“Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality ... a deep-rooted predisposition ... that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.”

The above idea was expressed with respect to homosexuality decades ago and since has become left-wing dogma. The thinking is that if someone was “born that way,” if the behavior is “natural” for him and he didn’t choose his feelings, how could it be wrong?

Yet the opening quoted line wasn’t penned decades ago — it’s only two years old. And homosexuality wasn’t the focus.

It was about pedophilia.

Here is the complete quotation, as published by the Los Angeles Times on Jan. 14, 2013:

Like many forms of sexual deviance, pedophilia once was thought to stem from psychological influences early in life. Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality or homosexuality. It is a deep-rooted predisposition — limited almost entirely to men — that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.

Should we view this as just a clinical analysis, without considering what may be implied and certainly will be inferred? After all, if the “inborn” argument is valid, then it’s silly to think it doesn’t apply to other “innate” urges and inclinations. If it’s not valid, however, then it’s equally silly to accept it with respect to any supposedly innate inclination, such as homosexuality. Let’s delve into it.

The same social scientists telling us homosexuality is innate also claim that psychopaths are born and not made. Does this make psychopathy a legitimate state of being? And what if it’s found that some people are born with homicidal instincts? Would it be okay for them to commit murder?

Some may now say that murder is different because it hurts another person. (Of course, others contend that indulging in deviant sexual behavior with another also hurts the person.) But this is a change in yardstick that renders the inborn argument irrelevant. After all, whether or not an action reflects inborn urges tells us nothing about whether or not it hurts another.

Stating the obvious, the inborn argument could be applied to anything inborn. Logically translated it says: If a feeling is innate, the actions associated with it are okay. This eliminates morality completely and replaces it with biological determinism (BD). This is why accepting the BD argument means accepting everything that can be proven to be inborn — even if it’s pedophilia, bestiality, or murder. It’s just a slightly more sophisticated way of saying “If it feels good, do it.” But biology does not determine morality.

Of course, left-wing activists also rely on “if it feels good, do it” to formulate argumentation, which is why they never do apply the BD argument consistently. While they’re perfectly content to utilize it to advance their pet behavior, they then turn around and scoff at the notion that, despite BD having been lent credibility as a guiding principle, it could be used by others to promote pedophilia or bestiality.

This emotion-based modus operandi is why left-wing activists continually contradict themselves. The theological version of the BD argument, frequently uttered by homosexual activists, is “God doesn’t make mistakes.” Yet those taking this tack don’t dispute that man’s many inborn abnormalities, such as cleft lip, Spina bifida, Down syndrome, club foot, and Tay-Sachs disease, are defects. Nor do they claim, as some believers did in ages past, that these abnormalities are divine punishment for sin.

Even more to the point, if activists say that homosexual behavior is okay because “God doesn’t make mistakes,” how do they explain their advocacy of so-called “gender-reassignment surgery”? Shouldn’t they then conclude that if God wanted a person to be a member of the opposite sex, He would have created him that way?

Then there’s this study indicating that racial bias is innate. Will the Left now move to rescind anti-discrimination law?

If leftists actually believed in God (as opposed to just using Him for a ploy), they might realize there’s much He doesn’t ordain and that our fallen nature has corrupted our minds as well as our bodies. In reality, though, what they “realize” is dictated by the political imperatives of the moment.

As another example of shape-shifting judgments, consider the reportage on NYC mayor Bolshevik Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray. She’s universally and frequently described, as ABC does here, as a “former lesbian.” But according to leftist dogma, isn’t at issue an inborn orientation that “does not change”? Shouldn’t she be characterized as a “lesbian living a lie in marriage” or a “woman denying her true feelings”?

Of course, history tells us that man’s sexuality is quite malleable and that it certainly can change. Homosexuality was institutionalized in ancient Spartan military camps, and it was common for Athenian men to chase after adolescent boys. Are we to conclude that most all ancient Greeks had a “gay gene”?

Also note that science has discovered no such genetic link. In fact, this 2001 Columbia University study found that among identical twins (who share identical genetics), the same-sex attraction experienced by one was shared by the other only 10 percent of the time.

Despite this, California and New Jersey have seen fit to ban homosexual conversion therapy for minors. Perhaps voters in those states may want to consider that, as with sexual feelings, politicians can be changed.

And since minds and hearts can as well, we should be careful what arguments we legitimize. To abide by the principle of biological determinism — the force governing animals — would beget an animalistic society. Remember that acceptance of BD implies there’s nothing better — namely morality — to govern our behavior. And a people embracing the notion “It if feels good, do it,” one day just may decide that it feels better to kill homosexuals than to tolerate them.

Feelings don’t always inform about facts. And biology never determines morality.