If we’re not “born gay” why can’t homosexuals choose to be straight?
There is no single ‘gay gene’! At long last, after a genetic analysis of almost half a million people, researchers have debunked the existence of a so-called gay gene.
The research by Harvard and MIT academics, published in the prestigious journal Science, concluded that genetics may account for between 8 and 25 per cent of same-sex behaviour across a population.
However, nothing stood out as having outsize influence genetically. Five genetic variants were found to be particularly associated with same-sex behaviour, but together they accounted for less than 1 per cent of same-sex behaviour.
‘There is no genetic variant in the population which has any substantial effect on sexual orientation,’ explained David Curtis, an honorary professor at the Genetics Institute at University College London. ‘Rather, what we see is that there are very large numbers of variants which have extremely modest associations.’
What about the once gay and all those who report having benefited from receiving professional help with unwanted same-sex attraction?
Researchers and commentators were eager, however, to stress that this didn’t mean homosexuality was a choice or could be ‘cured.’
Some tried to talk up the results. Ben Neale, who worked on the study, remarked: ‘Genetics is less than half of this story for sexual behaviour, but it's still a very important contributing factor.’
Less than half, Ben, yes – at most a quarter in fact, and that seems to be on the generous side.
Fah Sathirapongsasuti, a senior scientist at genetics company 23andMe, which played a leading role in the study, stressed that homosexuality ‘is a natural and normal part of the variation in our species and that should also support precisely the position that we shouldn’t try and develop gay “curism.” That's not in anyone’s interest.’
But right now that looks like just an article of faith, a postmodern liberal dogma. After all, all kinds of things are influenced by our genes, both desirable and undesirable, healthy and pathological. Simply observing that something occurs ‘naturally’ with a certain frequency and with some relation to genetics doesn’t tell us anything about how good and ethical it might be.
And ‘not in anyone’s interest’? What about the once gay and all those who report having benefited from receiving professional help with unwanted same-sex attraction? Yet again their voices are ignored, marginalised and silenced by a mainstream culture intent on asserting that sexual preferences and behaviour cannot change in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Dr Curtis added: ‘Even if homosexuality is not genetically determined, as this study shows, that does not mean that it is not in some way an innate and indispensable part of an individual's personality.’
But again, this appears now as more an article of faith than a statement of scientific fact.
But right now that looks like just an article of faith, a postmodern liberal dogma.
It was also immediately contradicted by Zeke Stokes of LGBT advocacy organisation GLAAD, who 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.’
But if there is no conclusive degree to which nature influences how a same-sex attracted person behaves, in what sense is homosexuality an ‘innate and indispensable part of an individual’s personality?’
Now we know for sure: same-sex attraction is not genetically determined, even less is homosexual behaviour.
No doubt some experience same-sex attraction more strongly than others, and some find it less amenable to change over time or in response to sought interventions.
But innate? No. Fixed? Not unless all the testimonies of the once gay are delusions or fabrications.
Time for LGBT ideology to catch up with the science and the evidence, I suggest.