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.
Lots of gay men and lesbians have hetero sexual relations. The majority of lesbians do, accounting for the large number of prostitutes who have a girlfriend for emotional "stabilty." If there can be anything good to come out of the gay marriage movement, it is that people with deep conflicts in this area will stop marrying someone of the opposite sex to provide cover for them.
On the other hand, at least the children of "beard" relationships had one normally oriented parent. But since the rise of Marxist oligarchy, judges have been "awarding" custody of children of divorce, orphans and children given up for adoption to gays and lesbians, and punish any persons wishing to stand in the way of it, including biological parents or grandparents who are Christians.
Just goes to show you.
They’ll get you one way or another.
No one can be born Christian. The most one can claim is having been born into a family that practices Christianity. To be a Christian is to make a mature decision to follow the teachings and make a declaration of that faith within one's community. Even then, salvation is not a slam dunk; but rather the result of a lifetime of learning, repenting for mistakes and living out the values as a result of the commitment, and not as a way to "earn" salvation. Salvation cannot be earned through works; it is a gracious gift for the humble and contrite follower of the Lord.
Is that what #8 means about being born Christian, or actually being birthed as a Christian?
So doggie for hetero, and doggy for homo?
There's a lot of truth in your jest; gays and lesbians have poorer health, greater incidence of co-pathologies like addictions, and shorter lifespans than heterosexuals. They say it's because of bullying. I'm not so sure about that.
OK, thanks
The earth has two poles; magnetism has two poles; electricity has two poles, DNA has two strands, et cetera. Polarity is fundamental to creation in order to create forward movement.
So you knew you were born that way? The murder or theft wasn’t a result of a circumstance?
“Speaking of lesbians, I’ve never understood why so many go out of their way to have a mannish appearance.”
I think this goes right along with my thesis that a large number of lesbians are really hetero but can’t attract a man or can’t cope with a man. But, they are still attracted to manliness and therefore, the predatory lesbos attract these confused souls.
Probably not. Conservatives are against abortion. Liberals would rejoice at knowing they would produce another Democrat.
OK, thanks
Are Pedophiles born that way?
Are mass murderers born that way?
Yes, I think many are “Lesbian by default”.
But also, today it’s somewhat considered “chic” among women to at least be bisexual.
Liberals would probably abort the straight ones and keep the gay ones. They like to be "cool", and they would all be looking for acceptance in their circle of friends by raising gay kids.
Also, and the homos really might want to think long and hard about this: if they are born that way, then a neonatal test may be devised to detect it, and they may end up being selectively aborted.
I think there are more than a few of those.... gay by default, because nobody else wants them.
Homos are always thinking long and hard.
“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.”
That argument doesn’t hold up, when you compare it to all the other nonsensical, disgusting activities us humans engage in. Do people have to be “born that way” to want a woman to crush their testicles with a big vinyl boot? Or do they have to be “born that way” in order to get pleasure from someone urinating on them? I don’t think so.
They’re all just perversions and perversions are caused by our tendencies for fetishism, or being sexually aroused by things that are not normally associated with sexuality. All of our brains are wired with that capacity, but exactly what we end up fetishizing is due to our experiences and choices.
“Speaking of lesbians, I’ve never understood why so many go out of their way to have a mannish appearance.”
Because they are trying to attract “girly” partners, so they try to ape men in order to appeal to more normal women.
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.