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, 2016, 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)

The “Science” of Homosexuality

The “Science” of Homosexuality

James R. Aist

“…the “science” of homosexuality is considered to be one of the “softest” of all the sciences.”

In order for one to get a grasp on the overall quality of homosexuality 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, and objective measurements are obtained. The effect of temperature on the growth rate of a fungus in a Petri dish can be measured with considerable precision, reproducibility and objectivity as well (biology). Although there is always some “biological variation” from one measurement to the next, the fungus just reacts as it must to its environment; it has no control over the result, and objective measurements are obtained. 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, lie 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. Almost all of the “science” of homosexuality is plagued by this problem, because objective data are almost impossible to obtain in this soft science. The human subject has a great deal of influence on the reliability and accuracy of the data, and, therefore, 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. (See ADDENDUM)

The manner in which homosexuality research is designed, executed, analyzed and interpreted by the researcher is also germane to the issue of the quality of the science and the accuracy and dependability of the conclusions. Marks (2012) discussed some of these issues as they relate to research on homosexual parenting, but the principles of sound scientific inquiry presented are applicable to the “science” of homosexuality in general. Of particular interest is what is called “Type II error.” This type of error occurs when the researcher concludes that there is no difference between two comparison groups when there is, in fact, a difference. There are several aspects of a study that can lead to Type II error, including small sample size, random variation, unreliable measures, imprecise methodology and unaccounted for variables. The difficulty of obtaining objective and reliable information from human subjects, discussed above, would be an example of what can lead to Type II error. Another example would be the sparseness of the homosexual population compared to the heterosexual population, which usually makes it difficult at best to obtain large, representative sample sizes for comparison.

Homosexuality is an emotionally charged research area, and it may be difficult for some scientists to be entirely objective in how they conduct and report their research. The researcher may have a personal, social agenda apart from conducting objective, scientifically sound research. In many cases, it would be easy to manipulate the outcomes of a study by omitting certain questions, crafting questions in a particular way, using biased sampling procedures, omitting selected demographics, and/or going prematurely to press with data sets that are so small that a real difference may appear to be no difference.

However, when the “science” of homosexuality is done objectively and competently, I believe that it can produce results and conclusions that are both reliable and useful, within the limits of a “soft science.” But, more so than with the other sciences, with the “science” of homosexuality one must constantly be on the lookout for “limitations” and “confounding factors” in the research that often make scientifically sound conclusions impossible. When that happens, one is left with the original hypothesis still untested.

Finally, because homosexuality is a prominent and emotionally charged social and political issue, there is all too often a disconnect between what the results of a particular study and did not conclude and/or infer and the version of it that is peddled to the public by the predominately liberal, pro-gay press. For example, a correlation of social stigmas with higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals may be reported in the popular press as a scientific conclusion that social stigmas cause higher rates of mental health problems in homosexuals, despite the fact that the scientific report itself was careful to point out that the study did not show a cause-and-effect relationship at all. One can easily be led astray by popular reports of scientific studies, especially when the “science” of homosexuality is involved.

ADDENDUM

Here are two glaring examples of just how bad the “science” of homosexuality can be:

Landess, T. The Evelyn Hooker Study and the Normalization of Homosexuality. (click HERE)

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

Reference Cited

Marks, L. 2012. Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting. Social Science Research 41:735-751. (click HERE to download article)

(For more of my 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). Are Homosexuals Mentally Ill? (click HERE).

(To find more of my articles about HOMOSEXUALITY, click HERE)

Faith and the Scientific Method

English: Science icon from Nuvola icon theme f...Faith and the Scientific Method

 James R. Aist

He replied, “When evening comes, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,’  and in the morning, ‘Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky…” (Matthew 16:2-4)

Introduction

How can we know that something really is true? Can we prove that it’s true by reason or logic or observation or experimentation? Perhaps we can. But, is there yet another path to truth, a path beginning with a supernatural, all-knowing, spiritual being who communicates truth to us by a spiritual route? Perhaps there is.

Many people believe that science operates apart from faith; that is to say, that faith does not enter into the process of scientific inquiry. This is the claim that I would like to examine more closely with you, to see if it holds up under careful and honest scrutiny.

Two Kinds of Faith

There are actually two different kinds of faith at work in the world. There is a “natural faith” that everyone is born with. It is part of our human nature, and it helps us to deal with the realities and necessities of the natural world.  We use this kind of faith in our everyday lives. By our natural faith, we believe that if we turn the ignition key, the car will start, and so we do it “on faith.” By our natural faith, we believe that the chair we are about to sit on will be strong enough to support our weight, and so, by faith, we “take a seat.” By our natural faith, we believe that if we put a dollar bill into a change machine, it will return four quarters, and in it goes. We are all very familiar with this natural faith. While natural faith is a necessary part of successful and productive living in this world, it is not perfect, as witnessed by the fact that the car doesn’t always start, the chair doesn’t always hold and the change machine doesn’t always return four quarters.

But there is another kind of faith. This is  “supernatural faith.” No one is born with it, so not everyone has it; it is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Supernatural faith enables the “born again” believer to understand spiritual things, qualify for heaven and do good works out of a pure motivation of love and compassion. Contrary to natural faith, supernatural faith, when properly understood and applied, never fails.

The Scientific Method

The “scientific method” is the process by which scientific inquiry is conducted to reach a scientific “conclusion.” The five steps in this process are observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation and conclusion. Here’s how it works. One first makes a number of observations about something. Then a hypothesis, or tentative conclusion, is formulated to make sense out of the observations. Next, one reasons that, if this tentative conclusion is correct, then a prediction based on that tentative conclusion is true. One then tests that prediction by conducting carefully designed, scientifically sound experiments. If the results of the experiments confirm the prediction, then a scientifically valid conclusion can be made, based on those results. And finally, when one is totally convinced that the conclusions are warranted, then they are considered “proof” that the hypothesis is correct.

Where Is the Faith in That?

Well, there is, in fact, a kind of faith involved at every step of the process. And it is the “natural faith” that I discussed above. By faith, a scientist proceeds from the observations to the tentative conclusion, since nothing has yet been “proven.” And this faith process is repeated at every succeeding step — prediction, experimentation and conclusion – until the scientist is convinced that they have arrived at the “truth.” Note that the end of the process is when the scientist is convinced, not necessarily when the results unequivocally demand the conclusion that was reached. Thus, the conclusion, when published, becomes a kind of “statement of faith” as it were, where the faith involved is not the supernatural faith that is added to natural faith when one is born again, but it is natural faith alone.

If you’re not yet convinced that natural faith is involved in scientific research, then consider this anecdote. When I took an Introductory Biochemistry course in college, the professor, who was also a research scientist, began his first lecture by pointing out that two-thirds of the research upon which the Nobel Prize in biochemistry had been awarded up to that time was later proven to be incorrect. This result would not have happened if (imperfect) natural faith had not played a role in the scientific method.

Conclusions

We can see that faith, in the form of “natural faith”, is, indeed, involved in the process of scientific inquiry. This faith can most easily be seen at the end of the process, when the scientist is convinced that the correct conclusion has been reached, as well as in the fact that much of the best scientific research is later shown to be incorrect.

Natural faith not only helps us to deal with the realities and necessities of the natural world and is a necessary part of successful and productive living, but it also plays a vital role in the scientific method, which, while not perfect, enables us to learn many important and interesting things about the natural world and how it operates.

(For more articles on BIBLICAL TEACHINGS, click HERE