No Takei Gene (Sorry George)


Two distinguished scholars at Johns Hopkins University have released a lengthy, three-part report concluding that there’s not sufficient evidence to prove homosexuals and transgenders are born in that condition – in other words, there is no “gay gene.”

“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,” states the executive summary.

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” it adds. (One News Now)

The report in its entirety can be downloaded here:  “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological, and Social Sciences”.  I recommend doing so before the shrieking left manage to convince The New Atlantis to suppress it. Here are just a couple of passages to consider:

Compared to heterosexuals, non-heterosexuals are about two to three times as likely to have experienced childhood sexual abuse. . . In a 2001 study, psychologist Marie E. Tomeo and colleagues noted that the previous literature had consistently found increased rates of reported childhood molestation in the homosexual population, with somewhere between 10% and 46% reporting that they had experienced childhood sexual abuse.112 The authors found that 46% of homosexual men and 22% of homosexual women reported that they had been molested by a person of the same gender, as compared with 7% of heterosexual men and 1% of heterosexual women. Moreover, 68% of homosexual men and 38% of homosexual women interviewed did not identify as homosexual until after the abuse. (pp. 7, 43)

The authors also note that sexuality is not fixed at birth:

“There is now considerable scientific evidence that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors, and even identities can, and sometimes do, change over time” (p. 50).

So what does this leave us?

First, I’m not a fan of real homophobia in the Ekklesia, that “Ew, gross!” feeling that leads many to treat homosexuality as the ultimate sin. (Hey, it’s the one that most believers have never had to deal with, so it must be really bad, right?) As the above quotes show, many gays and lesbians are acting in reaction to being victimized. Heck, have a few drinks with a gay man, and more likely than not you’ll hear a whole history of abuse, culminating in being kicked out of their family when they came out of the closet. The victims surely deserve our grace and love!

God meant this as a symbol of both his judgment of sin and his grace to humankind. I look forward to the day when it has that meaning again.

Even those who were never sexually abused deserve and need our love. Can a person be brought to the Messiah if not through love? “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us” (Rom. 5:8).”

Of course, the Left wants to pervert the idea of “love” into one of telling everyone that their sins are wonderful and should be celebrated. Real love speaks the truth–in a loving way (Eph. 4:5). By the same token, we need to remember that as a rule, gays and lesbians are outside of God’s camp–and it is not our job to attack, punish, or drive away those outside the camp (1Co. 5:9-13).

Israel was not able to keep God’s commandments until after he had freed us from slavery. Neither can we expect someone whose whole identity for decades has been enslaved to homosexuality to turn away from their sin before Yeshua personally takes them out of the world.

So download the report, read it, understand it, and share it. But remember that the Gospel is not “give up your sin, and then you can be saved” (I’m pretty sure that’s called legalism), but rather, “Come to Yeshua, be cleansed in his blood, receive his Spirit, and he will transform your life from the inside out.”



22 Replies to “No Takei Gene (Sorry George)”

  1. >>But remember that the Gospel is not “give up your sin, and then you can be saved”

    Ummm… I kind of thought that there was a quote something kind of like that…

    “Act_2:38  Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

    It is kind of necessary to repent of one’s sins in order to be saved. Which kind of what ‘give up’ means, no?


    1. The Greek word “repent” means first and foremost “a change of mind,” not, “Somehow manage to stop sinning in any way at all.” The change of mind will come with a change of action, but there is no expectation that we will or could complete the change of action pre-salvation.


      1. >>“Somehow manage to stop sinning in any way at all.”

        which is not what you said, actually. You used the phrase ‘give up your sin’, which is more ambiguous.

        So I think we both agree that we need to ‘give up our sin’ in the sense of acknowledging that it is sin, and ‘turn’ from it.
        But that we don’t need to ‘give up our sin’ in the sense of ‘live sinlessly’.

        Unfortunately too many people approach the sin of Sodomy as if it didn’t need to actually be given up.


      1. From what I’m reading, they don’t. They simply say that there’s a high percentage of gays and lesbians who have experienced it and not that is the case for their sexual orientation. BTW, if a history of abuse determined sexual orientation, 99% of women would be lesbians.


      2. Read again. We’re not talking about a few percentage points: We’re talking about going from 7% of the general male population experiencing sexual abuse at a young age to 49% of gay men having already experienced it. That indicates that a huge number (up to half) of men who are being falsely told that they were born gay are actually reacting to early trauma. The numbers are lower, but similar, for lesbian women.

        To ignore that is not only being anti-science, it’s downright cruel to the victims.



      3. This is not an indication of anything, and even if the researchers stated it, it would still mean nothing. You must prove that being gay/lesbian comes from being abused, but all you are saying is describing a pattern that has no correlation with sexual orientation. You must find the correlation and not bend data to your liking.


      4. >>all you are saying is describing a pattern that has no correlation with sexual orientation.

        Leaving aside the interesting grammar, the statement here (to the extent it is comprehensible) is both true and false:
        1) For a proper scientific study to show ‘proof’ in such an area, we would need to take a certain number of children, abuse them, watch them to see how they grew up, and compare them to a number of ‘control’ children that weren’t abused. Not only can’t we do this, we shouldn’t.
        2) However for the less rigorous standards that we use in real life, to say that 49% of people belonging to class A have a history including event B, whereas only 7% of people belonging to class C have a similar history is to state something very signifigant and worthy of thought and study, even if it doesn’t arise to the level of ‘proof’.


      5. Dear grammar police, the concept is very simple: you decided that homosexuality is a disorder because you god told you so. Therefore, when you read that the homosexual population is more abused than the general population, you decided that homosexuality is determined by sexual abuse, which is completely biased and makes no sense.


      6. >>: you decided that homosexuality is a disorder because you god told you so.

        It would not take the pronouncements of God to determine that perverted sexuality is… perverted sexuality. A simple knowledge of biology would do.

        However the rest of your comment doesn’t seem to address the mathematics of correlation between the two issues. You are perfectly right: the data do not insist upon an explanation that childhood abuse causes perverted sexuality. It is perfectly possible, for example, that some other attribute causes both a tendency to be abuse AND perverted sexuality. There are even other possibilities. Which one do you favor?


      7. I have no idea what you’re taking about: since when biology can determine what perverted sexuality is? That’s a cultural/social construct.

        The reason why honest scientists and researchers don’t interpret data through skewed social/moral/religious lenses is because they have a duty to stick to their findings to the extent they can present evidence for it. They are also going to change their minds if sufficient evidence disproves their studies. That’s how science works at the very basic level.

        If you are going to use science to prove anything, you shouldn’t approach the problem looking for evidence that validates your starting point of view: you should examine all evidence and learn to balance all results out. The fact that you continue insisting that gays and lesbians are all pervs with no shred of evidence invalidates all your reasoning and conclusions.


      8. Like the respiratory system, the circulatory system, the limbic system, and all of the other well designed parts of the human body, the reproductive system has a purpose. It’s various elements were designed to fit into that purpose (pun intended). The erect penis was designed to fit into the lubricated female vagina. The resulting ejaculate is designed, chemically and physiologically, to allow the sperm to travel up the female reproductive system, meet the descending egg, fertilize it, and conceive life. This life hopefully continues through the process and implants in the uterus, where it is nourished and grows, is given birth, is given suck. Hormonal reactions even aid in the emotional bonding between mother and child.
        That is the design of the reproductive system. Male and male and female on female sexual activity is, obviously, a perversion from that design. It is counter design. Damage and infection commonly results.
        That is the truth about sexual perversion. It is obvious to anyone with the most basic education in biology. It doesn’t take any particular revelation from God. Just common sense.
        If one wishes to speak of the immorality of perverted sexual actions then one can add in revelation, of course. It should be obvious that perverted sexuality is an offense against the creator and his design, but God gives us more to go on.
        Science, on the other hand, while it can reveal the design, cannot speak authoritatively about issues of morality. That is simply a language to which it is deaf.


      9. Hilarious. If you are going to start talking about creationism and similar idiocies, there’s no point wasting my time – learn about evolution and natural selection, also known as facts, before spouting about immorality.


      10. Well, I’m an old-earth creationist who isn’t convinced of evolution’s explanatory power, but doesn’t see a real conflict between a theistic evolution and Scripture. I’m actually planning a series of posts on that. But in this case, infectedbloodcomics, YOU’RE the one who is being anti-science for the sake of your social narrative that sexuality is always inborn and immutable.


      11. Not really. I’ve known for a long time from anecdotal evidence that there was a link between molestation and homosexual attraction (via both family and close friends). The CDC published a study last year that pointed out the same. Even with that, I was ready to concede that there was a genetic predisposition towards same-sex attraction for the sake of discussion. However, there simply isn’t any direct scientific proof of that, so that concession is unnecessary.

        But the fact is that you’ve been selling this narrative that people are simply born gay for the last 30 years and that nothing can change that without any evidence. This article is simply pointing that out and suggesting that human sexuality is more complicated than “you’re born that way.” Your narrative, however, is necessary to the claim that being against homosexual sex is equivalent to racism. You therefore have to attack any study that indicates anything different, because if there’s any environmental or choice factor at all, you lose your moral high-horse and “victim” status.

        Frankly, you have more motivation here to ignore the scientific facts than we do.


      12. I personally didn’t sell anything. I don’t care about narratives, I care about the truth. And the truth is that gays and lesbians have always been more abused than straight people, which has been pointed out by this study, too. That’s all. Everything else is empty blabbering.


      13. >>If you are going to start talking about creationism and similar idiocies, there’s no point wasting my time – learn about evolution and natural selection, also known as facts, before spouting about immorality.

        The actual discussion had to do with ‘perversion’ not ‘immorality’. Calling something perverted an immorality does involve some method of determining good and evil, which is obviously missing when someone believes in evolution.

        However the fact of man on man or woman on woman sex being a perversion is, if anything, even clearer in an evolutionary viewpoint. In evolution the ‘purpose’ of a given organism, in its evolutionary sense, is to pass on successful genes. Thus male on male sex is a perversion either because it fails to do this (ie pass on successful genes), or because it involves one of the unsuccessful genes that should not be passed on.

        From a moral sense it actually doesn’t matter if a desire for perverted sex arises from genetic or environment (the issue being debated above).In both cases the morality of the issue arises when the individual is forced with the choice of either engaging or not engaging in sexual perversion… or any other sin. That is the point at which they become a responsible moral agent.

        Thus if male on male sexual desire is linked to early abuse, or whether abuse and male on male sexual desire are both linked to some third thing is irrelevant to the discussion of morality.


  2. That’s fair. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that you could just keep on sinning sexuality, or in anything else for that matter . But addicts frequently feel that they have no control at all over their compulsions, and I’ve found that offering them the changed life that comes from the Spirit works a lot better than telling them to stop drinking (or whatever) first, and then come to the Lord. Unfortunately, when it comes to the gay community, the Church has had a tendency to put the cart before the horse, and that’s kept the Gospel from reaching them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s