual students might be more apt to engage in riskier behavior.
Overall, for example, about 5% of heterosexual, 8% of LGB and 9% of those unsure drove after consuming alcohol. Might that reflect the range of stress that these kids experience? It is not because they are LGB or uncertain that causes risky behavior. That makes no sense at all. It is something else that I cannot explain. Harvey, on the other hand, is certain about just about every nonsensical syllable she writes or says.
Perhaps if people like Harvey would evaporate (or something harsher) the difference in stress (if that is what explains the difference in expressed sexuality) would not exist. Moreover, there are regional differences. Sexuality can not be induced through influence but high risk behavior most certainly can. In Arkansas those numbers (for consuming alcohol and then driving) are 8% and 18% respectively (straight compared to LGB). Arkansas did not measure uncertain sexuality. Are they combined? We do not know.
I would like to understand the disparity in Arkansas. I will send out some email tomorrow to local sociology professors. I know one thing for certain. Their sexual orientation is less likely to contribute to drinking and driving than environmental factors. I also know that God is not involved in the equation.
I will skip over Ms. Harvey’s stunning statistical analyses to get to this:
No study has found that homosexuality is inborn. A major study in 2016 reviewed current research and found no genetic linkage, despite numerous attempts to discover one.
Within the above, Harvey cites that infamous post by McHugh and Mayer to what is essentially a conservative Catholic blog. It was not a study. It sure as hell was not a “major study” and it wasn’t subjected to peer review. Harvey also claims that there have been numerous attempts to find a genetic link to sexual orientation.
Twin studies certainly support that link, at least in part. If one identical twin is gay, the chances are 50% that the sibling is gay. If one fraternal twin is gay, the odds go down to 25%. The difference is the amount of shared genetic material. That is an oversimplification because of the subgenome (which is why identical twins do not have identical sexuality) but you get the idea. I do not know if the male sibling effect is genetic or environmental (which means everything other than genetic) but the more older brothers one has, the greater the likelihood of being gay. It is, perhaps, the best predictor of male sexuality. It certainly is unrelated to family values and choices.
Harvey asks rhetorically:
Why are schools promoting “LGBTQ” behaviors as if they are positive and necessary?
Promoting kindness free of prejudice has nothing to do with sexuality. Furthermore, this has nothing to do with behaviors. Sexual orientation is generally necessary (most people have one) and there is nothing positive or negative about one sexual orientation. Life is about what you do with it. Where people land on the sexual orientation continuum is a hand dealt by nature. There is no pill and one can not ward off evil spirits with devotion or prayer. It is what it is.
Does homosexual attraction cause these other hazardous behaviors? Well, certainly not all of them, but this is a picture of teens who are unstable and reckless, and whatever issues cause this recklessness are possibly the root of confused sexual feelings as well.
Should we be trying to prevent all these high-risk behaviors, including homosexuality? Absolutely. It is changeable and preventable. But will our schools listen?
And there you have it. Homosexuality is changeable and preventable. The fact that no evidence exists to support either of those contentions is irrelevant to Ms. Harvey. She is trying to conform science to faith and that is simply impossible because it is the difference between faith and evidence.
What we should be preventing is exposing children to unnecessary stress, particularly if they are a sexual minority. The bigotry from Harvey and others is never going to go away and religion is a powerful weapon. Our job is to assure LGBT children that they are perfect just as they are. If they are religiously observant then they are perfect just the way God made them. Because, in point of fact, that is all perfectly true.