Failure of the "Gay Gene" Argument

Warning: The following subject matter may be considered objectionable to some readers. Many sexual themes are discussed and a commonly accepted claim regarding homosexuality is refuted. Every effort has been made in this blog post to treat gay men and women with respect as equals to heterosexuals while opposing the viewpoint that they are controlled by a "gay gene". Whether gay couples can love each other the same way as heterosexual couples or whether they deserve the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples is not at question here. The reader will find no intentional insults, derogatory remarks or condemnation here. Only the facts.

Notes: In this article, no distinction is made between "homosexual" and "gay". Such distinction, based on the "'homo' means 'man'" argument is misguided and has no bearing upon a mature discussion. (In fact, "homo" does not mean "man", but means "self", implying "same". The Greek word for man was "anthro".) These arguments apply to both men and women. No insult or dominance is meant or implied through the use of the term "homosexual". The word "lesbian" and "lesbianism" appears once each, but in all other cases, "lesbian" is covered under the previous two terms.

Also, the term "lifestyle" is used because this article establishes that one has a choice, and the term, "lifestyle", represents that choice.

This blog post uses scriptures, not to prove to unbelievers that it is wrong, but to prove it to those who say they can be Christians and practice homosexuality.

Many gay men and women these days claim that a "gay gene" controls their sexuality. What are the ramifications of such an argument? What does science have to say? What does the Bible say about gay relationships?

Origin and Failure of
the "Gay Gene" Claim

In 1993, Deen H. Hamer et al (July, "A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation". Science 261 [5119]: 321–7.) performed an analysis of just 76 gay brothers and their families. This study did not contain a control group of random gay individuals or random straight individuals, but strictly focused on families with proportionately higher numbers of gay men. In other words, there were considerably fewer families than the 76 gay participants. In it they claimed to have identified links by comparing the chromosomes of the gay men on the maternal side, claiming that there were more gay men on that side of the family. In further analysis, it was claimed that thirty-three out of forty (89%) sibling pairs tested had "similar" alleles in the distal region labeled Xq28, popularly dubbed the "gay gene". However, S. Hu et al (members of the former study) refined their findings and lowered the rate to 67%; but that gene was apparent in males and not in females, thus causing a problem for lesbianism. (1995, "Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females". Nat. Genet. 11 [3]: 248–56.) Sanders et al performed a study that showed even less influence, showing 13% on the maternal side and 6% on the paternal side. (1998; Born Gay: The Biology of Sex Orientation. London: Peter Owen Publishers.)

However, two further studies done by Baily et al (1999) and Mcknight and Malcolm (2000) did not find a significant number of gay relatives in the maternal line of gay men at all. (2005, Born Gay: The Biology of Sex Orientation.) Rice et al (1999) could not replicate the Xq28 link. (Vilain E [2000]. "Genetics of sexual development". Annu Rev Sex Res 11: 1–25.) The conclusion given to all these studies is that while some early studies appear to indicate a link in the Xq28 section among the gay men in their studies, more links are required to establish a connection. Meaning that the gay gene was never actually established. But as science improved, so did the tests, and Mustanski et al re-examined the findings of the 1993 and 1995 studies using full genome scans (not just X chromosome scans) along with a much larger pool of subjects and found a much reduced linkage in Xq28 from the previous studies. They failed to find any connections that are considered significant in the scientific community.

So why the difference between different scientists? The former did not hold to the standard of evidence of the latter; that is, the latter held a higher standard of evidence and a lower dependence upon poisoned wells and predefined expectations and did not seek to support their own conclusions, but rather sought to verify dispassionately and disregarded supposition. How can we be certain of this? Because the first two studies were conducted by the same group of people, but the latter were multiple sets of different people seeking independent verification. The conclusions of the discoverer must always be able to be independently verified by a substantial margin. If, after removing unscientific methods and conclusions, and using the latest scientific methods, the one seeking to verify is unable to verify, then the conclusions of the discoverer must of necessity be discarded with prejudice. That is, if results cannot be duplicated, then the "proof" of the former studies is invalidated.

But if we look closely at these studies, we can see that those with pairs of gay brothers also had a higher rate of gay men in their family. Does this speak to a gay gene? What is the explanation? The higher number of gay men in a family could just as easily be explained by the presence of a permissive or encouraging attitude within the family. But not only this, it may also be that the more gay members there are in a family, the more likely that members of that family are going to volunteer for studies of gay men. On the other hand, families without homosexuals may simply be such because of strong convictions on the matter and holding a restrictive attitude on sex.

A more recent study by Rice et al ("Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development", The Quarterly Review of Biology, The University of Chicago Press;  Vol. 87, No. 4, December 2012), after recognizing that the "gay gene" claim was unfounded, suggests, but does not prove, an alternate "model" in which some epigenetic (non-DNA) markers affecting the genitalia, though normally passed from a parent that is the same sex as the child and erased when the parent is not the same sex as the child, may make it through, making the male into a male with female genitalia or a female into a female with male genitalia. However, this ignores the fact that not once has a true human hermaphrodite ever been produced in history, demonstrating that the protection of the sex genes in humans is absolute, or so astronomical to break that an 8% homosexuality in humans fails to be explained by such and the study even recognizes this deficiency. The study also makes the fallacious association of homosexuality with physical gender dimorphism and cross-gender identification, and assumes that everyone gay wants to be of the opposite sex. I can safely predict that the results of the "model" will ultimately fail on those grounds.

Of course, this is not to say that genetics or epigenetics do not have some amount of influence over one's ability to become gay or not, but to say that genetics are the sole determinant, or that we must consider genetics in our sexual preferences, is illadvised and heavily misinformed.

More Problems with
the "Gay Gene" Claim

It has been determined that a difference in sexuality between identical twins has shown that there cannot be a solely genetic link to homosexuality. (2009, "Psychology". Worth Publishers: 435.) As to studies of brain chemistry, it has been shown that conditioning can alter brain chemistry, thus differences in brain chemistry in any test (not just of gays) have no provable connection to genetics and are thus rendered irrelevant. Many other studies have been done exploring such things as female fertility, pheromones, physical brain structure and sex organ size, but none have been able to conclusively prove a genetic link to homosexuality. Clearly, then, the absolute connection to a "gay gene" that so many claim does not fit with the evidence.

The claim of there being a "gay gene" disregards the chemical and mental causes of sexuality and attraction that medical science has well-documented. A preponderance of evidence* has been shown that external factors bear more upon the outcome of one's becoming gay. Factors such as fixation on a parent of the opposite sex, same sex experimentation during impressionable years, sexual obsession, auto-genital fixation, exotic becomes erotic attitudes, and others can have a significant impact upon homosexual feelings.

Take diet as an example. Dietary preferences are dependent upon both genetics and experience. While one food may be necessary to an individual's survival, how it is presented to the individual may be strictly a matter of preference. For instance, a person who lived their entire life without exposure to chocolate may never have the experience with chocolate that those who view it as comfort food might. Because those who view it as comfort food have positive experiences with chocolate usually associated with a memory of having it as a reward or because of who they used to share it with and under what circumstances. Still others may hate chocolate because of bad memories associated with early experiences with chocolate or simply because of their not being exposed to it in youth.

Likewise, humans have strong sexual urges, but how they fulfill those urges is due in no small part to their personal preferences based on early experiences and effects upon the reward centers of their brains, having nothing to do with a "gay gene".

There is also the factor that the idea of a homosexual gene defies the theory of evolution (For those who believe in it,) and adaptation as well, regarding "survival of the fittest", as the more gay one is, the less likely they are to reproduce. So the idea that someone would be irredeemably gay because of a gene is against the evolutionary model, more so, in fact, than most other genes, and is thus among the least likely of mutated genes to survive, if it existed. The genes of a person that does not procreate do not propagate. (MacIntyre F, Estep KW [1993]. "Sperm competition and the persistence of genes for male homosexuality". BioSystems 31 [2–3]: 223–33.)

There have been studies conducted in which a particular gene causes the females of a species to become more fertile than others of the species, producing more offspring, and that large families in combination with a "gay gene" would allow the "gay gene" to propagate in tandem. (Camperio-Ciani A, Corna F, Capiluppi C [November 2004]. "Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity". Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 [1554]: 2217–21) However, this still ignores the fact, according to evolution theory, that the gene has to prove useful to the organism, a parasite, or to itself, in order to be propagated. Since the "gay gene" has not been proven, the above hypothesis has no leg to stand on. Also, with the higher number of children born, the greater the chance of homosexuality showing up, the more that show up, the more likely even more will show up than the common per capita, so higher numbers of homosexuals within a larger family does not prove a "gay gene".

So not only has the "gay gene" not been conclusively demonstrated, but other factors contribute as well, and nowhere do any of the studies say that all the factors together guarantee that a person will turn out gay. Also, the studies that indicate differences between gay and straight physiologies are either anecdotal in much the same way as intelligence was once linked to cranium size or could just as easily be caused by years of conditioning.

Previous experiences can also lead one to have sex with a person or thing of which it is not appropriate for that one to have sex with or would ever have thought to do so, as it has been proven that once a door has been opened, it is difficult to close it again. Thus, what puts a real crimp in the gay gene argument is that many people claim to be bisexual and are as enamored with women as men, enjoying the scents and sights of both. But what is more is that there are grown adults who believe that they are meant to be with children, that having sex with children is natural and even fall in love with the child of their affection. There are people that find animals irresistible to their sexual urges. All of these are as susceptible to pornography of their chosen proclivity as any gay or straight person.

So given their preferences and obsessions so similar to homosexuals, one has to ask, is there a "bisexual gene"? "child molester gene"? or "bestiality gene"? Obviously, if there is a gay gene, then there must also be bisexual, child molester and bestiality genes. Such would become highly problematic for courts of law. Since scientists have mapped the genome, they have never claimed to find any evidence of a bisexual gene, child molester gene or bestiality gene. And would finding a number of such deviants in a single family prove such a gene? Of course not. Just like the presence of mulitple murderers in a family does not prove that murdering is genetic. (Not to compare homosexuality to murder in any way, but to show that the genetics argument is invalid.)

Pheromones are a Chemical Dud

People often refer to "chemical compatibility", regarding pheromones, but the reality is that while pheromones play a strong role in the procreation of many animals, they have no effect in the human attraction puzzle. Humans are not guided by each other's pheromones at all. As the internet has proven, humans are guided more upon what they can see and the interactions with those they permit themselves to be attracted to. Simple ideological relevance can be a determining factor of whether one person comes to love another or not.

While a person's scent can prove to be pleasing to one and displeasing to another, typically because of positive or negative associations with the scent, which are psychological factors instead of physical ones, pheromones do not decide one's attraction and can't even be sensed by humans on any level.

In fact, what you are likely smelling from the person is what they have eaten recently, where they have been, what they have sat on, stepped on, or slept on, what they have touched, what they have done, what lip treatments, soaps, detergents, shampoos and conditioners, lotions, body sprays, perfumes and deodorants or antiperspirants they have worn, what medical treatments they have received, what medicines they take, how much they have sweated, and the amount and type of bacteria, or even mold, building up in their sweat with maybe the slightest hint of internal chemicals determined by a mix of estrogen and testosterone, which are hormones, not pheromones. You might even be able to pick up on the hint of disease depending on how sensitive your sniffer is. Oh yeah, and then there's the amount of urine and anal seepage in their clothes.

Since people are creatures of habit, their scent can tend to be pretty similar from day to day, but changing their habits could result in a change of scent, which in turn may result in a change of perceptions. Dogs are different, though. They smell those pheromones and will always distinguish one person from another.

For more on pheromones, see the video, Can Pheromones Get You a Date?

Suicidal Ideation In
the Gay Community

Many point to the high rate of suicide among the LGBT community as proof that individuals have a "gay gene" and cannot be anything else. But let us examine the real cause. According to a study done in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, the high rate of suicide among gay men and women is not due to one's feeling unable to change who they are, but rather, the hounding they receive by family, peers and random adults. (Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol 62(2), Apr 1994, 261-269. Special Section: Mental Health of Lesbians and Gay Men.) Another study (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjmLgL1kvSs, published in American Journal of Preventive Medicine, March 2012) indicated that the likelihood of suicide was increased 2½ times by physical victimization. These studies do not indicate that refusal to express homosexuality was cause for any suicidal ideations, but was due primarily to the negative attention they received.

The fact is, to garner such negative attention, these individuals would have to not only exercise gay sex, but broadcast it through their words and actions, which garners attention from those with prejudices, thus showing that they have control over the attention they receive. So whether they are gay because they have no choice, or gay because they choose to be so, has no bearing upon the hounding they receive. How they act in public has the greatest effect on the treatment they receive, and in turn that treatment provides them with a negative self-image. Thus, suicidal ideation is no proof of one's inability to change, and to claim such shows a lack of understanding of the triggers for suicidal ideation.

However, simple survival tactics can curb this behavior by others. If the homosexual is unwilling to give up the homesexual lifestyle, they have a number of things they can practice to keep attention off of themselves. First, they can act like any heterosexual person of their sex, including vocal inflections, hand gestures and attire. Second, only search for other homosexuals at places where homosexuals may collect. Third, not going to places for homosexual interaction that are publicly visible. Fourth, avoiding public displays of affection with their gay partner as mature heterosexual adults also avoid public displays of affection with their mates. Fifth, confess, propose and do anything else in private. Sixth, be selective about who they reveal their self to. Seventh, and most important, is to have a support group. (See the last paragraph under this heading,)

However, some argue that they have a right to be as open about their relationships as any heterosexual person, and certainly they cannot be slighted for this claim. But don't forget that thieves and murderers (not to claim that homosexuality is criminal in such a way, but in a Biblical sense) also have to hide their activities or be persecuted. Do we try to encourage their rights to be open about it without persecution? The fact is, people view homosexuality as wrong and thus a person can either hide their actions, repent from their actions or accept the consequences.

If a person is willing to undergo the persecution that comes with flamboyant and outspoken behavior, then they need to accept the emotional and physical consequences. There is a high toll to be paid for performing acts that are seen as deviant or perverse. By performing those acts, one accepts the consequences. If they are unwilling to accept the consequences, then they must keep their behavior private or repent from it.

But pressure does not just come from people who are prejudiced against gays. I have been witness to the pressure homosexuals give to other homosexuals, both male and female, that they should "come out" and openly declare themselves as gay. However, no one should pressure gay individuals to expose themselves to ridicule and persecution, nor should anyone conduct ridicule and persecution against a gay individual, but it happens.

So each homosexual should judge for their self if they are able to handle such persecution. If an honest evaluation or personal experience demonstrates that they are not able to handle it without emotional upheaval, then it would likely be best for the mental well-being of that individual to keep their proclivities to their self and trusted individuals. One homosexual should not judge another for choosing to keep their sexual orientation a secret. Let those who are willing to undergo the public humiliation stand out by their own choice in order to fight for their rights, but those who are not willing should not be pressured into such action.

The most important survival tactic is that an individual have a support group made up of family and friends who are willing to accept them for who they are. If they do not have such a support group, they must make one for their self by collecting like-minded and accepting individuals with whom they can share their problems. It is the most outstanding survival tactic one can have without God. It is one of the ways Christians are able to endure persecution. (Matthew 13:20-21; Hebrews 10:24-25) However, true comfort comes not just from gathering together with like-minded individuals, but through the Scriptures, a clean lifestyle and an approach to God with freedom of speech. (Romans 15:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:3-7) If a person repents and turns around from a homosexual lifestyle, and serves God, they can maximize their emotional survival tactics. In fact, emotional connection and social acceptance, for better or for worse, is far superior to suffering under socio-gender identity politics.

A True Christian's View
of Homosexuality

A person's being a homosexual should no more get disdain from a Christian than a thief or fornicator**. They are all in need of salvation, and all have free will. (Romans 3:23) While we must "hate what Jehovah hates", we do not hate the sinner, only the sin. (Leviticus 19:17; Matthew 9:10-13) To commit fornication of any kind, (fornication being sex outside of the marriage arrangement between a man and a woman,) would be a violation of the natural arrangement. Anal sex is a gross uncleanness, even considered "obscene". (Deuteronomy 23:13-14; Proverbs 30:12; Romans 1:27) But we must not condemn anyone for this behavior. (Luke 6:37)

Even in regard to gay marriage, Christians have no right to impose their ideas of any kind upon the world, let alone gay marriage. We are no part of this world, so this world can do what it likes in regard to the marriage arrangement or any other arrangement. (Matthew 8:22; John 15:18-19) It is no more a Christian's place to condemn individuals in a gay marriage than to condemn heterosexual individuals in an unmarried sexual relationship. However, Christians do not recognize a gay marriage as binding the way marriage is binding between a man and a woman. (Matthew 24:38)

There is no proof that homosexuals cannot be trusted around children, and ample evidence that they can, so the question should not cause anyone undo stress. However, the above studies mentioned may indicate that their presence among children may have a negative impact on the child's view of sexuality, its own self-control and its growth as a Christian, especially if they are of the same sex. Children need role-models, and the only role-model a gay person can provide is a model for a gay, non-Christian lifestyle.

Christians should not feel threatened by gay men and women in any way. Any overt advances made by homosexuals can be spurned or nipped in the bud with the right words, just as with doing so with heterosexual advances. We can even use it as an opportunity to witness to the individual about the hope we have toward God. And just as with heterosexual advances, if the person persists, the affected person should simply take their leave, but doing so without making it about the homosexual. In rejecting their advances, a Christian should be balanced and non-offensive. Homosexuals are humans too and deserve to be treated the same way as any heterosexual person.

However, if a homosexual turns their advances physical, then a Christian would be justified in taking the same efforts to extricate their self from the homosexual as they would from someone heterosexual, if the Christian were of the opposite sex. For example, a woman escaping a man getting physical with their heterosexual advances may have to push the man or even use their knee to free their self. So a Christian man may have to do the same thing to escape a homosexual man who is getting physical.

Why Gay Marriage
is Not Binding

The only examples of marriage in the Bible are between people of the opposite sex. In fact, woman was created for the very purpose of providing a complement of the man, fitting one to the other emotionally and physically. (Genesis 2:18) A second man was not created for this purpose, but a woman was provided instead. Even an evolutionist must recognize that marriage is about gender roles. Did we evolve to also marry animals, insects or even rocks? The evolutionist would have to say no. So likewise, sex between males proves to be of equal weight, evolutionarily speaking, (I am not supporting evolution,) as sex with animals, insects and even rocks. Or how about mating with siblings or a parent? Should marriage to these be legalized? Just because one can, doesn't make it right or mean that they should.

What is the benefit of marriage between a man and a woman? The Bible says, "Be fruitful and become many, fill the earth." (Genesis 1:28) And, "That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he will stick to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24) These are the rules for marriage set out in the Bible. Marriage is thus for procreation between the two individuals, which is not possible in a gay relationship. (Nor bestial or incestuous.) God himself blessed marriage between men and women, but gay marriage has received no such blessing. Its absence is indeed significant in relation to the condemnation of homosexuality in the Scriptures.

It is not a Christian's place to tell a non-Christian gay person that they can't marry their gay partner, but anyone that wants to become one of Jehovah's clean worshipers must give up being gay and begin to see marriage from Jehovah's perspective. If a person is already in a gay marriage, their marriage is not recognized by Jehovah's Witnesses because it is not recognized by Jehovah God, but they respect that couple's belief in their own marriage, as well as their belief that God sanctions their marriage, but a Christian should not view a gay marriage as sanctioned by God.

Despite not recognizing it as a legitimate marriage, however, Jehovah's Witnesses still recognize the law of the land. For two men or two women married to each other, divorce must be made clear, so they must still provide a certificate of divorce as required by the law of the land. Since gay marriage is not recognized by God, the individual is available for remarriage without the need of one or the other committing fornication.

As an example of non-binding marriage, when many of the Jews had divorced their Jewish wives and married women of the nations, their marriages were deemed unbinding and they were ordered to send their gentile wives away. (Ezra 10:10-11, 19, 44) So likewise, a gay marriage is considered non-binding to Jehovah's Witnesses, and for reasons of paperwork and legality, they must provide a certificate of divorce to the one legally joined to them. If the marriage is not recognized by their government, a written certificate or letter of dissolution of marriage is still advisable to make it clear to the former partner, and those who know of their inappropriate joining, so that there are no ambiguities that the former partner may cling to. (1 Thessalonians 5:21) How adopted children are handled is up to the individual, but it is advised that a clean break be made with the former partner, whether the child go with one or the other.

Transgendered Individuals

What about those who have had surgery to make themselves look like the opposite gender? (Romans 1:26) Can they have salvation? Yes. (Acts 10:34-35, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Those who have undergone chemical or surgical alterations to make their bodies appear as the opposite gender must re-affirm their natural-born gender. (Ephesians 4:22-24)

Why do I use the term "appear as the opposite gender" instead of "transformed into the opposite gender"? Because no such transformation occurs. As a prominent French cosmetic surgeon, Dr. Georges Burou, once said: “I don’t change men into women. I transform male genitals into genitals that have a female aspect. All the rest is in the patient’s mind.” (“Time,” Jan. 21, 1974, p. 64) So the reality is that the patient's body has been mutilated, rather than their gender changed. They are in reality still a man who resembles a woman, or a woman who resembles a man.

However, to achieve salvation, the transgendered individual need only to have faith in Jesus Christ's ransom sacrifice and the hope of being made whole again. When the day comes that mankind is healed of their injuries and maladies, the physical alterations to that person's body can be healed as well. Even still, the individual should seek the means to reverse the condition. (The condition cannot be completely reversed, but partially through cosmetic surgery. The reproductive organs cannot be replaced and sexual function for men requires implantation.) In the meantime, the person should dress appropriate to their natural-born gender and treat their self as a eunuch. (Deuteronomy 22:5; Matthew 19:12)

Realizing that one has made a mistake in their choice to change their body can lead to strong regrets and emotional turmoil. But a Christian that has repented over their choice need not suffer as many others have. They need only rely upon the support of friends they acquire in the congregation, and upon prayer and view their self as an amputee with the hope of recovering what they have lost. Faith, hope and love are the keys to overcoming any condition. No matter how bad things get externally or internally, rely upon Jehovah, knowing that he loves and accepts you, maintain a loving Christian social circle and maintain hope for the future.

Also, while hermaphrodites have never been born, there are those who are male who have grown breasts, generally on account of high estrogen levels and low testosterone levels. This does not make the man a hermaphrodite or a "she-male". It can cause insecurity and identity issues if the man has not been taught to be secure in his own peculiar problem. But the fact is, the man remains to be a man and should learn to accept that he has an abnormal and rare condition. Though, with the advent of high amounts of synthetic estrogen in soy and corn, more men are developing breasts in today's society. They can simply seek to have chemical adjustment of their hormone levels with the help of a doctor and dietary controls, and can even choose to have breast reduction surgery if it is important to their comfort. In the new world, Jehovah will take away all our physical ailments and abnormalities. (Isaiah 35:5-6; Revelation 21:3-4) Physical abnormalities do not prevent one from receiving God's love. (Romans 8:31-39)

A Gay Gospel?

There are those who claim that certain men who are said to "love" each other in the Bible are Biblical support for homosexuality. To claim this is to disregard the possibility of platonic forms of love that have nothing to do with sex, such as familial love, fellowship and simple friendship.

The love Jonathan had for David was a love in friendship. (1 Samuel 20:17, Proverbs 18:24) No suggestion is ever made or implied of them having a sexual relationship. In fact, David was a loyal worshiper of Jehovah and observed the Mosaic Law, having written a third of the psalms, many of which recounted his love for Jehovah and his Law. (Leviticus 20:13; Psalm 40:8 [See Psalm 39 superscription]) Additionally, David's lusting after Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, if he were also gay, would put a crimp in the "gay gene" claim. (2 Samuel 11:2-4)

The Bible calls the apostle John "the disciple whom Jesus loved"; and elsewhere says that John sat "in front of Jesus' bosom,...and Jesus loved him". (John 13:23 NWT (1984); 19:26) At John 1:18 NWT (1984), Jesus is said to be in the "bosom [position]" of the Father, so clearly this is not a sexual relationship, but is a position of favor.

To say that these individuals had homesexual relationships would be to call them adulterers and fornicators as well, and that claim would completely nullify any claim to sinlessness on the part of Jesus, of whom it is said that he fulfilled the law, which included a prohibition against homosexuality, and therefore renders meaningless his ransom sacrifice. Otherwise, he would have been deserving of death under the law, but instead he fulfilled the law completely in order to take it away. (Matthew 5:17-18; Romans 10:4; Hebrews 4:15; 1 Peter 2:21-24)

Some have asked, "if an ancient scroll was found that proved Jesus to be gay, would you still love and worship him?" The problem is, if it did happen, it wouldn't be accepted as scripture, because there are lots of spurious works about Jesus, the apostles and many of the prophets, because a single 1,900 year old document cannot prove anything. The Scriptures show that homosexuality is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10) Therefore if a text contradicts it, it would not be accepted. The doctrine is permanently set. The canonicity of a document is based on its harmony with other canonized texts. The document thus described would clearly violate the canon.

Then the question may be asked, "Well, what if God himself told you it was true?" Then that would make the Scriptures that speak against homosexuality false, along with every writing by the author of those scriptures and any writings based on them. So every writing of Moses and Paul, and one of the gospels, would be nullified. Nullifying the writings of Moses would nullify all the writings based on his works and thereby the entire Jewish faith. Nullifying the Jewish faith would nullify all the prophecies and expectations of the Messiah, Jesus. Thus Jesus himself would be nullified, along with his message of salvation. Our need for salvation would also be nullified by the nullification of Moses' writings. Therefore, God himself will never present nor enforce such a document. The idea is thus not worth any further consideration.

Why Do Animals
Have Gay Sex?

It is a common objection that, "If being gay is wrong, then why did God create the animals to have gay sex?" The problem is that animals have no concept of right and wrong. They also are not counted among God's servants. They can no more choose to serve God than a dog can read the Bible, and therefore not be able to determine whether gay sex is right or wrong. Thus, animals do not have a resurrection. In fact, those who defy God are counted the same as the "unreasoning animals" and are said to thus be fit only for destruction. (2 Peter 2:12; Jude 10, 19) Gay sex is a demonstration of a lack of self-control and of wise choices, both of which animals are incapable of demonstrating. (Romans 1:26-27; Ephesians 4:19)

But then, why do animals have gay sex? Animals are swept along by their sexual desires and experiences. For apes, gay sex is not typically an expression of affection, but of dominance. When a male and female ape have sex, it begins much like human sex, with much affection. But when a male ape penetrates another male ape, it is often violent and accompanied by a violent beating with fists or with a stick.

But it should also be understood that humans and animals have the same makeup, so it can easily be concluded that if there can be gay humans, there can also be gay animals. The presence of gay animals is no proof of anything regarding God's view of homosexuality or whether there is a gay gene. In fact, the shear prevalence of homosexual acts among animals of all types would seem to pose a real problem for evolutionary theory, as most traits are shared among limited varieties of creatures, and those shared among a whole class of animals is typically only related to physiological necessity. Homosexuality is not only not a physiological necessity, it works wholly against physiological necessity.

A "Gay Gene"

Would Be No Excuse

Even if the "gay gene" were real, it would be a poor excuse for ignoring God's will. Sin is very much a part of man's genetic make-up, and yet it proves no excuse for defying God. Paul spoke of those who gave up homosexual acts, saying "that is what you once were." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Thus, those acts were in the past; they did not practice them anymore, showing that it can be done.

Many who were at one time homosexuals have become Jehovah's Witnesses, and even went on to have spouses of the opposite sex, showing that it is not impossible to stop acting gay and go on to have a healthy heterosexual lifestyle. Many homosexuals claim that this is impossible and that such individuals are only pretending to be heterosexual, but what right do those homosexuals have to determine that the reformed homosexuals are lying to themselves and others? Is it not simply because they themselves don't want to leave their homosexual lifestyle and are happy with gay sex? Or perhaps their limited view doesn't allow them to see beyond their own physical desires? Or perhaps they simply want to establish that they don't have a choice so that they can feel free to act as they wish?

Some might claim that "once gay, always gay", but then the inverse would also be true, that "once straight, always straight," which has not proven to be the case. Some people who enjoyed unrestrained heterosexual lifestyles have turned to homosexual lifestyles later in life, simply because they became bored, or gave into excessive sexual appetites, not because they were bored the whole time. Though, this is not to disregard those that were indeed bored the whole time, or who fought homosexual urges the whole time. I simply point out that there is a wider range of possibilities available, and no one has the right to restrict possibilities except through careful proof, which would also have to include that no person anywhere who enjoys gay sex has ever had a lustful thought about someone of the opposite sex, which would preclude bisexuals. Because you can't prove a gay gene has control of someone's sexuality if there is a whole range of sexual behavior from gay to straight and every shade in between.

"I Was Born This Way"

To claim "I've been this way my whole life; I was born this way" lacks understanding of human sexuality. Humans are not born sexual creatures. While born with male or female parts, or natural eunuchs***, they are still blank slates sexually. Only when they hit puberty does their sexuality develop. However, a child's lack of sexuality does not preclude their ability to love and to develop ideas about love. For a child, love has nothing to do with sexuality. They may have their ideas about beauty and what is attractive, but this is not based upon a gene, but upon early life impressions of beauty, personal experiences (including bad sexual experiences prior to puberty such as molestation) and have in large part to do with the opinions and attitudes of those they seek approval from, including immediate family, extended family, family friends and personal friends, as well as, and in no small part, from worldly entertainment.

All these factors coalesce in the mind of the child. When they hit puberty, they are suddenly bombarded with sexual feelings and depending upon the attitudes towards sex that they have been raised with, they may or may not be able to control their sexual urges. Some may even have stronger sexual urges due to body chemistry or mental images ingrained from early exposure to pornography or witnessing sexual acts. To exclude these factors would be uninformed.

A child's having a gay parent or parents or a gay relative or family friend is almost as capable of growing up straight as in any other family. Though there will likely be an unavoidable higher chance of the child choosing the homosexual lifestyle simply because of the attitude toward homosexuality in the immediate and extended family. But more often it will have to do with the attitudes towards sex. In families where sex is never mentioned, a child's attitude toward sex ends up dependent upon the attitudes towards sex of those they interact with either outside of the family or by the sexual actions of those closest to them, or by exposure to pornography and other entertainment.

Being molested by a member of the same sex has just as much chance of turning a child gay as not having been molested at all. The child's response to having been molested affects this decision more than the gender of the molester. Some people have even thought they were gay because of blaming themselves for their molestation experience and turned out later that they realized it was not their fault and so had no problem turning to a heterosexual lifestyle. I even knew one guy who had been trapped into a homosexual relationship for fear of his family finding out about his indiscretions. Ultimately, he quit homosexual acts and has not had a gay encounter since, not even desiring such.

What if a Person Is Questioning
Whether They Are Gay?

Jeffrey Jena, a comedian, stated a quote that made news, saying, "You won't ever have a gay knocking on your front door trying to convert you." But the fact is that homosexuals do try to convert people, even if they don't go knocking on people's doors to do it. They try to get otherwise straight men to question their sexuality by trying to get them to see the gay man as sexually stimulating. They may even brag about successful conquests in such endeavors. Then once they have the person attracted, they try to make them believe that they were always gay and that gay is all they can be because it's in their genes. This happens with both gay men and gay women.

But the fact is, questioning one's sexuality is not proof of one's being gay. On the contrary, it is a demonstration of their being sexual creatures with complete free will. They have the means to choose to explore those feelings, even going headlong into homosexuality, or to set themselves upon the path of heterosexuality in rejection of such gay feelings they know to be wrong. (Genesis 39:9)

But "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." (Colossians 2:8) Someone might try to convince another that just because they are questioning or experimenting that they are actually gay and they will never be happy in a straight relationship. But there is no proof of this. That particular person has not only not been shown to have the so-called "gay gene", but such a claim attempts to take away the other's right to choose for their self. No one has the right to take away the rights of another, whether through force or through subtle words.

A person should always think for their self and make their own choices. They should not think that they have to be gay and don't have a choice just because someone tells them it's in their genes. Neither the one listening nor the one saying it knows. Even if the gay gene were real, each person is still the one with the right to choose for their self.

The "Gay Gene"
and Predestination

Those who fall upon the "gay gene" claim as an excuse without proof seem to be seeking to absolve themselves of the accountability that the choice would impose upon them. People today often seek to divest themselves of all accountability in order that they might be able to have their way without judgment. However, there is One who holds all accountable for their choices no matter how much they try to claim that they have none. (Matthew 10:28; 2 Peter 2:4-10)

Predestination is an age-old doctrine not founded in Abrahamic religion, but in Babylonish false religion. (Isaiah 65:11-12) Assyria, Babylon, Persia, India, Greece and Rome all had their gods who controlled the destinies of men, but the God of the Jews, Jehovah, created mankind to make their own choices. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:15-20)

The "Gay Gene" Cop-Out

A gay person falling upon the excuse of a "gay gene" is a cop-out and damaging to their own cause. Instead of accepting responsibility for one's choices, one simply claims the "gay gene" in their defense, without proof that a "gay gene" is in fact the cause of that particular individual's becoming gay, completely side-stepping the issue of their right to choose, and opens a whole slew of claims for one's genes being the cause of their bad behavior. No more would there be any law, regarding murder or anything else, as everyone's genes become their excuse, absolving them of any responsibility. But if law could not control crime, then mankind would likely turn to means of genetic manipulation and extermination or isolation to compensate. So it is a dangerous slippery slope.

It should be seen as insulting to gay people that people think that the only way one could possibly be gay is if they are born that way, or that the only way a family member, or society in general, could accept them is if they were born that way. It should be insulting that somehow choosing to be gay is so beyond the reach of possibility that "born gay" becomes the tolerable excuse. After all, it's easy to feel sorry for a mentally handicapped person and not for someone who is so lazy-minded that they choose not to learn anything. (That is not a commentary on handicapped or gay people.) The point being that many people who fall on the "born gay" excuse view being gay as a bad thing, but "born gay" becomes the easy way to accept them as different instead of accepting them regardless of their choices, right or wrong.

Some have tried to claim that being gay is a genetic staple such as skin color or hair color, but the reality is, having a skin, hair or eye color is not an action, but homosexuality involves action and lustful desire. Actions can be controlled at will, genetic coloring cannot.

The fact is, if a person is feeling so guilty that they need an excuse to be gay, then that should tell them something. After all, why should a thief feel guilty for steeling if he was "born that way"? A person with a genetic disease does not feel guilt for having been "born that way", neither does a person of any skin color. But since the gay man is not actually "born that way", the guilt leading to his need for absolution through the "gay gene" claim is communicating something to him and about him.

Stop the Cop-out

If a person wants to be gay in spite of the Bible and thinks there is nothing wrong with it, they should own it and stop making excuses. If they don't belong to a religion that says it's wrong, then they should not even be worrying about whether they were born that way or not. If they want to belong to a religion that says it's wrong, then they can't afford to believe that they have no choice.

One's genes do not control their thoughts, desires, spirit, or destiny, and happiness is not dependent upon sex. (Matthew 5:1-12; Philemon 14) Everyone has a choice. Make yours and own it. Just know that your choice will have an effect on your prospects for everlasting life and no amount of your declaring otherwise will change that, as man was created by God, not the other way around. (Deuteronomy 30:17-20; Isaiah 40:12-28; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 2:16) If you don't believe in God, then you have nothing to worry about, as you have already accepted that you will eventually cease to exist. (1 Corinthians 15:32)

Help for Christians

If you are a Christian dealing with homosexual inclinations, there may be help for you. For many, homosexuality has a psychological origin, such as an abusive family member of the opposite gender, or being abandoned by a family member of the opposite gender while being specially cared for by the other family member, or sympathetic feelings of the damage wreaked upon a woman's mind or body by PMS, or perhaps the person has been molested, or something as simple as having become disgusted by the hygiene of a family member of the opposite gender, or the nature of menstruation. These are things many have experienced in youth, often early youth.

Such things could lead to a decision not to ever marry someone of the opposite gender or simply the decision that your gender does not demonstrate the things you had seen in the opposite gender. Or perhaps you envied the unrestrained sexual lifestyle of homosexuals who seem to have less difficulty seeking out sexual gratification from other homosexuals than do heterosexuals. Or you might simply have become enamored with the beauty or strengths in your gender through a normal appreciation of the human mind or body. It might be that you were exposed to pornography at an early age and became fascinated by some facet of a mature body of the same gender, leaving an indelible impression upon your early psyche. Regular exposure to such images, even masturbation to them, could also have the effect of becoming familiar and even comforting leading you to revisit them and your sexual feelings throughout your life. Or maybe you simply witnessed your parents having intercourse and envied the pleasure experienced by the parent of the opposite gender.

There are many such psychological origins that have lead people to become homosexual when puberty hit or even later that have nothing to do with their genes and everything to do with their experiences. The help you can receive is by revisiting what might have been the origins of your sexual or emotional cravings for members of your gender or repulsion of the opposite gender. Something as simple as a decision made in youth may have lead you down the path of homosexuality. A mental health professional willing to help you find out, may be able to help you discover the origins of your homosexual feelings. Once you find out, it may help you to more easily cope with your feelings, or in some cases, resolve the feelings entirely.

For example, one man, whom we will call "Jeff", had sought to rid himself of his homosexual cravings. He even married a woman who ultimately ended up abusing him mentally and physically. Some time after a bitter divorce and a string of homosexual encounters, Jeff prayed with everything in his being to resolve his cravings. After the prayer, God brought to Jeff's memory a decision he had made in youth never to marry a woman because of the abuse he suffered at the hands of his mother. As a result, he saw a psychiatrist to explore the memory and he was finally able to resolve his feelings. Jeff went on to lead a normal heterosexual life without any further homosexual cravings and found a loving wife.

So be sure to pray often and fervently to Jehovah, pouring out your feelings and seeking to find answers. (Colossians 18:1-8)

What if a Person Just Cannot Be

Attracted to the Opposite Sex?

If you are not able to resolve your homosexual feelings, it does not mean Jehovah does not love you or that he does not exist or that you are not worthy of his love and mercy. (John 3:16; 1 John 4:15, 16) When Paul had a matter that would not leave him, perhaps a physical ailment, repetitive temptation or persecution, he approached God to help remove the problem from him on many occasions, but Jehovah told him, "My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness." (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) So if you are unable to resolve what is afflicting you through prayer and seeking help, it may be that Jehovah is teaching you endurance, faith and reliance upon him for salvation through prayer and supplication. (Philippians 4:6, 7) So never give up!

If a person who gives up his or her homosexual lifestyle is unable to bring himself to be attracted to someone of the opposite gender, even out of Christian love, then the Bible, even Jesus himself, provides an answer through singleness. (Matthew 19:11-12) The same scriptures that apply to having a chaste view of women also apply to having a chaste view of men. (Matthew 5:28) Thus, a Christian is expected to have self-control and not flirt or seek immoral relations with anyone. If they think they cannot control their self, then the Bible says to let them marry someone of the opposite sex. (1 Corinthians 7:2, 8-9, 36) Sexual attraction is not necessary to achieve fulfillment of sexual desires.

While one may resist images in their mind of immoral acts, they may still find their self aroused by a simple feeling in their body. If one finds their self in a state of arousal, no matter the cause, it is easy to allow a mate, even if they are not especially attracted to the mate, to provide them with release. (1 Corinthians 7:1-5) In time, through such permission in a marriage arrangement, they may come to have a proper sexual affection for the mate. Though no one should marry someone they do not love. Friendship is a good basis for marriage, but not if the emotional or physical needs of one or the other would be neglected.

The former gay person may also put faith in Jehovah to change his or her heart, perhaps during the thousand years, to change them to be able to be physically and mentally attracted to those of the opposite sex and to cease being attracted to the same sex or to learn to be happy being single. (Psalm 51:10) They must rely upon Jehovah to maintain their loyalty. As Paul said, "The unmarried man is anxious for the things of the Lord, how he may gain the Lord’s approval." (1 Corinthians 7:32-38) Thus, a greater reliance upon Jehovah in all things is of great benefit. If some heterosexuals can be single without sex, so too may some homosexuals learn to be single without sex.

_______________
*Garcia-Falgueras, Alicia, & Swaab, Dick F., "Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation, in Endocrine Development", vol. 17, pp. 22–35 [2010]; Wilson, G.D. & Rahman, Q [2005] "Born Gay: The Psychobiology of Sex Orientation", Peter Owen, London; Brodie HK, Gartrell N, Doering C, Rhue T [January 1974]. "Plasma testosterone levels in heterosexual and homosexual men". Am J Psychiatry 131 [1]: 82–3; Bem DJ, Herdt G, McClintock M [December 2000]. "Exotic becomes erotic: interpreting the biological correlates of sexual orientation". Arch Sex Behav 29 [6]: 531–48; Bailey, J.M.; Zucker, K.J. [1995]. "Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review". Developmental Psychology 31 [1]: 43–55; Zucker, K.J. [2005] Commentary on Gottschalk’s [2003] "Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-conformity: A spurious connection" Journal of Gender Studies, 14:55–60; Zucker, K.J. [1990] "Gender identity disorders in children: clinical descriptions and natural history". p.1–23 in R. Blanchard & B.W. Steiner [eds] "Clinical management of gender identity disorders in children and adults". Washington DC, American Psychiatric Press; Green R [January 1979]. "Childhood cross-gender behavior and subsequent sexual preference". Am J Psychiatry 136 [1]: 106–8. PMID 758811; Cohen-Kettenis PT [April 2001]. "Gender identity disorder in DSM?". J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 40 [4]: 391; Cohen-Kettenis, P. T. [2001] "Gender identity disorder in DSM?" [Letter to the editor], Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, p. 391. and comments reported in: Zucker, K.J. [2005] "Commentary on Gottschalk’s [2003] ‘Same-sex sexuality and childhood gender non-conformity: A spurious connection" Journal of Gender Studies, 14:55–60.
** A "fornicator" is one who performs sex acts not with a marriage mate of the opposite gender. It includes adultery.
*** Eunuch, as one born with abnormal reproductive parts with merely the physical appearance of both sexes. (Matthew 19:12) True natural human hermaphrodites have never once been reported.

Our Views:
Does the Bible Comment on Same-Sex Marriages?
The Bible’s Viewpoint - Does God Approve of Same-Sex Marriage?
What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?
The Bible’s Viewpoint - Is Homosexuality Ever Justifiable?
How Can I Explain the Bible’s View of Homosexuality?
Is It Wrong to Have Homosexual Urges?
I’m Attracted to the Same Sex—Does That Mean I’m Gay?

Other Reading:

A Christian Perspective on Homosexuality by William Lane Craig