Chapters
Genetics
The Hidden Cause of Homosexuality · Dr. Alaa Alsalem
1. Is there Really a Genetic Origin for Homosexuality?
News of finding a "Gay Gene" circulates in scientific spheres occasionally. As soon as the scientific circles and related media bodies seize this news, they widely distribute it.
In this book, we will discover that the Gay Gene has never been found. News of its finding occasionally surfaces in scientific spheres, which related media bodies seize and widely distribute. “We already know there is no 'gay gene',” says William Rice,8 an evolutionary geneticist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. If there were, he says, it would have turned up in one of the massive studies that scan the whole genome for variants shared between gay people.''9
It is also important to present the opinion of Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the most prominent scientists currently advocating atheism. Because homosexuality serves his purpose, he is very eager to promote it scientifically. First, we will briefly view the most important studies conducted in this area, published in well-known journals and scientific bulletins like Nature and the New Atlantis.10
The following examples are some important studies currently proposed in scientific arenas which are related to the topic of homosexuality.
Twin Studies
Dr. Franz J. Kallmann, a geneticist and psychiatrist, is regarded as one of the first researchers to study the effect of genes on traits (including sexual orientation) using identical twins. His study, conducted in 1952, was based on a hypothesis that has been bitterly criticized, according to the New Atlantis. Among these critics was Edward Stein, an American philosopher and law professor (and founding director of the Family Law, Policy, and Bioethics Program). He stated: "Kallmann did not present any evidence that the twins in his study were in fact genetically identical, and his sample was drawn from psychiatric patients, prisoners, and others through what Kallmann described as ‘direct contacts with the clandestine homosexual world,’” leading Stein to argue that Kallmann’s sample “in no way constituted a reasonable cross-section of the homosexual population.”11
A study of twins geared toward linking homosexuality with genes was also conducted by the psychologist Niklas Langstrom et al., 2010 with a wider range of 3826 pairs of identical and non-identical twins. Although the results did not completely ignore the (uncertain) genetic factor, they determined the environmental factors played a dominant role in determining homosexual behavior.12
Before that, in 2002, social scientists Peter Berman and his colleague Hannah Bruckner conducted a large study of 18841 adolescent twins and concluded that there was no significant genetic impact on sexual orientation.
Professor Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh summarize in their review of the "Twin Study" that "the relatively weak concordance rates in the twin studies suggest that prenatal hormones, like genetic factors, do not play a strongly determinative role in sexual orientation."13
In October 2015, Nature website published a study on twins by a University of California research group that named five "epi-marks" (chemical changes to DNA but not the information they contain) contributing-according to this group-to male homosexuality.14 The study, which covered 37 pairs of identical twins, concluded that sexual orientation is hereditary even with a small portion of them: "When one identical twin is gay, there is about a 20% chance the other will be as well. But because this rate is not 100%, it is thought that environmental factors play a role as well."
According to the same journal, the study received bitter criticism from several specialized researchers like American statistician and director of the Applied Statistics Center at Columbia University Andrew
Gelman, who doubted the statistical validity of the study’s findings. Others also shared these doubts.15 Consequently, Tuck Ngun (head of the research group) admitted to weakness in the study and scientific and statistical deficiency.
Genetic Studies
In 1993, a group of researchers led by American geneticist Dean H. Hamer conducted a study of 40 pairs of homosexual brothers to identify the chromosome responsible for inheritance of homosexuality. Based on their families’ history of homosexuality, Hamer concluded that there might be a link between homosexuality and the genetic features of a specific area of the Chromosome X called Xq28.
Subsequently, Dr. George Rice and colleagues attempted and failed in 1999 to replicate Hamer’s findings. They declared: “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28…we found no evidence of linkage of sexual orientation to Xq28…”16
There is one important remark we should not ignore: Hamer and his group did not manage to identify a specific gene responsible for homosexuality. All they did was identify a possible area on a chromosome.
In 2015, a group of researchers led by Dr. Alan Sanders, geneticist and Associate Professor at NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute, discovered a new possible area on chromosome X labeled 12q8 (not an identified gene) in addition to area Xq28 Hamer suggested before. They believed this new area could be nesting genetic markers related to the homosexuality of those 409 pairs of homosexual men participating in the study. However, the minor genetic effect on these men’s sexual orientation revealed by the study made it difficult to declare a scientific breakthrough linking genes to homosexuality. The New Atlantis edition of Fall 2016, published by Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh, says: “Since the effect was small, however, the genetic marker would not be a good predictor of sexual orientation.”17
Sanders' study was also published in November 2014 in a UK Newspaper called the Independent under the title “Largest Ever Study into the Gay Gene Erodes the Notion That Sexual Orientation Is a Choice.”18
According to the article, Sanders announced that his work had weakened the idea of sexual orientation as a personal choice. The title is misleading because the study did not provide a genetic cause. Both areas (Xq28 and 12q8 in the X genome for gay men) were already possibilities in 1993 and 2005, respectively. He and his team had been unable to determine any particular gene as the potential genetic root or definite cause of homosexuality, so they intentionally misguided people with the title!
James Vincent, the author of the article, says: ''However, Sanders does not claim to have identified a single gene which ‘causes’ male homosexuality in humans and stresses that with complex human traits like sexual orientation, there are many influencing factors, both genetic and environmental.''19 Therefore, according to Sanders, genes do not account for the whole story. No particular gene was identified as the cause of homosexuality, so there is a discrepancy between the initial study and the parties attempting to exploit the data to endorse homosexuality.
The piece published in the weekly New Scientist magazine provides an exclusive statement from Dr. Simon Levay, the American neuroscientist. He excitedly comments on the research of his colleague (Sanders): "This study knocks another nail into the coffin of the 'chosen lifestyle' theory of homosexuality.”20 He did not clarify for us how he reached this conclusion.
Samantha Allen, a senior reporter for the famous US News Website The Daily Beast, pointed out the mystery surrounding the genetic evidence crucial to determining the genetic reason. She said: "it’s hard to get excited about these studies,...because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones-a new one comes out every year."21
Neuroscience Research
Simon LeVay, a strong homosexuality supporter, was the first to try to establish a genetic link for homosexual tendencies. His research in 1991 found that a structure called the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH-3) was smaller in the brains of gay men than in men known or assumed to be heterosexual.22
However, another study conducted later by the psychiatrist William Byne and his colleagues came to more detailed conclusions. The study showed that the nucleus of the INAH-3 is generally sexually
dimorphic (male and female). It has a larger volume in males than females because of a sex difference in the number and density of neurons. The study concluded,
Although there was a trend for INAH-3 to occupy a smaller volume in homosexual men than in heterosexual men, there was no difference in the number of neurons within the nucleus based on sexual orientation…They speculated that 'postnatal experience' may account for the differences in volume in this region between homosexual and heterosexual men, though this would require further research to confirm.23
Following this attempt, Dr. Lawrence Mayer and his colleague Dr. Paul McHugh concluded in their review of the "Sexual Orientation and the Brain" studies: "Based on the results of the present study as well as those of LeVay (1991), sexual orientation cannot be reliably predicted on the basis of INAH-3 volume alone.”24
Years after LeVay's study that others mistakenly believed found the genetic and biological cause behind homosexuality (which inspired Hamer's study), he admitted: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause of being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are ‘born that way,’ the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”25
In October 1997, the journal Nature published a study led by psychologist Marc Breedlove, a professor of neuroscience at the University of California at Berkeley. He sought the opposite of Simon LeVay's goal, as he wanted to know the impact of gay sexual behavior on the brain. He concluded that these findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case: that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it:
“It is possible that differences in sexual behavior (i.e., choosing a specific homosexual or natural course) cause, rather than are caused by, differences in brain structure."26
In Summary:
Scientific studies conducted by geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, and sociologists (some of which I have presented) have not produced reliable and solid scientific evidence to establish the link between genes and homosexuality. Dr. Dawkins is one of the primary evolutionary biologists known for his atheistic tendencies and support for homosexuality. Were others such as him able to create this link?
Did Richard Dawkins find the Gay Gene?
Someone asked Dr. Dawkins a question about homosexuality:
“My question is, for things such as homosexuality, which people who argue against evolution ceaselessly will insist, there appears to be no linear Darwinian reason to possess this trait?”
Dawkins responded:
“Now that's a very common question; it's one of the commonest questions I get asked. How can it be that homosexuality gets passed on from generation to generation. Why doesn't it just disappear? Why doesn't natural selection remove it?
Well, the first thing to say is that it's only a problem if it's a genetically inherited thing. And you need evidence for that. And the evidence for that comes from twin studies. If you take monozygotic twins, identical twins, and you find-for anything it doesn’t have to be homosexuality from height or weight, or musical ability anything you like-and you find that identical twins, monozygotic twins, are more like each other than non-identical twins, significantly more like each other, then that suggests that the characteristic concerned is heritable, heritable means that there is a genetic component to the variance in the population with respect to the character concerned. In the case of height, in the case of musical ability and so on, you find that to a greater or lesser extent, there is a genetic component; there is heritability. And in the case of homosexuality, yes, there is, too. If you know the sexual orientation of one twin, then you're better able to predict the sexual orientation of the other twin, if they are monozygotic, than if they're dizygotic. So there is heritability, which means we do have a Darwinian problem.
We do have to ask the question, why is it that male homosexuality has survived down the generations, given that one might think natural selection would get rid of it. There are various things being suggested.”
After Dawkins presented two hypotheses, he added:
“But, I’m not very keen on either of those two theories, I prefer to say something rather more nuanced, which is that when we talk about a gene for anything, whether it's homosexuality or anything else, we don't necessarily mean that the gene inevitably has that effect. A gene only has the effect that it does in the right environment. So it could be that a gene that has the effect of causing a male to be homosexual in the present environment, in our present technological environment-civilized environment would not have had that effect in a different environment.
A possible example, and this only is for example, there is absolutely no evidence for it, a possible example would be; what if bottle feeding, as it were brings the gene out-brings out the effect of that gene-what if a breastfed boy, who has this gene, is heterosexual, but a bottle-fed boy, who has this gene, is homosexual. Well, in the days before bottles were invented that gene would not have expressed itself as homosexuality. So now what we may be looking at, is a different expression of the same gene. Now I'm not wedded to that particular idea at all, I find it a good example to get across the
point that the effect of a gene is not inevitably tied to it, but depends upon the environment in which the individual is brought up.”27
The debate:
1 - The allusion by Dr. Dawkins to a genetic origin for homosexuality is in no way acceptable. It is a mere presumption for which he has no sound scientific evidence. Otherwise, he would have mentioned the name of the specific "gene" that causes homosexuality and its location on the human genetic map. He would have also named the scientist who discovered it, especially since the topic is significant and widely controversial in science. If he could name a scientist that discovered a gay gene, he would resolve the debate in global scientific research centers, which despite the need for massive funding, have continued their research on this topic.
2 - No one has ever established with any certainty that a genetic cause of homosexuality actually exists or that it is heritable (since these conclusions are unachievable).
We had previously explored the Study of Twins (or "twin studies") conducted by geneticists. This study contained conclusions drawn by heads of the research groups and their opinions that no genetic cause had been established for homosexuality, nor is it heritable. This conclusion was also published in reliable scientific magazines on a global scale. Hence, when Dawkins mentions the twin studies while trying to establish the heritability of homosexuality, he deludes his followers by betting on their ignorance of the topic His aim is only to advance his idea and his well-documented support of atheism.
"Summarizing the studies of twins, we can say that there is no reliable scientific evidence that sexual orientation is determined by a person’s genes."28
3 - Assuming there is a genetic origin and a cause of homosexuality (which has not actually been established), would natural selection not commit itself to destroying such a gene and not allowing it to persist since it would be impossible for homosexuals to reproduce and guarantee the survival of their gene?
To anyone with a rudimentary understanding of evolution, the answer to this question should be "yes" since natural selection will eliminate any gene that threatens the survival of the gene pool. According to evolution, this is a basic fact because such a gene giving rise to homosexuality within the genetic structure and causing it to persist needs to be researched. Possible hypotheses should also be proposed to uncover its logical, scientific justification. Natural selection is one of the main pillars of Darwinian evolution, which prohibits the survival of this alleged gay gene.
Since Dawkins is a leading evolutionary biologist, anyone who comes across his statements will find him avoiding a clear truth. After building the idea of a genetic cause of homosexuality, at the very least, he should have indicated that such a gene would be annihilated and then presented the probabilities
and assumptions for it to continue and avoid obliteration. However, he did not do that, showing his bias towards atheism at the expense of science and the truth.
"This is a parado x from an evolutionary perspective," says Paul Vasey from the University of Lethbridge in Canada. "How can a trait like male homosexuality, which has a genetic component, persist over evolutionary time if the individuals that carry the genes associated with that trait are not reproducing?"29
Homosexuality and Deterministic Genes
By "deterministic," I mean a factor with a tangible presence and impact. In this sense, genes are "deterministic" and affect the human.
When atheist scientists strive to establish the concept of a genetic origin for a gay gene, they ultimately want it to be regarded as something predestined, meaning the homosexual is powerless to change their homosexual tendency. Otherwise, they would have been subjected to counseling, a cure, or even punishment, as per the divine religions.
Despite their inability to back up their claims with any scientific evidence, I still wish to raise the following question:
Does any human being possess the ability to resist and fight against the effect and pressure of their genes?
The answer is "yes."
Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan says: “Genes have an inescapable effect on the human being, but does a human possess the ability to fight them? Certainly, our genes tell us to put ourselves first, but humans are constantly warring against and fighting with the demands of their genes and the way they construct the nervous system in this regard. The human gene builds a person’s brain and their nervous system, which pressures them to adopt a "Me first" stance. But humans have resisted this tendency, which is praiseworthy on their part.”30
No one can deny the abundant instances of genuine altruism in our world nor hesitate in praising the efforts and sacrifices of altruists. These sacrifices would not have occurred or been known had humans not been able to resist and wage war against their genes.
If we assume there is a genetic cause of homosexuality (though it is a mere assumption and not scientifically established), it does not negate the human ability to oppose such a cause (the assumed gene) and resist it. They would earn praise for resisting it. The opposite would also be true: censure for not resisting this gene despite having the ability.
Considering the above argument that one can resist their genes, it is unfair to criticize Abrahamic religions for their intolerance of homosexuality even if a genetic and hereditary cause is found. If this is the case, how unfair do you think those criticisms are given that a genetic cause has not been found and remains unachievable?
Not Every Tall Person Plays Basketball
Some people liken having green eyes to having homosexual tendencies. In other words, they describe it as a genetic trait that someone has no choice over. I have chosen the example of being tall to compare against the green eyes example.
People become fixated on the involuntary genetic quality of the green eyes example. Clarifying this misrepresentation also shows the ignorance and ill intentions of whoever created this example.
There are two reasons why it is incorrect to liken homosexual tendencies to having green eyes:
First: Scientific advancements mean we now know which particular genes are responsible for determining the color of our eyes. These two genes are "OCA2" and "HERC2," located on Chromosome 15. In particular, the former is credited with directly influencing green eye color. Yet, there remains no reliable evidence of a genetic cause of homosexuality.
Second: the effect of the OCA2 gene on someone with green eyes is a confirmed direct genetic influence. However, the same conclusion cannot be reached for homosexuality: the genes responsible for determining gender in the human (which are linked to the X and Y chromosomes) are active between the 7th and 12th weeks of pregnancy. From the perspective of this research, the most that the genes in these two chromosomes can do is build reproductive organs for every woman and man and any subsequent need for a sexual relationship in general. The translation and redirection of that biological need for sexual relations in any direction (such as the male turning his desires towards a male or a female desiring a female, as homosexuals do) is merely a matter of choice, not genetic influence, for the individual who practices it. The claim likening homosexual tendencies to having green eyes resembles someone claiming that the genes governing a human's height are responsible for them playing basketball. It is like saying the OCA2 gene, which is responsible for green eyes, is responsible for that person watching immoral movies, or that the FTO gene is responsible for someone eating pizza, etc.
The change in sexual orientation for any male or female should not contradict the nature of the selfish gene, which calls for the survival and continuation of subsequent generations. Therefore, it is necessary and only natural for there to be reproduction for one's genes to be transferred and continued. There is no doubt that the strategy for the continuation of the genes solely depends on sexual intercourse between a male and female. Any other relationship, such as that between homosexuals, with animals, or, for example, sex dolls, will be contradictory to the natural method of continuation required by genes. Hence, if someone wants to imagine a specific gene that causes one to be gay or have sexual intercourse with animals, they should know with certainty that natural
selection will lie in wait for such a (supposed) gene. Natural selection assumes the responsibility for removing any gene that could wipe out an individual genome, as indicated earlier when discussing Dawkins' statement.
Sex Dolls
It is no longer a secret! Sex dolls are available on the global market. Manufactured by technologically advanced countries like America, an advanced doll can cost 15,000 US dollars. They are programmable to resemble a scenario (role-play), commemorate specific occasions, and learn certain statements per the owner’s desire.
The sex dolls manufactured by the American company Realbotix, called Harmony, are marketed as "the ideal companion."31
The number of people in some Western countries rushing to buy these dolls is almost unbelievable. As per online sources: “A recent study showed that 40% of Germans want to buy new sex dolls. The newspaper The Times reports that there is a huge demand in German society to have a relationship with sex dolls instead of humans, and sex with humans has become a thing of the past.”32
I neither wish to discuss the issue religiously nor psychologically, but as it relates to the study of the genetic cause of homosexuality, I will say this: those who argue for a genetic cause and regard any sexual activity of an individual as a natural genetic act originating from a genetic origin simply cannot explain away someone's sex with a sex doll as a matter of choice. They should search for the "gene" or "genetic mutation" that has caused it.
They need to either accept this challenge of searching for the gene that leads to the desire to have sex with a doll or admit that gender-determining genes only build reproductive organs for women and men and the subsequent need for sex. Diverting that sexual need towards a certain behavior is a personal choice within one's control. Depending on how much sexual attraction is present, this diversion can enable the sexual acts of homosexuals and those who sleep with sex dolls without any genetic involvement.
Is Anything Genetically Heritable Always Natural and Allowable?
Atheist scientists have not yet found a genetic cause of homosexuality but strive to portray it as a natural and legitimate sexual choice. For the sake of argument, I will pose this question: are
genetically inherited traits always a legitimate choice for a human being to practice, or can they be a deviation from one’s natural state that requires treatment, though it is genetic?
We have already seen Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan's explanation about the human ability to resist one’s genes and even tame them. I will now give two examples of hereditary illnesses linked to human genes. The patient requires treatment to cure them (regardless of the possibility of a cure) since they both degrade one’s quality of life.
The first is psychopathy or sociopathy, a mental illness that results in criminal and aggressive behavior toward society. There are several causes, including environmental and genetically inherited factors.33
In 2014, Sheilagh Hodgins34 published a paper entitled "Violence among People with Schizophrenia: Phenotypes and Neurobiology" which identified 3 phenotypes whose interaction with environmental factors can increase or decrease the chance of deviation, leading to antisocial and criminal behavior.35
Despite the genetic component and heritability of schizophrenia, in the absence of an effective medical cure, it ultimately results in the imprisonment or hospitalization of afflicted patients. The heritability of schizophrenia is not enough to convince atheist or nonatheist scientists that it is a natural, legitimate mode of behavior. Yet, they regard homosexuality as legitimate and natural due to its (perceived) heritability.
The second is cancer: a condition that damages the DNA sequence, resulting in the unnatural growth of cells that penetrate and destroy the body's normal tissue. Cancer has many causes, some of which are hereditary. The genetic makeup, active internal forces in the body, lifestyle choices, and the environment can all contribute to the development of cancer or accelerate a developing cancer. For example, if a genetic mutation that carried a high potential of causing cancer was transferred to someone through heredity, it would increase the chances of that person getting that specific type of cancer, as opposed to someone else who was exposed to the same potentially cancer-causing factor but not the genetic mutation.
Cancer is, therefore, a heritable genetic disorder that should not be considered natural simply because it is genetic. It is a genetic abnormality that requires treatment. People do not yield to cancer. They explore the required available treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. Researchers are also working on a form of treatment called gene therapy. According to Sayyed Ahmed Alhasan, "Gene therapy can correct and replace faulty, harmful, mutated genes to correct
genetic disorders. For example, viruses with normal genes are injected into cancer cells to replace the defective ones."36,37 Though this technique is still under trial, it is theoretically sound. There is still a glimpse of hope that we may find a cure for this illness that has cost many people's lives.
To conclude, psychopathy and cancer are both hereditary genetic diseases. If these conditions are not "natural" and "not requiring treatment," how is it acceptable for supporters of homosexuality to regard it as "natural," "legitimate," and "not requiring treatment" by merely trying to establish a genetically inherited origin? Or are there double standards at work here with homosexuality, psychopathy, and cancer?
Note: the above argument assumes the discovery of a genetic and heritable cause of homosexuality, though no one has found it yet.
Exaggerating the Statistics does not Establish a Genetic Origin for Homosexuality
One•n•ten, a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to "serving and assisting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth,"38 assumes that 10% of people are gay. This exaggerated percentage was first seen in the research of Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s but later heavily criticized due to its lack of objectivity; Kinsey had wanted to further his agenda of promoting homosexuality via his studies. Bruce Raymond Voeller, an American-born biochemist and gay rights activist, later promoted the same percentage without subjecting it to scrutiny due to his zeal for pioneering and championing gay rights in an era when it had previously been a taboo subject.
These exaggerated statistics have been heavily criticized for lack of objectivity. More recent statistics from non-biased research with over thirty homosexual occurrences led researchers like NE & BK Whitehead to state:
“The results are nowhere near 10%; they are about 2-3% including bisexuality. Included are recent Dutch figures, which are atypically high, but make almost no difference to the mean or spread of results.”39
The book concludes that “Modern surveys show the homosexual percentage in Western adult populations is much lower than one in ten, except perhaps in particular groups such as Christian clergy.”40
The proportion of homosexuals was 3% at best, so despite having all the tools at their disposal, the supporters of homosexuality have been unable to find any genetic origin that makes it a "natural, sexual choice." Thus, the pro-gay activists have no option but to bring about a global media and political frenzy to increase the number of homosexuals around the world and spread its popularity, thus portraying it as a natural matter, which we can see before our very eyes.
Studies Deny Any Link between Homosexuality and Genes
Several studies and scientific reviews that respected scientists and universities have conducted affirm the absence of any relationship between homosexuality and genes. Some are given below in chronological order:
1 - Cambridge University, UK
In May 2006, Cambridge University published a study41 on its website that denied any genetic link between homosexuality and a genetic cause, entitled:
“Children of Homosexuals and Transsexuals More Apt to Be Homosexual”
When children are adopted by homosexuals, despite there being no genetic cause of homosexuality among the parents and the adopted children, they are affected by and acquire knowledge of homosexual practices from what they see taking place before them.
2 - Neil Whitehead
In 2011, New Zealand researcher and biochemist Neil Whitehead conducted a study confirming the absence of any link between genes and homosexuality; his summary is below:
"Because of the calculated low genetic fraction, we are safe in saying that people are predominantly not ‘born that way,’”42 i.e., queer.
Though I disagree with Dr. Whitehead's assertion that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, I am interested in his agreement with its lack of genetic cause. We will make it clear that homosexuality is entirely a matter of choice.
In addition to the above research, he and his wife have authored a book My Genes Made Me Do It that disproves a genetic cause for homosexuality.
“My Genes Made Me Do It! (the title is facetious) is an attempt to place in the public arena the scientific facts about homosexuality-particularly the information that homosexual orientation is not inborn or hard-wired, and that sexual orientation can naturally undergo huge change. The West has been subject to such a campaign of misinformation and disinformation in the last 20-30 years that its public institutions, from legislatures and judiciaries to the church and mental health professions widely believe that the homosexual orientation is innate-in the sense of biologically imprinted-and therefore unchangeable.
The implications of this are that anyone who makes the following scientifically true statements is considered to be the one who is misinformed.
● sexual orientation is not inborn but develops over some years in response to an individual’s response to life events-as many human predicaments do
● homosexual orientation can change, i.e., half the homosexual population naturally moves towards heterosexuality over time (without any therapeutic interventions), and further and faster with counselling and support
● The same-sex-attracted are not 10% of the population but (including bisexuals) much closer to 2.5%. The West has lost its way on this issue, and today we are seeing the outcome.”43
3 - The Study of the American Society of Human Genetics
In 2012 during an annual meeting, the American Society of Human Genetics conducted a study that included more than 23,000 individuals to identify genuine differences and connect them to homosexuality. However, the study “found no linkages reaching genome-wide significance for same-sex sexual identity for males or females. So, again, the evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality is inconsistent and inconclusive, which suggests that, though genetic factors explain some of the variation in sexual orientation, the genetic contribution to this trait is not likely to be strong and even less likely to be decisive.”44
4 - University of California Study
In 2015, the University of California also conducted a study referenced by an article titled “Homosexuality May Be Triggered by Environment after Birth” in the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph.45
The university deemed their findings compelling enough to present at the annual meeting. The title describes the study's conclusion that homosexuality may be triggered by the post-birth environment with no genetic cause. According to the study, males are not born homosexual; their environment influences them.
5 - The Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh Review
Lawrence Mayer46 and Paul McHugh47 have reviewed research on genetic causes for homosexuality at length and affirmed that none are established. Their review covered important studies on identical twins, heritability, hormones, and brain studies within the disciplines of biology, psychiatry, and sociology.
We have previously discussed Mayer and McHugh's report published in the Fall 2016 50th edition of the New Atlantis that summarizes studies on heritability, social studies, and neurology.