Sorry, LGBT, You are NOT Born That Way, So Stop Stealing the Civil Rights Movement

The jig is up.

The LGBT Hate Machine has played up this lie for decades, claiming that they were "Born That Way", and therefore all of us have to accomodate their sexual perversions, er "preferences".

Well, pro-family groups around the country are confronting these lies. For years since, we have been telling the public to stop treating these behaviors as civil rights. We have been telling people for decades that the whole "born that way" argument is a flat-out lie.

The research is slowly but steadily catching up with common sense.

It's time for us to stop enabling and promoting anti-biological hate!

Here's the full report from Peter Spriggs of the Family Research Council:

LGBT activists protest outside California's state capitol building in Sacramento while leading evangelist Franklin Graham holds a prayer rally on March 31, 2016. | (Photo: Facebook/Jane Dalton)

In 2008, the Advocate, the leading LGBT news magazine in the U.S., ran a cover that starkly declared, in all capital letters, “GAY IS THE NEW BLACK.” It was a dramatic illustration of an assertion (explicit or implicit) that has been at the heart of the LGBT rights movement—the idea that “sexual orientation” is “immutable,” or incapable of change.

Now, the left is pushing for a bill that would declare “gay is the new black” in even more direct terms. On April 2, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the “Equality Act”—better termed the “Inequality Act”—a piece of legislation masquerading as a civil rights protection that would actually increase inequality and harm women and children. This bill has been introduced before, but has new life because of the Democratic majority in the U.S. House. It would amend virtually every area of federal civil rights law to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” not only in the area of employment, but also public accommodations, housing, credit, and a raft of other areas.

The Equality Act would begin by amending the granddaddy non-discrimination law of them all—the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was the law passed at the height of the African-American civil rights movement of the 1960’s in order to break the back of the pervasive Jim Crow racial segregation laws in the deep South. Without much debate, Congress also prohibited discrimination based on “sex.” What both race and sex have in common is that they are inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous—and in the U.S. Constitution. None of these criteria apply to “sexual orientation” (or “gender identity”). Yet the Equality Act would add these “categories” to federal law nonetheless.

This bill is based in part on the idea that any laws or practices which in any way disadvantage those who engage in homosexual conduct—from restricting their military service to defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman to allowing religious schools not to hire or admit them—are inherently unjust because a person’s sexual orientation (like their race) is fixed at (or before) birth and can never change.

In the 2015 Supreme Court decision which redefined marriage to include same-sex couples (Obergefell v. Hodges), Justice Anthony Kennedy was explicit in declaring that his opinion rested on this premise. “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is . . . immutable,” Kennedy declared. Marriage is a “fundamental right,” and the petitioners’ “immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.”

Yet there is only one problem about this immutability argument; the science shows it simply isn’t true! In Evidence Shows Sexual Orientation Can Change: Debunking the Myth of “Immutability,” I report on academic studies over the last two decades based on four large data sets drawn from surveys about sexuality. These studies are both “population-based” (representative of the population as a whole) and “longitudinal” (meaning they survey the same individuals at intervals years apart, allowing us to measure change over time).

The truth is, “sexual orientation” is a multi-faceted concept, involving a combination of attractions, behaviors, and personal identity. These four studies all demonstrate that significant change in each of the elements of sexual orientation is possible. The percentage changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality ranged from 13% to 53% (while the percentage changing from heterosexuality to homosexuality ranged only from 1% to 12%). In one survey of “same-sex attracted respondents,” up to 38% of men and 53% of women “changed to heterosexuality” in only a six-year period.

Confirmation of this has come from a surprising source. Scholar Lisa Diamond (who herself identifies as a lesbian) has long studied and written about the “sexual fluidity” of women. In a 2016 article with her colleague Clifford Rosky, she declared, “Given the consistency of these findings, it is not scientifically accurate to describe same-sex sexual orientation as a uniformly immutable trait.”

Add caption

Some scholars on the left (including Diamond), still advocate for an LGBT political agenda—but they do so on the basis of arguments for personal sexual freedom, rather than arguments about the nature of sexual orientation itself. However, this amounts to replacing an argument rooted in the principles of “civil rights” with an argument rooted in the principles of the sexual revolution.

In light of this evidence, the public would be wise to question whether the efforts of the LGBT movement to ride on the coat-tails of “civil rights” can any longer be justified. Indeed, the science shows that the evidence for immutability—on which many have relied to argue for such legislation—simply isn’t there. If Congress truly wants to pursue “evidence-based” policy, it will reject the “Equality Act” and its deceptive premise.

Peter Sprigg is a Senior Fellow for Policy Studies at the Family Research Council.

The LGBT Movement is Fraying on the "Gay Gene" Argument

The hunt for a "gay gene" has frayed considerably. The homosexual-transgender movement has come to grips with the disturbing reality that they cannot justify their lifestyle as something innate, genetic, pre-determined which they cannot escape.

In spite of every media effort to make the case that certain human beings have some kind of gay gene, the evidence doesn't bear out any truth to back up those claims.

Even liberal editors for left-wing rags like The Daily Beast have grown tired of this "born this way" tirade:

In 2011, Lady Gaga’s “Born This Way” tried and failed to become the modern day equivalent to Valentino’s 1975 similarly titled gay anthem and disco hit “I Was Born This Way.” One reason why? After 40 years of discourse defending homosexuality by asserting that it’s an inborn trait, that particular line of argumentation is starting to wear thin.

There’s a new “gay gene” study making the rounds this week and while some members of the press are celebrating the study as objective and necessary evidence that homosexuality is not a “choice,” most gay, lesbian, and bisexual people I know could not care less.

This time around, we’re rolling our eyes at a study led by behavioral geneticist Dr. Alan Sanders at the NorthShore Research Institute in Evanston, Illinois, which examined the genes of 409 pairs of gay brothers, finding that gay men may share certain genetic markers on the Xq28 and 8q12 regions of the X chromosome and chromosome 8. Only some of the findings from NorthShore’s study are statistically significant, but that hasn’t stopped a flurry of misleadingly conclusive headlines like “Male sexual orientation influenced by genes, study shows” or “Broader study confirms genetic link to male homosexuality.”

Samantha Allen mistakenly argues that this whole issue of "born this way" is now moot because there is widespread acceptance for homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.

Here's the problem: many people have been induced to believe this fraud because they have been taught to believe that homosexuals, transgenders, etc. are "born that way." The argument for civil rights, non-discrimination laws, etc is all based on the fraud that LGBT behaviors are innate, genetic aspects of certain human beings.

Here is a report from Vice News debunking the whole "born this way" fraud, point out this argument has lost a lot of steam.

For many people, however, being gay is not a biological decree. We've moved toward an understanding of queerness that embraces gray areas—relying on the gene theory steamrolls all that nuance. Plenty of self-identified gay, lesbian, bisexual, and queer people don't look forward to a future in which we can be tested for a gay gene. We probably wouldn't pass anyway.

Of course they would not pass the genetic test. There is no gay gene. The very idea defies bio-logical understanding. How can two people give birth to children if one of the parents is gay and has an exclusive interest in the same sex?

They must be inclined to mate with the opposite sex, then, at the very least to sire children. If they are willing to have children with the opposite sex, then there is no gene that precludes their interaction with the opposite sex, nor is there any gene that passes onto the children to foster homosexual tendencies.

Part of the reason that a binary notion of sexual orientation—that you are born either gay or straight, rarely something in between—has gained so much political validity is that it's useful when arguing with extreme, repressive bigots. As Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist who conducted gay gene research on a smaller scale in the 1990s, made clear when we spoke on the phone, groups with "immutable" identities, based on concepts like race and gender, "have a higher level of constitutional protection than groups that are basically the product of choice."

Notice the "bigotry card". That's what the regressive left came up with in order to silence opponents of homosexuality and transgenderism. The whole argument rests on this flimsy house of cards. The moment that more people accept that they are not "born this way", the whole movement will collapse.

We are not going to back down from telling people the truth about this perverse movement.

But after reporting on the "ex-gay" movement and laws around the world that punish gay sex and relationships, I worry that relying too heavily on theories of gay genes may ultimately do a disservice to the struggle for civil rights. For many people who live and identify as gay, queer, and bisexual, the argument that people who want to have gay sex were born gay feels "incredibly crucial in the short term." Thing is, it can be "damaging" too, says Diana Roffman, a 32-year-old woman who, like so many modern queers, has moved through various phases of sexual attraction, desire, and identification before deciding, I can date whomever I want.

And this casual attitude toward sexual behavior and conduct is destructive, dangerous, deviant. dysfunctional, and distressing, both for those involved in the behaviors and those who witness these behaviors occurring among other people.

Even the BBC has weighed in on this discussion, and more people are acknowledging that they were not born gay. The article points to growing attitudes of "acceptance" to individuals who may be mostly straight, or mostly gay, or allowing for other types of sexuality.

The point remains that there is no argument for a rigid, genetic identity of homosexual or heterosexual. Even the gays have acknowledged that they are not "born this way."

Now that this argument has crumbled and is no longer used by either side of the debate, it's time for all pro-family forces to Stand for Truth and reject the LGBT Hate Machine!