Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Homosexual Honesty

Jul 15, 2008

It is nice to get a bit of honesty on the issue of homosexuality. It does not come our way very often in the mainstream media. And when this honesty comes from homosexual activists, it is even more refreshing. Indeed, when heterosexuals tell the truth about homosexuality, they are dismissed as homophobes. So what happens to homosexual truth tellers? Are they homophobic as well?

A very revealing case of homosexual honesty comes from Peter Tatchell, an Australian-born, British-based homosexual activist, who spills the beans on the “gay gene”. There is none, he asserts, and says homosexual desire is not genetically determined.

Writing for Spiked online, June 24, 2008, he makes some very interesting remarks about homosexual determinism. He in fact sounds very much like, well, me. I have been saying similar things for years, and have been howled down by the homosexual lobby as bigoted, intolerant and homophobic. But it is nice to hear homosexuals saying similar things.

He says there may well be biological influence in one’s sexuality, but nothing more. He argues that “an influence is not the same as a cause. Genes and hormones may predispose a person to one sexuality rather than another. But that’s all. Predisposition and determination are two different things. There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t. The reality is that queer and straight desires are far more ambiguous, blurred and overlapping than any theory of genetic causality can allow.”

Indeed, he is honest enough to admit that the jury is still out on the science of all this: “The relative influence of biological versus social factors with regard to sexual orientation is still uncertain. What is, however, certain is that if gayness was primarily explainable in genetic terms we would expect it to appear in the same proportions, and in similar forms, in all cultures and all epochs. As the anthropologists Clellan Ford and Frank Beach demonstrated in Patterns Of Sexual Behaviour (1965), far from being cross-culturally uniform and stable, both the incidence and expressions of same-sex desire vary vastly between different societies.”

He concludes his piece with this interesting remark: “The homophobes are thus, paradoxically, closer to the truth than many gay activists.” Thank you Peter. Nice to have some positive affirmation here. Of course he does not go all the way and admit that people can leave their homosexual lifestyle for a heterosexual one. He says, “For most of us, it is impossible to subsequently change our sexual orientation”. Notice that he does not say ‘all of us’, but ‘most of us’. That is a very telling choice of word usage.

Tatchell is certainly right to debunk the gay gene myth. And he is not alone in such candid admissions. A number of other homosexual activists have also admitted to such truths. Consider Australian activist and Latrobe University lecturer, Dennis Altman, who wrote this in 1986: “To be Haitian or a hemophiliac is determined at birth, but being gay is an identity that is socially determined and involves personal choice. Even if, as many want to argue, one has no choice in experiencing homosexual desire, there is a wide choice of possible ways of acting out these feelings, from celibacy and denial . . . to self-affirmation and the adoption of a gay identity.” “Being gay,” says Altman, “is a choice”.

Another Australian homosexual activist has said similar things about homosexuality and genetics: “I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is crap. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics. We have achieved what we have achieved by defiance, not by concessions. I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favor of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle].”

And a leading Australian feminist and lesbian has also made it clear that choice is a major component of the lifestyle. Melbourne University academic Sheila Jeffreys became a feminist in her twenties, when she was involved in “perfectly good” relationships with men. She then decided to become a lesbian: “At the time,” she says, we “made the decision to become political lesbians, as we called it.”

She says that “you can learn to be heterosexual and you can learn to be lesbian”. When challenged by an interviewer that sexuality is more innate than that, she continues, “I don’t think there’s anything natural about sexuality; you do learn it. And you can unlearn it, go in a different direction, change it.” She says that her own experience proves this, as does that of many other women who decided to switch to lesbianism in the ‘70s.

Other homosexuals have admitted that choice plays at least a partial role in the overall equation. Indeed, there is even an entire website devoted to those who say they have chosen the homosexual lifestyle. The site says it is “a radical gathering place for people who have chosen to be queer” ( ).

However, the tendency is to deny choice, to make it appear that homosexuals cannot help it, and to argue that any criticism of the gay lifestyle is as silly as criticism of being left-handed or red-haired. And this has been a deliberate strategy by homosexual activists. They have done a very good job to convince a gullible public that homosexuals are born that way and cannot change.

But that bluff needs to be challenged. I and others have challenged it. And it is quite refreshing when homosexual activists challenge it as well.

[1047 words]

13 Responses to Homosexual Honesty

  • Superb, Bill, another piece of heavy ordnance to put into my ever-expanding “folder” on homosexuality. If I were the Queen ….better not go down that road! Last night I went to Salisbury Cathedral, UK to hear the Sham(an) of the USA Anglican church, TEC or ECUSA, Katherine Jefferts Schori field a forum on the issue of ordaining homosexual bishops. (I could hear the bones of bishops and medieval knights turning in their tombs). She at one stage used precisely this same, dumb, passed-its-sell-by date, bogus argument; and she claims to be a marine bioligist! She said science has shown that homosexuality is as genetic as left handedness and red hairedness – precisely those words. “Madam you need to get out a bit more!”

    Homosexuality is an emotional and behavioural dysfunction. It is a learned response to early painful experiences, picked up in early childhood or even later through social conditioning, as happened in ancient Greece. The sexual orientation is anything but fixed and unalterable; rather, it shows that sexuality is fluid. However it does not exist in isolation but is greatly influenced by other instincts being brought into play during child hood development. People move around on the homosexual-heterosexual continuum to a surprising degree in both directions. Some of the change is therapeutically assisted, but in most cases it appears to be circumstantial. If homosexuality were genetic it would show up in identical twins which clearly in the case of the British MPs, Maria and Angela Eagle, it does not.

    Neither is it a good yardstick for human behaviour for people to leap from saying if homosexuality is natural, it’s morally and ethically desirable. Rape, sodomy, necrophilia, promiscuity and homosexuality are all observable in about 10% of the species; Infanticide is widespread in the animal kingdom. To jump from that to say it is desirable makes no sense. We shouldn’t be using animals to craft moral and social policies for the kinds of human societies we want to live in. Animals don’t take care of the elderly; should we be using that as a platform for closing down nursing homes. What the animal studies do show is that “sexuality” is a lot broader term than people want to think. And species do become extinct. The Christian must not forget that the Bible says that the fall of man effected all of nature and in Romans it describes how creation waits in eager expectation:…… “creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.” The whole natural realm will one day be resurrected from death and decay, not through evolution but through an act of God.

    One orientation, however, that is truly rooted in our DNA is the orientation towards sin. A leopard cannot change its spots. None of us can change without the redeeming power of Christ’s work on the cross and that same power that raised him from the dead to become sons of God.

    David Skinner, UK

  • Thanks David
    You are a brave man to keep rolling up to these events and challenging the many Goliaths and prophets of Baal. Your efforts are not in vain in the Lord. Be encouraged and take heart.
    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • “One orientation, however, that is truly rooted in our DNA is the orientation towards sin.”
    I doubt that sin is in DNA. Man comprises both a material and a non-material aspect, and sin is in the latter.
    Jonathan Sarfati

  • This is what I disdain about many atheists, materialists and the like. Many know very well that homosexuality isn’t genetic and they are not a minority group equivalent to black Americans in the 60s but use these dishonest arguments because they are effective. I would hazard to guess that most intellectual homosexuals would really hate the genetic argument because it says that their condition is aberrant (it deviates from the norm and is therefore more in the category of Down syndrome) and it also takes choice away from them.

    The use of equivocation is rampant in the atheistic camp.

    A thought experiment occurred to me. If homosexuality did have an easily identifiable genetic marker do you think heterosexual couples would hesitate to abort potentially homosexual babies? Would homosexuals suddenly become pro-life?

    Michael Mifsud

  • One of the reasons put forward for homosexuals rejecting the genetic theory is that it would justify medical research into gene therapy or the eventual screening out of gay genes. In fact Peter Tatchell was one of those who protested at scientists trying to cure a flock of “gay sheep in Oregon:

    Jonathan thank you for this piece that I can add to a jig saw that I have been constructing over the last two years. It is a piece that is a mere detail to a story that Christians, especially, need to understand regarding the danger in which our children are being placed in state schools. It is here where the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Trans sexual History Month is being pushed. Parents need to find out whether schools are participating in this: ( Homosexuality and the Nazis)

    Neither should we wish to suppress the truth concerning the disproportionately high numbers of homosexuals involved in rapes and serial killing: (Former French drag queen arrested for serial murders),22049,21831702-5001021,00.html (gang rape in Netherlands) (Rape in Sydney) (World worst serial killers; 4 out of 10 being homosexual)

    Not can we ignore violence perpetrated by homosexuals against those who oppose them – especially Christians: (Persecution and death of Harry Hammond even though Bournemouth Pride is deeply offensive and a moral threat to holidaying families and their children)

    David Skinner, UK

  • As one commentator pointed out that If doctors learn to spot emerging gay brains and are unable to alter them, parents who are determined not to raise gay children, out their right to choose and design their babies, will do what’s already done to female foetuses in much of the world and this is to abort them. I cannot imagine that most homosexuals are against abortion for whatever pretext, or that they are against equality; so it would be wrong for them to say we can abort for all manner of reasons except if the foetus is gay.
    David Skinner, UK

  • Exactly David. Just as the militant feminists hands are tied to a degree when it comes to the aborting of female babies. But the gay lobby would say its wrong… and expect violently protest.
    Michael Mifsud

  • Too true about the feminist irony. See also Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women? It would apply equally to babies with an alleged gay gene.
    Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

  • And…?

    Why does it make any difference to you whether homosexuals come to be that way by genes or by choice?

    And if it was by choice, why should that make any difference in the legislation?

    Maybe you have discussed this before but I find the assumptions you carried into this article rather… odd.

    Chris Tavistock

  • Thanks Chris

    Yes I have plenty of other posts on the subject and there I make it clear why it does matter. This is a high risk and dangerous lifestyle which is not in the best interests of the wider community, and it has a detrimental effect on the institutions of marriage and family. As I say, I make this case elsewhere on this site if you wish to explore it further.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I’ve had many gay male friends in the past and one thing that seemed to be evident with most of them was childhood sexual abuse by an older boy or man.

    Many people who claim they were “born” gay were abused and taken advantaged of and twisted by perverted adults when they were children. I think this has a lot to do with the issue of choosing the gay lifestyle as well as other factors.

    Victoria Demona

  • If we take a look at Sy Rogers and ex homosexual and transvestite with a ministry on 5 continents he claims when he was 7 years of age and craving the attention of his father and not getting it that he heard a voice as he watched a tarzan film. He noticed Tarzan’s attention being given to Jane and the voice said to him ‘if you act like her then you will get mans attention’, Sy’s remarks after he told his audience this was ‘Now I wonder who that was’, the implied answer of course ‘satan’. The devil is the distorter of mans natural order. I work with sexual disorder probably more than any other area, and time and time again, molestation and pornography are at the core of homosexuality. In the words of one man I know he stated that after continually sowing pornography into his life he began to act as the female in times of giving himself over to this behaviour, he remarked that his voice started to change much like one would notice a homosexual with an effeminate voice and lisp. He was bombarded in his mind as a heterosexual to have his first sexual encounter with another male and shortly after becoming a Christian began to fight these thoughts and temptation to fantasize and sin. Within 2 years of struggling against and resisting these thoughts he was free. Today he is married with children and remarks to me that he is completely free from any temptation or thought of same sex communications, in fact he tells me that even if he sees (media productions, TV) or hears of homosexuality he is repulsed and disgusted.
    Dorian Ballard

Leave a Reply