Homosexual orientation is an inclination to desire sexual intimacy with members of the same sex. Homosexual behaviour is ‘making love’ or seeking sexual gratification through physical interaction with members of the same sex. The first is desire. The second is action. The first is temptation. The second is yielding to temptation.

What You'll be reading in short?

• Whether people choose to be gay or whether the preference is biologically determined, science supports the moral decision.

• Other than genetic there could be a variety of reasons why brains could be different in homosexual & heterosexual males which research failed to consider.

• Scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions.

• There is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect.

• Even if there were some genetic commonalities among homosexuals, associated characteristics do not prove a causal link.

• Many researchers cite environmental factors as major contributors to homosexual feelings.

• Although it may be easier, psychologically, for a homosexual to believe that homosexuality is inborn but the accumulated scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

Ask this question, and you will probably receive one of two

responses:

Yes. People choose to be gay. They are making an immoral choice, or No. Sexual preference is biologically determined.

These two answers have something in common: With both of them, the science conveniently supports the moral decision.

Gay activists and the liberal media have actively encouraged the idea that homosexuality is inherited and unchangeable, and researchers have diligently sought scientific evidence to back up that claim.

The controversy began with the work of Simon LeVay, M.D. In 1991, LeVay tested the brains of 41 cadavers and noted differences between homosexual versus heterosexual males. The hypothalamus, an area believed to regulate sexual activity, was smaller in homosexual males than in heterosexuals. Dr. LeVay believed the differences proved a biological basis for homosexuality, but he failed to consider a variety of reasons, other than genetic, that the brains were different. First, all 19 of the homosexual cadavers had died of AIDS, a disease known to affect the neurological system. It could be that the disease had shrunk the hypothalamus. Second, scientists who study brain biochemistry know that the way a person thinks affects the way his brain functions; specifically, it affects the neuro-chemicals released in the brain and the way certain pathways grow and change. Could the structural brain differences have started with the difference in thoughts between homosexuals and heterosexuals, rather than with genetics? Third, there is no proof linking hypothalamus size with homosexuality, either as a cause or effect.

In 1993, Dr. Dean Hamer, a pro-gay activist, made the astounding claim in his research that there may be a gene for homosexuality. His team of researchers began a series of gene linkage studies, in which families with several homosexuals underwent genetic analysis to determine if any chromosomal variants could be found in the family and if the variant correlated with those individuals who displayed homosexuality. Although Hamer’s study sample was very small, he found a significant linkage between gays and a marker on the maternal X chromosome, Xq28. Additional studies with larger sample sizes produced conflicting results in the linkage to Xq28. It is important to note that Hamer’s experiments have never been validated; in fact, other groups of researchers have discredited Hamer’s work as non-replicable or even fraudulent.

Even if there were some genetic commonalities among homosexuals, associated characteristics do not prove a causal link.

There are many researchers who cite environmental factors as major contributors to homosexual feelings. They strongly believe that negative early childhood experiences in an unloving or non-supportive home environment are a critical part of this process.

Common elements seem to include:

• An emotionally withdrawn or physically absent father and an overbearing, fawning, or over-protective mother.

• In many cases, there are reports of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

• Disruption of gender identification may contribute to the development toward homosexuality. This process begins between ages two and four. During this phase, children move from their primary connection with the mother to seek out deeper attachments with the parent of the same gender.

• Peer attachments with same-sex friends also play a role in developing gender identity. Eventually, after years of interaction and bonding with same-sex peers, children enter puberty and begin to pay attention to the opposite sex. When this natural process is disrupted, it feels natural for a child to love and crave the attention of those of the same sex.

Most researchers have concluded that sexual orientation is a complex, multi-factorial issue in which biological, social, and psychological factors combine to play a role in the ultimate sexual orientation of an individual.

Although it may be easier, psychologically, for a homosexual to believe that homosexuality is inborn, the accumulated scientific evidence suggests otherwise. Homosexuals may have a genetic predisposition, but the human choice is still a factor.

References:

1. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/is-homosexuality-a-choice/

2. https://youtu.be/aagFTlK_XsI

• Homes with no fathers or dominating mothers

• Early exposure to pornography

• Sexual / physical abuse

• Same-sex experimentation during puberty

• Sexual confusion / anxiety

• Permissive society that promotes a gender fluid lifestyle

What You'll be reading in short?

• Study proves that environmental factors play a greater role than the genes.

• Identical twins are more concordant for same sex behaviors than fraternal twins but only modestly so.

• The gay gene study that wanted to prove the existence of a gay gene that influenced sexual orientation was also questionable based on facts drawn from selective data.

• Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual

Most researchers who study sexual orientation think that both genetic and environmental factors play a role, but the relative contributions of each remain unclear. A new study of Swedish twins reinforces earlier findings that environmental influences--including the environment in the womb--may play a greater role than genes. To try to get around these problems, a team led by Niklas Langström, a psychiatrist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, recruited subjects from the Swedish Twin Registry, the world's largest. All 43,808 twins born in Sweden between 1959 and 1985 were invited to participate in a Web-based survey that comprised a wide range of questions about personal behaviors and experiences. The team ended up with a sample of 3826 twin pairs, of which 2320 were identical and 1506 fraternal. Of that sample, roughly 5% of men and 8% of women reported sexual activity with a member of the same sex at least once during their lifetimes. Then they plugged the survey responses into a standard mathematical model for comparing identical and fraternal twins. The results confirm earlier findings that identical twins are more concordant for same-sex behaviors than fraternal twins are but only modestly so: In men, genetic effects appeared to explain 34% to 39% of the differences between the two twin groups, whereas in women, genetics accounted for only about 18% to 19% of the difference--a finding consistent with other research showing that sexual orientation in women is not as rigidly determined as it is in men. Jonathan Beckwith, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, says that the new work fails to overcome a number of problems faced by previous twin studies. He notes that the final sample included only 12% of the males in the Swedish registry, leaving open the possibility of recruitment bias. And Beckwith says that the failure to control for family environment could inflate estimates of genetic influence.

NIH’s gay gene study questioned:

Geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute published a study of 40 pairs of brothers – all gay – reporting that their sexual orientation was influenced by their genes. Family pedigree data had indicated that the men had inherited a factor for gayness from their mothers. Hamer and his team zeroed in on the X chromosome (passed to males only from their mothers) scanning it for genetic markers that the gay men might have in common. Based on these linkage studies Hamer concluded he had found a gay genetic factor at the tip of the X chromosome. This report – offering the first molecular evidence that human sexual orientation might be determined genetically – sparked controversy and lots of it. But in recent months Hamer’s work has begun to face more serious technical questions – one in a confidential setting, the other in public. One former junior member of Hamer’s lab who co-authored the paper with him challenged the unspecified methods of data selection. The allegation was that Hamer selectively reported his data. The second technical question raised was on the linkage studies on the X chromosome. Another study conducted at the University of Ontario on the same sample size of 40 pairs of gay brothers brought no conclusive evidence that gayness is passed from mother to son – ‘not even a trend in favor of X linkage.

Link: https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.7604252

There is no gay gene:

Nearly half a million genomes reveal five DNA markers associated with sexual behaviour — but none with the power to predict the sexuality of an individual. The largest study to date on the genetic basis of sexuality has revealed five spots on the human genome that are linked to same-sex sexual behaviour — but none of the markers are reliable enough to predict someone’s sexuality. The findings, which are published on 29 August in Science and based on the genomes of nearly 500,000 people, shore up the results of earlier, smaller studies and confirm the suspicions of many scientists: while sexual preferences have a genetic component, no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviour. “There is no ‘gay gene’,” says lead study author Andrea Ganna, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Ganna and his colleagues also used the analysis to estimate that up to 25% of sexual behaviour can be explained by genetics, with the rest influenced by environmental and cultural factors — a figure similar to the findings of smaller studies.

A need for more data:

Scientists have long thought that someone’s genes partly influenced their sexual orientation. Research from the 1990s showed that identical twins are more likely to share a sexual orientation than are fraternal twins or adopted siblings. Some studies suggested that a specific part of the X chromosome called the Xq28 region was associated with the sexual orientation of people who were biologically male — although subsequent research cast doubt on those results. But these studies all had very small sample sizes and most focused on men, says Mills. This hampered scientists’ ability to detect many variants associated with sexual orientation.

In the recent study, Ganna and his colleagues used a method known as a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to look at the genomes of hundreds of thousands of people for single-letter DNA changes called SNPs. If lots of people with a trait in common also share certain SNPs, chances are that the SNPs are related in some way to that characteristic. The researchers split their study participants into two groups — those who reported having had sex with someone of the same sex, and those who didn’t. Then the researchers performed two separate analyses. In one, they evaluated more than one million SNPs and looked at whether people who had more SNPs in common with each other also reported similar sexual behaviours. The scientists found that genetics could explain 8–25% of the variation in sexual behaviour.

For their second analysis, Ganna and his colleagues wanted to see which particular SNPs were associated with same-sex sexual behaviour, and found five that were more common among those individuals. However, those five SNPs collectively explained less than 1% of the variation in sexual behaviour. This suggests that there are a lot of genes that influence sexual behaviour, many of which researchers haven’t found yet, says Ganna. An even larger sample size could help to identify those missing variants, he says. But Ganna cautions that these SNPs can’t be used to reliably predict sexual preferences in any individual, because no single gene has a large effect on sexual behaviours.

References:

1. No gay gene: The 'Gay Gene' Is A Myth But Being Gay Is 'Natural,' Say Scientists:https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2019/08/30/the-gay-gene-is-a-myth-but-being-gay-is-natural-say-scientists/?sh=afe52097fa72

2. Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02585-6

3. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.7604252

What You'll be reading in short?

• Genesis 19 : 1-3

• Leviticus 18:22

• Leviticus 20:13

• Romans 1: 26-27

• 1 Corinthians 6:9

• 1 Timothy 1:10

• Mark 10

Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

After God created mankind he gave them their purpose. Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. In order to do this Adam needed a helper. According to biology an organism is defined as male or female if it is structured to perform one of the respective roles in reproduction.

As the story of Genesis unfolds we realize that there are other things in God’s creation that are termed complimentary duality like heaven and earth, the sea and dry land, within the animal kingdom we have male and female species. Mark 10 Jesus said that at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.’ A man and a man or a woman and a woman cannot reflect the union of Christ and the church. It doesn’t show a complete picture.

The Bible is very clear in declaring that indulging in homosexual activity is a sin. Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10 are some of the verses that point this out for us. One of the fruits of rebellion against God is homosexuality. Living a life in complete opposite terms to what God has ordained is disobedience. And God, when he sees the depravity of man will give themselves over to their wicked and destructive ways. He offers the free gift of salvation to those that repent and turn from their evil ways but for them that do not, eternal damnation is what they are condemned to.

The temptation to engage in homosexual behavior is very real to many. Those who struggle with homosexual attraction often report suffering through years of wishing things were different. People may not always be able to control how or what they feel, but they can control what they do with those feelings.

Link: https://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality-Bible.html

What You'll be reading in short?

• Accepting the person and not being judgmental

• Pray with the person, pray for that person

• Change is possible by various ways

• Do not succumb to the lie that change is not possible and it’s not a choice but a disposition

Homosexuality doesn’t have to last a lifetime. Change is possible.We are designed a certain way and only when we live by God’s design our life will be wholesome and free.

Therefore, as far as possible, we should seek restoration and healing. None of us are perfect now. It is understandable that the term ‘healing’ is hard to digest for many.‘How’, they ask, ‘Can I be healed from the disorder of being myself? Is what I am a disease? Is this not an offensive suggestion and an affront to my identity and self-esteem?’ To which we must reply in the words of the St. Andrew’s Day Statement,'At the deepest ontological level..there can be no such being as “a” homosexual or “a” heterosexual: there are human beings ,male and female,called to be redeemed humanity in Christ'.

Christopher Townsend writes that

Since the fall,sin has been the root cause of a deep state of disorder within human nature. What is found innate in men and women is not necessarily good…Further, sin is a power which dominates people and deceives us that we are free. We are all “slaves to sin”(John 8:34) , filled with compelling desires leading us into disobedient actions, living out involuntary but culpable rebellion (eg Romans 7:13-25). Those compelling desires are different for different people; for some they are homosexual desires.

1. Some have changed through supernatural power of the Holy Spirit or a gradual process of inner healing.

2. For others, healing takes place through the Christian community as they develop relationships within the body of Christ and find affirmation, love and acceptance.

3. Yet others have been helped through psychiatrists or psychologists

There is no conflict between prayer and therapy, for there is only one source to all healing. It is up to God to use miraculous or more ordinary means. But the older a person is, the harder it is to change.Like any behavioural pattern , the more it is followed,the more it will become fixed .The psychiatrist John White writes , “Once I experience physical pleasure with a member of my own sex, I am more likely to want to experience it, the more fixed will the pattern become. What I do determines what I am, just as much as what I am determines what I do”

The lie: People don’t change, they can’t change and if you try to change them it is detrimental to their health. This is what people will tell you when you speak to LGBTQers. They struggle with feelings of being trapped. People can and do change and they should be willing and made to seek that out. They want to have children; they want to get married and have a normal life. Our identity is not our behavior, it is not how we look but it is our identity in Christ.

Genesis 1:27 says: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” We are made in God’s image and when He created us it was his desire to see us be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth. That is the purpose for our being. Anything opposed to this natural path doesn’t show completeness. The ultimate question we should be asking ourselves is ‘Whose disapproval do we fear the most? Whose opinion do we truly value? Is it God or society? Once the answer to this is clear we can choose to come out of this lifestyle. Yes, the challenges are great because we will not feel attracted to the opposite sex, we cannot relate to a normal life again. But Christ said’ With me all things are possible’. And we can stand in that strength alone.

References:

1. https://www.gotquestions.org/out-of-the-closet.html

2. What Is the Christian Attitude to Homosexuality – Nicky Gumbel

3. Is God anti-gay? and other questions about homosexuality, the Bible and same-sex attraction-Sam Allberry.

Every individual has a:

• Biological sex, assigned at birth by others based usually on cursory examination—such as male or female, and more rarely indeterminate.

• Gender identity, referring to a person’s internal sense of their role in their culture’s system defining the traditional behavioral differences between men and women. Examples include identifying as a boy or a girl or rejecting the sense of a gender binary in some way.

• Sexual orientation, which is the emotional and sexual attraction they feel for others—i.e., bisexual, gay, straight.

The first is assigned and the latter two usually come to us through exploration and life experience and can be fluid. In other words, they can change over time. Culture, beliefs, peers, geographic location, age, etc. can all influence a person’s sexual identity and behavior. This doesn’t insinuate a “choice” as much as illuminates how a person’s stage of development, cultural environment, etc. shapes their own awareness and self-acceptance. As external factors change, so too can sexual identity, behavior, and even attraction.

The key difference is that trans communities are primarily organized around gender identity and presentation while gay, lesbian, and bisexual communities are primarily organized around sexual identity and/or orientation.

References

1. https://www.edi.nih.gov/blog/communities/lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-%E2%80%93-what%E2%80%99s-difference