January 10, 2016 | David F. Coppedge

Sexual Orientation is Not "Born That Way"

Psychologist says 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.

Two Men Who Changed American Sexual Orientation Laws Without a Vote

Recently it was announced that Robert Spitzer died (see Medical Xpress). He has been called the “most influential psychiatrist of his time.” Spitzer was the one who led the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder in the APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) back in 1973. This influential psychiatrist, who apparently respected evidence and studies, must have researched this subject heavily, right? Here’s what the article says he did that changed his mind:

Gay-rights activists credit Dr. Spitzer with removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the D.S.M. in 1973. He decided to push for the change after he met with gay activists and determined that homosexuality could not be a disorder if gay people were comfortable with their sexuality.

That’s it? If you’re comfortable with your choice, you’re OK? What other studies and evidence did he give? Nothing else is stated; Spitzer apparently decided after meeting with homosexual activists to use his powerful influence to push for a change in the APA’s position, and to revise the DSM (as if the DSM has any scientifically validity; see 5/18/12 and 3/20/14). But “comfort” is not an objective scientific criterion:

At the time of the psychiatric profession’s debate over homosexuality, Dr. Spitzer told the Washington Post: “A medical disorder either had to be associated with subjective distress—pain—or general impairment in social function.”

Dr. Jack Drescher, a gay psychoanalyst in New York, told the Times that Spitzer’s successful push to remove homosexuality from the list of disorders was a major advance for gay rights. “The fact that gay marriage is allowed today is in part owed to Bob Spitzer,” he said.

Breitbart News uncovered more about the circumstances that led to Spitzer’s move. It’s hardly a description of rational scientific method:

Homosexual activists had long targeted the psychiatric profession because they saw the diagnosis as a mental disorder to be the major road-block in their efforts to normalize their sexual proclivities. Activists, led by Frank Kameny, who had lost his federal job after it came to light he had been arrested for lewd behavior in a San Francisco men’s room, took to invading and disrupting meetings of the psychiatric profession.

At the 1971 annual gathering of the APA, Kameny grabbed the microphone and shouted, “Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.”

Under such pressure, including death threats, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), gave Spitzer the task of exploring a change in the diagnosis. His final decision to change the DSM was decided after attending a tiki-bar gathering of gay psychiatrists.

The article goes on to say that Spitzer researched the subject after that, and concluded that homosexuals could change their orientation. His findings were published in 2001, but rejected by the APA—probably because the gay-rights juggernaut was gaining strength by that time. The aged Spitzer disavowed those conclusions in 2012. Why? Science, pressure, or concern for his legacy?

Speaking of gay marriage, that leads to the second man who changed American sexual orientation laws without a vote. That, clearly, was Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, whose swing vote on the marriage issue (Obergefell vs Hodges) last June. Neither a scientist nor an elected representative of the people, Kennedy single-handedly changed the laws of all 50 states, bypassing Congress and overriding the expressed will of millions of American voters. Al Mohler in his daily briefing for Jan. 7 discusses the fallout that is already starting to trounce religious liberty and could get much worse, just as the dissenting justices on the Supreme Court warned. For example, Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes in Oregon, had sold cakes to homosexual individuals, but did not wish to participate in a homosexual wedding by baking a cake for it because it violated their sincerely-held religious beliefs. For this they were forced by the state of Oregon to pay $136,000 in fines to the gay couple, nearly bankrupting their business (Family Research Council). Mohler gives more recent examples of threats to Christian colleges, businesses and even churches who fall short of giving full endorsement to homosexual marriage. One state Supreme Court judge, Roy Moore of Alabama, is standing against the Obergefell decision on the grounds of federalism (WND) and the actual wording of the decision and of the Constitution (One News Now). The way things have been going, his chances of prevailing seem slim to none.

Just so you know.

For matters with such profound historical, social and legal implications, should any one person have that much power? When the polygamists come up for their turn, should one judge or psychologist decide that “preference” for the whole country? How about gun rights or [insert favorite issue here]? Critics of “gay marriage” are now facing harassment, loss of jobs and businesses, and even jail time thanks to Spitzer and Kennedy. These two, more than any other, imposed their subjective opinions on millions of people who have strong moral views about marriage: Americans who had exercised their Constitutional rights only to have their votes quashed last June by one unelected justice.* Now, many people are afraid to speak their feelings about the sexual revolution. The democratic process was working, but it got short-circuited because of the anti-scientific, subjective opinions of Spitzer and Kennedy.

It might be different if there were strong scientific evidence supporting the LGBT activists’ contention that they can’t help themselves. But you read it right here, from LGBT-friendly secular articles, that there is none! There is nothing in the human body known to cause a switch of natural sexual orientation. It’s not biological (see also 7/27/15). The categories L, G, B, and T are “historically quite new,” Grzanka admits.  Kennedy acknowledged that marriage meant traditional man-woman marriage for thousands of years, and that nobody had ever thought of “gay marriage” until recently. But now, for the first time, the “comfort” of a small minority (2-3%) has been elevated to a right that trumps scientific evidence and Constitutional democracy. The outcome is rapidly creating a new “thought crime” if one does not accept the view that “gay marriage” is normal and good, even if a dissenting citizen is kind and respectful to individual homosexuals. Violators of the Newspeak code will be severely punished. Welcome to 1984+32.

*Those who argue that conservative President Ronald Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy need to remember their history. Reagan’s first nominee was Robert Bork, a Constitutional conservative and renowned law expert who almost certainly would never have voted for gay marriage. After a media firestorm, he got “borked” by Senate Democrats, led by Ted Kennedy, who led the majority Democrats to refuse to confirm him (a rare event for judicial appointees). Reagan tried one other nominee, who got pulled from consideration, before picking Anthony Kennedy—perhaps out of desperation to find someone the liberal Senate would confirm (see blog.constitutioncenter.org and WND). Reagan probably would not have even conceived of “gay marriage” at the time, and Kennedy is not the first Republican appointee who went wacko left against all indications.


(Visited 197 times, 1 visits today)


  • John C says:

    The really ridiculous thing about the whole ‘born that way’ argument–the idea that homosexuality is genetically based, hinges on one absolutely insane inference. To be genetically promoted, there has to be a gay gene, and to have a gay gene implies a gay parent–which is on the face of it absolutely 100% sexually impossible.

    What we are witnessing is Romans chapter one all over again–and while homosexuality is serious, it’s just one of many symptoms of a society energetically fighting against God at every level. May God help the United States.

  • redneck4Christ says:

    Too bad the author chose to cite Al Mohler. In Mohler’s recent book on the subject of homosexuality, he erroneously affirms sodomites are born that way and flips the Scripture by calling on Christians to stop suppressing the “truth” (Mohler’s version of Romans 1:18ff). Between spasms of protest and orthodoxy, Mohler is already carrying water for what he terms the “homosexual community”.

  • sirgarve says:

    As a Bi sexual person myself I agree that a person isn’t born gay, I definitely believe that while genetics preposition played some part in my orientation (after all we are born in sin/ born sinners) it also had to do with my environmental factors. If we changed the behavior to an alcohol addiction I don’t think many people would disagree that while a person might have an addictive personality, being around alcohol would help also fuel this behavior. While a person might be born with a natural interest in sexual relations it is there experiences and choice that make them promiscuous.

    One think I do disagree with however is the small point the author made about conversion therapy that seems to somewhat support it, however I am not to sure.
    “Why, then, is sexual conversion therapy harmful?”
    They don’t really work. While some people can successfully live a heterosexual lifestyle they will still be of a homosexual orientation. But most people will just find the goal to huge of a jump and have false expectations for what the therapy can provide leading some to depression (which was my experience). Worst yet some monsters use these places to hurt and molest vulnerable and often trusting people. The only consistently good thing about these conversion therapies is the strong communities that are formed which help there members form powerful friendships, spiritual support and coping strategies.I personally would prefer a helpful loving community than a conversation. therapy

Leave a Reply