CNN writer Sally Kohn recently penned a piece that articulated her desire for her young daughter to grow up and be a lesbian,.

On the up side, I respect that Sally Kohn is at least honest. She self-identifies as gay. She wants to see that perpetuated in her daughter. The desire to see children follow in their parents’ footsteps, so to speak, is human, normal and rational. That's one positive thing to say about this piece. There really is only one other.

She doesn't come out and say it specifically. Kohn dances around it, likely for fear of not keeping to the gay-rights narrative. This is also a human thing. We don't have a problem offending those we consider to be in opposition to ourselves, the "other" tribe, but we tiptoe around our own tribe to avoid being ostracized. Clearly Kohn and her partner believe that Nurture plays some level of a role in determining whether one ends up gay or straight. If they didn't believe Nurture was involved, it would make no sense to basically try to indoctrinate their daughter into being a lesbian.

If being gay isn’t a choice, why go out of your way to deconstruct any sort of gender-role narratives with toys and books? If being gay isn’t a choice, why always remind your child that instead of her toys being used as a mommy and a daddy, there can be two of each? If being gay isn’t a choice, why push so hard for you child to adopt that sort of mentality and lifestyle? Answered simply: Kohn believes being gay is a choice. Or, at least, choice factors to some degree into the overall equation.

And fair is fair. There is absolutely zero scientific proof that homosexual inclination is an innate, immutable condition. No proof that it stems solely from Nature. No proof at all that one is born that way and that's it. None. Zip. Nada. As Kohn rightly points out, the narrative of the gay-rights movement has been that of “I’m born that way” and “That’s just who I am” as opposed to ‘what I choose to do.’ That narrative is effective, too. Most societies don’t mind drawing a line on certain types of behavior. That, in effect, is what it means to be involved in a social contract. But to draw lines on who you naturally are through no fault of your own? That’s a different thing and often less palatable.

For all we know, it may turn out that homosexuality is an inborn and immutable trait. I doubt it, especially since the efforts to prove so have fallen flat for decades now, but anything is possible.

The problem is that judges and elected officials (which technically include some judges) have been making rulings on gay rights based on the existing narrative, which itself is unproven. And the vast majority of the gay rights community believe in and perpetuate this narrative as if it were gospel, when in fact it is nothing more than conjecture and (politically useful) wishful thinking.

Kohn even attempts to parry by saying all she wants is for the idea of heterosexuality to not be seen as the default choice cannot be taken seriously when read in light of the rest of this piece. It is a thin veil to keep her from deviating from the popular narrative, which is not surprising since being a lesbian is part of her image as a writer. Some of her credentials are obviously tied into the gay rights movement and she cannot afford to be ousted.

If nothing else, though, at least Kohn is finally publicly scratching at the surface of the truth about the role of Nurture in this debate. That truth has been scratched ad nauseum from the Right, but because of the source it falls on many deaf ears, Perhaps now that it is being acknowledged by more on the Left it will gain traction, and a debate based on fact and logic will take the place of the emotional tirades that have so far dominated this issue.