Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

 James R. Aist

“You cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption. Proof requires objective evidence.”

Since the early 1970s, homosexual people 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.” And yet, this hoax remains deeply ingrained in our culture at all levels. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine carefully the scientific and other documentable facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim and its spawn, the “immutability” claim. The critical questions are 1) is homosexuality already determined at birth by biological factors and 2) is homosexuality, immutable (unchangeable). We now have several recent research and review articles to help us to arrive, once again, at the correct answers to these questions.

Is Homosexuality Already Determined at Birth by Biological Factors?

By far, the most powerful and reliable way to test the claim that homosexuals are born gay is to conduct scientific studies on data taken from large “twin registries.” The data in these large data bases are obtained randomly with little or no sample bias and are relatively representative of twins in the general population. In twin studies, the “concordance” answers the simple question, “Where one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, what percentage of co-twins is also homosexual?The concordance of the twin pairs is a measure of the level of influence of biological factors (generally assumed to be the genetic influence) on whatever trait is being studied, in this case, homosexuality. If homosexuals are born gay, then whenever one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, the co-twin will also be homosexual, giving a concordance value of ~ 100%, indicating a very strong, determinant genetic influence. A concordance value of ~ 20%-30%, on the other hand, would indicate a weak, non-determinant influence of genetics.

The reader is referred to Aist, 2012 (click HERE), Diamond and Rosky, 2016 (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2012 (click HERE) for more extensive reviews of the pertinent scientific literature on twin studies. The recent study by Zietsch, et al., 2012 (click HERE) can be used to illustrate representative research results obtained with large samples from twin registries. They used a very large sample (9,884) of twins from the Australian Twin Registry, one of the largest samples to date for twin studies of homosexuality. In this sample, there were 1,840 identical twin pairs (1,133 female and 707 male). Their calculated value of 24% concordance for homosexuality indicates a weak genetic influence. Moreover, their calculated figure of 31% for heritability of homosexuality also indicates a weak genetic component. This leaves around 68% of the variance in the data set represented by post-natal, “shared environment” and “residual” environmental influences combined.

That brings us to the conclusion that homosexuality is not already determined at birth by biological factors (e.g., genetics). Simply put, these results not only do not provide scientific evidence to support the “born gay” claim, they provide definitive and conclusive, scientific proof that “born gay” is, in fact, a hoax. Real science has “outed” the born-gay hoax.

Is homosexuality immutable (unchangeable)?

The claim that homosexuality cannot change is a direct extension of the claim that homosexuals are born gay, and, as we have seen above, “born gay” is, itself, a total hoax. Nevertheless, it is possible to evaluate this claim scientifically on its own merit. Previously, several authors have assembled extensive and persuasive evidence to show that sexual orientation, including homosexual orientation, is not fixed, but is, instead, amazingly fluid (Aist, 2012, click HERE; Sorba, 2007, click HERE; and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2012, click HERE). A new and comprehensive review article written by two supporters of so-called “gay rights”, Diamond and Rosky (click HERE), focuses on four relatively new scientific studies that demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is, in fact, a fluid trait. These studies all used large data bases that followed the self-identified sexual orientation of individual subjects over long periods of time. Such “longitudinal” studies are the only way that the fluidity of sexual orientation in a representative sample of people can be documented and quantified. All four of these studies gave similar results regarding the considerable fluidity of sexual orientation. Here are some of the highlights, as reported by Diamond and Rosky:

  • In just 7 years, 30% of young adults with same-sex attraction changed to opposite-sex attraction;
  • Most, but not all, of this change involved bisexuals;
  • Of the homosexual young adults whose sexual orientation changed, 66% changed to heterosexuality;
  • All of these changes in sexual orientation occurred spontaneously;
  • Sexual orientation involved some degree of choice for many (10% of gay men, 30% of lesbians and 60% of bi-sexuals), according to one of the studies cited;
  • Homosexuality is fluid, not immutable;
  • The “born gay” claim is unscientific (i.e., not supported by the scientific research).

Perhaps the most often utilized and reliable of the several databases employed in such studies is the one called “Add Health.” Using this database, Udry and Chantala (Journal of Biosocial Science 37:481-497) found that 83% of 16-year-old, adolescent gay boys were neither gay nor bisexual one year later, at age 17. This same figure can be arrived at by doing the math on the data published by Savin-Williams and Joyner (Archives of Sexual Behavior 43:413-422), also from the Add Health database. Finally, Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) used the same Add Health data set to calculate that 98% of the 16-year-olds who were either homosexual or bisexual moved towards heterosexuality by age 17. In these studies, there was also a small percentage that moved from heterosexuality toward homosexuality. All of these changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) also made the following pertinent observations from the published scientific literature:

  • Homosexuality is much more fluid than is heterosexuality, as 50% of homosexuals become heterosexual, but only 1.9% of heterosexuals become homosexual;
  • One study reported that 63% of lesbians and 50% of gay men, from age 18 to age 26, changed sexual orientation at least once;
  • Because of the higher levels of sexual orientation fluidity among homosexuals, at any given time there are more ex-gays than actual gays in the general population;
  • All of these reported changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) recently published an extensive review of the scientific literature on sexual orientation. They supported the conclusions of others that:

  • There is strong scientific evidence that sexual orientation is fluid;
  • Women’s sexual orientation is consistently more fluid than men’s;
  • The sexual orientation of adolescents is more fluid that that of young adults;
  • Choice is a factor in the development of homosexuality.

So, in view of the sound, scientific evidence discussed above, we can conclude that the answer to this question is, “No, homosexuality is not immutable, but is, in fact, quite fluid.” Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) even went so far as to state that, “Rather than homosexuality being an unalterable condition, it is actually a good example of a changeable condition.” Thus, as with the born-gay hoax, real science has “outed” the immutability hoax.

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (S.O.C.E.)

In view of the considerable amount of spontaneous fluidity of homosexuality, it should not be surprising that dissatisfied homosexual people can, in fact, change through S.O.C.E., the deceitful denials of gay activists notwithstanding. The success of efforts to help dissatisfied homosexual people change their sexual orientation toward heterosexuality through therapy and counseling is an integral part of the evidence against the “born gay” and the “immutability” claims. Such changes in sexual orientation have been amply documented for both secularly (click HERE) and religiously (click HERE) mediated efforts. Both approaches can be successful at a rate (~ 25%-30%) that is comparable to that for psychological disorders and for behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. While most of the individuals seeking S.O.C.E. have not experienced a 100% reversal in all aspects of sexual orientation, many, by their own testimony, have achieved substantial and meaningful changes in their sexual orientation that enable them to live celibate or exclusively heterosexual lifestyles that satisfy their personal goals. For the originally dissatisfied homosexual person, that is real, substantial and meaningful change. And there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify that they have changed (for examples, click HERE).

If homosexuality were determined by biological factors and immutable, then such transformations would not be possible. Thus, S.O.C.E. have “outed” both the “born gay” and the “immutability” hoaxes.

What Difference Does It Make?

The short answer is, it makes a huge difference, as discussed by Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE). The homosexual movement has used the “born gay” hoax and its correlate, the “immutability” hoax, to not only deceive the public and gain popular support for their “gay agenda” (click HERE), but they have managed to deceive also medical societies, church leaders, teachers, politicians and judges at all levels. The result is that, based largely on these and other hoaxes perpetrated by the homosexual movement (click HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), many churches, teachers and politicians have come to believe (erroneously) that homosexual behavior is not only normal, but also natural, healthy, desirable and moral. This development represents a serious spiritual and moral decay in America.

Furthermore, politicians and judges are hard at work codifying homosexuality into laws (e.g., so-called “gay marriage” and anti-discrimination laws). Laws criminalizing the practice of S.O.C.E. to help children and adolescents overcome unwanted homosexuality (click HERE and HERE) are particularly heinous, because they selectively deny professional help to people who are at the most sexually confusing and unstable phase in their lives. This gives gay activists an “open season”, as it were, to target these vulnerable minors for recruitment into a life of homosexuality without interference from contrary influences, such as professional counselors and therapists. And, in the process, children and adolescents are denied their right to self-determination and parental rights are trampled underfoot, all in the name of sexual liberty.

If not checked soon, the homosexual movement will seriously erode our First Amendment right to the “free practice of religion” in America. Already, sexual liberty is being put ahead of religious freedom, and laws have been passed forcing even churches, under penalty of law, to accommodate homosexuals and transgenders on their terms (click HERE and HERE). The “gay agenda” is a mammoth social experiment – based largely on lies, myths and hoaxes – that is reaping dire consequences for America and proving to be a mistake of biblical proportions.

Summary

Multiple, scientific studies of homosexuality in identical twin pairs have demonstrated conclusively that biological factors (including genetics) do not determine the development of homosexuality. “Born gay” is a hoax. Several large-scale, longitudinal, scientific studies, numerous personal testimonies and the success of both secularly and religiously mediated sexual orientation change efforts prove that homosexuality is, in fact, quite fluid, not immutable. “Immutability” is also a hoax. Unfortunately, the homosexual movement has been able to dupe our society and its religious leaders, politicians, medical societies and judges into believing their lies, myths and hoaxes. This charade is causing serious damage to the spiritual and moral condition of American society, and it is eroding the constitutional provision to practice religion freely, as sexual liberty is increasingly being placed above religious freedom in the formulation and application of anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. The homosexual movement is a social experiment that will have dire consequences, unless America repents and God intervenes.

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

An Easy, Do-It-Yourself Bible Study on Homosexuality

An Easy, Do-It-Yourself Bible Study on Homosexuality

James R. Aist

Introduction

If you’ve been paying attention to the “gay agenda’s” assault on the Christian church lately, you’re familiar with their attacks on the reliability and veracity of English translations of the Bible. Proponents of the recently invented “gay theology” (click HERE) and the “gay gospel” (click HERE) claim, for example, that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality, that the English translations have wrongly portrayed what the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts really say about the matter and that the references to homosexuality in the Bible do not apply to modern homosexual couples in long-term, committed, exclusive and loving relationships. The latter claim is used in an attempt to validate, justify and rationalize so-called “gay marriage.”

Historically, the common, ordinary Christian has had to leave the study of the Hebrew and Greek used in the ancient manuscripts of the Bible to highly trained Bible scholars and translators. But, in recent years, user-friendly computer software has been developed that enables the computer literate to study the Bible at this level without first becoming Hebrew and Greek scholars themselves. So, here’s how to do your own study of the Hebrew and Greek root words used in the Bible to express God’s views on homosexuality, using authoritative and reliable Hebrew and Greek lexicons. “It’s so easy, a cave man can do it.”

The “Cook Book” Procedure

To conduct your own, personal study: 1) find online, and open, “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance” at “biblestudytools.com” (click HERE); 2) follow the instructions given in the introductory pane; 3) enter, in turn, the following Bible passages  — Genesis 19:1-11 with Jude 1:7; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:10 – and then; 4) for each Bible passage, click on the respective highlighted words (hyperlinks) to access the appropriate lexicon and read the meaning of the Hebrew or Greek words, given in English. You can toggle between the King James Version (KJV) and the New American Standard (NAS) version and still retain the Strong’s Numbers; or, you can choose from a dozen or more other English translations and read the passage without Strong’s Numbers. You will find, as expected, that wherever homosexual behavior is mentioned in the Bible, it is consistently condemned as sin, abomination, perversion, etc. And understand that translators of later English versions of the Bible, such as the NIV and NAS, consulted the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than simply putting the KJV into modern English.

You may also find it helpful to read the following, most excellent and enlightening, short articles concerning the Bible and homosexuality, as part of your study:

Allen, J. 2014. The Apostle Paul and Homosexuality—Answering Homosexual Objections (Part 1) (click HERE)

Allen, J. 2014. The Apostle Paul and Homosexuality—Answering Homosexual Objections (Part 2) (Click HERE)

Conclusions

The claims of gay activists — that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality as sin, that the English translations have wrongly portrayed what the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts really say about the matter and that the references to homosexuality in the Bible do not apply to modern homosexual couples in long-term, committed, exclusive and loving relationships — is nothing but pure fantasy and wishful thinking, as you can see for yourself. Therefore, the Bible cannot be used with honesty, accuracy and integrity to justify and rationalize so-called “gay marriage.”

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Why Do Homosexuals Have More Mental Health Problems?

Why Do Homosexuals Have More Mental Health Problems?

James R. Aist

“You cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption. Proof requires objective evidence.”

(NOTE: The numbers in parentheses refer to specific references listed at the end of the article)

Introduction

Homosexuality is associated with significantly elevated levels of mental health problems compared to heterosexuality, including a wide range of mental disorders, depression and suicide (1, 3). Gay activists have assumed that these differentially elevated mental health problems are a result of social and structural stigmas aimed at homosexual people by a heterosexual, homophobic society (e.g., 12), rather than anything having to do with the homosexual experience per se. Let’s have a look at the “scientific” “evidence” regarding this claim.

The “Science” of Homosexuality

Before I get into the details of this research, it is necessary to put the “science” of homosexuality into perspective. In the world of science, there are at least three categories based on the precision and reliability of the results obtained by scientific inquiry. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered “hard” while the social sciences are usually described as “soft”. Features often cited as characteristic of hard science include: producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity and applying a purer form of the scientific method. Scientific disciplines can be arranged into a hierarchy of hard to soft, with physics and chemistry typically at the top, biology in an intermediate position and the social sciences at the bottom (click HERE). The “science” of homosexuality is squarely at the bottom of this hierarchy, being within the social sciences.

Let me illustrate briefly, with examples, how these three categories of scientific inquiry can produce different degrees of precision, accuracy, objectivity and reliability. The freezing point of water in a glass can be determined with a great deal of precision, reproducibility and objectivity (physics). The water has no control over the experimental result. The effect of temperature on the growth rate of a fungus in a Petri dish can be measured with precision as well (biology). The fungus has no control over the result. But to study homosexual behavior (social science), one must deal with a myriad of uncontrollable variables, many of which are not even known to the scientist, because people can think, emote, forget, imagine, interpret and decline to answer when they are being interviewed or completing questionnaires related to their sexuality, and they may bring their own personal agenda (bias) to the process as well. Therefore, the human subject has a great deal of influence on the data, and the outcome is necessarily “subjective” and often highly variable. This subjectivity and relative lack of control of the variables, which is characteristic of the “science” of homosexuality, can make it difficult or impossible to draw scientifically valid inferences and conclusions. And that is why the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences.

Social Stigmas

The body of research purporting to validate the assumption that social stigmas cause the elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities — by documenting associations between perceived discrimination of sexual minorities as reported in questionnaires soliciting individual responses, on the one hand, and negative mental health outcomes on the other hand — suffers from fatal flaws and limitations. While this research has managed to generate evidence of possible associations between social stigmas and elevated mental health problems in sexual minorities, Keyes, et al. (9) pointed out that results based on subjective, self-report of perceived discrimination could be confounded with mental health status, which may, in turn, lead to biased associations between social stigmas and mental health outcomes. They further stated that there are alternative pathways to mental disorders in homosexual people, such as social disadvantage and social norms. These are serious flaws that are not accounted for in these studies. Then they discussed what is called the “minority paradox”, where racial/ethnic minority groups (including Blacks, Hispanics and Asians) not only do not experience elevated levels of mental health issues in the presence of social stigmas, but they actually have lower rates compared to Whites. Thus, the theory that social stigmas cause mental health issues in minorities is apparently not valid for most large minority groups and is therefore suspect as a de facto explanation for mental health issues in sexual minorities.

In 2011, a study published by Chakraborty et al. (1) represented the first time that the association of perceived discrimination with mental health issues of sexual minorities was investigated using a random sample of the population, rather than responses from targeted minorities. But, once again, the results were based on the subjective responses of perceived discrimination and are subject to the flaws of such an experimental design, as discussed above. Moreover, the low magnitude of perceived discrimination (only 4.9% of the homosexuals in the study reported discrimination) was not only indicative of a very small potential effect of discrimination, but it left the vast majority of the mental health problems of the homosexuals in this study to be explained by other factors that were not identified. In a scientifically reviewed response to this report (2), psychiatrist  Dr. Mohinder Kapoor pointed out that cross-sectional studies like this can only raise the question of an association, rather than test a hypothesis (i.e., the cross-sectional experimental design does not allow scientifically valid cause-and-effect inferences to be made). He further concluded, boldly, that one cannot test whether psychiatric problems are associated with discrimination on grounds of sexuality.

In another recent study, concerning purported effects of the social environment on suicide attempts in sexual minority youth (4), there were also fatal flaws: 1) the cross-sectional design of the study did not permit valid inferences or conclusions to be drawn regarding causality; 2) although the data base used contained information on such things as “physical abuse by a romantic partner”, “sexual contact with an adult” and “ever being forced to have intercourse involuntarily” (11), these potentially confounding factors were mysteriously omitted from the study; 3)  the difference found was not statistically significant (i.e., not shown to be real); and 4) the magnitude of the difference found was so small as to be functionally inconsequential (i.e., not a significant factor, even if real (11). Thus, this study of social stigmas also failed to provide any scientifically valid conclusions regarding the cause of mental health problems of sexual minorities.

To summarize, studies purporting to demonstrate that social stigmas, operating at the level of individual experience, cause mental health problems in sexual minorities suffer from fatal flaws and limitations, such as the use of “perceived discrimination”, failure to account for plausible alternative explanations, a “cross sectional” design, and minute and statistically insignificant differences, any one of which is sufficient to make valid cause-and-effect inferences impossible from a scientific standpoint. Thus, this body of research has failed to provide any scientifically valid conclusions upon which to base new public policy measures (e.g., legalization of “gay marriage”) aimed at reducing the disparate levels of mental health problems found in sexual minorities.

Structural Stigmas

The failure of earlier studies to validate the theory that social stigmas and discrimination cause elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities has spawned a new research initiative using a different research design (5-8). The strategy here is to use more objective “structural stigma” and “structural remediation” as measures of discrimination, rather than the subjective measure using self-reported perceptions of discrimination. The specific mental health issues included in these studies were various mental health disorders, depression and early mortality (including both suicide and murder).

The basic aim of this relatively new research strategy is to show that certain governmental and institutional actions or religious viewpoints that target the homosexual community in selected geographic regions (e.g., a ban on “gay marriage”, exclusion of “sexual orientation” from anti-discrimination laws, and labeling of homosexual behavior as “sin” by Christian denominations) represent structural stigmas that cause the mental health problems that affect homosexuals differentially when compared to geographic regions that have gay-affirming policies in place (e.g., legalization of “gay marriage”, inclusion of sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws and more liberal Christian denominations that do not view homosexual behavior as sin).

While these studies have succeeded in documenting possible associations between structural stigmas and elevated levels of mental health problems of sexual minorities, I found that all of these research studies, much like their predecessors, have fatal flaws and limitations that preclude the drawing of objective, scientifically valid, cause-and-effect inferences or conclusions: 1) all but two of these original research articles admit that the “cross-sectional” nature of the data precludes the drawing of any cause-and-effect inferences or conclusions; 2) the authors also admit that, in every case, their results could be easily accounted for by “differential mobility”, whereby the stigmas under study would prompt relocation of the healthier portion of the homosexual minority population to a more gay-friendly geographic region prior to the gathering of the data; and 3) all of these studies failed to take into account several potentially important “confounding factors” that could have produced the differences reported (i.e., the authors don’t really know what may have caused the results they obtained).

The two studies that were “longitudinal” (i.e., data were collected at two different times), rather than “cross sectional” (i.e., data were collected at only one time), deserve further consideration, because the problems associated with a cross-sectional design were avoided. The first of these two studies (6) purported to show that structural stigmas cause increased psychiatric disorders in sexual minorities by using a data base that included data collected at two different times. Serious limitations included the following: 1) the data set was too small (some of the results were not statistically significant and therefore not shown to be real); 2) sexual orientation was assessed only for the second period of data collection, not for the first, making any perceived increases due to sexual orientation suspect; 3) there was a 48% increase in psychiatric disorders among sexual minorities living in states without gay marriage bans (conflicting results); and 4) they did not rule out differential mobility as an alternative explanation for the results. For these reasons, the authors were not able to draw any clear cut conclusions from the results of the study. The second of these two longitudinal studies (7) purported to show that legalizing same-sex marriage reduced both the use of and the expenditures of gay and bisexual men at health care clinics. The most serious limitations of this study included the following: 1) there was no comparison to a control group of heterosexual men (a requirement of properly designed scientific studies); 2) failure to consider the likely effects of a declining economy on the parameters studied (N.B.- the AMA’s Council on Science and Public Health noted that such correlations were due to economics, cf. 10); and 3) billing record data were not subjected to statistical analysis to determine whether or not the differences reported were real (also a requirement of properly designed scientific studies). For these reasons, the authors did not draw any clear cut conclusions from the results of the study.

In addition, in another of these studies (8), missing data were “imputed” (i.e., artificially generated and then added to the database) to obtain statistically significant differences (only in the “soft sciences” would such a procedure be permissible)!

Therefore, it can be fairly stated that this newer body of research is so riddled with fatal flaws that, at best, it “may suggest the possibility that structural stigmas could account for some of the negative health outcomes for sexual minorities in some cases.”

Conclusions

My conclusions, based primarily on scientific perspectives and concessions of the scientists who conducted the original research on social and structural stigmas, are that 1) at the most, this may be a worthwhile area of research for more objective and scientifically sound investigations in the future, if and when that becomes possible; and 2) for the time being, the jury is still out concerning what really causes the elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities. Hatzenbuehler et al. (8) actually admitted that no study has shown that either social or structural stigmas cause mental health problems! Thus, this entire body of research has failed to provide any scientifically valid conclusions upon which to base new public policy measures (e.g., legalization of “gay marriage”) aimed at reducing the disparate levels of mental health problems found in sexual minorities.

If Not Stigmas, Then What?

I suggest that it remains a real possibility that the elevated levels of mental health problems among sexual minorities is caused primarily by the unwanted, dreadful realization — during the emotionally charged and very sensitive pre-teen and teen years — that one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, instead of to members of the opposite gender, and that this realization is psychologically and mentally devastating to individuals because it dashes their deeply held and cherished hopes and dreams of leading a normal, healthy, heterosexual adult life that includes a wife and children. In other words, maybe the elevated levels of mental health problems experienced by homosexual people are primarily an indirect result of being homosexual in a heterosexual world, rather than a result of social and structural stigmas created by heterosexual “homophobes.” For example, because homosexual people are only about 1.5% of the general population (click HERE), feelings of isolation and loneliness could very well account for part of the disparity in mental health problems, as could the high levels of promiscuity and relationship breakups that are characteristic of the homosexual population (11, 13). King and Nazareth (2006) put it this way: “There are a number of reasons why gay people may be more likely to report psychological difficulties, which include difficulties growing up in a world orientated to heterosexual norms and values…” (2). And, as mentioned above, Keyes, et al. (9) stated that there are alternative pathways to mental disorders in homosexual people, such as social disadvantage and social norms. Unfortunately, in our politically correct, liberal, social climate, blaming the heterosexual majority for the problems experienced by the homosexual minority always takes precedence over anything that might, instead, be innocently inherent in the basic nature of the homosexual experience itself. Homosexual behavior is biologically aberrant and unnatural, medically unhealthy and biblically immoral. The sooner the gay activists accept these realities, the sooner homosexual people can get around to the business of dealing with their disorder realistically, instead of trying to blame their problems on those of us who refuse to join them in their fantasy world.

Potential Influence on Social Policies and Laws

Despite the lack of any scientifically valid conclusions in any of these studies, they are being used to shape the development of public opinion, social policies and laws and to weigh in on law suits regarding such things as “gay marriage” and “hate crimes” (3, 5, and click HERE ). You should be aware that this is the kind of so-called “scientific” research that is fueling the advancement of the “gay agenda.”

After Word

The elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities, compared to levels found in the heterosexual majority, are very real and represent a serious public health problem that deserves continuing efforts to understand and eliminate this disparity, insofar as possible. Regardless of what the causes of this disparity may be, Christians should be at the forefront of efforts to eliminate mistreatment of homosexual people, including, but not limited to, teasing, bullying, name-calling, unnecessary discrimination, beating and, of course, murder. We are always to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…” (Matthew 7:12).

And yet there are concessions that cannot be made while remaining true to our Christian, religious convictions as prescribed in the Bible, and to biological realities. In all honestly, we cannot and should not abandon the biblical views concerning the immorality of homosexual practice (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), including “gay marriage” (click HERE). Nor should we remain silent about these matters; the Bible requires that we warn against the spiritual result of unrepented sins (Ezekial 33: 8-9), and it warns us to refrain from encouraging and/or approving of sin (Leviticus 19:1; Isaiah 5:20; Malachi 2:17; Matthew 5:19-20; Matthew 18:6; Romans 14:22). And we should be willing to be condemned by the world for discriminating against practicing homosexuals who want to be church members and leaders and/or employees of churches and para-church organizations (click HERE). Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that the practice of homosexuality is statistically abnormal (wherever it may be found in nature), biologically unnatural (wherever it may be found in nature) and medically unhealthy (click HERE). To deny these self-evident, and well-documented facts that characterize homosexual practice just to try to make homosexual people feel better about themselves would be both dishonest and counter-productive. Physical and mental health will not result from living in a make-believe world that denies reality. And finally, Christians should encourage dissatisfied homosexual people to seek and obtain counseling and ministry that is bible-based, to help them deal effectively and honestly with their unwanted homosexuality, and, hopefully, to abandon it (click HERE).

In standing our ground, however, we should always treat homosexual people with all appropriate expressions of love, kindness and respect, as these are defined in the Bible. And we should always be quick to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with homosexual people if and when the opportunity presents itself, keeping in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and are all dearly loved by Him. Once a homosexual person becomes born-again, the Holy Spirit will make sure that conviction comes and homosexual sins are repented and abandoned (click HERE). “The Lord is … not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9). And, as Christians, that must remain our desire as well for homosexual people.

Summary

Homosexuality is associated with significantly elevated levels of mental health problems compared to heterosexuality. Gay activists assume that these differentially elevated levels of mental health problems are a result of social and structural stigmas aimed at homosexual people by a heterosexual, homophobic society, rather than having anything  to do with the homosexual experience per se. Scientists have attempted to prove that this assumption is true by conducting studies that generate an apparent association of either social or structural stigmas with elevated levels of mental health problems in sexual minorities. However, all of these studies have fatal flaws and limitations that prevent scientifically valid cause-and-effect inferences or conclusions to be made, leaving us with the original assumptions still untested. Even the leading researcher in this field admitted that no study has shown that either social or structural stigmas cause mental health problems! Therefore, it remains a real possibility that this phenomenon is caused primarily by the unwanted, dreadful realization — during the emotionally charged and very sensitive pre-teen and teen years — that one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender, instead of to members of the opposite gender, and that this realization is psychologically and mentally devastating to individuals because it dashes their deeply held and cherished hopes and dreams of leading a normal, healthy, heterosexual adult life that includes a wife and children. In other words, could it be that the elevated levels of mental health problems experienced by homosexual people are simply an indirect result of being homosexual in a heterosexual world, rather than a result of social and structural stigmas created by a homophobic, heterosexual majority? Regardless of why sexual minorities have elevated levels of mental health problems, we should always treat homosexual people with appropriate expressions of love, kindness and respect, as these are defined in the Bible. And we should always be quick to share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ with homosexual people when the opportunity presents itself, keeping in mind that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and are dearly loved by Him.

References Cited

1. Chakraborty, A., et al. (2011). Mental Health of the non-heterosexual population of England. British Journal of Psychiatry 198:143-148.

2. Collingwood, J. (2011). Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals. Psych Central (click HERE).

3. Hatzenbuehler, M.L. (2010). Social Factors as Determinants of Mental Health Disparities in LGB Populations: Implications for Public Policy. Social Issues and Policy Review 4:31-62.

4. Hatzenbuehler, M.L. (2011). The Social Environment and Suicide Attempts in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth. Pediatrics 127:896-903.

5. Hatzenbuehler, M., et al. (2009). State-Level Policies and Psychiatric Morbidity in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations. American Journal of Public Health 99:2275-2281.

6. Hatzenbuehler, M., et al. (2010). The Impact of Institutional Discrimination on Psychiatric Disorders in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: A Prospective Study. American Journal of Public Health 100:452-459.

7. Hatzenbuehler, M., et al. (2012). Effect of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Health Care Use and Expenditures in Sexual Minority Men: A Quasi-Natural Experiment. American Journal of Public Health 102:285-291.

8. Hatzenbuehler, M., et al. (2014). Structural Stigma and All-Cause Mortality in Sexual Minority Populations. Social Science and Medicine 103:33-41.

9. Keyes, K., et al. (2011). Stressful Life Experiences, Alcohol consumption, and Alcohol Use Disorders: The Epidemiologic Evidence for Four Main Types of Stressors. Psychopharmacology 218:1-17.

10. Menzie, N. (2014). Study Linking Marriage to Gay Men’s Health ‘Flawed’, Say Experts. The Christian Post (click HERE).

11. Schumm, W. (2011). Replies to “The Social Environment and Suicide Attempts in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth.” (click HERE)

12. Tracy, N. (2013). Homosexuality and Mental Health Issues. Healthy Place: Trusted Mental Health Information (click HERE).

13. Whitehead, N. (2002). Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems (click HERE).

(To find more articles about HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

What the Bible Tells Us about “Gay Marriage”

What the Bible Tells Us about “Gay Marriage”

James R. Aist

 Introduction

Recently, a gay activist reacted to my biblical definition of “gay marriage” (click HERE) with something like this: “The Bible doesn’t say anything about gay marriage. Show me where the Bible mentions gay marriage. You can’t.” That reaction inspired me to write this article for my website, because I sensed right away that a good response on my part would require more than a passing comment.

The fact is, the Bible often infers or implies (i.e., teaches) us much more than it says explicitly with a definitive word or phrase. For example, the doctrine of the “trinity” is wholly derived from what the Bible says in many related passages, but the word “trinity” is not to be found anywhere in the Bible. Likewise, the doctrine of the omniscience of God is based upon many things that the Bible tells us about God, but the words “omniscient” and “omniscience” are not used in the Bible. When it comes to “gay marriage”, the Bible says many things about marriage and homosexuality that tell us all we really need to know in order to realize that God does not approve of it, without actually using the term “gay marriage” or its biblical equivalent, whatever that would be. Now, let’s move on to develop this topic in some detail.

The Inspiration of the Bible

It is important to grasp the unique nature of the Holy Bible in order to understand that what the Bible tells us about “gay marriage” is divine truth and is, therefore, definitive, unequivocal and final. So, let’s first lay the foundation for the “inspiration” of the Bible.

God is omniscient: This means that God is all-knowing, that He has knowledge of all things past, present and future. What is unknown to man is known to God. And, God knows the end from the beginning. Thus, whatever will exist or will be done in the future is not a surprise to God; He already knows about it and always has. Consider the biblical witness:

  • “If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.” (1 John 3:20)
  • “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:13)
  • “Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
    Let him declare and lay out before me
    what has happened since I established my ancient people,
    and what is yet to come—
    yes, let them foretell what will come.”(Isaiah 44:7)
  • Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” (John 21:17)

The Bible Is Inspired by the Omniscient God: The Bible – all of it – is inspired (i.e., God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is the infallible Word of God Himself and, therefore, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. We have God’s word on it that the Bible is truth, and “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” (Numbers 23:19). Here is the biblical witness:

  • “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16)
  • “First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” (Romans 3:2)
  • “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.  For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)
  • “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.” (1 Corinthians 2:13)
  • “The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” (John 14:10)
  • “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.” (John 17:17)

Implications for Same-sex Marriage

God Approves of Non-sexual Same-sex Relationships: The Bible speaks well of several non-sexual, same-sex relationships, including Jonathan and David (1 Samuel 20), Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1) and Jesus and John (John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2 and 21:20). There is no valid evidence whatsoever to support the speculation of gay activists that any of these relationships were homosexual in nature. The Bible speaks only of their relationships as involving what we would refer to today as “brotherly love”, without even a hint of “sexual love.” God’s disapproval comes into play when same-sex relationships become sexual.

God Condemns Homosexual Behavior In Any Context: Homosexual behavior is unequivocally and consistently portrayed in the Bible 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). The biblical witness on this point could not be any clearer. Moreover, nowhere does the Bible indicate approval of homosexual behavior in any context. Gay activists speculate that the condemnation of homosexual behavior in the Bible could not apply to modern, loving, committed, faithful and long-term same-sex relationships because the (human) writers of the Bible knew nothing about such relationships. But that speculation does not take into account that the writers of the Bible were writing under the inspiration and direction of the Holy Spirit of the omniscient God, the God who has knowledge of all things past, present and future. The omniscient God of the Bible has always known everything there is to know about all homosexual relationships, past, present and future, including the “modern” ones, and yet He made no accommodation whatsoever for any of them in the Bible. The fact is that the Bible condemns all homosexual behavior as sin, without exception, regardless of the context. And that is God’s word on the matter.

God’s Definition of Marriage Excludes “Gay Marriage”: In Genesis 1:27-28, the Bible says “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”. And in Genesis 2:23-24, “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” We see here that God’s original design for human sexuality was heterosexuality, since He created them male and female and gave them the task of filling the earth. Then He defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, as evidenced by His referring to Eve as Adam’s wife. And in Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus confirmed the definition of marriage in Genesis 2: “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” Thus, the biblical definition of marriage, first recorded in the Old Testament and later confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament, is as follows: a lifelong, exclusive commitment between one man and one woman. Therefore, so-called “gay marriage” is excluded and invalidated by God’s definition of marriage, regardless of how loving, committed, faithful and long-term the same-sex relationships may be. If the omniscient God of the Bible had intended for modern, loving, committed, faithful and long-term same-sex relationships to qualify for marriage, then He would not have excluded them by definition.

Summary

The God of the Bible is omniscient (i.e., all-knowing). He has knowledge of all things past, present and future, including all things homosexual. The Bible – all of it – is inspired (i.e., God-breathed) by the Holy Spirit. As such, it is the infallible Word of God Himself. God approves of non-sexual same-sex relationships, such as Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi, and Jesus and John. His disapproval comes into play when same-sex relationships become sexual. In fact, God condemns homosexual behavior in any context. God’s definition of marriage — a lifelong, exclusive commitment between one man and one woman — excludes and invalidates “gay marriage.” If the omniscient God of the Bible had intended for modern, loving, committed, faithful and long-term same-sex relationships to qualify for marriage, then He would not have excluded them by definition.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)