Consensual sexual relations are just that--consensual sexual relations. The sort of argument Keyes makes is unserious and quite silly. If he is the serious intellectual he claims to be than he would be aware that while many popular arguements over homosexuality discuss whether it is uncontrollable, most serious discussions moved beyond that to a point of asking what interest the state has bothering with private consensual sexual behavior. Based on such an arugment, his argument is meaningless.Archpundit also makes the following point about genetics and choice:
The argument on the genetics is rather troublesome anyway--given someone could be predisposed to certain behavior that hurts others and society would take action to restrain that person regardless of whether it is in their control or not. How we restrain them might be different, but we still confine them or otherwise deal the behavior. For a man of 'great intellect' his reasoning is quite poor. There's something about the style that makes many believe he is somehow brilliant when he his actual argument is quite shoddy, but very theatrical.Personally, I've watched too many friends struggle with the difficulty of coming out in a culture that has told them that they wrong, sinner, perverts, etc., to ever think that anyone would merely "choose" to be gay. Some of the most hurtful types of organizations are those that try to make people into "ex-gays." Keyes spoke at one in March, 1999.