Homosexuals begin to abandon the "born this way" argument

“I'm on the right track, I was born that way” - assures us one popular song. “I can’t change, even if I tried, even if I wanted to,” - echoes her another.

These two sentences express the basic ideology of the “LGBT movement,” which states that homosexuality is a normal, innate and unchanging state that needs to be understood, forgiven, accepted. Misguided by LGBT propaganda, a significant part of the public believes that there is a lot of evidence of the biological conditionality of homosexuality, but in reality, the “evidence” cited by the activists is just a stream of zeros stacked together.

Despite the widespread misconception in popular culture, there is not a single serious researcher in the scientific community who would dare to claim that he has found evidence of the biological condition of same-sex attraction. At best, some researchers believethat multifactorial causation of sexual orientation may include a biological component that far away from thatto be decisive. ⁽¹⁾ Thus, the concept of “innate” homosexuality does not represent actual scientific knowledge, but a political ideology and rhetorical ruse of gay activists, not based on logic, facts or common sense.

The strategic importance of the idea of “innate homosexuality” was described back in the late 80's by two Harvard gay activists who developed homosexual propaganda tactics:

“The public must be convinced that homosexuals are victims of circumstances, and that they choose their sexual orientation no more than they choose their height or skin color ... Publicly recognizing that homosexuality can be a choice, we open Pandora’s box with the inscription“ moral choice and sin "And give our opponents a stick for whipping ... For all practical purposes, homosexuals should be considered as if they were born that way ... and since they had no choice, homosexuality will be reprimanded no more than heterosexuality .⁽²⁾

The idea that homosexual attraction was caused by biology originated in the ⅩⅨ century, but now, a century and a half later, despite the desperate attempts of the gay lobby to find a scientific basis for it, it remains nothing more than a wet fantasy and a blue dream of individuals with perverted addictions. It strikes how relevant it sounds article 1916 of the year:

“Now it is very popular to represent their condition as congenital and therefore not subject to change or influence; “They all consider themselves inverts and would be happy to find scientific support to justify their obsessive ideas and actions.” ⁽³⁾

As we see, from the time of publication of the article to the present day, only the word "invert" was replaced by the word "gay", but everything else remained unchanged.

Studies studying the concordance of twins (the presence of a certain trait in both) have unequivocally proved that homosexuality cannot be caused by biology. The biological constitution of identical twins is close to 100%; they are natural clones, their DNA copies of each other, but at the same time their concordance of homosexual attraction is one of the lowest among all behavioral features: 7% in men and 5% in women. For comparison, heterosexuality concordance is one of the highest among all behavioral features and reaches 94%. Other works give similar percentages, and data from earlier studies showing higher concordance are now unanimously recognized as the result of a biased sample that was recruited through ads in the homosexual press. In simple terms, if one of the twins is homosexual, then the second twin, as a rule, is not.

A meta-analysis of all relevant studies published by leading scientists from Johns Hopkins Research University in 2016 concluded that:

"Understanding sexual orientation as an innate, biologically defined and fixed trait - the idea that people are" born that way "- does not find confirmation in science."⁽⁵⁾

Preventing the standard accusations of “bias” and “homophobia” addressed to researchers by individual readers who readily stigmatize anyone who dares to voice anything other than enthusiastic praises regarding the LGBT community and its attitudes, let’s say that one of the authors of the report, Dr. Lawrence Meyer, acted as an expert in dozens of state trials and regulatory hearings, including on the side of the LGBT community.

It should be noted that not all homosexuals in the academic sphere were ready to sacrifice scientific objectivity in favor of the political agenda of activists. Professor Camilla Paglia back in 1994 Wrote, what "no one is born homosexual and the idea itself is ridiculous ”.⁽⁶⁾

Professor Edward Stein, who does not hide his homosexual preferences, believes that the theory of the “gay gene” is more harmful than good and urges homosexual groups to abandon it and to conduct scientific research, because they can confirm that homosexuality is a pathological condition:

“Linking human rights with some kind of scientific theory, still completely unproven, is very risky. My fear is that by encouraging research in this area for political reasons, we will only lead to the re-medicalization of sexual orientation. ”

Sexuality researcher Lisa Diamond, an honorary member of APA, also urges gay activists to abandon the spread of the myth of "innate":

“The LGBT categories are conditional and have no meaning. They reflect the concepts that exist in our culture, but do not represent the phenomena that exist in nature. The Queer community should stop saying: “help us, we were born that way and cannot change” as an argument for the legal situation. This argument will only turn against us, since enough evidence has accumulated, which our opponents know no worse than we do. Variability is a characteristic feature of human sexuality. ”

“Sexuality is fluid. It's time to leave the "born this way" argument behind. Gay rights should not depend on how a person became gay, and we must accept the fact that sexuality can change.”

Diamond cites three main reasons for abandoning this line of reasoning:

1) The argument “We were born this way and cannot change” is scientifically unreliable.
2) In the light of recent legal decisions, this argument is no longer needed.
3) This argument is unfair because it discriminates against various groups in the LGBT community.

Martin Duberman, founder of the LGBT Research Center (CLAGS), honestly acknowledged that:

“Not a single conscientious scientific work has established that people are born gay or straight.”

Esther Newton, known for pioneering research on homosexual communities in America, called the idea of congenital sexual orientation “ridiculous.”

“Any anthropologist engaged in intercultural work knows that this is impossible, since sexuality is formed differently in different cultures ... All evidence, no matter how fragmentary they are, indicates the opposite.”

Even the American Psychological Association, under whose auspices attempts are made to normalize homosexuality on a global scale, was forced to ascertain lack of consensus in the scientific community and the failure of research:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons for the formation of a heterosexual, bisexual or homosexual orientation. Although many studies have examined the possible genetic, hormonal, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no evidence has been found to allow scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many believe that nature and upbringing together play a complex role in this. Most people experience a feeling of little choice (or lack thereof) regarding their sexual orientation. ”

Pay attention to the word "Sensation" in this quote. The feeling of lack of choice refers to the fact that the choice was made unknowingly, and not to the fact that it was not. To this, more clearly, indicates and American College of Pediatricians:

“Although homosexual attraction may not be a conscious choice, it lends itself to change in many people.”

But in spite of the facts, logic and common sense, the mantra “so born”, hackneyed to nausea, remains the core of the political rhetoric of the “LGBT movement” for a number of reasons. Firstly, it was found that people who believe that homosexuals are born that way, out of pity, show them increased tolerance; secondly, the appeal to "lack of choice" and "hopelessness" allows you to successfully reflect the criticism of opponents, portraying them as fierce misanthropists; thirdly, this convenient conviction provides homosexuals themselves with a comforting release from guilt and responsibility for their self-destructive actions.

At the same time, in those countries where homosexuality, having received legislative recognition, is firmly rooted in the humus of the moral decay of society, the myth of "innate" begins to give way to statements of a completely opposite nature. Even pro-gay resource The Guardian, two weeks after the forced legalization of same-sex marriages in all US states, he published an article arguing that the political slogan “was born that way” does not correspond to scientific facts:

“Speaking of our sexuality, it is very unlikely that we are“ born that way. ” Although biology obviously plays a role, social conditioning is apparently what shapes our sexual desires to a large extent. This social conditioning, like any other, can be overcome if desired. If we want to do this, then why not? ”⁽¹²⁾

Some homosexuals openly admit that the “gay gene” was a fiction of the homosexual lobby:

The pitiful image of the unfortunate “gay victim”, necessary at the beginning of the campaign, becomes unnecessary and even prevents one from showing up fully with his “gay pride”. Now the thesis that reducing a homosexual to a state of a limp creature in the total power of his biological determinism is becoming fashionable, humiliating his human dignity. “Yes, we are not born that way. Yes, we made a choice. So what? Our rights should not depend on this. We demand equality not because we cannot do anything with ourselves, but because we are people and citizens, ”is what the liberal Western press now says.

Journalist Brandon Ambrosino in the article “I was not born that way, I choose to be gay"Writes the following:

“It's time for the LGBT community to stop being afraid of the word“ choice ”and restore the dignity of sexual autonomy. The aversion to this word in our community comes from the belief that without biological predestination, we will have no reason to demand equality. I see no reason to believe that the only sexual values that deserve protection are those that cannot be controlled. After all, isn't trans-activism fueled by the belief that the government is responsible for protecting each of us, regardless of our sexual choices? Isn't bisexual protection based on the same premise of sexual autonomy?

In our quest to make gay rights the new rights of blacks, we decided that sexual behavior is the same as skin color. I do not think this is true. Roughly speaking, I convinced several men to try my sexuality, but I never managed to try their skin color.

The argument that our sexuality is genetically fixed in the same way as race may have strengthened our rhetoric a few years ago, but do we now need such arguments? In America, we have the freedom to be, and the freedom to choose. I and other queers will readily confirm that, in addition to the genetic code, there are other factors that shape our sexuality. Whenever I am accepted only because my genetic code so obliges me, I feel rather humiliated than vested with rights. ”⁽¹³⁾

Appear on the Internet forums, articles and sites LGBT with a message like:

“We are a community of people who are tired of the arguments“ there is nothing to be done about it ”,“ they are born like that ”,“ no one chooses to be LGBT ”. We believe that a choice is possible, and that we have every right to make such a choice. ”

At the same time, it’s not about choosing to realize your same-sex attraction, but about choosing the attraction itself.

Article in lesbo-feminist magazine states:

“Of course, this is a choice, but how else? We make decisions about everything else in our lives - where to live, what to eat, how to dress, but cannot decide who to make love with? Of course we do it. Naturally, there is some biological element of sexuality, but it is limited by the general desire for sex. Hunger is biological, but satisfying it with chocolates is a choice.
Even if some people think that they were born that way because they don’t remember themselves otherwise, it doesn’t mean that it’s true. I do not deny people's feelings, but I think that the way people interpret their feelings can certainly be wrong. After all, why do we think that an individual understands his genetic structure better than science?
I do not agree with the growing compromise that for some it is biological, but for others it is not. Nor do I see any convincing evidence or plausible explanation that this is biological for everyone; I see only what some people feel that they know their cause.
Homosexuals prefer to be homosexuals because they like something about homosexuality more than heterosexuality. ”

This belief is shared by the author of the article in the journal The Atlantic, who, she says, made an informed choice in favor of same-sex relationships:

“Leading a homosexual lifestyle is sometimes very difficult: difficult confession to the family, insults and threats on the street, and most lesbian films are simply terrible. If it depended on us, would we not have given up persecution and discrimination? It turns out that not all of us. Some realized that despite the difficulties, homophobia and disapproval of our families, homosexuality can be amazing. ”

Actress Cynthia Nixon in interview for The New York Times magazine casually mentioned that for her, homosexuality is a choice.

“I understand that for many this is not so, but for me it is a choice, and no one can determine my homosexuality for me. Part of our community believes that this cannot be regarded as a choice, because if it is a choice, then it can be abandoned. Maybe this gives the fanatics the argument they need, but I don’t think that they should determine the terms of the debate. ”

In 2020, these "progressive" trends with a characteristic delay flew to our edges:

Such examples could have been cited for a long time, but perhaps the idea is clear: homosexuals are not born, homosexuals die. If any biological characteristic were discovered, with the help of which one could determine a person’s sexual preferences - a gene, brain structure, finger length, etc. - this would make it possible to identify such people during life or even before birth and even if possible, carry out a medical correction by eliminating the cause. Imagine what this discovery would mean in countries where Sharia law ...

But homosexuals, fortunately for them, have no inherent signs to distinguish them from heterosexuals.

Homosexuality is an acquired psychological and behavioral pattern, and not a biological predestination. If same-sex attraction were provided by nature, then homosexuals would certainly be born with the appropriate anatomical features (eg, strengthened rectal epithelium, lubricating glands, etc.), allowing them to carry out their “innate” inclinations without sad consequences. However, homosexual acts go against human genetics and physiology and sooner or later end in failure.

Describes former homosexual:

“There was a continuous battle between the structure of my body and what I wanted to do with it. I understood that I was losing, but nonetheless, I always found solace in friends who had the same problems and in the collective fun of the gay community dancing through all calamities and illnesses. Almost 20 years after the cessation of such behavior, the most evil joke is that I sometimes have to wear diapers. The boy who wanted to become a man was stuck at the infancy stage. Sex with men did not turn him into a man, but only destroyed his body.

I collapsed into a gutter, vomiting blood, and abrupt contractions in my stomach forcing my colon to empty its contents. I reached for my underwear - I was bleeding from the inside. My life came out from both ends. Where I thought there was a door to exaltation, I knocked out a gaping passage to death ...

Part of my rectum was removed due to severe internal scarring. Like the prisoner victim of the Marquis de Sade, my sphincter was sewn with a thick thread. I was given a long list of emollients and laxatives to make possible a bowel movement through an incredibly narrow hole. The precautions did not work, and I tore off the seams. To stop the bleeding, I put a towel in my shorts and headed for the emergency room ...

Slowly my body was recovering, but nevertheless, I continued to stain myself. Another operation will follow, then another ... Years later, I continue to suffer from partial incontinence. Despite the inconvenience, occasional pain and embarrassment, I consider myself blessed because I managed to escape from homosexuality relatively unscathed compared to many of my friends. ”

Read more about the consequences of homosexual relations in the articles. Homosexuality: a review of health effects и Mental and physical health of LGBT people