Ann Coulter is a traitor to America: Gays and child-molesters, gays ARE child-molesters
Let's talk about Godless. I haven't read it. Not because I'm necessarily opposed to reading it. I'd read it. It might be an interesting read. But I'm not gonna spend money on it. I'm not going to subsidize Ann Coulter. But hey, if her publisher wants to send me a free copy, I'll flip through it. Crown, are you reading this?
But I have read the free excerpt from the first chapter on Amazon.com, and assuming that at least some of the statements therein are not vastly expanded upon in later sections of the book so as to render a current discussion ill-informed, let's talk about one quotation:
"As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference.* If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up?"
First, I gotta say, given the history of homophobia in this country, I think it's sort of in bad taste to equate homosexuality with child-molestation. Of course, if her media-frenzied quote concerning the 9-11 widows/Jersey Girls is any indication, bad taste may actually be an incentive for Ann Coutler TO do something, not a reason not to.
I suppose I should also pay lip service here to the many scientific studies that have documented how homosexuality is actually prevalent in nature, which would suggest that homosexuality is determined by birth. Of course, given Ann's seeming derision for science generally ("liberals masquerade as rationalists, adopting a sneering tone of scientific sophistication, which is a little like being condescended to by a tarot card reader") as well as the fact that she spends half of Godless in a passionate attempt to debunk evolution (Ann Coulter of course being eminently qualified to publish a book on the subject, having had extensive training and experience in the life sciences field), I don't imagine she puts much stock in these studies, anyway.
She certianly has a point about Darwinism weeding out the whole homosexuality thing. It's a point I've made before, and one I find difficult to explain: seems this is the exact kind of thing natural selection would take care of, if the whole system is based on reproduction. I guess my own hypothesis would be that, while I'm no more qualified to speak on the life sciences than Ann Coulter is, I do recall there being these things called dominant and recessive genes, so maybe the nature of evolution involves a little more than out with the bad, in with the good.
Of course, if it seems preposterous that people are born gay, it seems even more preposterous that they would choose to become so. Especially for all these gay people who emerge in conservative households where they're taught that homosexuality is an abomination, who would choose to practice a way of life that would get them ostracized by their family, friends, and church, deny them access to marriage rights, and get them beaten to death if they have the initials M.S. and are ever in the Laramie region? Is it all just an aggravated form of teenage rebellion?
The real issue isn't that people who are born a certain way can't be rehabilitated. Alcoholism, for example, is genetic, yet alcoholics are rehabilitated all the time. So I don't think the issue is that gays CAN'T be rehabilitated. They probably can be. I was talking with one person who said that the "people are born gay" argument is silly because gays still CHOOSE to act on their sexual urges, rather than trying to control them. I think that argument has some merit insofar as that child-molesters also CHOOSE to act on their sexual urges, when society expects and demands them not to. Of course, that whole argument suggests that heterosexuality is also a choice that can be "rehabilitated," that heteros can be taught to savor the joys of homo-luv. I suppose that's what prison is, if the popular preception is any guide: a place where inmates abandon their hetero predispositions and succumb to the glorious passions of male sodomy.
But the issue isn't that gays can't be rehabilitated and child-molesters can be. It's that gays SHOULDN'T be rehabilitated. There's nothing wrong with it. There's no harmful social result. It's a decision between two consenting adults. But when wicked Uncle Ernie fiddles about with his 10-year-old niece, there's a social harm done. That's why child-molestation is illegal and homosexuality is not (although if the conservatives had there way...). Homosexuality isn't a crime, child-molestation is; and rather than locking the latter up for the rest of his life in an already overcrowded penal system, the liberal ambition is to teach him to control his urges.
A more persuasive argument might have been recindivism rates for child-molesters. But that would involve statistics, and perhaps statistics are too closely related with science to be tasteful.
* Ann Coulter says, "Pedophilia: it's a child, not a choice. "