Are Homosexual People Really “Born Gay”? | rethkgtheology

Contents:

• IS A PERSON ‘BORN GAY’, OR IS BEG GAY A LEARNED BEHAVR?
• BORN-GAY HOAX “OUTED” BY REAL SCIENCE!
• ARE HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE REALLY “BORN GAY”?
• THE 'BORN GAY' HOAX
• THE 'BORN GAY' HOAX
• ARE WE BORN GAY?
• IS ANYONE BORN GAY?
• WHY ARE PEOPLE GAY? GAY BY CHOICE OR IS BEG GAY GEIC?
• THE BORN GAY HOAX BY RYAN SORBA
• THE 'GAY GENE' HOAX
• THE "BORN GAY" HOAX
• LBIAN BREAK- AND RT DURG COLLEGE SPEECH ON “BORN-GAY HOAX” FORC CANCELLATN

IS A PERSON ‘BORN GAY’, OR IS BEG GAY A LEARNED BEHAVR?

By repeatg this claim over and over aga for s now, gay activists have managed to w over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their e, whout any substantial basis fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.

Therefore, is necsary to re-exame refully the scientific and other documentable facts ncerng the origs and velopment of homosexualy to see if there is any tth at all to the “born gay” claim and s spawn, the “immutabily” claim.

BORN-GAY HOAX “OUTED” BY REAL SCIENCE!

Prevly, several thors have assembled extensive and persuasive evince to show that sexual orientatn, cludg homosexual orientatn, is not fixed, but is, stead, amazgly fluid (Aist, 2012, click HERE; Sorba, 2007, click HERE; and Whehead and Whehead, 2016, click HERE).

ARE HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE REALLY “BORN GAY”?

A new and prehensive review article wrten by two supporters of so-lled “gay rights”, Diamond and Rosky (click HERE), foc on four relatively new scientific studi that monstrate nclively that homosexualy is, fact, a fluid tra. The succs of efforts to help dissatisfied homosexual people change their sexual orientatn toward heterosexualy through therapy and unselg is an tegral part of the evince agast the “born gay” and the “immutabily” claims. The homosexual movement has ed the “born gay” hoax and s rrelate, the “immutabily” hoax, to not only ceive the public and ga popular support for their “gay agenda” (click HERE), but they have managed to ceive also medil societi, church lears, teachers, policians and judg at all levels.

The rult is that, based largely on the and other hoax perpetrated by the homosexual movement (click HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), many church, teachers and policians have e to believe (erroneoly) that homosexual behavr is not only normal, but also natural, healthy, sirable and moral. To help children and adolcents overe unwanted homosexualy (click HERE and HERE) are particularly heo, bee they selectively ny profsnal help to people who are at the most sexually nfg and unstable phase their liv.

Several large-sle, longudal, scientific studi, numero personal ttimoni and the succs of both secularly and religly mediated sexual orientatn change efforts prove that homosexualy is, fact, que fluid, not immutable. In 1976, 9% reportedly claimed to be born gay, the figure creased to 35% by 1989, and by 2004, one gay muny, more than 90% of gays reported that they believe gen are a signifint factor their orientatn— which would suggt a ten-fold crease  28 years. ” “Born gay” is, fact, a hoax of mammoth proportns that has been accepted by many stutns, anizatns and dividuals  our culture, even by those the “Christian church” and even by many apparently “born-aga Christians” (1).

THE 'BORN GAY' HOAX

As you will see, the evince strongly supports the view that homosexualy velops primarily as a rult of post-natal experienc and fluenc, and is fluid (changeable); all pre-natal fluenc bed (cludg geics, epi-geics and hormon) have, at most, a weak and non-termative role. This rearch has foced primarily on possible geic ntributns to the velopment of homosexualy, but other potential blogil factors, such as epi-geics and pre-natal hormon, have received nsirable attentn as well and rema viable theori.

THE 'BORN GAY' HOAX

In this regard, is important to note at the outset that if homosexualy were geilly termed (as opposed to merely beg geilly fluenced), most likely would have been bred out of existence only several generatns. Acrdg to this theory, durg a cril stage of fetal velopment, exposure of a male fet to a high level of ttosterone would lead to typil heterosexual orientatn, whereas exposure to a sufficiently lower level would lead to homosexualy. Support for this theory primarily om direct evince rived om animal studi, speculatn based on hormone effects on other aspects of sexual differentiatn humans, bra studi that fail to show any signifint chang bra stcture before the ag of 8-11 years old (32) and clil ndns wh signifint prenatal hormone chang that are associated wh creased cinc of homosexualy.

The mol would expla homosexualy on the basis of epi-mark-ntrolled prenatal ttosterone (a sex hormone) levels, to the virtual excln of a role for eher a strictly geic fluence or post-natal environmental fluenc. Acrdg to the mol, when this mistake is ma, epi-mark regulated ttosterone overexposure a female fet would rult a masculized female who will prefer femal (a lbian), whereas epi-mark regulated ttosterone unrexposure a male fet would rult a femized male who will prefer mal (a gay).

The low nrdance tw studi would be explaed not by a low-level geic fluence, as is ually assumed, but by the ocsnal passg of ttosterone-enhancg epi-marks om father to dghter (creatg a lbian) and of ttosterone-limg epi-marks om mother to son (creatg a gay man). It is tertg to note that this mol poss homosexualy as an aberrant accint of nature, which normal prenatal velopment of a fet produc the tend effect (heterosexualy), and abnormal prenatal velopment produc an untend effect (homosexualy) by mistake.

ARE WE BORN GAY?

Although this mol is highly speculative and prently has very ltle, if any, direct experimental support, do have mer as a scientific hypothis, bee 1) would expla both male and female homosexualy, 2) uld expla the low nrdance for homosexualy found tw studi, 3) seems to provi a feasible explanatn for the long-term survival of a reproductively leter tra the human populatn, and 4) is, at least to some extent, ttable. Tw Studi Overview: As dited above, most of the more recent rearch has foced on the gree to which gen, along wh other prenatal factors such as hormon and epi-geics, may fluence the velopment of homosexualy.

IS ANYONE BORN GAY?

Whehead and Whehead (8) have prented and discsed, some tail, the and other problems herent tw studi of homosexualy and have prented reasons to expect that the geic fluence on, or ntributn to, homosexualy will eventually be agreed to be the 10%-15% range (i. They studied 46 tw pairs havg homosexualy prent one or both of the tws each pair and found that 54% of the tw pairs had discsed their sexual orientatn wh each other, 89% had “shared knowledge” of each other’s sexual orientatn, and 30% of the tw pairs had actually had sex wh each other.

Bee intil tws intify so closely wh each other, and post-natal experienc – pecially close fay relatnships – strongly affect the velopment of homosexualy, seems plsible, if not likely, that a homosexual member of a tw pair would fluence the other member of that pair to embrace and explore homosexualy also, th flatg the apparent geic fluence reported intil tw studi. That is to say, a signifint portn of what may appear, intil tw studi, to be a geic fluence on the velopment of homosexualy may turn out to be, stead, a post-natal, environmental fluence volvg shared knowledge of sexual orientatn and shared sexual experienc wh intil tw pairs. Now, pare this rult to the range of theoretilly possible out where no tw pairs would both be homosexual (= 0%) and where all tw pairs would both be homosexual (= 100%) and you n see, tuively, that a pair-wise nrdance of only 13.

Therefore, on the basis of pair-wise nrdance intil tws, seems appropriate to nclu that there is, at the most, only a mor geic ntributn to the velopment of homosexualy, and that this relatively mor fluence n be overe (i. In a meta-analysis, Whehead (18), g the rults om seven of the recent tw registry studi that were signed to reveal ntributns of both geic and non-geic factors to homosexualy, found that the mean ntributn of geics to male homosexualy was around 22%, and to female homosexualy, around 33%. Furthermore, the non-shared, post-natal environmental ntributn to homosexualy is morate to strong, around 64%-78%, has a relatively small standard viatn and is nsistently around the same percentage (18), ditg that homosexualy is fluenced primarily by post-natal environmental factors and experienc that are not directly related to prenatal ntributns of any kd or batn.

WHY ARE PEOPLE GAY? GAY BY CHOICE OR IS BEG GAY GEIC?

) on the velopment of homosexualy adults is only weak to morate, is important to unrstand that all of the blogil theori discsed above n addrs only this weak to morate fluence, while ignorg the far more important post-natal fluenc (discsed below). Furthermore, the rults clearly support the ference, based on rults obtaed through therapy and unselg (14, 20, 21, 22), that post-natal, environmental fluenc have a far greater role the velopment of homosexualy than do pre-natal fluenc.

” For example, men whose parents divorced before their sixth birthday were 39% more likely to “marry” homosexually than peers om tact parental marriag, and the figure for men whose habatn wh both parents end before age 18 years was the range of 55%-76% (30).

In a related study, Wells, et al., (37) found that habg wh two heterosexual, non-blogil parents until the age of 16 was associated wh a two-fold crease homosexualy adulthood, pared to habg wh both blogil parents. Schumm (26) found that adults wh a homosexual parent are 12 to 15 tim as likely to self-intify as homosexual or bisexual as are adults whout a homosexual parent, which dit that post-natal environmental factors associated wh havg a homosexual parent (such as havg a homosexual adult role mol and unequivol acceptance of homosexualy) n play a major role the velopment of a homosexual orientatn. Numero studi have shown that both religly and secularly mediated change sexual orientatn occurs highly motivated, dissatisfied homosexuals at a rate that is parable to the succs rat generally achieved by therapists and unselors for psychologil disorrs and behavral problems, such as alholism.

THE BORN GAY HOAX BY RYAN SORBA

And send, the fact that therapy and unselg are succsful at a rate that is parable to the succs rat generally achieved by therapists and unselors for psychologil disorrs and behavral problems, such as alholism, nfirms that any predisposn to homosexualy that may be prent at birth is so weak that n be nullified by subsequent terventn. There seems to be some nsens that homosexual people do not choose to have the same-sex attractns and sexual feelgs that they experience ially, but that don’t mean that livg a homosexual life-style do not volve choic.

This n lead to rejectn by peers (even other peers who are homosexual) leadg to feelgs of beg different, genr non-nformy and a growg drive to make up the sensed fic through a strong nnectn wh an dividual of the same sex, which be eroticized and then manifted as homosexual behavr (3). ) It should not be surprisg, therefore, that will take a seri of very difficult personal choic and cisns ma repeatedly over a long perd of time to achieve a reversal of homosexual orientatn and/or behavr, but is possible; many exclively homosexual people have managed to do so (10, 19).

THE 'GAY GENE' HOAX

No polician, church lear or member, judge, teacher or unselor, or homosexual person, or iend or fay of a homosexual person, needs to feel forced to a posn on homosexualy based on the apparent immutabily of homosexual orientatn.

So, the next time a homosexualy advote tri to nvce you that homosexual people are born gay, that God ma them that way, that their homosexualy is “natural” and/or that their homosexual orientatn nnot change, do not believe them. While the notn that homosexuals were “born gay” go back to Karl Herichs Ulrich, the “grandfather of gay rights” the mid-1880s Germany, the ia was not tly central to the Amerin LGBT movement prr to Bowers, and many if not most “gays” treated sexualy as a matter of choice – a choice that should be protected their view unr the right to privacy. But after the publitn of their strategic social engeerg blueprt (“The Overhlg of Straight Ameri”) beme obligatory for all homosexuals and alli to learn, parrot and promote a new narrative which LGBTs 1) were victims of gross societal discrimatn; 2) that this was pecially grievo bee homosexual stat was an nate and unchangeable ndn, not a behavral choice; and 3) that the “sexual mori” would never be safe om hatred and vlence until good-hearted people throughout society rose up to protect them the e of social jtice and to enact laws agast “homophobic” discrimatn.

They ed the left’s ntrol of the “blue” ci to work om the bottom up to tablish the appearance of a natnwi trend of cizen support for the ncept of homosexuals as a civil rights mory group meetg all the elements of the nstutnal legal tt.

THE "BORN GAY" HOAX

In virtually every jurisdictn where passed, the anti-discrimatn “shield” agast losg one’s home or job for “beg gay” was actual practice a “sword” for offensive culture war agast all dissenters – cludg some Christian bakers and other service pani ma famo for refg to subm to bullyg. My first and most basic le of argument was that if any people, by simply clarg themselv “gay, ” uld get the same hard-won, enhanced rights that had been legimately earned by blacks, would make a mockery of the civil rights movement. While the notn that homosexuals were "born gay" go back to Karl Herichs Ulrich, the "grandfather of gay rights" the mid-1880s Germany, the ia was not tly central to the Amerin LGBT movement prr to Bowers, and many if not most "gays" treated sexualy as a matter of choice – a choice that should be protected their view unr the right to privacy.

But after the publitn of their strategic social engeerg blueprt ("The Overhlg of Straight Ameri") beme obligatory for all homosexuals and alli to learn, parrot and promote a new narrative which LGBTs 1) were victims of gross societal discrimatn; 2) that this was pecially grievo bee homosexual stat was an nate and unchangeable ndn, not a behavral choice; and 3) that the "sexual mori" would never be safe om hatred and vlence until good-hearted people throughout society rose up to protect them the e of social jtice and to enact laws agast "homophobic" discrimatn. They ed the left's ntrol of the "blue" ci to work om the bottom up to tablish the appearance of a natnwi trend of cizen support for the ncept of homosexuals as a civil rights mory group meetg all the elements of the nstutnal legal tt.

In virtually every jurisdictn where passed, the anti-discrimatn "shield" agast losg one's home or job for "beg gay" was actual practice a "sword" for offensive culture war agast all dissenters – cludg some Christian bakers and other service pani ma famo for refg to subm to bullyg.

LBIAN BREAK- AND RT DURG COLLEGE SPEECH ON “BORN-GAY HOAX” FORC CANCELLATN

My first and most basic le of argument was that if any people, by simply clarg themselv "gay, " uld get the same hard-won, enhanced rights that had been legimately earned by blacks, would make a mockery of the civil rights movement. The legalizatn of sodomy by way of “Mory Stat” is the secret to unrstandg why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outled “The Gay Agenda” the late 80’s and began to promote the Ulrichsian”type claim that people are born “gay.

This article, which appeared the pro sodomy publitn Gui November of 1987, outled a pot”by”pot strategy that uld be ed to nvce “straight Ameri” that men and women who velop same”sex attractns are born “gay. ” Kirk and Madsen explaed the central tenant of their strategy: “The public should be persuad that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientatn than they did, say, their height, sk lor, talents, or limatns.