Born Gay? No Way

This is a sensative topic for many, so I'll preface it with this: I am not sharing my views in an attempt to insult or demean, this is simply how I feel and we are all entitled to our own beliefs.

I just don't believe people are born gay; I don't buy it. This is such a popular argument with the gay community, because if it is true, it means they can't change, therefore allowing gay marriage is the only right thing to do. Bull crap.

I have several firm reasons for my not accepting this argument. First, if people were born gay, then there would be a gene associated with homosexuality. Now since homosexuals and lesbians cannot have children together (For obvious reasons. Please take a look at an electric socket and a power cord if you need further clarification), this would mean that the gene homosexuals and lesbians carry cannot be passed onto offspring, unless they copulate with the opposite gender. Wouldn't this result in lower numbers of future homosexuals and lesbians? Clearly it hasn't, as evidenced by the ever growing size of gay pride parades.

Some proponents of gay rights and born gay theories cite research to support the idea that people are born gay. I say, BS; the innate theory of homosexuality is not founded on any scientific principles. Many scientists that have been cited by gay rights advocates have entirely dismissed the notion that homosexuality is biological, and unchangeable.

From David Clarke Pruden's article:

"Let's examine the words of just one of those often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a 'gay gene.' Simon LeVay notes, 'It is important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.'"

David Clarke Pruden goes on to write:

"A new research study by a University of Illinois team, which has screened the entire human genome, reported that there is no one gay gene. Writing in the journal Human Genetics, lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved.
"Of the innate-immutable argument, Dr. Richard C. Friedman and Dr. Jennifer Downey, noted, 'At clinical conferences one often hears ... that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true ... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology.'"

Additionally, if homosexuality is so ingrained, why are there so many cases of homosexuals leaving past lifestyles behind, and carrying on heterosexual relationships? Dr. Ellen Schecter of the Fielding Institute studied long time, self-identified lesbians, who after age 30 were now in successful relationships with men. How many times have you heard of dyed in the wool homosexuals doing complete 180s? I know I have personally heard dozens of stories.

Well what about the argument that the APA doesn't consider homosexuality to be a psychiatric issue? Well, Robert Spitzer, "the psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual, studied 200 gay men and lesbian women who had undergone re-orientation therapy concluded: 44 percent of the women and 66 percent of the men had arrived at what he called 'good heterosexual functioning' and 89 percent of the men and 95 percent of the women reported that they were bothered slightly or not at all by unwanted homosexual feelings." Furthermore, the APA and the American Medical Association have long been practiconers of PC in place of science, so I would hardly hold them as the end all standard.

Additionally, if homosexuals and lesbians are only truly attracted to their own sex, why are so many lesbians very masculine, and so many homosexuals so feminine? It is as if they want someone of their own gender, but someone that acts or even looks like the opposite gender.

I firmly believe that the majority of homosexuals and lesbians have very sincere, strong feelings of love and attraction. But that said, I believe homosexuality is unnatural and can therefore in many cases be fixed, and if not entirely eliminated, it can be brought under control and not acted upon.

I believe that many things can cause one to have homosexual desires. It must be stressed that these are simply my opinions, and not based on any particular research or study, but mere observation and logical conclusion. These causes include but are not limited to:

1. Simple perversion. One can simply be a pervert, and be attracted to the "dirty" side of homosexuality.

2. Psychiatric disorder. The attraction can be brought on by uncontrollable mental processes, like chemical imbalances, or under/over grown areas of the brain. This is as close as I get to agreeing that it can be inborn, in a sense, in that people can be born the the psychiatric disorder. This is not to say that this is the case with all, or that because of this, there is no hope for change.

3. The result of abuse. One could be abused as a child, and as a result for an unhealthy attraction or repulsion to a particular gender.

4. Confusion. Often in early development, children and teens experiment. During this time period, they may assume since they have this curiosity, they must be gay. Not the case.

5. Acceptance. A homosexual or lesbian may find that they have nothing in common with the opposite sex, or they are unable to attract the opposite sex, so they turn to their own gender, perhaps unknowingly, confusing the frustration with homosexuality.

6. Fitting in / cool factor. Gay is the new black; kids love to be cool. Enough said.

Ultimately, what someone does in private, is their own business, and I have no business in it. I make this argument as it relates to gay rights and more specifically gay marriage, which are not private, but very much public; that is where my "beef" lies.

What are your thoughts on the topic? In agreement or disagreement?

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why does it matter if they chose to be gay or not? I happen to believe that it is a combination of genetics and environmental factors, but that should have nothing to do with whether or not they are given equal rights. People should have the freedom to make their own choices without government interference, as long as it is not harming others - this means the government out of our bedrooms AND our wallets.

Anonymous said...

You don't really understand genetics. A single gene is not often the sole factor in a trait or a behavior. Single gene defects may cause problems but complex heritable behaviors are more likely the result of multiple genes.

They may be recessive or only express in combination. In other words, as tempting as the simple "How could it get passed on?" argument is, it is false. However, there is definitely a willingness to believe the genetic theory of homosexuality that is non-scientifically based. There is a perceived legitimacy for many in the scientific answer, even if it is unproven.

Even more interesting is how little attention is paid to a multiple cause theory of gay behavior, some chosen, some genetic, some abuse based. This doesn't reduce well to jingo and is very hard to explain to people who have picked a "side."

The real question should be: If it's a choice, who gets to say it shouldn't be allowed, and why?"

Some people think being a Republican is unnatural you know...

Notorious Nick said...

First, I'm not a republican. Second, I understand genetics very well. Third, I have acknowledged that there can be cognitive defects that cause homosexual feelings, but that they can be managed.

Anonymous said...

Interesting commentary. The PC momentum makes a serious and dispassionate look at the topic nearly impossible. It is a topic worthy of discussion and scientific research. I concur that homosexual behavior is abnormal, should not be facilitated, and should not be accepted as normal. Children should be protected from homosexuals, homosexuals should receive treatment; and should not be afforded special status or rights as occurs under PC-oriented laws and pressure. But otherwise,in the end, what someone opts to do in the privacy of their own home is their own business.

Zoe Brain said...

Tays-Sachs disease causes all sufferers to die hideous deaths before the age of 6. So obvioulsy it can't be genetic, by your reasoning.

There is no gene for Spina Bifida, nor Cleft Palate. So these conditions can't be congenital, again by your reasoning.

There is no gene for breast cancer - but some genes can increase the chance of getting it by 10% or more. Similarly, we have identified several genes that increase the chance of being gay by about 10%. Most people who are gay don't have them, and many people who are straight do. Just like many people who have breast cancer don't have the pre-disposing gene, and many people who do have the gene don't develop breats cancer.

People choose to be Gay or Straight just the way they choose to be short or tall. Some are born unequivocally tall, others unequivocally short - but there's some who can essentially choose which of the two exclusive alternatives they want to be regarded as, as well as others who reject the exclusive binary, and are "bisexual" - sorry - "of medium height".

We can prove that some people - by no means all - are born gay. See Zucker's work on non-gender-conformant children. By use of "aversion therapy", he managed to turn 3/4 to 2/3 of such children gay rather than transsexual.

Compared to children who are not so treated, where 1/3 are transsexual, and 2/3 are gay.

But most gays are gender-conformant when young. No straights though are gender-nonconformant as children, they grow up to be transsexual, gay, or a tiny minority bisexual.

Only 10% of Intersexed 46XX people with masculinising CAH syndrome identify as male. 90% identify as female, but again, all are "tomboys" when young, and are usually bisexual, or if not, lesbian as adults.

Zoe Brain said...

See these comparative MRI scans to see the anatomical differences in neurology between unequivocally homosexual males, homesexual females, heterosexual males, and heterosexual females.

Striking similarities between the brains of gay men and straight women have been discovered by neuroscientists, offering fresh evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into our neural circuitry.

Scans reveal homosexual men and heterosexual women have symmetrical brains, with the right and left hemispheres almost exactly the same size. Conversely, lesbians and straight men have asymmetrical brains, with the right hemisphere significantly larger than the left.

Scientists at the prestigious Stockholm Brain Institute in Sweden also found certain brain circuits linked to emotional responses were the same in gay men and straight women.

The findings, published tomorrow in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest the biological factors that influence sexual orientation - such as exposure to testosterone in the womb - may also shape the brain's anatomy.

The study, led by the neurobiologist Ivanka Savic, builds on previous research that has identified differences in spatial and verbal abilities related to sex and sexual orientation. Tests have found gay men and straight women fare better at certain language tasks, while heterosexual men and lesbians tend to have better spatial awareness.

Savic and her colleague Per Linström took MRI brain scans of 90 volunteers who were divided into four groups of similar ages according to whether they were male, female, heterosexual or homosexual. The scans showed the right side of the brain in heterosexual men was typically 2% larger than the left. Lesbians showed a similar asymmetry, with the right hand side of the brain 1% larger than the left.

Scans on homosexual men and heterosexual women revealed both sides of the brain were the same size.
...
Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it.
...
"These differences might be laid down during brain development in the womb, or they could happen after birth, though it could very likely be a combination of the two," said Savic.

In another series of tests, Savic and Lindström used a technique called positron emission tomography (PET) to look at brain wiring in a smaller group of volunteers. They found heterosexual women and gay men shared brain circuitry linking a region called the amygdala, which plays a key role in emotional responses, to other parts of the brain.


We don't know which is symptom, which is effect. The evidence suggests neither are causal, they're co-symptoms of an underlying cause, a hormonal foulup in the womb.

Of course, you could decide that every single lab in the world that studies such matters is by definition full of liberal bias. Because conservatives won't touch that icky sex stuff. Except for NARTH of course - and they reject all evidence that isn't in accord with the Bible. They know homosexuality is a conscious sin, so any evidence of it not being has to be inconclusive or flawed, by definition.

This view has a few problems - because while Academia is 95% leftist, in Science it's more like 45%.

Zoe Brain said...

Now having said all of that... remember what I said about some people "choosing"?

It need not be conscious. Any or all of the 6 reasons you mentioned - based on personal observation - may indeed be true for some.

I know of at least one case of 6). A certain famous (or infamous) Gay Activist. Julie Bindell describes herself as a "political lesbian", a concept which I think is meaningless. She's Bi.

My own case may be 2). I'll leave aside the issue of the un-PC "mental illness" vs the PC "natural variation" for now. It's irrelevant (and how could I be objective?)

I mean it in a technical sense. Before my unusual change, I was basically Asexual, but if anything, slightly lesbian. I certainly had no attraction to guys. They just did nothing for me. Not their appearance, nor their smell. Immune to the pheremones.

About 6-9 months after my metabolism went haywire, and just as I'd finally wrapped my head around the fact that I'd been lesbian rather than straight all my life...and had come to terms with that... it started changing.

Guys started to look kinda cute.

I'd managed to ride out the psychological challenges of an external change of sex. And the even more disorientating effects of my neurology changing due to the totally changed hormones (this was long before I started hormone replacement therapy to stabilise the chaos).

But I never thought I'd be one of the 1 in 3 who transition who report a change in sexual orientation.

Not so much a change, as acquiring one. The pheremones hit me like an avalanche. The smell of fresh male sweat did something to me, something instinctive, animalistic. "Chemistry" - something I'd never experienced before.

Being in a guy's arms, feeling his firm muscles, running my fingers through his chest hair.... it's so *damnably* cliched. But yes, I was hard-wired for androphillia.

I'd really prefer to be lesbian. I don't understand guys at all. But while I can control my actions, I can't control my attractions.

6-9 months is the time that it takes certain neurotransmitters to leave receptor sites. Vassopressin IIRC. It's also the time delay after orchidectomy (or the testes becoming dysfunctional) that other transitioners who switch orientations report.

It may be that I just had a psychological block - with a mostly male body, sex with a guy was ewwwwwww. Or it may be the result of actual neurological change. If the latter, I'm still probably *potentially* bi, even if I don't feel that I am. I don't know, and it makes me uncomfy thinking about it. I'm a bit of a prude, you know?

You may now laugh. Poetic Justice I guess, that this should happen to a somewhat homophobic, sexually very staid, prim, proper and even priggish NeoCon.

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.

While you're at it, visit our message boards!