Posted on 05/31/2014 5:53:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song “Born this Way” sold millions of copies affirming what many people believe: homosexuality is hardwired. In fact, people think that’s as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No rational person rejects the idea. The only hold-outs, it is said, are either ignorant of science, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But before I explain why this view is beset with problems, let me make a tactical suggestion.
Many Christians get defensive when someone says homosexuality is inborn. I understand the temptation to argue against this claim. But it’s a mistake to try to show it’s false, at least initially. That’s because the claim is not an argument. It’s just an opinion and, therefore, not necessarily true. In order for their claim to become a bona fide argument, it must be supported with evidence or reasons.
So, instead of defending your convictions, make them defend their claim. Simply ask, “What evidence do you have that homosexuals are born that way?” Then wait and listen. This is totally appropriate and not just a rhetorical trick. It’s how the burden of proof works. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to show it’s true. Since they’ve made the claim, it’s their job to back it up, not your job to prove them wrong.
If they don’t have evidence for their claim, then it’s fair to graciously explain that their view is unreasonable – that they don’t hold their view for good reason. If they do offer evidence for their view, only then is it appropriate to respond with a counter-argument.
With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems with the born-that-way theory. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is biologically determined.
Decades of research to discover a “gay gene” have been unsuccessful. It’s now uncommon for scientists to think that homosexuality is solely genetic. Perhaps the most powerful line of evidence is found in twin studies. Since identical twins have identical genetics, it would follow that if one twin was homosexual, the other would also have to be homosexual 100% of the time. But both twins are homosexual in less than 15% of the cases.[1]
Not only is the genetic effect extremely low, but it also accounts for shared environmental factors. In other words, even saying that the genetic contribution to homosexuality is 15% is not accurate because identical twins are usually raised together and share a similar environment. In order to isolate the contribution of genetics, one would have to study identical twins raised apart. That way you eliminate the effect of their environment.
It was also speculated that homosexuality had a biological basis. But research that correlates brain anatomy/physiology with homosexual behavior doesn’t prove causation. In other words, even if the brains of homosexuals have structural differences from those of heterosexuals, that might suggest their behavior changes their brain, not necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity – the lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, behavior, brain injury, or even acquiring knowledge. For example, blind people’s brains have a different neurologic structure because reading braille using fingers is a different behavior than using eyes to read.
What’s surprising is that pro-gay researchers and organizations acknowledge the dearth of evidence for a biological cause to homosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once held the position in 1998 that, there is “evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this idea and caused the APA to revise their view in 2009. Their new position reads: “Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”[2] [emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA wouldn’t revise their statement unless there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.
A second problem with the born-that-way theory is that even if true, it wouldn’t prove that homosexual behavior is moral. Consider that scientific research has discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism, unfaithfulness, violence, and even many diseases. Are we to believe that because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they were genetically determined) that they should be regarded as morally appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.
This mistake in thinking is known as the naturalistic fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be. And scientists who are attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree. Harvard geneticist Dean Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.”[3] Simon LeVay, a Harvard trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”[4]
A third problem stems from the mere existence of the “ex-gay” community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic, something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.
There are women who have had long-term, lesbian relationships with other women and then changed and became attracted to men. There are also men who have had same-sex attractions since puberty, spent a decade in gay relationships, and then developed attractions to the opposite sex. Many of these people have gone through some form of counseling or therapy, but many have not.
The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals who share this experience is significant counter-evidence against the born-that-way theory. I know many of these people. They can’t all be lying about their life.
Instead, what they offer is hope. Since many people are dissatisfied with their same-sex attractions, these changed lives represent an opposing voice to the cultural chorus that claims homosexuals are born that way.
If they were born that way why are the queers so invested in developing new ones from our children in their schools?
And the narcissism involved with gay men - more adolescent nonsense.
Actually, I have found that a lot of gay guys have dropped the gay gene lie - precisely because they figured out that they could then be aborted.
I think he probably means that God had a plan for him from the beginning of time that he would be led to Christ in time. I’m pretty sure somebody’s going to disagree with me if I expand much on that.
RE: Barring evidence one way or the other, it’s a stalemate.
And THAT is precisely what the author is arguing. Homosexuals can’t at this point in time tell us that they are genetically “born that way” unless they can provide positive scientific proof that it is so.
And since it is a stalemate, using that line of argument does not convince.
Therefore, it ought not be used UNTIL scientific evidence can be shown.
RE: It seems that the Catholic/Christian folks who detest homosexuality in and of itself without regard to whether the homosexuals are the in-your-face perverts or of the more quiet and unassuming nature, have some need for it to be an absolute, across-the-board choice with no chance of any cases to be “natural by birth”.
We cannot control what INDIVIDUALLY espouse, we can only determine what a church officially states they believe.
Barring the Westboro baptist church, most official conservative church stances ( from Roman Catholic to Orthodox to Evangelical ).
Here for instance is the Catholic stance on homosexuality:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/homosexuality
Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace.
However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex.
The Catholic Church by virtue of the teachings of scripture and tradition, teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law.
Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful.
People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out.
People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.
There is no detesting of homosexuals, there is however, disapproval, sorrow, and desire to see a person change his behavior.
RE: If God can allow kids to be born with serious birth defects and a host of maladies, why can He not allow some folks to be born homosexual?
And that precisely is the author’s argument. Given and
*IS” how do you gt from that to an *OUGHT*?
Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it morally ought to be.
RE: Call it a sin if you like,
I don’t know what moral foundation you are coming from, but if it isn’t a Christian foundation, I don’t even think the word “sin” makes any sense.
It simply becomes another lifestyle choice.
RE: but understand that no one is free from sin but by the body and blood of Christ and that any sin is grounds for the penalty of spiritual death, we have all been as disgusting in God’s eyes, before being redeemed in Christ, as the worst perverted homosexual.
Again, homosexual desires and temptations are NOT sinful, homosexual ACTS ( giving in to the desire ) is what IS sinful.
Homosexuals are to be valued by a Christian’s BECAUSE they are made in the image of God. Homosexual ACTS are to be condemned as abomination because the ACT violates God’s commandments.
RE: I maintain that, if you cannot provide proof for your side of the theory, it is hypocritical to demand proof from the other side.
And I maintain that UNLESS POSITIVE EVIDENCE IS SHOWN FOR THE HOMOSEXUAL SIDE OF THE THEORY, the argument that they are “born that way” is similar to insisting that MH370 flew to Pakistan and is sitting on a hangar there somewhere.
It is reasonable to ask someone what evidence he has to show that the plane is in Pakistan AS LONG AS YOU ARE OPEN TO THAT POSSIBILITY.
Therefore, it is NOT hypocritical to demand proof of someone who makes such a statement AS LONG AS YOU ARE OPEN TO THAT POSSIBILITY. Such demand it is IN FACT REASONABLE.
Just as it is reasonable to demand proof that someone who accuses another of murder provide good evidence for his accusation. Otherwise, the accused is presume innocent.
RE: Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be.
I must not be logical enough to figure out the logic in that particular statement.
_______________________
An IS ( i.e. homosexuality IS in-born) does not necessarily imply an OUGHT ( i.e. homosexuality OUGHT TO be morally acceptable ).
THAT is what the author is trying to drive at.
If they are born that way does that mean all forms of strange sexual bahavior is because they were born that way? Somehow I think that there are better explanations.
RE: Are Pedophiles born that way?
Here’s the homosexual argument against equating their condition to pedophiles ( not saying I agree with them), I’m just presenting it for wise folks in this forum to refute...
“I have seen people who already exhibit gay preferences very shortly after birth in fact as soon as they learn how to exhibit preference (like or dislike). On the other hand, even by definition pedophiles HAVE to GROW old first before they can exhibit PEDOPHILIA. Have you seen a 3 year old PEDOPHILE? If you have not, then it is not inborn, isn’t it?”
If they were Born that Way why is it some wait until they are 30 or 40 years old to be gay theory up in smoke.
Gay falls into the line of want to be kinky like some who like pain.
Our design by God would not permit us to be gay and therefore the only reason one would be gay or lesbian is that their parents acted in such a manner that encourages their kids to be gay or lesbian.
Are you asserting that we know enough about God's creation that we could absolutely prove it if homosexuality was hard-wired for some?
The court of law statement tells me you are grasping at straws and came up with an irrelevant one for the topic. Your other argument is only valid if we do, indeed, have the knowledge required to be able to actually prove it one way or the other - it remains a scientific, rather than a legal meme.
God also made us all sinners and yet we were exhorted to not sin, even thought the Old Covenant is all about God proving that we could not abstain from sin. He gave us the commandments because we asked for them and with them, sin grew exponentially. Jesus was the only "Man" to walk the earth that could do so without sinning. Prove that wrong and I'll concede the argument. Of course, you will also have to prove that Jesus didn't have to die for us to become justified and redeemed because somehow we are really capable of becoming worthy of our own selves.
Do you believe that God had no idea that Satan would tempt Adam and Eve and that they would be cast out of the Garden? Do you think that during this part of Genesis,: "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”
10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”
11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
that God did not know where Adam was hiding? Do you believe that He did not already know that they had eaten from the tree?
Until someone can answer those questions, the "argument" holds no water. Folks are just trying to justify that they are somehow superior or holier than homosexuals and they flail wildly in order to keep from having to admit that they are every bit as unworthy without Jesus Loving Sacrifice.
From your post.
If we cannot receive the gift without rejecting sin, then I submit that no one has ever received the gift.
Even with the gift, and the Holy Spirit within our hearts, we cannot go through a day without some sort of sinful behavior. If we were able to do so, we would be able to be justified and worthy on our own merits and Jesus would not have had to die for us. You can twist the Good News any way you want and apply any canons/tenets/philosophies you want, but the truth of the matter is that we are all as sullied as the vilest homosexual without Jesus' blood to wash away our sins. There's just a bunch of us that hate that fact and they have to try to prove that they have some sort of spiritual superiority - Jesus ran into a bunch of folks like that and called them some sort of hypocrites.
Can't be proved or disproved, so we get distracted from carrying the Word by involving ourselves in the gyrations that make us feel holier than them. Folks will descry a Baptist Minister preaching brimstone and hell-fire w/o including the Love of Jesus, then we ignore the message of Love and concentrate on what's wrong. Telling the Good News as often as one can has a far greater chance of helping someone become saved than telling them that they stink and leaving it at that.
My argument wasn’t intended to prove or disprove the assertion that homosexuality is inborn. It was to point out the fallacy in your line of reasoning that put the same burden on those who would argue that it’s NOT that you would assign to those who assert it IS.
Why should there be a different burden for opposing sides? I don't know, or care, if it is hard-wired. All I'm saying is that if one side wants to be believed, that side needs to present the proof. You confused the issue by the assumption that because the homosexuals claim that they think it's hard-wired, that we need to believe them because we can't prove it's not. I say that it is what it is and maybe someday science will be able to tell us what it is. I know some who appear to be hard-wired and some who are merely hedonists who go after any sort of pleasure they can get. If it matters to you, I say go ahead and try to enlist someone with the background and abilities to try to prove your side of the argument - it's a scientific matter and you cannot compare it to a legal matter where the prosecution has to do all the proving. It shouldn't even be a one side against the other issue - it should be a scientific interest just for the knowledge.
Don’t give me your specious ‘arguments’,
I really don’t care whether your questions are answered or not.
Jesus told the woman taken in adultery ‘Your sins are forgiven you, go and sin no more’
God is all knowingPERIOD
I don’t believe He has to satisfy your questions.
Ultimately the proponents of the sex positive agenda don't care WHY someone has aberrant desires. The stated goal is forever END all moral judgments over sexual pairings of ANY kind regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
We will know who is gay and people will not be able to become gay for other reasons.
Like those two alleged gays who went to Big Earl’s in Pittsburg, TX., it seems when we expand marriage to “same-sex”; anyone can do that just to pull jokes on people or worse, troll for a lawsuit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.