Still not “born that way”

dna2.gifThe “gays were born that way” saying has taken on a life of its own and has an overwhelming impact on public policy.  Is it true?  If it is true, does it matter?  Some thoughts . . .

1. I’m highly skeptical of “proof” that it is genetic (either a “gay gene” or genetic predispositions), as these studies have all been proven to be false in the past.  There is no study showing that it is, and many showing that it isn’t.

2. Even if it is genetic, that doesn’t change the morality of the behavior.  You don’t get an “ought” from and “is.”  Gay-bashing is a sin, but on LGBTQX logic those people could claim they were “born that way.”

3. If it is genetic, the number of gays will be dramatically reduced in a generation or so.  Heterosexual parents will be quick to abort their children with predispositions to be gay.  And the Liberals won’t do much to stop them, because they typically love abortion rights more than gay rights.  Any time I pose that hypothetical situation to pro-abortion/pro-LGBTQ people, they always choose abortions over gays.  They haven’t changed their views even for gender selection abortions (which virtually all involve the killing of females for the sole reason that they are female), so they probably won’t change them for gays, either.

I think that would be a bad thing, of course, as I’m against abortions except to save the life of the mother, regardless of whether the baby has a predisposition to be gay.

4. I’ve seen lots of evidence that many people are gay because of sexual abuse and/or relationship issues.  I agree that anecdotes don’t make a full case, but I’m talking about a lot of anecdotes from people who come across hundreds or even thousands of gays.  I’ve read of many counselors who said that virtually all of their gay patients had been abused or had serious relationship issues.  And here’s a quote from gay activist / journalist Tammy Bruce from The Death of Right and Wrong:

Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood – molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult.  The gay community must face the truth and see the sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the “coming-of-age” experience many regard it as being.  Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS.

She wasn’t trying to dispel the “born that way” notion, but I thought her comment was compelling.

And nearly all the lesbians I know were abused by their fathers or husbands.  It is tragic that their “solution” just makes things worse.

5. It doesn’t have to be one traumatic event.  It could be the complete dynamics of a relationship in place from birth that would make someone think they were “always that way.”

6. Gays who choose that lifestyle would be predisposed to say they were born that way.  Otherwise, the whole “civil rights” demands would have even less reasoning behind them.  Just watch what happens when famous people claim they changed to be gay or lesbian.  The LGBTQX lobby goes into attack mode.

7. How many times do you see a newborn and say, “Now there’s a gay baby!”  Be sure not to unfairly stereotype youths as gay just because they have non-traditional characteristics.  How about nurturing and encouraging them for who they are and what interests they have?

8. Why are some people so eager to insist on the genetic link?  Seems kinda homophobic to me, as if they think the lifestyle would make an undesirable choice.

And don’t just say, “They are picked on, so who would want that lifestyle?”  That reasoning wouldn’t apply to people with true genetic differences that have made people a source of disapproval in the past.

Also, gay approval is at an all time high – “pride” parades, recognition as employee network groups at many businesses, civil unions & marriages – even apostate church weddings, almost universally favorable media treatment, etc.

9. Here’s one lady who doesn’t claim she was “born that way.”  She says feminism led her to lesbianism (go figure!).

Ms Wilkinson, Professor of Feminist and Health Studies at Loughborough University, said: “I was never unsure about my sexuality throughout my teens or 20s. I was a happy heterosexual and had no doubts. Then I changed, through political activity and feminism, spending time with women’s organisations. It opened my mind to the possibility of a lesbian identity.”

7 thoughts on “Still not “born that way””

  1. I think some confusion is caused by failing to understand how we are created. Men and women are designed (except for those called to live single) as pairs. But not every man and woman fit together. Sometimes it may take a while to find a person of the opposite sex who fits.
    I think that is why people tend to have friends of the same sex. So if a young person does not find the right mate right away, but does find other same sex friends, our society tells him she is gay. Too many times the person is derailed at this point and stops looking.
    In earlier times the person would keep looking and often find the right person.


  2. I’ve never understood the claim that nature gives some people a gene that *discourages* them from mating with the opposite sex – and therefore breeding and passing said genes down to the next generation. Wouldn’t the proponents of natural selection (sometimes the same people as the gay activists) tell us that such a genetic mutation would be defeated pretty quickly? It’s illogical. The Darwinists insist that nature selects for survivability, and their own theories should tell them that carriers of the “gay gene” should have died out a long, long time ago.

    Yet homosexuals have been with us for many thousands of years (Sodom and Gomorrah), with a few members of every generation so oriented. This tells me that the cause is “nurture,” not “nature.” Furthermore I suspect deep down, these people know there’s something wrong with them, as do their enablers. Why else is there such a pronounced effort to promote “pride” in the lifestyle and insist that it’s on an equal par with straight sex?

    And furthermore, why is all of this such a recent development (and even then, confined entirely to Western cultures) if it’s natural? There *are* homosexuals in every culture and in every part of human history, but it seems only recently that they’ve been out of the closet – up until a couple decades ago, those so afflicted were shunned or worse. I wrote awhile back that my sympathies are on those who have these urges but resist them because they know acting upon them would hurt their relationship with God. My frustration, meanwhile, is on those who aren’t content to simply live out their lives in a way that makes the most sense to them, but instead seem hellbent on cramming the lifestyle down our throats. (And I’m getting tired of the dishonest arguments being used to do that – citing the 14th Amendment, citing the 1967 SCOTUS case (Loving v VA), as well as insisting that gay marriage doesn’t affect straights.)

    The answer, of course, is that it’s not genetic at all. It’s another symptom of growing apostasy and people turning away from God’s ways in the last days.


    1. The basic naturalistic/evolutionary pro “gay gene” hypothesis is that having homosexual relatives is good if they can help fill in for missing/dead parents or other people. It’s a basic “it takes a village to raise a child” — it’s not just the offspring’s parents who are involved in the children’s care, but all the people in the community, and especially close relatives. Thus, they reason, in the past homosexual Uncle John or Aunt Jane who had no children of their own would be able to step in and be a substitute father or mother to their deceased sibling’s children; or not having their own children to care for, they could lavish care on their nieces and nephews and give them even better care than just the children’s parents alone; so, while the homosexuals themselves would not pass along a “gay gene” (unless they engaged in heterosexual sex), it might be something recessive, so their heterosexual siblings would have that gene but it would not be expressed, though they might pass it along to their children — and these children, I guess by virtue of their homosexual relatives’ making them more likely to survive and thrive, would then be a vicarious way that a “gay gene” would be passed along.

      But it’s just evolutionary story-telling and tautology (evolution is only involved with individuals who thrive and pass along their genes to the next generation… except when it’s involved with individuals who *don’t* pass along their genes to the next generation), *and* it’s predicated on the belief that homosexuality is genetic and unavoidable, thus is even more fantastic story-telling — along the lines of developing an entire history and family tree for the unicorn, when there is not only no evidence of unicorns today, but there is no evidence of unicorns ever, much less all the evolutionary changes that would have to happen to make one-horned horses (flying or not) a reality.


      1. But it’s just evolutionary story-telling and tautology

        Great points! I always find the evolutionists amusing when it comes to rationalizing sexual perversions and abortion. Their just-so stories are told with such conviction that you’d think that if abortion, homosexual behavior, etc. didn’t exist that the Darwinists would be looking for them and wondering why they didn’t exist.


  3. Science is having such a tough time proving the “born that way” theory that science has discarded it. Even the American Psychological Association, while assuring us that they don’t choose to be that way, agree that it’s not genetic. The simple test of identical twins where one is “gay” and the other is not puts that question to rest.

    But, to me, it’s all beside the point. “Born that way” is irrelevant. A child who is born without legs should not live life that way; he or she should work to overcome it. Some studies suggest addiction is an inherent tendency. They should seek to avoid it. Most men are naturally attracted to lots of women, but we admire those men who choose to set aside those natural tendencies in favor of one wife. So “born that way” is neither scientific or relevant to the question of choosing behavior.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s