Researchers found that male rats who were raised with a bunch of sister rats are “less reliable heterosexuals” than their counterparts who weren’t. Rats with lots of sisters apparently did not attempt as many hetero-rat-sexual encounters as other rats, but, according to researchers, were just as fruitful, producing as many offspring as their buddies but requiring fewer sexual encounters to do so. Say the researchers, “males from female-biased litters mate as efficiently as males raised in other sex ratios.”

From what I can tell - I didn’t spend the $35 required to read the whole study - there is no mention in the paper at all of homosexual behavior. There does not seem to be any indication that having a bunch of sister rats inclined any of the rats toward homosexuality at all.

So perhaps the author is just having a little fun with the topic (as I did with the title of this column), since the title of  the TIME article suggests the study in question represents a breakthrough in understanding the origins of homosexuality but offers nothing of the sort.

The supposed thesis, by the way, is actually bad for the “born that way” crowd, since it would be an argument for environment rather than heredity as a shaping force in sexual expression.

You will notice that homosexual activists have gone quiet in the last decade-plus about the mythical “gay gene.” It’s never been found; even homosexual researchers admit as much. And if it does exist, and is discovered, the homosexual lobby won’t want anybody to find out about it.

They know that with advances in pre-natal genetic screening, any carriers of the gay gene likely will wind up butchered in the wombs of their mothers just like Down syndrome babies are. They would fall victim to the sacred rite of child sacrifice that calls for the shedding of innocent infant blood to appease the god of Death.

It would be odd - suddenly, homosexual activists would then be forced to become the most ardent pro-lifers you’ve ever seen. “Why, you can’t dismember homosexuals before they’re even born, that’s discrimination, that’s blatant homophobia, we can’t have that, we’re going to put you in jail for committing a hate crime, you homophobic creep.”

Even if some genetic predisposition to homosexuality is discovered, it changes nothing, for the simple reason that sexual behavior is always, always a choice. I may not be able to keep myself from experiencing unwanted sexual impulses - nobody can do that - but I can always, always choose which sexual impulses to yield to. You can ask Tiger Woods about how smart it is to deny none of your sexual impulses.

People argue that some folks have a genetic, hereditary predisposition to alcoholism. We would never say to such individuals, “Hey, in most cases, we tell people not to drink themselves into a stupor - it will destroy your life, your marriage, your family, your career - but hey, go ahead, you’re born that way, you can’t help it, knock yourself out, wreck your life, don’t worry about it.”

Of course not. We’d, say, hey the road may be a little tougher for  you than others, but you have got to get control of these dark impulses before they wreak utter and total havoc in your life. I’m here to help, what can I do?

That’s the same message we have for homosexuals: sexual behavior is a choice, homosexual behavior will leave you diseased, lonely, and dead, you’ve got to learn to resist homosexual impulses, I’m here to help.

If homosexuals resist the offer of such help, well, I guess that’s a choice too, isn’t it?

(Unless otherwise noted, the opinions expressed are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the views of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.)