There’s an ongoing question concerning how to get truth. It’s difficult. Case in point: there’s a new study that confirms old studies; this new study produced these conflicting headlines:
Popular Science: “A massive study confirms no one ‘gay gene’ controls sexual preference”
Houston Chronicle (Associated Press): “Study finds genetic links to gay sexuality”[i]
They’re talking about the same study, which looked at “the entire human genome scanning, using blood samples from the U.K. Biobank and saliva samples from customers of U.S.-based ancestry and biotech company 23andMe.” Participants from 23andMe had agreed to have their genetic info used, including specifically for this study.
|Health/Science section, Houston Chronicle,|
Sunday, September 1, 2019, page A23
What did previous studies say? There isn’t a “gay gene.” But there are various genetic influences on behavior, none of which determine behavior, but when combined with culture and behavior can be said to possibly contribute. I would describe this as similar to a predisposition to alcoholism, which might be partly genetic but does not determine behavior.
Even the article that claims genetic links were found said the study “echoes research that says there are no specific genes that make people gay.” And, quoting the Science commentary notes, “the five identified variants had such a weak effect on behavior that using the results ‘for prediction, intervention or a supposed “cure” is wholly and unreservedly impossible.’”
The Popular Science piece reads, “Genetics can’t predict whether a person will engage in same-sex sexual behavior, according to new research published in the journal Science. The study, which tested nearly half a million people, found that while there are some genes that contribute to sexual behavior, they each only play a tiny role—social and environmental factors make up the rest.”
Among the findings of this new study are some overlap with schizophrenia and depression. And, among men, two of the genes thought to be minute contributors to same-sex sexuality are “located near genes involved in male-pattern baldness and sense of smell.” Relevant? Who knows?
But there’s a puzzling question being asked: why is research like this being done when the data it produces goes against the LGBTQ narrative?
Professor Darren Whitfield, of the University of Pittsburgh, not involved in the study, admits “This study puts to rest the notion that there is a ‘gay gene.’” But he adds, “It seemed that the scientists were mindful of the message it might send. In the past, researchers working in genetics in this area really did not think about the consequences work like that might have.”
In other words, he’s glad the scientists involved in the study presented the information in a way that would soften the blow of disagreeing with the LGBTQ lobby. Whitfield says, “These things do have the potential to reinforce homophobia. It can reinforce the idea of any abnormality [connected] to same-sex attraction.”
He’s worried that truth leads to homophobia. Also, he believes a genetic anomaly would not have reinforced the idea of the abnormality of same-sex attraction, but lack of a genetic anomaly does.
Research associate at the Broad Institute, Meagan Olive, didn’t think the authors of the study were careful enough. She is quoted in the Popular Science piece: “I am not satisfied with the authors’ justification for performing this study; they are ultimately jeopardizing the perception and safety of the LGBTQIA+ community.” I don’t know what all those letters, let alone the + sign, mean. But she’s revealing a bias that truth should not be sought if it has the potential to contradict a “perception” that this group of people prefer.
This information has been out for decades[ii] without increasing homophobia. On the other hand, the lie that a person is “born that way” and their behavior must therefore be normalized has led to changes in law and religious persecution of anyone who doesn’t tow that line—to the point of shutting down businesses, suing grandmothers for even their life savings, and removing research from availability online.
The persecution isn’t aimed at gays; it’s aimed at anyone who doesn’t celebrate their gay-ness.
Family is the basic unit of civilization. That’s how we pass along the necessities of civilization, parents to children. When a family functions as it should, the foundation is love stronger than we experience it anywhere beyond love of God for us.
A standard family, the kind that produces offspring to pass along civilization to, is a married mother and father raising their own children. Civilization requires a critical mass of such families.
The parents want their children to grow up, become contributing members of society, and become parents who will pass along thriving civilization to yet another generation.
Look at this not particularly rare scenario (around 2% of the population). A child comes home and has the talk with his parents, telling them he’s gay. What happens? If the family is functioning, they still love that child and express that clearly—even if (maybe especially if) they are religious and are sorrowful that he may choose to live a lifestyle they don’t approve of.
The big kick-in-the-gut feeling those parents are experiencing is grief—at the loss of the future they had hoped for this child they deeply love. Their genetic line dead ends with him. The hope for a happy family life, like the one they have and have raised him in, is dashed.
It ought to be obvious that LGBTQ issues are reason to mourn, to sorrow for the person whose future happiness won’t include procreation. There must be ways of expressing ongoing love for such a child without rejoicing or celebrating something that reasonably causes sorrow.
A parent might want to help their child find a solution. There are some. But they’re hard to find, and there’s been such prejudice against even the idea of seeking them that people who sorrow about having same-sex attraction feel unhelped and hopeless. And parents feel at a loss.
We’ve gone through about 45 years since studies were curtailed, because same-sex attraction was taken off the list of mental issues—not based on research, but because of political lobbying.
One of the longtime researchers, even after the ban, was Joseph Nicolosi. He helped people by dealing with childhood trauma and other issues, which was called reparative therapy, not conversion therapy. He also wrote books to help parents. But his books have now been banned on Amazon, which doesn’t ban books such as Hitler’s Mein Kampf or even a topic such as glorifying pedophilia.
His son, Joseph Nicolosi, Jr., has continued in the psychological field in similar research. As most psychologists are aware, there are multiple mental (and often also physical) issues common among people with LGBT issues, depression among them, even in countries that have long embraced homosexuality and removed social stigma.
|Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr. (left) and Michael Knowles|
screen shot from the Michael Knowles Show, September 21, 2018
Dr. Nicolosi, Jr., and others have found that a therapy called reintegrative therapy can help. Even if clients/patients are satisfied with their orientation, they may want to deal with issues from their childhood, to alleviate depression and other issues. [I wrote about this here.] One possible effect—not the purpose—is sometimes a lessening of same-sex attraction, or even what appears to be choosing to leave the gay lifestyle and maybe even beginning to feel heterosexual attraction.
This is not something that parents or anyone can force someone into. It’s a type of talk therapy that can only work for a person who chooses to engage in it. And the purpose is for the person to gain peace and greater happiness, not orientation change. So far his work is still available here.
There’s fear of truth among proponents of LGBT issues.
Wouldn’t it be kinder to seek even more truth, and make it available?
All the while, we must treat each other with respect. Everyone must have the right to life, liberty, and property. Mixed in there is likely a right to make a living, to run a business as one sees fit, and to seek safe and comfortable living conditions.
I haven’t in my lifetime and places I’ve lived seen where depriving homosexuals of these rights was in any way acceptable. I have, however, witnessed many instances in which pro-LGBT forces deprive proponents of traditional marriage of those rights.
Wouldn’t we all be better off seeking and speaking the truth? This effort is made more difficult when writers about the issue can’t even write a headline that coincides with the story they put beneath it.
[i] Houston Chronicle, Sunday, September 1, 2019, p. 23.
[ii] See, for example, “’Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,’ Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project,” LifeSiteNews, March 20, 2007. Also, the United Families International blog February 28, 2011, “Myth Buster Monday: Is homosexuality genetic, immutable and unchangeable?” says this: “It is necessary for homosexual advocates to equate homosexual behavior to an immutable and unchangeable trait (like race or sex) in order to claim the “gay rights” movement is a Civil Rights issue. But can those who deal with homosexual tendencies and behavior change? Yes, thousands of former-homosexuals are testimony to the fact that change is possible. Gay advocates and psychological associations are particularly eager and aggressive in their efforts to discredit reparative/reorientation therapy groups who work to aid individuals who wish to escape homosexual behavior and lifestyle.
“The success of the gay movement seems to hinge upon their ability to convince the public that change is impossible.”