CultureWatch

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

Media Bias and the Elusive Gay Gene

Aug 31, 2019

And there is still no ‘gay gene’.

This is a rule of thumb that you can take to the bank: Do not believe everything you read in the media. That is especially true of the mainstream media, with its blatant secular left bias on most political, religious and cultural issues. And we must also beware of misleading and patently false headlines.

Stories can be completely skewed just by a twisted headline. It happens all the time unfortunately. Consider one brand-new story making the rounds in the media. Based on the headlines, you would think that different news items are being covered. But in fact they are all discussing the same issue.

Consider these five recent headlines that all spoke to the exact same story:

“New genetic links to same-sex sexuality found in huge study”  qctimes.com/news/national/new-genetic-links-to-same-sex-sexuality-found-in-huge/article_6aa2c794-b80a-551f-9792-a15ef2f9843f.html

“Major study finds genetic links to same-sex behaviour” www.wsj.com/articles/research-finds-genetic-links-to-same-sex-behavior-11567101661

These first two headlines seem to be making one clear case: Yes there is a homosexual gene! It is only after reading further in the articles that you will learn otherwise. Now check out these three headlines:

“No single gene associated with being gay” www.bbc.com/news/health-49484490

“Harvard and MIT Scientists: There Is No Gay Gene” www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2019/08/harvard-and-mit-scientists-there-is-no-gay-gene/

 “No ‘gay gene’, but study finds genetic links to sexual behaviour” news.yahoo.com/no-gay-gene-study-finds-180220669.html

As can be seen, the truth of this story all depends on what spin you want to put on it, and even what title you want to use! Those last three headlines certainly offer a far different take on the story than the first two. So let me spend a few minutes trying to lay out just what the story is all about.

An international team of researchers examined almost a half million people (470,000) to see if genetic markers could be associated with homosexual sex. This study was published in the August 30, 2019 edition of Science and is entitled, “How do genes affect same-sex behavior?”

Consider this key finding of the researchers: “Although they did find particular genetic loci associated with same-sex behavior, when they combine the effects of these loci together into one comprehensive score, the effects are so small (under 1%) that this genetic score cannot in any way be used to predict same-sex sexual behavior of an individual.”

The article finishes this way: “Future work should investigate how genetic predispositions are altered by environmental factors, with this study highlighting the need for a multidisciplinary sociogenomic approach.” science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6456/869

With all this in mind, let me offer three quotes from the BBC article that I linked to above. Associate professor in the Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, Ben Neale said this “There is no single gay gene, and a genetic test for if you’re going to have a same-sex relationship is not going to work. It’s effectively impossible to predict an individual’s sexual behavior from their genome.” 

And honorary professor at the UCL Genetics Institute at the University College London, David Curtis put it this way: “This study clearly shows that there is no such thing as a ‘gay gene.’ There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation.” 

Even homosexual groups have had to admit this. Zeke Stokes of the pro-homosexual organisation GLAAD, said: “This new research re-confirms the long-established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves.”

All this lines up with what has been said for decades now. Despite what many homosexual activists and their sycophantic supporters in the MSM try to tell you, homosexuality is not just the result of one’s genes. Many authorities have been saying this over the years.

For example, three years ago one world authority on human sexuality, Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, said quite clearly that “there is no gay gene.” www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-there-no-gay-gene

I quoted a number of other experts on this matter in my 2011 book, Strained Relations. Let me offer a quote from that book:

Image of Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality
Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality by Bill Muehlenberg Amazon logo

Homosexual activists continue to insist that homosexuality is genetically based, and nothing can be done about it. Science, again, begs to differ. One person who should know is Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene. Dawkins argues that “the body of genetic determinism needs to be laid to rest.” Says Dawkins, “Whether you hate homosexuals or whether you love them, whether you want to lock them up or ‘cure’ them, your reasons had better have nothing to do with genes. Rather admit to prejudiced emotion than speciously drag genes in where they do not belong.”

Indeed, scientists involved in genetic research are becoming increasingly convinced that “genetic determinism” is a fallacy. One distinguished Harvard University professor, Dr. Ruth Hubbard, recently wrote a book denouncing genetic determinism. One summary of the issue concluded by saying that scientists are coming to realize one truth at least: “DNA is not destiny”. And the two men most responsible for the humane genome project, Francis Collins and Craig Venter, have both argued that their discoveries imply the end of genetic determinism. Their discoveries about the human genome have made any simplistic statements about one or two genes predisposing someone to complex behaviors such as gayness or schizophrenia appear untenable.

In an article in Science magazine Charles Mann said this: “Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. ‘Unfortunately,’ says Yale’s [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, ‘it’s hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. ‘…All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute’.”

And many homosexuals themselves reject the idea that homosexuality is genetically based. Many could be cited here. Let me mention a few. Homosexual activist Edward Stein has penned an entire book on the issue. This is what he has to say:

“Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behaviour or psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and the expression of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or behaviour, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms ‘gay gene’ and ‘homosexual gene’ are, therefore without meaning. . . . No one has presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation.”

An 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].”

See my book for many more such quotes, and for full documentation on all this. The moral of the story is simple: don’t believe everything you find in the media, especially when it comes to hot potato issues like homosexuality.

[1289 words]

17 Responses to Media Bias and the Elusive Gay Gene

  • Noted the last homosexual to comment call Homosexuality a lifestyle choice.
    I’m not yet convinced that it is a choice ..otherwise why is it almost impossible for a homo. to change back to a hetero.
    I have two fb friends who are ex homosexuals, who both say they were only able to make the change toward hetero. through prayer and asking of God. They are both male and both say they struggle to stay as hetero.
    Why is that so if it just a choice …. i realise it is more than just a simple choice.

  • Thanks Josie. But it is rather odd to claim it is “almost impossible” to change in one sentence, and then speak of ex-homosexuals in the next! While it may not be easy to change (as is true of all sexual addictions and the like) it certainly is not impossible or nearly impossible, simply because we have so many thousands of ex-homosexuals – and I know many of them. And of course with God nothing is impossible anyway. But if you read my books or articles you will see that I have never said it is ONLY choice. Other factors can be factored in to the mix of course, but the point of this article is to make it perfectly clear that there is no ‘gay gene’.

  • they always say no one would choose to be gay but everything we do is choice this quote from Babylon 5 is good:

    Lady Morella: There is always choice. We say that there is no choice only to comfort ourselves with a decision we have already made.

  • Well a review of 500+ studies and papers concludes otherwise

    https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender

    “The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are “born that way” — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

  • Thanks Kym. Yes that is by Paul R. McHugh who I mentioned in my article.

  • Hi Bill. It’s interesting that Josie said her two fb friends who are ex homosexuals were ‘only able to make the change through prayer and asking GOD.’ I was reading in The Passion Translation from Romans 1:18-19 which says ‘For the wickedness of humanity deliberately smothers the truth and keeps people from acknowledging the truth about GOD. In reality, the truth of GOD is known instinctively, for GOD has embedded this knowledge inside every human heart.’ I think when you shine the light of GOD’s Word on the truth it makes people angry. Unfortunately we live in a world full of idols and when we worship ungodly lifestyles, GOD ‘lifts off HIS restraining hand and lets them have full expression of their sinful and shameful desires’ (or choices).’ The key then to changing and remaining changed, as Josie’s friends have found is in prayer and seeking GOD’s help. GOD bless, Cheryl

  • Human beings are holistic creatures. I don’t think any behaviour can be reduced to a single gene. There is no doubt that genes have some influence otherwise the prevalence in an identical twin would be no greater than the general population. But the point is there is no way to conclude that genes are the only factors involved.

  • This result comes as no surprise to those of us trained in behavioural zoology. We’ve always known that every personality quirk, good, bad, or indifferent, has some genetic overlay. You can say that about schizophrenia and alcoholism as well as homosexuality. Religiosity and political orientation have also been shown to have some genetic overlay. But there is no one gene for any of these quirks. A large number of genes interact with the environment in complicated fashions, and it needs both nature and nurture to produce a personality.

  • You may need to write a new book soon, with this study, plus with many countries passing laws allowing so called ‘same sex marriage;, changing birth certificates as well as updates and all the cases of the people who have been trying to defend themselves from the LGTB activist from your book ‘Dangerous Realations’, I think you can easily get 220 pages out of that.

  • I wonder if there is a gene for a murderer or a thief or a pedophile or a blasphemer? The Pagan Romans had a god for everything as it was convenient to blame the respective god such as the drunkard.
    When are we going to realise that these people need professional help and not pampering?

    John Abbott

  • I agree bill there are other factors. So often being molested is one of them and sometimes having no father has led a boy to search for male guidance which lead to homosexual relationships. But at some point one will come across the truth regarding biology and when one attacks it and won’t listen to it then they ARE choosing their sexuality. Some have been so lied to, brainwashed really, by the homosexual lobby and the media they don’t even investigate for themselves but parrot what they have been told (schools don’t help by teaching this stuff is normal and wonderful and by not teaching how to think and how to analyze and critically examine things). others homosexuality has become so integral to their identity they can’t allow it to be a choice lest they loose themselves. It is on reason so many don’t like the ‘hate the sin love the sinner’ because to them they ARE homosexuality (their sin) so you can’t separate them if you hate the sin you hate them. Some even seem to have a superiority complex thinking that homosexuality is superior to heterosexuality and so they are better than straight people so why should they become straight and thus inferior?

    It is sad because to heterosexuals their sexuality is not their identity. it is a small part of who they identify as. they have so much more that they choose to build an identity on (with the exception of male sluts and female sluts whose only mission is life is sex sex and more sex {‘with out sex what am I?’}. Both sexes who do that are sluts in my book not just the females.)

    It is also sad because i have seen some great art, paintings drawings and photos, by homosexuals from throughout the years and it is a shame they never came to God and their talent is now lost for the ages. I sometimes wonder did the church reach out to them?? sometimes the church find certain sins so abhorrent that it takes it upon itself to act as God instrument of punishment upon practitioners of that sin rather than help them out of it.

    And yes sexual sins are some of the hardest because temptation is everywhere especially in our hyper sexualized society and with the easy of access to porn on the internet (it is so pervasive that you can stumble upon it when not looking for it). sin starts with though and thoughts are hard to completely control. When satan knows something has worked in the past he will keep pushing it knowing he will break through your defenses and at least get a thought sin in there and maybe if he pushes hard enough a deed one. stumbling is almost inevitable but you must ask forgiveness and try again. you will struggle but it is not whether you fall off the horse but if you get back up on it.

  • Yes we have known for decades that any supposed genetic connection is tiny and only relates to propensity – there is no predictive element and the evidence is pretty much irrefutable. We also don’t know what these minor genetic elements are. They could be a simple as people who are more likely to be naively seduced by false ideas of sexuality at a particular age.

    We also know from later statistics that homosexual and adulterous parents are more likely to end up with homosexual and adulterous children, even those adopted. So with the evidence so overwhelmingly clear that homosexuality has sociological causes, is detrimental to health, psychology and morality and is very difficult to escape once ensnared, of course all of society, including adoption agencies, have every right to attempt to protect children from those sociological influences. The facts are very clear indeed and are what our laws absolutely need to be based on. The overwhelmingly major cause of homosexuality is sociological. How many times do people have to be told these facts before the implications sink in? How is it the media has become incapable of pointing out what should be the clear implications of the evidence?

    The last thing we need is the promotion of homosexuality in our schools or forced homosexual adoption or the idea that homosexual relationships are equal to biologically functional ones. Children need protection from these sociological influences – not immersion. Exactly as God has told us, these deceitful ideas defile the entire nation and we are increasingly seeing just how accurate these things God has told us are. Our designer knows what He is talking about even when things are not immediately apparent to our muddied and confused thinking.

  • This reminds me of a certain msm headline (The Age, I think) following the preliminary report on Dean Hamer’s research (was it 1989?) – “Researchers find gay gene” or words to that effect. There was never any retraction once the facts were known but that is how the whole gay house of cards has been erected. In this case, as you say Bill, one only has to read down a sentence or two to see the disclaimers (though not stated to be such). One thing that really annoyed me in one of the articles was the claim that the identical twin studies bear out the notion of genetically related homosexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth – those studies proved that homosexuality is not genetic. Here’s just one link:

    https://www.hollanddavis.com/identical-twin-studies-prove-homosexuality-is-not-genetic/?fbclid=IwAR3uNX2MV1bKYmLGgYEAuRuzVFZb_qhDiIZGQAkKaAjk8za-qfQAkyNTqZ4

  • It’s a complicated story, but basically the “Gay Gene Hoax” was dreamed up in the 1980’s by the two LGBTQ genii Kirk and Madsen to make a compelling case that people were born “gay’ and therefore could become eligible for “Minority Status” which would force the courts to legalise sodomy.

    Some years later, Kirk and Madsen publicly admitted the whole thing was a hoax, but such is the naivety of the herd, even today over 50% of Americans still believe in the gay gene theory.

    Tragic.

  • I was in total shock that the BBC actually tried a balanced approach for a change!!! that in in itself is cataclysmic and should be studied – everyday there is a page associated with a totally uninteresting LGBTQWWWhatever story along with pictures of Comrade Corbyn!

  • There was some good information in your article Bill. Josie’s comment is a common one that I hear a lot. But I would have to ask the question; What replaced your male friends addiction? Is that space now a vacuum in their life? I say this as there are many Lesbian women who were formally in longterm same sex relationships who have left that scene and now live a more normal life as a wife to a (Male) husband and as the mother to their new children and I suspect that few look back.

    So to way of thinking the space occupied by their “same sex addiction” might now be filled with love and caring and the responsibility for both their husbands and children. This I believe fulfils them emotional, physical and intellectually in a way that their same sex dalliance could not, as most would now see that part of their life as time wasted and a mistake.

  • Bill, it’s true, there is no scientific evidence for a “gay gene”, and never has been. There probably are some genes which modestly increase the odds of a person turning out “gay”, but there will be plenty of non-“gay” people with the same genes, and plenty of “gay” people without those genes. (I speculate, some of those genes, maybe those which increase effeminacy in men and masculinity in women, may either make an individual a greater target for recruitment efforts, and/or make them more susceptible to those efforts.) Yet still, just the other day, a “gay Christian” was telling me how they were “born this way”.

    I think even heterosexuality is to a significant extent learned behaviour. Normal children raised in normal circumstances, they see the relationship between their mother and father, and they want to do the same thing when they grow up, it is natural for most of them to want to have kids just like their parents do (our six year old tells us he wants six kids, our one-year-old daughter puts her baby dolls to sleep in the cot, it’s so cute). As they get older, boys hang out with other boys, and talk about girls, and the male attraction to women gets social reinforcement from male peers; the same thing happens with girls, who hang out with each other and talk about boys.

    Then along comes same-sex parenting, and research shows that children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to engage in same-sex activity when they reach adolesence or adulthood – is that any surprise? And the education system and the media keep on pushing same-sex activity on teenagers, it is totally unsurprising when research shows rates of same-sex behaviour (and identification as “gay”/”lesbian”/”bi”) on the rise among teenagers and young adults. Stop teaching kids normal healthy human sexuality, and increasing numbers of them turn away from it.

Leave a Reply