Every now and then scientific "accomplishments" float to the surface by discovering a homosexual gene (Gay Gene) that claims homosexuality is natural and "innate" in humans (1). Such media research or news is one of the main pillars of atheistic discourse that promote that homosexuality is not a cause, organic disease, or psychiatric disorder, but rather a very legitimate option because it is the inherited nature of the human DNA in which a person is born and cannot Removing it from him as well as punishing him for it is called for by the heavenly religions. In this context, for example, atheist Richard Dawkins believes that "evolution fully explains homosexuality through several theories", while Arab atheist Sharif Jaber believes that homosexuality is a natural behavior that should not be feared or disposed of, but must be supported and reconciled with it (2) .
With the increasing politicization of the issue of homosexuality, especially in 2015 when the US Supreme Court ruled to allow same-sex marriage in the entire United States after it was limited to only 36 of the 50 US states (3), the United States joined this ruling to the list of countries that Same-sex marriage is permitted, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Brazil and others (4). What is the truth of the scientific allegations about homosexuality ?! Is homosexuality a natural behavior arising from a genetic inheritance that has evolved over thousands of years, or is it acquired behavior and psychological dysfunction linked to several social and environmental factors ?!
How do we explain homosexuality?
A homosexual discourse spreads the notion of "natural" homosexuality, based on three axes: The first is to compare human behavior with animal behavior since many animals have been observed to be practicing homosexual behavior. The second axis is the claim that a specific Genetic code is responsible for homosexuality - and sexual behavior in general - in human DNA. As for the third axis, it revolves around the fact that environmental variables and social factors have nothing to do with determining sexual orientation and identity.
It appears that these axes face a great doubt on their credibility, which is confirmed by the two scientific authors, the brothers Neil Whitehead and Periyar Whitehead in their book (My Genetics Made Me Do It!), Which say in his introduction: “The West has been the subject of a campaign of misinformation and deception in the last twenty or thirty years, made Its public institutions, from legislators to judges, from churches to mental health specialties, widely believe that homosexuality is organically inherited and therefore cannot be changed. (5) It is the opinion that media analyst Mark Dyce agrees with them, saying that "the liberal media conducted a brainwashing operation through homosexual propaganda in order to persuade the Americans of high levels of homosexuality."
Homeopathic behavior in animals
Many scientists consider that the inference of homosexual behavior in animals on the health and instinct of human homosexual behavior is wrong in two ways: The first: that animal instincts and behaviors cannot be measured by their human counterpart, for example, some cats - female and male - kill even kittens If it were her children, which is an instinctive cause in cats due to some psychological and organic changes (6). In such behavior, it becomes absurd for a person to kill his fellow man on the pretext that this behavior is natural in animals. Each type of living organism has a completely different structural and functional structure.
The second aspect of refusing to measure the homosexual behavior of animals on the homosexual behavior of humans is that most animals that practice homosexual behavior are not practiced by the motive of lust and sexual desire in homosexual sex, but rather practiced for a variety of reasons that are often not related to an inherent sexual orientation towards the same sex, and among the reasons Homosexuality in the animal kingdom: the male declaring control over other males, showing the dominant male dominance over a specific land, and proving the male to his manhood in front of females looking for the strongest, and sometimes: olfactory disorder - which is responsible for capturing sexual messages in some animals - among males in Female identification from male (7). They are entirely different from the ones offered by homosexual propaganda.
However, some researchers have asked: Are natural instincts alone the determinants of sexual behavior in animals, or do social factors have a role in determining sexual orientation ?! In one of the key experiments, a group of scientists separated a group of male monkeys from their mothers and was created without the presence of the mother, when these monkeys grew up and a female sexually acceptable monkey was presented to them, the monkeys confused and continued to flounder in amazement, and some male monkeys even tried to reproduce with the female monkeys However, they failed (8). This study, then, demonstrated that sexual behavior is acquired - at least in part - during nurturing and strongly influenced by education from a young age, and not a fixed, innate thing implanted by monkeys from birth.
Media and credibility of the homosexuality gene
Newspapers and websites often make headlines of some sort: an anomaly (or anomalous gene) or (a study that establishes the genetic origin of sexual orientation). However, most of these titles appear to be questionable on their reliability and validity. For example, in one of the most striking incidents, a famous American pro-homosexual geneticist, "Dean Hammer," conducted research alleging the link between genetics and homosexuality. The American newspapers received the news very quickly under the explicit title: (A researcher who discovers the homosexuality gene) Despite the attraction of this title and its explicit significance to the average reader, Dean Hammer himself denied this, and stated after the news spread: "We did not discover the gene responsible for sexual orientation." , But we believe it does not exist at all ”(9). Hummer himself - who is strongly opposed to (genetic) homosexuality - believes that any attempt to prove the existence of a single gene that governs homosexuality is a futile attempt.
In a similar incident in 2015, a team of researchers at the University of California announced the presence of some super-genetic signs (*) that directly affect homosexuality in men. The famous magazine "Nature" received the news with great enthusiasm (10), and was quickly followed by several scientific websites (11). However, a number of investigators reviewed the study and found several errors in it that challenged the credibility of the study as a whole. British science writer Ed Young observed some of these errors and explained that they included excluding the research team for a specific set of tests and selecting another set to match the search logarithms previously set by the research team, in addition to relying on the research on 47 study twins only, which is a very small number that is not sufficient to generalize the study Or even to re-try it because it does not guarantee enough statistical power, then he denounced: “Depending on the strategy this research team has put in place, the chance to get positive results is random chance alone” (12).
Within the framework of the same study, Professor of Genetics John Greeley criticized the study, which ended with the statement of the head of the research team himself and his admission that the study is scientifically and statistically deficient (13), then Greeley added, "The problem in the genetic studies is not specific to this poor study, but rather is a problem Systemic ... chemical factors cannot be linked to a specific behavior mechanically, because attachment does not mean causation "(14).
Genetic studies of sexual behavior
Beyond media-promoted studies, a team of researchers at Northwestern University conducted a scientific study in 2014 that included the DNA testing of 400 homosexual males. The researchers were unable to find a single gene responsible for their sexual orientation, and they said that "the genes were either insufficient, or unnecessary, to make any of the men homosexual." (15) American Genetics Professor Alan Sanders commented on this study: "Genetics is not the whole story, it is not." (16).
But are studies on homosexuality the same as studies on organic diseases ?! It seems that this is not so. The search for a homosexual gene is a huge problem: Behavioral Genetics are not definitively specific to human behavior as a specific gene identifies a specific disease. The professor of family studies at the University of Nebraska "Douglas Abbott" explains this problem, saying: "Many people believe that genetics cause complex psychological behavior, but it is not. In most cases, the behavior results from a genetic influence interacting with environmental factors and freedom of human will ... And when we read the headlines: (the X gene causes Y behavior), this is an exaggeration that simple people believe ... genes do not directly cause behavior, but genes generate code for proteins that have a long chain of biochemical processes, some influence in behavior. in the end". Douglas then concludes by saying: “And jumping from a gene identified to a specific behavior is complex and very complex.” (17)
So it seems that the process of linking the gene to behavior is very difficult, as it does not resemble the search for a gene responsible for physiological diseases with specific organic characteristics that can be monitored within the body of the organism clearly, but it is subject to much doubt and hesitation, as confirmed by biology professor Ivan Palappan With the opinion of "Douglas Abbott": "It is infinitely difficult to determine the genes responsible for behavioral disorders. For example, alcoholism cannot be unambiguously identified, as well as behavior resulting from several environmental factors and not just one gene" (18).
Genes under the homosexual pedigree
(One n Ten), along with dozens of other institutions and platforms, popularize the idea that 10% of the population is ideal in nature (19). But is this percentage true? By 2010, more than thirty surveys were conducted in western countries to determine homosexual proportions, not one of the studies approached 10%, but all ranged between 2-3% (20).
An interesting fact is that homosexuality rates rise significantly and record rates are sometimes recorded among the Western churches. The American Episcopal priest, Malcolm Boyd, says that he “met more abnormalities in ecclesiastical institutes than he did in his life in Hollywood” (22). In 2000, the British Times newspaper reported that AIDS deaths among American Christian clergy had more than 10 times the death rates from the same disease in the people as a whole (23). There are some reports of a dramatic rise in homosexuality in American colleges of theology, sometimes reaching 30% of the university community there (24). We do not need to point out that these ratios necessarily mean the tyranny of various social factors unrelated to genetics and human nature.
Social factors of homosexuality
What if genes are solely responsible for homosexual behavior? Assuming this, genetics alone, however, do not operate independently of environmental and social factors. The nature of the genes ’work is that they interfere with the social environment continuously until their efficacy is achieved in a specific way. American science author David Shank explains this question: “Instead of genes as complete charts, genes are like buttons and volume controls in recording studios .. We don't inherit traits directly from our genes. Rather, we develop traits through the dynamic process of interaction between a gene. And the social environment. " Then he concluded by saying: "In the interacting world between genes and the environment, genetic differences still matter centrally, but on their own: genes do not determine who we are" (25).
By asking how sexual orientation genes are - if any - the Whitehead brothers suggest that homosexual attraction: "10% may be affected genetically, but even this effect is indirect and weak. For example: the genes that make a man long do not produce a player. Basketball is necessarily "(26).
As for the social factors that affect the direction to homosexuality, they are multiple and varied, one study suggests that the absence of the father or mother makes the ratio of direction to homosexuality more by 20% (27), in another study 84% of gay men admitted that their father was indifferent and indifferent They are very young, compared to only 10% for heterosexuals (i.e. who have heterosexual sex) (28). As for childhood companionship, studies have shown that homosexuals often had few friends of the same sex and were rejected by large groups of the same sex (29). As a result of family dysfunction or the social environment being rejected by them, gender status appears in some Non-Conformity among some children, which contributes to 15% towards their homosexuality, especially if this disorder is accompanied by a sexual assault on children as a child (30) .
___________________________________
(*): (Epigenetic Markers are chemical changes that do not affect the DNA structure)