When “gay” or “homosexual” meant somebody who predominantly engaged in same-sex activities, the words had some use. The danger was that people would come to assume that “gay person” or “homosexual person” was a real, distinct creature, something different than a “heterosexual person,” almost another species. People are now quite surprised when they learn that “homosexual” is a neologism only a century or so old. The Oxford English Dictionary reports 1892 for the first inclination, 1912 for the first creature. But why this innovation? Good question, that. Before answering, a short journey.

People now identify themselves, not as man or woman, the only biological possibilities (barring gross malfunction), these forming (part of) the essence of human being, but as “gay” or “bisexual” or “hetero,” or one of a dozen, and growing, list of designators, and all “born that way.” That this is proved false, not just by appeal to biology, which is sufficient, but by observing that identical twins report same-sex attraction rates similar to non-twins, is everywhere ignored. If “orientation” were genetically determined,  both twins would report the same attractions; they do not.

This proves the adage that when we lose our grip on language we lose the ability to think. Propaganda works. Consequences?

We know that some individuals engage in same-sex activities at some point in their lives, usually in their youth or in prison or on a lonely mountain, only to turn later to wholly opposite-sex activities. People — many people — report being “gay” then not being “gay.” That means that “conversions” — itself the wrong word since it assumes “orientation” is a nature — happen.  The evidence for the fluidity in sexual behavior is overwhelming, and, anyway, used to be, for all of human history, common knowledge.

That is, before that common knowledge began to be banned, in part because of the corruption of language. We have reached the point where to assert what is true is called “hate” or “hate speech.” Truth-sayers are routinely chased from society, hounded by spittle-flecked, shrieking mobs who belch, “Hater!”

People have now become so frightened of being screeched at, that we have reached the point where this headline is not surprising: “Gay-conversion therapy ban to be introduced in House”:

The push to end so-called “conversion therapy” against homosexuality is expected to gear up Tuesday with the introduction of a House bill to ban the therapy nationally.

The bill comes a few weeks before a consumer fraud lawsuit described as a “David and Goliath” battle over the therapy begins in New Jersey, and in the wake of a request for a federal probe into whether the therapy’s marketing and practices are “deceptive” and “dangerous.”

Opponents of sexual orientation change efforts, such as Reps. Ted W. Lieu and Jackie Speier, both California Democrats, say being homosexual is not a disorder or illness, and efforts to change one’s sexual orientation are wrong and harmful.

See? It’s right there: “being homosexual,” as if this state represented a race or subspecies of humanity. So common is this locution that it’s almost impossible to see what’s behind it. And notice that the discussion of whether same-sex acts are moral is missing in action. Yet that is the primary question of interest. Think about it: if all persons who claimed to be “gay” were celibate (and believed to be) then nobody would care one whit about what people called themselves or their reported but unacted-upon desires.

What has happened with the corruption of language is that the morality debate has been bypassed: tacitly, folks believe that if people are “born that way,” then they have “no choice” but to engage in same-sex acts. Since that is an obvious fallacy, it is never stated. People want same-sex acts to be moral, but don’t want to or don’t know how to say so, and so engage in this end-around. (Perhaps that accounts for why people wildly over-estimate the percent of people who engage in same-sex acts.)

It’s worth quoting another paragraph from the story above:

“I am ecstatic that the leader of the free world has called for an end to gay ‘conversion’ therapy. And I commend President Obama for recognizing ‘reparative’ therapy for the crappery that it is,” Mr. Lieu told a reporter for Frontiers Media on Monday.

Crappery. Get that man a pitchfork.

As said, “conversion” is the wrong word, and so is “reparative therapy.” They, too, are a diversion of the real argument. “Converters,” if you like, believe same-sex acts are immoral; “banners” believe they are not. People who desired to engage in same-sex acts were forced into the word, so to speak, not so much by biology, but by rationally concluding they could get what they wanted were they to assume an identity.

Anyway, once these bans on “conversion therapy” become common, how long before it is ruled illegal for a man to claim he is a “former gay” or to tell children they have a “choice”? Well, these are just the kind of things you can expect in a corrupt democracy. “Truth” is decided by vote.

Extra. A small article on the types of therapies: Show Us the Facts on Homosexual Therapy