What Biological Theories of Homosexuality Cannot Explain

What Biological Theories of Homosexuality Cannot Explain

James R. Aist

(Note: References are cited by number in parentheses and appear at the end of the article)

“Truth is not arrived at by wishful thinking or vacuous argument. It comes, instead, by careful examination of factual evidence.”

Since the early 1970s, gay activists have increasingly claimed that they were “born gay” and that, therefore, they could not change even if they wanted to. By repeating this claim over and over again for decades now, gay activists have managed to win over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their cause, without any substantial basis in fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.” “Born gay” is, in fact, a hoax of mammoth proportions. Therefore, it is necessary to examine carefully the facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim. Most of the relevant information can be grouped into two main categories: biological theories and social and environmental influences. The critical question is whether homosexuality is already determined at birth by biological factors and is immutable (unchangeable), or develops later as a result of post-natal experiences and influences during childhood.

There are several social and experiential factors that have been shown to play an important role in the development of homosexuality. Let’s take a quick look at a few of these post-natal factors, which cannot be explained by biological theories:

Childhood sexual abuse has been shown to be associated with the subsequent development of homosexuality in adulthood. Whitehead (8) lists eight relatively recent studies demonstrating this association. For example, in the article by Zeitsch, et al. (10), childhood sexual abuse was associated with an approximately two to three-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood.

Divorce during childhood has also been shown to be associated with the development of homosexuality in adulthood, as evidenced by homosexual “marriage.” For example, men whose parents divorced before their sixth birthday were 39% more likely to “marry” homosexually than peers from intact parental marriages, and the figure for men whose cohabitation with both parents ended before age 18 years was in the range of 55%-76% (4). In a related study, Wells, et al., (7) found that cohabiting with two heterosexual, non-biological parents until the age of 16 was associated with a two-fold increase in homosexuality in adulthood, compared to cohabiting with both biological parents.

Urban versus rural environment. Whitehead and Whitehead (9) pointed out that the percentage of homosexuality in males reared in urban environments is 3.3 times that of males reared in rural environments, while the corresponding factor for homosexuality in females reared in urban environments is 2.3 times, indicating a very strong influence of the urban environment, as opposed to the rural environment, on the development of homosexuality.

Homosexual parents. Schumm (5) found that adults with a homosexual parent are 12 to 15 times as likely to self-identify as homosexual or bisexual as are adults without a homosexual parent, which indicates that post-natal environmental factors associated with having a homosexual parent (such as having a homosexual adult role model and unequivocal acceptance of homosexuality in the home) can play a major role in the development of a homosexual orientation. These results confirmed those of an earlier, much aligned (by gay activists), meta-analysis conducted by Cameron (3), and they suggest a very powerful post-natal influence on the development of homosexuality.

Therapy and Counseling Influences. Aist (1) reviewed and summarized some of the published information on religiously mediated and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Numerous studies have shown that both religiously and secularly mediated change in sexual orientation occurs in highly motivated, dissatisfied homosexuals at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. And many studies have found that, for the most part, these are long-term, stable shifts in sexual orientation. In fact, many ex-gays have been happily married with children for several-to-many years. What is the significance of these results relative to the claim that homosexual people are born gay? First, they confirm that pre-natal influences, including genes, do not dictate sexual orientation, because very significant change in sexual orientation has been achieved through therapy and counseling. Such change would not be possible if sexual orientation were fixed at birth. And second, the fact that therapy and counseling are successful at a rate that is comparable to the success rates generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism, confirms that any predisposition to homosexuality that may be present at birth is so weak that it can be nullified by subsequent intervention. Socarides (6) put it this way: “As psychoanalysts and psychotherapists, we are treating obligatory homosexuality successfully, changing sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Such a change would be unthinkable if there were any truth at all to the organic or biological or hereditary causation of homosexuality.”

It is virtually impossible to envision how prenatal mechanisms could explain these post-natal associations of increased or decreased homosexuality that correlates with social and experiential factors. But it is easy to envision how these factors could account for the two-thirds or more of post-natal influence on homosexuality that is revealed by the results of twin studies (2).

References Cited:

  1. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News!(click HERE)
  2. Aist, J. 2014. What Twin Studies Tell Us About Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture (click HERE)
  3. Cameron, P. 2006. Children of homosexuals and transsexuals more apt to be homosexual. Journal of Biosocial Science 38:413-418.
  4. Frisch, M. and A. Hviid. 2006. Childhood Family Correlates of Heterosexual and Homosexual Marriages: A National Cohort Study of Two Million Danes. Archives of Sexual Behavior 35:533-547.
  5. Schumm, W. 2010. Children of Homosexuals More Apt to be homosexuals? A Reply to Morrison and to Cameron Based on an Examination of Multiple Sources of Data. Journal of Biosocial Science 42:721-742.
  6. Socarides, C.W. 1995b. Exploding the myth of constitutional homosexuality. Narth Bulletin, Vol. III, Number 2, pages 17-18.
  7. Wells, J.E., et al. 2011. Multiple Aspects of Sexual Orientation: Prevalence and Sociodemographic Correlates in a New Zealand National Survey. Archives of Sexual Behavior 40:155-168.
  8. Whitehead, N. 2012. Book Review of Simon LeVay’s Gay, Straight and the Reason Why. (click HERE)
  9. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 2. The genetic implications of SSA population percentage. (click HERE)
  10. Zietsch, B., et al. 2012. Do Shared Etiological Factors Contribute to the Relationship between Sexual Orientation and Depression? Psychological Medicine 42:521-532.

(For more articles by Dr. Aist on homosexuality, click HERE.)

 

God Does Not Make Anyone Homosexual!

God Does Not Make Anyone Homosexual!

James R. Aist

 “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths” (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

Introduction

In a separate article (click HERE), I have gone into considerable detail to show that “born gay” is a monumental myth being perpetrated by gay activists in a vain attempt to validate and legitimize homosexuality. Many so-called “gay Christians” claim further that homosexual people are not only born gay, but that God created them that way (with same-sex attractions). The implication is that, since God made them “that way”, both their homosexuality and their practice of homosexuality should be fully accepted and celebrated by Christians and the Christian church as a “gift from God.” So, let’s take a closer look at the Scriptures and see if we can discern the truth: are same-sex attractions from God, and, if not, where do they come from?

Same-sex Attractions Are Not from God

The claim that same-sex attractions are a gift from God is diametrically opposed to the biblical witness; there are scriptural proofs that God is not the source of the same-sex attractions and desires that homosexual people experience. Firstly, the Bible clearly and consistently condemns homosexual behavior, in any context, as sin (Genesis 19:5 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10). Now, if God himself were to instill same-sex attractions and desires into homosexual people, then, by doing so, He would be tempting them to sin sexually. However, the Bible also states, emphatically, that God does not tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13-14). The necessary conclusion is that the God of the Bible would not create anyone homosexual, because to do so would violate His very nature and character, which is to hate sin. And secondly, after God had created Adam and Eve as heterosexual people, the Bible says that “God saw all that he made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). “All that He had made” could not have included homosexuality, because the Bible clearly and consistently condemns homosexual behavior as evil, not as good. And that — the creation of Adam and Eve –- was “…the last of the work of creation that God was doing” (Genesis 2:2). It follows, then, that God not only would not, but He also did not, create anyone homosexual. Homosexuality must have first appeared at some later time, after God had finished creating. That is what the Bible teaches us about the matter. It is up to us to honor God by believing His Word.

Since God made us male and female in the beginning and told us to multiply and fill the earth, it would be both contradictory and counterproductive to, then, make some of us homosexual. The God of the Bible does not act at cross purposes with Himself! But we know of someone who does act at cross purposes with God, don’t we.

Where, Then, Do Same-sex Attractions Come From?

The Bible says that sin entered the world through the “original sin” of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-19) after the last of the work of creation that God was doing (Genesis 2:2), and that “each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed” (James 1:14). Thus, same-sex sexual attraction (i.e., homosexuality) is a result of sin entering the world through the disobedience of Adam, just as are all other temptations to sin. Moreover, the root source of the original temptation to sin was none other than Satan (i.e., “the serpent”) himself: “Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” (Genesis 3:1-6). Thus did temptation to sin enter the world.

Implications for Today

Since Satan, not God, is behind the same-sex urges that homosexual people experience, it follows that such urges do not constitute a valid argument that God approves of either same-sex attractions or their volitional consequences, namely, homosexual acts. In fact, it is slander of the worst kind to accuse the God of the Bible of making anyone homosexual! God’s moral laws were given to communicate the sinfulness of our urges (e.g., lying, stealing, vengeance, adultery, fornication, and homosexual sex) that are opposed to His will. And, as born-again Christians comprising the true Christian church, we are called to love homosexual people enough to be witnesses to these truths (Matthew 5:13-16), so that the Holy Spirit can use our witness to help convict them of their homosexual sins and lead them to repentance and salvation. “The Lord is … not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9). And neither are we willing that any should perish.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY by Professor Aist, click HERE)

New Theory: Homosexuality Is a Mistake of Nature

 

New Theory: Homosexuality Is a Mistake of Nature

James R. Aist

Introduction

Homosexuality is believed to be caused by some combination of biological and environmental factors. Several biological theories have been offered, the most feasible being the genetic, the hormonal and the epigenetic theories. In 2012, a new theory was introduced that combines aspects of the genetic theory with the hormonal theory. This is the epigenetic theory. Epigenetics is a relatively new and vigorously investigated field of biological science that deals with the regulation of gene expression (production of proteins) in cells. The components of chromosomes that regulate genes are called “epi-marks.” These include such things as methylated DNA and variously modified histone proteins, but do not include changes in the DNA sequences themselves that code for specific proteins.

The Theory

Rice et al. (2012) published a review article presenting a speculative and hypothetical model (theory) to explain the development of homosexuality in both male and female homosexuals. Their goal was to develop a model that would explain why 1) molecular studies have failed to conclusively identify “gay genes” and 2) concordance for homosexuality between identical twins is low (click HERE). The theory draws on research supporting the hormonal theory as well as known properties and functions of epi-marks. The model would explain homosexuality on the basis of epi-mark-controlled prenatal testosterone (a sex hormone) levels, to the virtual exclusion of a role for either a strictly genetic influence or post-natal environmental influences.

Normally, epi-marks regulating sexual orientation are “erased” after they have produced the intended sexual development (i.e., heterosexual males and females). But, occasionally, a mistake is made, and the epi-mark is not erased but is, instead, passed on to the next generation. According to the model, when this mistake is made, epi-mark regulated testosterone overexposure in a female fetus would result in a masculinized female who will prefer females (a lesbian), whereas epi-mark regulated testosterone underexposure in a male fetus would result in a feminized male who will prefer males (a gay). The low concordance in twin studies would be explained not by a low-level genetic influence, as is usually assumed, but by the occasional passing of testosterone-enhancing epi-marks from father to daughter (creating a lesbian) and of testosterone-limiting epi-marks from mother to son (creating a gay man).

It is interesting to note that this model posits homosexuality as an aberrant accident of nature, in which normal prenatal development of a fetus produces the intended effect (heterosexuality), and abnormal prenatal development produces an unintended effect (homosexuality) by mistake. Abnormal prenatal development results when a mistake is made and an epi-mark in a parent is not erased, but is, instead, passed on to the offspring, where its effect (homosexuality) is seen in the subsequent generation. Thus, according to this theory, homosexuality is a mistake of nature, and it is not biologically normal, as gay activists want us to believe.

Although this model is highly speculative and presently has very little, if any, direct experimental support, it does have merit as a scientific hypothesis, because 1) it would explain both male and female homosexuality, 2) it could explain the low concordance for homosexuality found in twin studies, 3) it seems to provide a feasible explanation for the long-term survival of a reproductively deleterious trait in the human population, and 4) it is, at least to some extent, testable. Only further research will determine whether or not this theory will join the many previous theories purporting to represent an almost exclusive influence on the development of homosexuality, all of which have failed.

Caveat

Twin studies have shown that the combined influence of all possible, pre-natal, biological factors (e.g., genetics, epigenetics, hormones, etc.) on the development of homosexuality in adults is only weak to weakly moderate (click HERE). Thus, post-natal influences (e.g., cultural, social and experiential factors) are far more influential than is epigenetics in the development of homosexuality (click HERE).

Reference Cited:

Rice, G., et al. 2012. Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development. Quarterly Review of Biology 87:343-368.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!

Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen!

James R. Aist

(Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

Pro-gay activists are doing their best to deny that therapy and counseling for people with unwanted homosexuality can be effective. This is not because it can’t be effective (it can), but because to admit that it can be effective would undercut the goal of the “gay agenda” to convince the heterosexual majority that that homosexual people are “born gay” and, therefore, cannot change. But the fact is that not only can therapy and counseling be effective in helping people diminish or remove homosexuality from their lives, such change often occurs spontaneously, without any intervention being necessary or even attempted; it just happens.

The Details

A huge amount of information on this topic has been reviewed and summarized by Whitehead and Whitehead (1), which I will excerpt as follows:

Large studies now show that…

For adolescents:

[The following points were derived by Whitehead and Whitehead (1) from the data published by Savin-Williams and Ream (2).]

  • Most teenagers who identify as homosexual will change from same-sex attraction. In fact, in the 16 to 17 year age group, 98% who identify initially as homosexual or bi-sexual will move towards heterosexuality;
  • 16 year olds saying they are same-sex attracted or bi-sex attracted are 25 times more likely to say they are opposite sex attracted at the age of 17 than those with a heterosexual orientation are likely to identify themselves as bi-sexual or homosexual; and
  • 16-year olds who claim they are opposite sex attracted will overwhelmingly remain that way.

For adults:

  • About half of those with exclusive same-sex attraction move towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. Put another way, 3% of the practicing heterosexual population (both men and women) claim to have once been either bisexual or homosexual;
  • These changes are not therapeutically induced, but happen “naturally” in life, some very quickly;
  • The vast majority of changes in sexual orientation are towards exclusive heterosexuality;
  • Numbers of people who have changed towards exclusive opposite sex attraction are greater than current numbers of bisexuals and exclusive same-sex attraction people combined. In other words, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays”; and
  • Exclusive opposite sex attraction is 17 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for men, and 30 times as stable as exclusive same-sex attraction for women. (Women are known to be more fluid in their sexual orientation than are men.)

Additionally, Sorba (3) has documented numerous examples of adult celebrities and homosexuality advocates who have spontaneously changed from homosexual to heterosexual. These include celebrities such as pop star Sinead O’Connor, actress Ann Heche, gay activist/author Jan Clausen and gay activist Williams (Bro) Broberg. Furthermore, at least six specific examples of adults who changed sexual orientation spontaneously, without therapy or counseling, have been documented by NARTH (4). These documented examples of spontaneous changes demonstrate the considerable fluidity that exists in sexual orientation for many individuals, even in adulthood.

Conclusions

Sexual orientation is often fluid, not fixed, and change sometimes occurs spontaneously, without formal intervention of any kind. The vast majority of spontaneous change in sexual orientation is from homosexual to heterosexual. In fact, it can be accurately stated that ex-gays outnumber actual gays at any given time. These documented facts demonstrate that at least a considerable number of homosexuals are not “born gay.” And they lend credence to the many reports that therapy and counseling for unwanted homosexuality can be effective: since sexual orientation sometimes changes spontaneously, it follows that formal efforts to assist an individual with unwanted homosexuality would, indeed, be quite effective, and they can be (click HERE)

References Cited:

1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)

2. Savin-Williams, R., and G. Ream. 2007. Prevalence and Stability of Sexual Orientation Components During Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior 36:385-394.

3. Sorba, R. 2007. The Born Gay Hoax. (click HERE)

4. NARTH, 2012. 7) Spontaneous or Adventitious Change of Sexual Orientation. (click HERE)

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)