I came across an article touting studies of twins that suggest homosexuality is not genetic. Doing some due diligence before sharing (as we all should), I also found a 2 year old article debunking those widely shared reports.
My response – so what? It doesn’t actually matter. There are heaps of conditions people can be born with that we don’t accept as normal. We help them. Telling them there’s no problem and things couldn’t be better would be hateful.
I’m born attracted to more than one woman. I’m certain God designed me that way. It does not equate to moral justification to “marry” or have sex with everyone or even anyone I’m attracted to.
Being attracted “naturally” to several hundred women doesn’t justify adultery, fornication, polygamy, or any of the other deviations from the unique and unequaled design for marriage.
Feelings are not ethical or moral justification for any behaviour, regardless if they’re natural or environmental.
The fact that I could show you a hundred ex homosexuals (if they’re brave enough to come out and face the hate) is enough evidence that nobody is born homosexual.
That’s why arguments like this from esteemed “progressive”, Peter van Onselen, are ridiculous. Equating sexual confusion to race is invalid. Race and gender are genetic. Popular myth may claim sexual preference is, but there simply is little more than wishful thinking to support such extravagant assertions.
If anything, it’s the Christian’s loving, biblically-informed conscience that refuses to approve and celebrate the violation of someone’s sacred identity including sexuality. In all claims of unjust discrimination the examples have been of Christians who lovingly served homosexual clients without discrimination until requested to participate via supply for the solemnisation of that harm.
I don’t care if that’s not how you see it. That’s the point of religious liberty. Your beliefs are irrelevant to the free expression and exercise of mine or anybody else’s, unless they directly harm someone else. Not baking a cake is not harm.
Being forced under threat of penalty to take certain actions against your conscience is a significant personal and social harm. In a liberal democracy like ours the space to act in accordance with your personal convictions is a precious treasure to be guarded. This freedom will certainly be erased in the wake of marriage redefinition.
The Attorney General George Brandis, a progressive in conservative clothing, has proposed freedom of conscientious objection only be preserved for ministers of religion. Not bakers, or hairdressers or florists. No ordinary citizen will be able to refuse to participate in or supply a wedding that they fundamentally hold to be immoral. The government and the long arm of the law will be able to punish you for refusing to act immorally.
Of course, the Labor Party and The Greens don’t even think ministers should be able to refuse. God save us from their totalitarian regime!
Under-girding all this tyrannical intolerance is the dogmatic insistence the homosexuals are “born that way”. Therefore, they argue, it’s a violation of their sacred identity to differentiate between the positive personal health and general social benefits of biological marriage (unique and without equal), and the negative personal health and general social liability of homosexual “marriage”.
As van Onselen asserts, violating that identity is equivalent to violating their sacred identity by race or gender.
As to the “science”, even the very biased, heavily partisan and “progressive” American Psychological Association cannot fabricate the evidence. They say,
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.”
[Source: http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx]
Now about those twin studies. The large Australian study did not support the importance of genetic factors for causing homosexuality. It should be 100% in identical twins if we are indeed captive victims of genetics. But where one twin felt same-sex attracted, less than 20% of co-twins shared that feeling. Other studies have confirmed less than 10% of identical twins, non-identical twins and normal siblings share non-heterosexual orientations. Here’s the Aussie research: https://genepi.qimr.edu.au/…/p/staff/CV261Bailey_UQ_Copy.pdf
At the very best, any genetic factor is almost irrelevant.
