Gays and their friends in the media have conditioned the American public to think gays are born gay and gays are in high numbers. Heritability is a mixed bag with being gay, there is semi-black listed gay germ theory, and the concept that same-sex molestation could be a cause (a, not the) is hip-checked at every attempt by academics (I support it as a cause for some). The last link mentions the fact that the study on possible causality was the first to do so despite study after study showing that gays were moleted as children at higher rates than straights (gay men 3-5x in some studies). God forbid someone ask an uncomfortable question in academia. The Gallup graph to the right reveals the massive change in thought in one generation. Another article reveals the possible motives behind molding the basic idea of gayness.
In the January 8th, 1979 edition of TIME, John Leo wrote an article titled "Homosexuality: Tolerance vs. Approval". That title sounds like it could be written in 2004, not now as you must tolerate and approve or be called a bigot. Had Leo written it today, he'd be burned at the stake or blacklisted from writing in any magazine or newspaper again except to apologize. Leo states that America is confused because there is a rising tide of tolerance for gays in '79, but the voters just don't want to give them protection and explicitly coded rights and laws. Leo still frames it like a good cathedralite as he says America has much to be ashamed about in its treatment of gays, but this is after noting no one enforces sodomy laws anymore. Leo calls for tolerance but no protection. He did not understand the power of the lobby that he did describe as militant.
It is amazign to see how much conventional wisdom has changed and what changed it. Leo writes that academics and "most researchers think that homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is learned behavior". Besides religious and moral reasons to be intolerant, Leo cited the liberal reason which was that homosexuality was a sickness. Leo writes that "evidence to date casts doubt on the theory that homosexuality is biologically based". Gay activists were hard to hit the American Psychiatric Association throughout the '70s, causing the great compromise that homosexuality could not be a disorder "per se" but a sexual orientation disturbance. Both sides win, and what is interesting is how homosexuals did it:
gay rights movement demanded that the APA remove the "sick" label from homosexuality, the association was in no mood to disagree. First, the homosexual lobby had demonstrated in the words of one Freudian "that there is a large ambulatory populations of homosexuals out there that do not need psychiatric help". And Second, the lobbyists argued with heavy effect, that the "sick" label is the linchpin of society's oppression of homosexuals
The APA compromised not due to science or its members beliefs but due to lobbyists citing oppression. The same oppression that does not enforce sodomy laws. Leo mocks the compromise and cites shrinks belief that homosexuals have underlying problems. He cites that an APA "informal poll of 2500 psychiatrists showed that a majority believed that homosexuals are sick". Care to wager if just 10% of shrinks would admit that publicly today? Universities did a great job of training the next generation of psychiatrists to be enlightened. The shrinks of 1979 did not view gays as born that way but as taught that way, altered or even just 'off'. Leo would go on to note the changes of hoping for acceptance to requiring approval, writing a prophetic line about hiring gay teachers as a stepping stone to parental fears of laws that "may require that homosexuality and heterosexuality be discussed in sex education classes as equally desirable choices".
Woven in this TIME article is the fact that Americans did not view them as a group to receive protection. Leo doubts that they are a class or bloc to protect like blacks or women with affirmative action type legal codes. The public would not protect a lifestyle. That is at the heart of changing the perception from a choice or even an unintended consequence of child rearing, molestation, hormones and what not into a biological and genetic predetermined outcome. Born this way. If someone is born this way, they become a group. Their advocacy groups have not done much for them scanning 'rights' won. Hollywood has done far more in pushing blue collar guys like my dad into accepting gays, allowing for them to be openly gay compared to 30 years ago. Odd thing is, in between the TIME article and today, there has been this killer disease spread by gays that never gets mentioned anymore. Regardless, attaching biological and genetic causes as the primary basis for homosexuality, makes it a lot easier for the media to mold opinions for political referendums, states laws, federal benefits, etc. because it stops being a lifestyle. Beign gay becomes a biological fact like being a woman or minority. This is incredibly odd as the liberals spend most of their time now stating that gender and race are social constructs and not biological reality. The damage is done there though as our laws are coded to favor those groups.
At the same time as the article, the progressives were hard at work turning this into a wedge issue and a potential pool of voters to attach to the coalition. Mondale was the first major Democrat to court the gay vote when he publicly and openly executed on gay donor and voter outreach in 1982. His "important" speech was in front of the Human Rights Campaign Fund, which is a brilliantly named front organization for funneling campaign donations to gay friendly politicians. The title suggests it is about human rights, which, in the '80s with starving Africans to fundraise for, gullible Americans could consider benign. They have since dropped the fund part of their name as the fundraising can be done in the open now. Hidden in this other Mondale and gays link are gems of just how wrong the left was in the early '80s but also comments from Mondale that one must be smooth in saying that one is against discrimination without endorsing their lifestyle. Why? Because there must be three or four million votes out there. Dukakis said no to gay raised money in '88, but gay fundraising helped force Obama's evolution on sort of, half heartedly endorsing gay marriage. It always comes back to politics.
The left needed a new way to turn everyday Americans into a specific focus group. They needed a way to dangle a carrot in front of that voter bloc and whisper, "We will give you this, but they will not, vote, donate, join us". Gay voters are a sliver of the vote, but they make up 5% of the electorate. Sounds small, but if they switched the presidential voting habits of gays from 57-43 to 88-12 since 1984, it makes a difference in every swing state and in some years, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Gays were born that way, you shamefully oppressed them through the years, so they need protections and explicitly defined rights, now why would you not support that? Bigot! Homophobe! No, we won't call you one as long as you vote for us. The media's messaging depends on the recipient. Academics and media outlets pushed the concept of homosexuality being biologically based not just for you or I to accept it, but so that gays would view their very gayness in just one manner and become a solid voting and fundraising bloc for America's progressive overlords.