Homosexual advocates have a messy problem on their hands. They don’t know which side to get behind in the nature/nurture debate. So recently, many have just been attacking anybody and everybody who doesn’t agree with them.
For many years gay advocates pushed the theory that homosexuality was genetic. Anyone who said that gays might not be born that way were shouted down and called names. But when genetic screening became possible concerns mounted that if a “gay gene” were found, then aborting gay fetuses might take place.
William Saletan, writing for Slate Magazine wrote about a study of gay rams which sums up the problem homosexual advocates came to have with the genetic argument:
Why so many gay rams? Is it too much socializing with ewes? Same-sex play with other lambs? Domestication? Nope. Those theories have been debunked. Gay rams don’t act girly. They’re just as gay in the wild. And a crucial part of their brains—the “sexually dimorphic nucleus”—looks more like a ewe’s than like a straight ram’s. Gay men have a similar brain resemblance to women. Charles Roselli, the project’s lead scientist, says such research “strongly suggests that sexual preference is biologically determined in animals, and possibly in humans.”
Roselli’s interest is in the science. He figured the political upshot, if any, would be gay-friendly. After all, surveys show that if you think homosexuality is biologically determined, you’re less likely to be anti-gay.
Roselli didn’t just prove homosexuality in rams was natural. He tried to engineer it. In a 1999 grant application, he proposed “to determine [whether male-oriented] preference behavior can be artificially produced in genetic male sheep” by depriving male lamb fetuses of estrogen stimulation. Seven months ago, he reported that the experiment failed. The point wasn’t to promote homosexuality. The point was to learn what causes it.
You’d expect conservatives to demand that the government stop funding this research. But science is tricky. If you figure out how to make sheep gay, you can probably figure out how to make them straight. And maybe you can do the same to people.
And there was the rub.
Gay advocates don’t want a biological reason found, not that there’s been any scientific evidence of it anyway in humans.
Now, even the American Psychological Association seems like its walking away from their full throated endorsement of the genetic argument. WND reports:
Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.
The new statement says: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …”
So, I guess, now that we’re thinking that nurture might just play a role, isn’t it fair to question if gay adoption might not be the greatest idea?
Nope. Because gay advocates don’t like the results of that kind of science either.
A licensed psychologist with both clinical and forensic practice outreaches is warning that it appears children of homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop “non-heterosexual preferences” than other children, but lawmakers establishing policy often don’t know that because the researchers have concealed their discoveries.
“Research … although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others,” said the online report by Trayce L. Hansen…
The “studies thus far find that between 8 percent and 21 percent of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual,” the psychologist wrote. “For comparison purposes, approximately 2 percent of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.”
However, those researchers who found such differences “nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found,” the report said.
But, of course, homosexual advocates simply bash the psychologist as “anti-gay” and attacked her credibility.
So, for many years, it was a discussion of nature or nurture but now nobody’s allowed to speculate about either.
Homosexuality is an issue for many people. I won’t pretend to know the numbers. But I think we’d all be better off if any conversation didn’t end up in finger pointing and name calling. Open and honest debate about the well being and happiness of our children is necessary.