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.
Who is this mother nature person so many refer to?
Consider the facts:
1. If it is genetic, then homosexuality would be passed from generation to generation just like any other genetic trait
2. Homos cannot mate with other homos. The only way for a homo to reproduce would for a homo to have a child with a hetero and for the homo gene to be dominant in the child.
3. Does anyone REALLY think this is what’s happening?
4. Because if not, then the percent of homos in the population should be decreasing.
5. Or, it’s just a learned behavior and has nothing to do with the genetic structure a person is born with.
Of course they are born that way. They are born sinners. That’s why they need to repent, just like the rest of of us with our respective sins.
lgBt: BIsexual
The “scientists” promoting “Born That Way” won’t use identical twins in their research. You’d think identical twins would have the same “sexual orientation” but oddly enough two “gay” twin-siblings is very rare.
Actually they can eat all the carbs they want.
They will just die quickly, after they go blind.
Some are, some aren’t. I estimate 50% of lesbians are not really gay, but can’t handle a relationship with a man and don’t care so much who is munching on their rug.
For homos, it boggles the mind to think that anyone but a born perverted male would relish the thought of a big hairy you know what, jammed in the place of darkness. Maybe 10% are just asexual and like guys better than women to hang out with. But the rest? Pervs from day one.
Are bank robbers “born that way”? Are alcoholics? Are composers? Are inventors?
This question has no importance to the right ordering of a society.
Well, abortion on demand will end.
What about people that are born non-Christian but heterosexual, are they of satan?
Born that way?
Perhaps.
But if born that way it is not normal.
Like someone born with a mental or physical anomaly, it may be “natural” but not normal.
If you believe in evolution then man and woman evolved to perform two separate sexual functions.
If you believe God created man and woman, then man and woman were created to perform two separate sexual roles.
Seems pretty clear to me.
If they ever find a gay gene, then will people get abortions if they carry a homosexual fetus? Many people abort Down’s syndrome babies, for example. Does the homosexual community really want us to go down that road?
One could add, "or normal." Many are born with birth defects but does that make them normal?
But the "therefore" doesn't follow from the predicate.
Whatever your genetic endowment is (good or bad), any society that is going to survive has to favor certain things and disfavor certain other things.
The question, as regards "out and proud" is, is it on the whole good, or on the whole bad, taking everything into consideration.
Thieves and alcoholics suffer terribly because of repression and disfavor. Composers and engineers enjoy a good life because their predilections are elevated and rewarded.
The choices a society makes about public homosexuality are of great importance and affect many things.
How its practitioners "are born" has zero to do with it.
Speaking of lesbians, I’ve never understood why so many go out of their way to have a mannish appearance.
If a lesbian is a woman who loves another woman, rather than a man, why does she feel the need to go against cultural norms of how females appear? You all know what I mean. The flannel shirts, mannish clothes, boyish haircuts that are so prevalent among many lesbians, makes you think they want to be a man, not a woman.
Can those wires get crossed up prior to birth?
Game over?
I think the game just might be beginning.
You see, abortion. If you can determine if your baby is going to be born “gay,” then people will start to abort gay babies.
Whoa.
Imagine the gay mafia going berserk over THAT.
“Wait! You can’t abort a baby because they will be homosexual, you just can’t!”
The game of liberals fighting over banning the abortion of gay babies will be something to watch.
Even better. What happens when we have a prenatal screen for homosexuality?
I bet that all of a sudden a woman WON’T have an unlimited “right to choose” to abort.....
How can someone be a killer or thief, if they’ve never killed or stolen?
What if they just say...no I’m not?
If you have ever spent much time around children, the vast majority of them prefer same-sex friends and often avoid children of the opposite sex. Remember “cooties”?
What would be the influence of sexualizing children before puberty given that they prefer to associate with same sex friends?
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.