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 fng cares?
So sick of homosexual BS!
The whole subject needs to go away!
If it is "natural," it is at best an aberration, and one that threatens the survival of the species. So it would be "naturally" abhorrent, even absent any moral baggage. It would also be perfectly "natural" for heterosexuals -- NORMAL people -- to reject homosexuals, which most heteros do.
Homosexuality is natural only in the sense that in any sufficiently large population, there will always be outliers, those whose behavior falls outside the bell curve. Sometimes they're homosexual. Sometimes they're mass murderers. Sometimes they're colorblind or have an extra toe.
The attempt to normalize behavior that is abnormal is simply the homosexual community trying to gain a stature it doesn't deserve, by redefining the math.
I think pretty universally Christian theology teaches that we are all “of Satan” by our natural birth, that of “water.” Christ calls him the master of this world. That is why Christ tells Nicodemus, “you must be born again.” That is the spiritual birth by grace through faith by believing in Jesus Christ to take our sins on himself by means of the once for all payment of his blood and death on the cross. Agree or disagree, even up to this point in time, that is the philosophy that has shaped the culture we live in.
I have it on good authority that the position during sex determines the proclivity.
Positions with odd number of letters create gay children while positions with even number of letters creates what is known as the Hetero.
You know...my father-in-law was a 35-year-recovering alcoholic. They say there may well be a genetic component to that. And NEVER, not once, was I inclined to say,”Hey...you can’t help it...you were born that way. God just wanted you to be an alcoholic. So, I endorse your behavior. Here, let me buy you a beer.”
I would think so...
But that would be easy to prove genetically, as all homosexuals would have the same genetic disorder or markers...
My daughter has a congenial genetic "disorder"...
One of her chromosomes split the wrong way and she has a problem with spatial things like time and math...
A brain wiring issue...which is easily confirmed by genetic testing...
In a court of law, it isn't necessary for the defense to prove the accused innocent; the burden is on the prosecution to prove his guilt.
That is the case here. Those asserting homosexuality is biologically hard-wired can prove that, if it's true. However, the absence of proof that it's true is not the same as proof that the opposite is false.
To illustrate, if I insist that 2 + 2 is 4, I can prove it by showing that 2 + 2 = 4, or by proving that 2 + 2 is NOT everything else BUT 4.
Dear trebb,
Read post #34
Desire or as in my case, I was but now choice not to.
Most leftists would turn pro life overnight if a gay gene was discovered that could be identified in a fetus.
‘I’m gay by CHOICE’: Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon faces gay backlash after claiming she chooses to be homosexual
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html
That’s what I thought.
It’s very common nowadays for people to abort Down’s syndrome fetuses. I can imagine an uproar from the left if people started aborting homosexual fetuses.
Maybe this area is how pro-life sentiment will gain ground. The idea of selective abortion, to abort a gay fetus, for example, may be something that even those on the left can’t stomach. And from there, some may be converted to the pro-life side thinking that abortion in general is a bad idea.
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.
Bingo. Reproductophobic. Responsibiliphobic. Normalphobic.
It's psychologically easier to divorce a non-biological "parent", should the gay-"married" couple decide to break up after test-tubing a child.
I met my husband’s little cousin when the tyke was about 3 yrs old and he was already dancing and prancing around on his tippy toes.
.
I said:”he sure is a strange one,kind of queer”.
Yeah,1960’s lingo.
Funny, I feel exactly the same way about professional basketball.
She is a relative of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Dennis Prager wrote about this and cited some research done ten or so years ago; the research noted that the number of homosexuals who suffered sexual molestation in their youth was quite high.
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.