I 'd love to meet Matthew Flamm. D avid Horowitz, normally a reasonable fellow whom I greatly admire, falls into a couple of serious errors in his analysis of Trent Lott's remarks concerning homosexuality. First, he takes Lott to task for truthfully answering a direct question. He notes that it is Lott's personal belief that homosexuality is a sin, and that therefore he should keep this to himself. As a professed Christian, Lott apparently does not buy into that kind of moral relativism.
Sin is sin, whatever any mere mortal cares to think about it.
To suggest that public officials must be muzzled on points of basic morality is to expel truth itself from discussions of public policy, thus rendering everything subjective and therefore meaningless. Public discussion should not be subject to artificial limitations that make it acceptable only to atheists and agnostics. So, too, is the paucity of evidence concerning biological explanations for lesbianism. He still believes that male homosexuality has a genetic component, but concedes that environment plays a key role. Furthermore, countless people have left homosexuality behind by recovering their gender identity through religious conversion and psychotherapy.