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.”
