I was scanning through my inbox the other day and was intrigued by a recent and brief essay with the partial headline "No one is born gay" originating not surprisingly from a conservative Christian publication of a biblical scholar. In scanning the article, reprinted below the accompanying video with the link included, the author made what I thought were some good arguments as to the point of questioning why do proponents of gay rights and privileges use the speculative, unproven fact of saying that gay (or by extrapolation, GLBT individuals) people are born into the condition.
I am by no means a behavioral psychologist, but without a 'gay gene' or some recognizable embedded 'gay software' in your brain, or similar scientifically provable 'gay' biology feature, it seems unlikely that there is a factor that makes you destined to be gay from your birth.
In the current political climate, people can get in trouble for questioning the aphorism of gay people being born that way, yet no reliable science has been able to back that fact. Yet the statement of being born that way does give gay activists a big advantage in people's minds, since we, as a people, are more inclined to empathize and sympathize with people that were born with something they cannot change, even if they wanted.
Personally, I am inclined to believe homosexuality is something psychologically akin to a fetish, philia, or phobia. Something that develops early on to a kid from some experience(s) that happened in their cognitive development that left a lasting mark. As such, I have many of the same observations and reservations as Dr. Brown, yet be equally empathetic and sympathetic with my fellow brothers and sisters, imperfect though they may be.
The truth, in love: No one is born gay
Dr. Michael L. Brown (above)
If there was reputable scientific evidence that some people were born homosexual, I would have no problem accepting this. After all, my theology tells me that as human beings, we are all created in God's image and yet we are a fallen race – and so all of us carry aspects of that fallen nature to the core of our being, and that could theoretically include homosexuality.
But the fact is that there is simply no reputable scientific evidence that anyone is born gay.
As stated by gay activist and history professor John D'Emilio, "'Born gay' is an idea with a large constituency, LGBT and otherwise. It's an idea designed to allay the ingrained fears of a homophobic society and the internalized fears of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. What's most amazing to me about the 'born gay' phenomenon is that the scientific evidence for it is thin as a reed, yet it doesn't matter. It's an idea with such social utility that one doesn't need much evidence in order to make it attractive and credible."
In other words, because the "born gay" idea has proved so useful, the fact that there's virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It's an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.
As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, "There [was] a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly."
And so, the argument goes, "If I'm born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I'm born this way, how can you expect me to change?"
Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn't mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.
And even if no one is born gay, that doesn't that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.
But why base a so-called civil rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?
One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."
Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently backtracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added: "It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life."
That's why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, "Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the 'gay gene.'" (In the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.)
Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.
But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay.
According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, "The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We've crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are 'born that way.' But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we've supposed?"
Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist, and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, "Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction .... No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."
Paglia also asked, "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible."
Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia's opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: "I've made a mistake and learnt from it. I'm deeply sorry for any offence I've caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat."
Despite this apology, he was still fired – and the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today's climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?
Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply rooted in some people's lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn't mean you chose to have the attractions.)
It simply means that one of the major gay activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.
It's time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.
Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus, is a biblical scholar, apologist, worldwide speaker, and activist. He is the host of the nationally syndicated, talk radio program "Line of Fire," and he serves as president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, NC, as well as adjunct professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books, most recently "Can You Be Gay and Christian?"
I have to disagree with Dr. Brown. From my experience with family members, friends and acquaintances who are gay I have come to the conclusion that as per their own stories, they all claim to have been "gay" for as long as they can remember.
I don't think there needs to be any "scientific' proof. That would be the same as saying there is no scientific proof that all people are born straight. Can scientific proof show why some people like liver while others are revolted by it's sight or why some folks prefer the color red over the color green. Why in the World would someone, out of the blue, choose to be gay and put up with all the negative opposition that goes along with it. For instance, to me, the sight of 2 men kissing is revolting. I believe this is not just a knee jerk reaction but is deeply seated in my genetic make up that has evolved over millions of years of human existence. If it wasn't repulsive then people, throughout history, could have chosen the wrong sex partner thus causing the act of procreation to be a hit or miss system of populating the Earth. I understand how people can be gay but even though I care deeply for them I find homosexual acts to be disgusting.
Still the lack of scientific proof should not be misused by either side to say what would better suit their own purposes, namely for pro-gay-rights contingents to claim people are definitely born that way, and for their opposition to say that it definitely isn't. But they generally do.
I would bet that most people afflicted with some of the very odd fetishes that exist would be unable to trace why they react that way. Think of a man afflicted with shoe fetishism (retifism) for example. He may have a psychological need to see sexy footwear before getting aroused, but such a fetish does not seem to have any sort of genetic background. Perhaps as an infant he associated seeing his beloved mother's shoes in his bedroom when she was at home, and not there when she was away. Or a host of other triggers, which he would not recall later on in his life.
Like fetishism, homosexuality is generally not harmful when it is done with a partner that is old enough and consents to deal with your lifestyle choice. Just like heterosexuality.