Psychologists say there is little scientific evidence that sexual-orientation is biological, but two powerful men forced the sexual revolution on the country.

Medical Xpress posted a strange article. It’s clearly pro-LGBT, aimed at helping society accept the small minority of people with non-heterosexual orientations. Yet it makes a strong admission that undermines the whole rationale for giving homosexuals legal protection: the belief that gay people are “born that way.”

Patrick Grzanka and Joe Miles, psychologists from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, went about trying to decipher the source of anti-homosexual bias. They were surprised that the argument that homosexuals are “born that way” seem to have little effect. They wrote a paper “challenging the notion that the belief that people are born with their sexual orientation—a belief that has proliferated in the past 20 to 30 years, particularly among social and biological scientists—is the key to improving attitudes toward lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”

Grzanka noted that beliefs about the nature of sexual orientation have profound implications for science, policy and the law. Arguments that sexual orientation is inherent and unchangeable have been used in landmark court cases to serve as the foundation for civil protections and privileges, such as marriage, and to challenge harmful faux-medical practices, such as so-called sexual orientation “conversion therapy.”

Grzanka and Miles just want to help gays. They want to turn heterosexuals away from homophobia. They want to help activists, teachers and politicians understand how best to “more effectively foster acceptance of sexual minorities and create a safer and more welcoming society.” They are appalled by “horrific attempts by physicians, clergy and psychologists to turn sexual minorities into heterosexuals.” LGBT activists could hardly ask for better allies in the scientific community.

But then Grzanka lit this bombshell:
“And yet there is little scientific evidence to suggest that the categories we use today in the United States—categories that are historically quite new—originate in the body at all,” he said. “I think social scientists, lawyers, biological researchers and activists all need to examine why it is that many of us are so deeply invested in biological explanations of sexual orientation, particularly when they appear to have limited efficacy in terms of promoting more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities.”

Wait a minute; if it’s not biological, if it’s not genetic—and if that has been the whole reason for the gay rights movement—what is it? Is it a choice? You can’t change a leopard’s spots, but you can change a human being’s choices. Why, then, is sexual conversion therapy harmful?
Gay Science?

As we have seen, science journals and reporters have jumped on the gay-rights bandwagon, showing full support for the LGBT agenda (e.g., Live Science) even to the point of publishing frauds (remember the Lacour fraud, 12/12/14). Live Science happily announced this week that more young people are reporting same-sex attraction. But then watch this paragraph:
The latest findings showed that 92 percent of women and 95 percent of men identified themselves as being heterosexual or straight. Just less than 2 percent of men and a little more than 1 percent of women identified themselves as gay or lesbian, which is consistent with past survey data results.

There has not been a wide swing toward homosexuality in the general population, despite decades of indoctrination. Some may be more open to discuss “same sex attraction” than before, but that’s a gray area not the same as homosexuality itself; as Intellectual Take-Out reminds us, not all deep friendships are ‘gay.’ Many happily married family men share deep friendships with other men; the Duck Dynasty guys are the farthest one could imagine from gay, but they work together, play together, and do a lot of their guy things (especially duck hunting) apart from the girls. Same with women. Everybody knows; put couples together in a party, and the men will naturally gravitate to male huddles, having conversations about manly things (sports, fitness, cars), and women will chat happily in groups with other women. Men often confide in other men, and women with other women. And if either sex did not find their gender attractive, nobody would ever work out or strive to look good. These considerations are as old as mankind and have nothing to do with homosexuality.
“Gay” may be wishful thinking, too. Medical Xpress reported from a new “gay journal” LGBT Health (complete with rainbow logo) that “Transgender veterans diagnosed with significantly more mental and medical health disorders,” including “depression, suicide thoughts or intentions, serious mental illness, and post-traumatic stress disorder.” In fact, transgender veterans were “significantly more likely to suffer from all ten of the mental health conditions examined” including the above.
Heterosexuals, meanwhile, may not feel very gay (happy) about the new decision by the FDA to lift the lifetime ban on gay men donating blood (Medical Xpress). That ban had been imposed to protect the public from HIV which is primarily carried by gay men. But how many realize that HIV is still a huge problem in the gay community? It’s not discussed as much now as it was in the 1980s, but Science Magazine just stated that “Despite the relative success of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for individuals infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the rate of new diagnoses has remained fairly constant.” The article speaks of “men at risk of transmission” without stating the obvious: it’s gay men engaging in gay sex. Microbiologist Neal Nathanson wrote Science Magazine to express concern over their claim death rates from AIDS have dropped dramatically for two decades. That’s only a half-truth, he says: “According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the number of people living with HIV has been rapidly increasing.” How many people know that? Is the FDA trying to be politically correct in spite of this data, not wanting to offend gay men who might feel sidelined if they can’t give blood? WND asks, “where is the science” in the FDA’s ruling? Oh, they can always tell a person infected through a tainted blood transfusion, “Don’t worry, you won’t die; we have treatments for AIDS now that can prolong your life.” What kind of reassurance would that be for unwittingly receiving a scourge that will affect their bodies, their medical costs, and their reputations? Would this not also open a new avenue for transmission via heterosexuals infected by a transfusion who later give blood without knowing they were infected? The ban has worked; there is no scientific reason to change it. Such government decisions play Russian Roulette with the lives of the 98% of straight Americans citizens, apparently for political correctness, so as not to hurt the feelings of the 2% who don’t want to be looked at as abnormal in any way.

Continue Reading on