NWUScientists at Northwestern University claim to have found two sets of genes that may contribute to male homosexual orientation, but estimate that it only contributes about 40% to the chance of someone developing a homosexual orientation.[1] The other 60% is determined by environment, which includes social factors. This is consistent with what researchers have said all along. Sexual orientation cannot be determined entirely by biology. Nature plus nurture together most likely contribute to same-sex attraction.


[1]Sarah Knapton, “Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds”; available from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10637532/Being-homosexual-is-only-partly-due-to-gay-gene-research-finds.html; Internet; accessed 25 March 2014.


Is it possible to change one’s sexual orientation? The gay community would say no. So do major psychological organizations. And that’s the perception one gets from the media as well. You might be surprised to learn, however, that a lot of research has been done in the area of sexual orientation therapy, and many people have experienced a lasting change in their sexual orientation. When it comes to the question of whether change is possible, the data, not political correctness should be determinative. So what is the data?

The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health followed ~10,800 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 22, recording various bits of information over time, including sexual attraction. The findings regarding sexual orientation were published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2007.[1] Researchers found that 81% of females who reported same-sex attraction at age 16 reported opposite-sex attraction at age 17. Similarly, 61% of males who reported exclusive same-sex attraction at age 16 reported opposite-sex attraction just one year later. Only 25% of those boys who continued to experience exclusive same-sex attraction at age 17 reported same-sex attraction at age 22. Seventy-five percent of them had gained opposite-sex attraction over that five year period. All of this without any therapy, faith-based or otherwise.

These findings were in line with an earlier study, conducted in 1992 by the National Health and Social Life Survey. They found that three out of four boys who self-reported as gay at age 16 no longer did so at age twenty-five.

When it comes to same-sex attracted adolescents, at least, one is more likely to gain heterosexual attractions than keep their same-sex attractions. Change is not only possible, but more likely than not. In fact, 3% of the United States heterosexual population claims to have experienced same-sex attractions in the past (either exclusive, or bi-sexual), which is roughly the same amount of people who presently describe themselves as gay or bisexual.[2] The likelihood of change is so great that, in the words of Dr. Whitehead, “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.”


Credit: CBS

Credit: CBS

Another cake maker, this time in Colorado, was sued for refusing to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration.  Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation, and would be fined in the future if he ever refused to provide a cake to another same-sex couple again. He wrote, “At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses.  This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”  So the law can force a man to violate his conscience just so someone else’s feelings don’t get hurt?  What about Jack Phillips’ feelings?  Should the law protect him from feeling bullied by the government?  Surely his feelings are hurt at the prospect of having to close his business.  I don’t see his feelings being taken into consideration.  And finally, Jack Philips is not denying them service “because of who they are,” but because of what they are doing.  It’s not as if Jack Phillips refuses to make birthday cakes for people who are gay.  He is refusing to provide a cake that will be used to celebrate an action that he considers immoral.  There is a big difference.  But I don’t expect the law to recognize such distinctions anymore.

Just more of the same.

Gender Identity ConfusionWe hear more and more about gender identity confusion these days.  Gender identity confusion is when a person thinks s/he is the gender opposite of their biology: a man who believes he is a female trapped in a man’s body, or a woman who believes she is a male trapped in a woman’s body.  Rather than considering this as a mental disorder in need treatment, however, today’s proffered solution is to perform a sex-change operation so that one’s body will match their perceived gender.  I am persuaded that this solution to the problem is wrong-headed.


Gay not choiceThe cultural acceptance of homosexuality as morally benign or morally good has happened at an alarming speed.  While there is a complex of reasons for the shift, one of the most influential is the meme that being gay is not a choice.  Admittedly, for most people who engage in homosex, this is true.  Their same-sex attractions are not chosen.  They come naturally to them, just as opposite-sex attractions come to naturally to a heterosexual.  What is chosen is whether or not the person who experiences same-sex attraction acts on those desires to actually engage in homosex.

The “gay is not a choice” meme has been so important for the acceptance of gay rights that when Sex in the City star, Cynthia Nixon, stated publically that she simply chooses to be in a lesbian relationship, the gay community was in an uproar.  They feared that her comments would negatively affect their fight for civil rights.


In the beginning of this year I wrote about an article in The Guardian that was sympathetic to pedophilia, and attempted to destigmatize it by using the same sort of talking points used to destigmatize homosexuality.  Now, two articles have appeared in The Atlantic that are offering more of the same.

I, Pedophile” is written by David Goldberg, a Canadian journalist who was convicted of for purchasing and viewing child pornography. While he agrees that child pornography is wrong, he questions whether jail time for such crimes is appropriate. As in The Guardian article, Goldberg describes pedophilia (or the Orwellian term employed by Goldberg, “the cross-generational lifestyle”) as a “sexual orientation”:

The main query that I am convinced will always be without an answer is why I am a pedophile. It is the equivalent of trying to determine why someone is heterosexual or gay. We don’t choose our sexual orientations. If we could, believe me, no one would choose mine.


An Oregon bakery, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, has been sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to provide a cake for their same-sex wedding.  And now, some of the “tolerance-demanding-but-not-tolerance-giving” pro-homosexual citizens are dishing out heaps of intolerance against the business as well. They have been demonstrating outside of their shop, and threatening to shut down other vendors who work with Sweet Cakes by Melissa. As a result of these tactics, Sweet Cakes by Melissa saw a 50% drop in their business, and have been forced to close their shop and start working out of their home.

No, of course this won’t affect anyone. Carry on. Just remember, tolerance is a one-way street on this issue, and if you aren’t driving with the flow of traffic, prepare for the consequences.

exodus_closesI realize this is not breaking news, but given the importance of this event, I still want to comment on it despite the fact that my hectic schedule (as of late) has prevented me from doing so until now.

Exodus International, the most well-known ministry for gay men and women, announced on June 19 that it was closing up shop under its current name, and reopening under a new name with a new focus and new mission.  Just hours before that bombshell announcement, Exodus International president, Alan Chambers, issued an unexpected apology to those who his organization has hurt over the years (sexual misconduct, false expectations, etc.), as well as to the gay community in general for Exodus’ past teaching that one’s sexual orientation can change…among other things.


balance_beamGiven the cultural shift toward gay-affirmation, the church must respond in two equally important ways.  On the one hand, we must take a firm stance on the moral issue, faithfully communicating the Biblical teaching that homosex is immoral because it is an aberration of God’s intention for human sexuality.  On the other hand, we must also communicate our love for all people, including those who experience same-sex attraction.  We must be willing to minister to them, embrace them, and help them on the path toward healing.

Unfortunately, people tend to only travel one road or the other.  Those who argue passionately for the Biblical position often fail to exercise love and compassion to those struggling with same-sex attraction or who are involved in a gay lifestyle.  On the other end of the spectrum are those who have a lot of compassion for people who experience same-sex attraction, and come to believe that loving them requires an affirmation of their sexual orientation or an approval of their behavior.  We must avoid these extremes.  It is possible and necessary to both affirm the immorality of homosex while extending compassion, love, and help to those who experience same-sex attraction.

Super ManOrson Scott Card is a famous science fiction writer who has been hired by DC Comics to do some writing for “Adventures of Superman.”  Apparently gay activists are threatening to boycott DC Comics if they do not fire Card because he is morally opposed to homosex, and is an activist for traditional marriage.  Thousands have signed a petition at allout.org for his firing.

So far, DC Comics is defending Card.  They released a statement to Fox News saying, “As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression, however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are just that – personal views – and not those of the company itself.”  Let’s see if they stick to their guns.

Unfortunately, gay activists too often resort to trying to silence all those who disagree with their lifestyle through intimidation.  They want tolerance extended to them.  Perhaps they should try extending it to others.  True acceptance of their lifestyle can only be achieved by the power of persuasion, not intimidation.

Steve ChalkeSteve Chalke, a promiment evangelical minister in the UK, has come out in favor of monogamous, same-sex relationships.  He has a written a 5,000 word essay to explain himself.  I have purposely delayed reporting on this issue (which hit the news a few weeks ago) until I could read his essay so as to avoid a knee-jerk reaction to the news.  Having read it, I can’t say I am surprised by his arguments.  It’s the same case liberal theologians make time and time again.  He begins by an appeal to emotion (inclusion, justice, reconciliation), and then claims that we have misunderstood the Biblical texts traditionally understood as prohibitions against homosex.


Darth GaydarNot even Star Wars can escape the “force” of the gay community!

The makers of the online Star Wars computer game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, have introduced a gay planet to the game.  On “Makeb,” men, women, and even aliens engage in same-sex relationships.

BioWare, the Canadian studio responsible for making the game, said they decided to add the gay planet due to pressure from gay players.  But executive producer Jeff Hickman also claims that “allowing same gender romance is something we are very supportive of” and plan to add more same-gender options in the future.


Louie GiglioThat’s the headline.  Perhaps it should have read “Christian pastor withdraws from Obama inauguration after it is discovered that he’s a Christian.”

A website, ThinkProgress, published a sermon Reverend Louie Giglio preached in the 90’s in which he said these “shocking” words:

If you look at the counsel of the word of God, Old Testament, New Testament, you come quickly to the conclusion that homosexuality is not an alternate lifestyle… homosexuality is not just a sexual preference, homosexuality is not gay, but homosexuality is sin. It is sin in the eyes of God, and it is sin according to the word of God. You come to only one conclusion: homosexuality is less than God’s best for his creation.”


queen-james-gay-bibleIf the title itself doesn’t give it away, the Queen James Bible is a new “gay Bible” based on the King James Version, complete with a rainbow-styled cross on the cover.  It was named “Queen James Bible” because King James I of England, who authorized the creation of the Bible that bears his name, was rumored to be bisexual.

According to the unnamed editors[1] of this version, “The Queen James Bible seeks to resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality.[2] … We edited the Bible to prevent homophobic interpretations.”[3]  It is a near-identical reproduction of the KJV, but with gay-friendly edits made to eight verses that have been traditionally been interpreted as speaking negatively against homosex.  What follows is a comparison of the KJV to the QJV (changes in bold), followed by my comments on their changes:


Oh the irony!  The chief diversity officer at Gallaudet, a university in Washington D.C. that serves the deaf, was put on a leave of absence for signing a petition to get an initiative on the ballot to decide the legality of same-sex marriage.

Apparently the school is not interested in diversity.  Everyone must subscribe the politically correct viewpoint.  But remember, the government’s sanction of same-sex relationships will have no affect on those who disagree.  And I’ve got beachfront property in Nevada to sell you too.

One of the hot button issues in our culture is homosexuality and the related issue of same-sex marriage.  I have offered a non-religious argument against both (here and here).  As I have continued to reflect on these issues, however, I am persuaded that a non-religious case against homosexuality is much more difficult to make than the case against same-sex marriage.  One reason for this is the fact that the case against same-sex marriage can be made purely on policy grounds without any recourse to moral judgments.  One could believe homosex is morally irrelevant and still be opposed to the government regulating same-sex relationships.  Moral judgments, however, are not so easily divorced from one’s view on homosex.

Take for example the argument from natural law.  We argue that the natural purpose of our sexual organs requires heterosexual sex.  To use our sex organs in such a way that their natural purpose cannot be realized is morally wrong.  There are a few reasons why this will not be convincing to many who think homosex should not be opposed.


Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that such relationships are detrimental to children.  Advocates of same-sex marriage point to a litany of studies showing that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well, if not better, as other children. The American Psychological Association referred to 59 such studies when they announced in 2005 that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples.

Recently, Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University examined those 59 studies (ranging from 1980 to 2005) the APA cited in support of their conclusion.  He concluded that they were all fraught with methodological problems that undermined their results.  According to the Science Daily report “more than three-quarters were based on small, non-representative, non-random samples that did not include any minority individuals or families; nearly half lacked a heterosexual comparison group; and few examined outcomes that extend beyond childhood such as intergenerational poverty, educational attainment, and criminality, which are a key focus of studies on children of divorce, remarriage, and cohabitation.”[1]  Dr. Marks is careful to point out that this does not mean children raised by same-sex couples do, in fact, fare worse than other children: “The jury is still out on whether being raised by same-sex parents disadvantages children, however, the available data on which the APA draws its conclusions, derived primarily from small convenience samples, are insufficient to support a strong generalized claim either way.”[2]


A lot of people think the government can recognize same-sex unions as “marriage” without any detrimental effects on religious institutions and religious liberties.  I think this is a delusion.  The legal recognition of same-sex unions will almost inevitably result in religious discrimination on a social level, and likely on a legal level as well.  

How can the government say on the one hand that a failure to legally recognize same-sex unions as “marriage” and treat them as equal to opposite-sex unions in every way is to engage in discriminatory behavior, and yet at the same time permit churches to discriminate against same-sex couples by refusing to marry them?  Talk about legal schizophrenia!  Consider the logic involved: 


Chad Thompson makes an interesting point about using social statistics to argue against homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Even if it is true that the average homosexual only lives to age 43, or that homosexuals are much more likely to be highly promiscuous than heterosexuals, this may not be true of the homosexual you are speaking to.  They may be age 65 and engaged in long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships their whole life.

Additionally, such statistics do not necessarily show that homosexuality is bad or immoral.  What if homosexuals argued against the validity of heterosexual relationships and opposite-sex marriage on the basis that 43% of marriages end in divorce, and 3/10 women killed in this country die at the hands of their husband or boyfriend?  Would you be prepared to conclude that heterosexuality or marriage is immoral, or ought to be avoided?  Surely not![1]  So why think someone who believes homosexuality is morally and socially benign will be convinced by statistics showing the dark side of homosexuality?  They could always argue, as heterosexuals do, that while these statistics are alarming and cause for concern, the solution is not to condemn homosex but to encourage homosexuals to behave better.


I would highly recommend that you watch the video clips at http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html. They are from a documentary showing how elementary and junior high kids can be indoctrinated to believe homosexuality and same-sex marriage are morally acceptable (something the film extols as a virtue). If you think homosexuality is wrong, but that the issue of homosexuality is a private matter that isn’t going to hurt anybody so we should just sit back and do nothing, you need to watch this video. The gay rights movement has gone beyond the “just leave us alone to do what we want to do in the privacy of our own homes” days and into the day of approval advocacy. They are not content to be allowed to live how they want to live–now they want to make sure that you approve of their lifestyle as well. It’s too difficult to change adults’ minds, so they are targeting the young.


Next Page »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 292 other followers