Homosexuality: Prejudice and Truth

by
Joe Beardsley

In a recent local newspaper column, a minister's wife began discussing the nature of prejudice but soon digressed into a clear appeal for the social tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality. In doing so, she asserted a number of the standard claims of homosexual advocates, making statements as fact that are not fact, and appealing to certain supposedly scientific bases for homosexuality that are not scientific. This article is adapted from a specific reply made to her column, and is generalized in response to the common homosexual advocate claims she made.

1. Advocates of homosexuality often claim: "The percentage of homosexuals in society has remained constant throughout recorded history, and between 10 and 15 percent of the population are homosexuals." While the percentage of homosexuals in the population seems to remain constant, the real percentage is not 10 to 15 percent, but is probably less than 3 percent of men, and less than 2 percent of women. Inflated percentage figures will traditionally be found in homosexual advocacy arguments, but the lower figures are much closer to the truth. A comprehensive discussion of this issue is given by Larry Burtoft, Ph.D., in Setting The Record Straight: What Research Really Says About the Social Consequences of Homosexuality, published by Focus on the Family.
Return to Index


2. Homosexuality advocates pojnt out that: "In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder." While this statement is true, it leaves out the fact that the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder was not based on new information or new science but on political rebellion and coercion by a cadre of homosexual psychiatrists who threatened and disrupted APA conferences until their demands were met. An account of this is given in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.
Return to Index


3. Another claim homosexuality advocates make is that: ". . . most experts agree that sexual orientation and sexual identity are not a choice, but seem to be present at birth." The assertion that "most experts agree" is highly debatable, and requires clarifications of the term "expert", what these "experts" agendas might be, and on what data they base their opinions. As for the rest of the premise, there is considerable disagreement among those who study such things. The literature contains considerable strong evidence that environmental factors are highly significant in much of the incidence of homosexuality. For example, being sexually molested as a child seems to be a predominant factor in the manifestation of homosexuality by the time the child becomes a teen. Also, certain typical characteristics of the father-child-mother triangle appear in the histories of a high percentage of male homosexuals, that is, certain sensitive personality traits of the child, the father's rejecting of the child, and the mother's compensating over-protective nurturing of the child. Return to Index
   
   Another claim made in this regard is that there is a "gay gene". The "gay gene" claim is not a result of research, but of the mainstream media, which seems quick to misinterpret certain types of research. Gay-advocate researchers, who have been credited by the media with making this discovery, do not claim that their research found any such thing. What is interesting is that same media's failure to report that studies of homosexuality in identical twins have forever destroyed the "gay gene" theory: if the theory were true, when homosexuality occurred in one identical twin, it would occur in the other twin 100% of the time. The fact is, that when the condition occurs in identical twins, it occurs in both twins less than 50% of the time. Indeed, studies involving identical twins, non-identical twins, and non-twin siblings, strongly indicate that environment is a major factor in the occurrence of homosexuality. Burtoft, Satinover, and other literature discusses in detail twin-studies in regard to homosexuality.
Return to Index


4. Another common assertion of homosexuality advocates is that homosexuality in animals proves it is a common occurrence in nature, and is therefore not aberrant when it occurs in human beings. In fact, claims that the apparent "homosexual" behavior of animals can be informative about the actual homosexual behavior of humans is very unsteady ground. There is a transcendent cognitive and moral component in human behavior that does not exist in animal behavior, and to suggest that human sexual behavior should in any way be patterned after, or postulated on, animal behavior is preposterous. Follow your dog around sometime and see how much you think his behavior should be a measure for yours. In fact, respectable studies of the apparent "animal homosexuality" phenomenon question whether there really is such a thing, and certainly cast serious doubts on whether what appears to be homosexuality in animals is even remotely similar to the homosexuality of human beings.
   Return to Index
   
   Homosexuality advocates often claim that children raised by homosexual couples are no more likely to become homosexuals than children raised in heterosexual homes, and cite professionals who advocate for adoption of children to homosexual parents. By the same token, there are studies that show children raised by homosexual couples to be significantly more likely to identify themselves as homosexuals.
Return to Index

What is really at issue in all this is the underlying fallacy that the rejection of homosexual behavior equates with the condemnation of homosexual people; that anyone who condemns homosexual behavior is advocating hatred and violence against homosexuals. It is a false equivalence, and it is critical that the separation of these two elements be understood by people on both sides of the argument. Homosexual behavior is not an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Neither is hatred of, and violence against, homosexuals. Parents have a moral obligation to teach their children to reject both. Parents also have a right to expect their children to not be taught by others that homosexual behavior is okay.
Return to Index

Homosexuality cannot be separated from its behavior. Homosexuality is defined by its behavior, and that behavior is inherently loaded with risk. A high rate of a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases damage the health and rob an average of 30 years from the lifespan of practicing homosexuals. AIDS is the most well known, but other typical health problems are hepatitis A, hepatitis B, gonorrhea, syphilis, damage to the anal wall, gay bowel syndrome, herpes and cancer. This is not an exhaustive list. Two 1996 studies reveal that anal cancer is 24 times and hepatitis C is 10 times more prevalent in homosexuals. For documentation on this and other health risks and diseases, and for a far more graphic description of typical homosexual behaviors and their consequences, read this educational pamphlet on the Family Research Institute website.
Return to Index

The minister's wife cited two tragic accounts of suicide by 16-year-old homosexual youths, one who had been rejected by the Boy Scouts, and the other who had been rejected by his father. No one can ever minimize the horrendous loss, and the consequences on friends and family when such things happen, but to blame the Boy Scouts, or an un-accepting father, or anyone else for these tragedies, seems certainly misdirected, and probably even disingenuous. In Holland, the world's bastion of social homosexual acceptance, the risk of mental illness among practicing homosexuals is significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country. Homosexual behavior is associated with a number of negative lifestyle factors, and it follows that many who engage in it are at an elevated risk for a dangerous loss of self-esteem.
Return to Index

Toward the end of her column, the minister's wife made certain claims about the Bible, and suggested that people typically quote the parts that support their beliefs and ignore the rest. This is no doubt true. But the Bible, both Old and New Testament, is unequivocal in its rejection of homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10; See also Gen. 18 & 19; Judg. 19:22). The New Testament is also unequivocal in its rejection of people who condemn homosexuals (Rom. 1:21-2:3).
Return to Index

Homosexual behavior is inherently dangerous, and the argument must focus on that behavior. Perhaps the underlying moral question in the debate is this: Are those who advocate the acceptance of that behavior, who fail to tell the full truth about it, and who may even counsel others that it is okay to indulge in it, willing to accept responsibility for the lives they may damage or destroy?
Return to Index

It is critical that truth replace prejudice on all sides of the homosexual issue.

For a far more comprehensive understanding of the issue, read the previously mentioned books on homosexuality. Also, read the material contained on:

www.familyresearchinst.org (the website of the Family Research Institute), and

www.narth.com (the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)).
Return to Index
Return to Top