Proof you can't be 'born gay'

By Philip Irvin

The most effective, and I would argue the only, way to stop the homosexual political agenda is to direct discussions to a topic that homosexuals have successfully protected from public debate; whether people are "born gay."

Many believe people are "born gay" – that there is some organic basis for homosexuality. Most people who believe this would not deny homosexuals "equal rights" – including marital rights – simply because of an accident of birth. Such people support homosexual objectives out of compassion; but this compassion too often has overridden their own theological beliefs and the time-tested Judeo-Christian principles upon which our country was founded.

The more we fight this compassionate response, the more unreasonable our efforts seem, and the more enraged these compassionate homosexual supporters become at our attempts. While we might gain temporary victories or even stop same-sex marriage for a season, our efforts only result in more anger produced and more determination developed to fulfill the desires of our "victims" – the victims who have (until now) effectively presented themselves as worthy of compassion. Ultimately, we cannot win because what we are fighting grows stronger the more we fight it. We can win the discussions and political debates easily, though, when the topic of "born gay" is effectively presented as a topic for public consideration.

If people really are "born gay," the homosexual agenda makes sense (at least compassionate sense). If not, then all concessions made to homosexuals encourage people to follow the lifestyle. To make significant progress, we must address the original question of whether people really are "born gay." If we succeed, we will then inherit the mantle of compassion as we help protect people from falsely believing they are homosexual.

This debate has been complicated by discussions of religion, morality or social good. While the "born-gay" thesis has huge political ramifications, it reverts to a scientific question. Further, by avoiding moral or religious positions on homosexuality, no valid objections can be raised against using this paper or similar material everywhere, even in public school classrooms.

Winning public policy debates

The article, "Are people really 'born gay'?," from the June 14, 2010 issue of CitizenLink does an effective job of refuting the claim by examining studies, providing expert opinion and showing the flaws of the homosexual community's position. However, both sides of the debate cite expert opinions and studies, while disputing the conclusions of the opposing side. Who wins this type of debate? The "winner" of the debate is the side that most successfully saturates the populace with its message. With the liberal media strongly supporting the homosexual agenda and ideology, we're significantly outgunned trying to saturate the populace with our message.

The only way we can hope to win debates is to focus on the fundamental question, "Does it make any sense for people to be 'born gay'?" If we can show that the "born gay" thesis is an absurd idea, then any scientific/pseudoscientific counter assertions are exposed as equally absurd.

Homosexual leaders refuse to debate this issue because they know they cannot win. It's imperative that we force discussion and demand such debate because we cannot lose, and it is the only path to victory. If we can forcefully expose the fallacy of the "born gay" thesis, the intellectual support of homosexual rights collapses, and we won't even need to discuss the topic of "gay marriage."

Genetics is our friend

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction, so let's start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: "One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children."

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe 10 generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a homosexual gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool. Ask any genetics teacher, "Could homosexuality be genetic if there is no mechanism for gays to pass their genes on to children as frequently as straights pass genes on to their children?" While you are at it, propose any percentage of gays in the starting population and any fertility rates for gays and straights, and ask for the mathematical calculations of how rapidly a homosexual gene would die out.

Workarounds that don't work

For homosexual apologists, this obvious genetic roadblock is not so obvious and they have developed a number of workarounds. For example, some have pointed out that many homosexuals have children before coming out as gay. The Lesbian Mothers Project was created to fight for custody of children that lesbian mothers had while in a hetero relationship. OK. So they had hetero sex, but it was not their "sexual preference." To sustain this model is it possible that initially being hetero is part of the normal life cycle of a homosexual?

With this kind of emerging problem, someone getting married might want to run tests to ensure he or she is marrying someone of the stated orientation. But it doesn't work that way. A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that's not conclusive proof. Likewise a person can act and claim to be homosexual, but later events can show they were just "confused" and weren't homosexual at all. A cardinal rule of gay ideology is that sexual orientation is immutable. From that viewpoint, it would seem that gayness or straightness is determined by what a person eventually declares himself or herself to be.

This leads to an interesting question: What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is homosexual, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is inherently straight and those who assert to be homosexual are only "confused." So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

Homosexual studies sunk

This problem torpedoes any research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. Consider the scenario in which Carl marries Sally, who then dumps Carl to run off with Sue. This scenario has two possible causes: 1) Sally converted from hetero to homo, and there is no organic basis for sexual orientation, or 2) researchers built their studies on the premise that Sally and those like her were hetero, only to have to discard all their research because it's based on flawed assumptions.

There is a study that claims a difference between heterosexual and homosexual brains. If those brains labeled "straight" included homosexuals who have not yet come out, while the brains labeled "gay" included straights that are really just confused and only thought they were homosexual, the researcher is just comparing one group of gay and straight brains with another group of gay and straight brains. How could he conclude anything? With this flawed beginning, any study attempting to prove an organic basis for homosexuality is invalid.

Some profess a foggy belief that homosexuality must be caused by some type of "chemical imbalance." But homosexuals claim that one in 10 is gay, or a full 30 million Americans. If such a huge population has this organic characteristic which precludes reproduction, why has there been such a small amount of research intended to find and perhaps treat this chemical imbalance or other organic medical condition?

Would those who postulate a "chemical imbalance" be willing to consider implicating a drug that is specifically designed to create such an imbalance? Birth control pills give an overpowering amount of female hormones to reprogram the ovulation cycle. If an unknowingly pregnant woman took birth control pills that saturated her male fetus, could this blast of female hormones induce homosexuality in him? If those purporting to support a "chemical imbalance" hypothesis are unwilling to explore this possibility, they really don't want to consider the obvious shallowness of their position.

What about bisexuals?

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of "born gay," let's talk about bisexuality. What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50 percent straight and 50 percent gay? Can't someone also be a 60-40 bisexual or any other ratio? We speak of someone who is "straight with gay tendencies" – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good relationship with one gender and a bad relationship with the other, can't this "bisexual person" easily go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we've already seen that homosexual ideology says it's not even possible to determine who is/is not homosexual, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2 percent gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

Also, if people are "born gay," please explain whether pedophiles were born that way and if not, why is there such an insistence that their behavior must have been learned or chosen, but that of heterosexuals and homosexuals could not have been?

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don't think about it. Homosexuality is about what a person does and not about what a person is.

'Born gay' doesn't make sense

As noted above, if we continue to fight misplaced compassion toward homosexuals, we cannot win. If instead we disseminate and utilize evidence that "born gay" doesn't make any sense, we cannot lose. If the logic in this commentary piece is widely dispersed and applied, it could cripple the homosexual agenda, ideology and social/political influence.

Therefore:

Send this article or the related web link to parents or anyone working with youth so they can convince children that neither they, nor any of their classmates, were born homosexual.
Ask your church, political organization, civic groups and other organizations to sponsor a debate the "born gay" thesis.
Send this article to your friends, acquaintances and even compassionate homosexual agenda supporters. Post it on Facebook and Twitter. In each and every way, work to change the discussion from homosexual rights and same-sex marriage to whether an organic basis for homosexuality makes any sense.

Widespread understanding of this material could significantly damage the foundation upon which the gay rights political agenda and ideology are built, thereby causing these positions to be easily defeated in social, political public policy debates.

For more than 25 years, Philip Irvin has been using creative techniques to vigorously fight the homosexual agenda. As a defendant, he's even won a discrimination case against the Seattle Office for Civil Rights. In 1988, he published an article accurately predicting the homosexual demand for "total acceptance of homosexuality by all of society" and their increasing effective attempts to silence the opposition.