From time to time, scientific “achievements” surface with the discovery of the Gay Gene, which claims that homosexuality is natural and “innate” in humans (1).
Such research or media news is one of the main pillars of the atheistic discourse that promotes that homosexuality is not a disease, an organic disease, or a psychological disorder, but rather a very legitimate option because it is an inherited nature in human DNA with which a person is born and cannot be removing it from him as well as punishing him because of it, as the heavenly religions call for that.
In this context, for example, the atheist Richard Dawkins believes that “evolution explains homosexuality completely through several theories.” As for the Arab atheist, Sherif Jaber, he believes that homosexuality is a natural behavior that should not be feared or disposed of, but rather must be supported and reconciled with (2) .
With the increasing politicization of the issue of homosexuality, especially in 2015 when the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was allowed throughout the United States after it was limited to only 36 out of 50 states (3), the United States joined this ruling in the list of countries that Allow same-sex marriage, such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, South Africa, Brazil, and others (4).
What is the truth of the scientific claims about homosexuality?!
Is homosexuality a natural behavior stemming from a genetic inheritance that has evolved over thousands of years, or is it a learned behavior and psychological disorder linked to several social and environmental factors?!
How do we explain homosexuality?
The discourse in support of homosexuality propagates the idea of "normal" homosexuality based on three axes: The first is the comparison of human behavior with animal behavior, since many animals have been observed practicing homosexual behavior.
The second axis is the claim that there is a specific genetic code responsible for homosexuality - and sexual behavior in general - in the 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 seems that these themes face great doubt about their credibility, which is confirmed by the two scientific writers, brothers Neil Whitehead and Briar Whitehead in their book (My Genes Made Me Do It!), who say in their introduction: “The West has been the subject of a campaign of misinformation and deception in the last twenty or thirty years, which made Its public institutions, from legislators to judges and from churches to mental health disciplines, widely believe that homosexuality is organically inherited and thus cannot be changed” (5).
This is the opinion that media analyst Mark Dyce agrees with them, saying that "the liberal media has brainwashed with homosexual propaganda in order to convince Americans of the high rates of homosexuality."
homosexual behavior in animals
Many scientists consider that inferring homosexual behavior in animals on the validity and instinctiveness of human homosexual behavior is wrong inference from two sides: The first is that animal instincts and behaviors cannot be measured against their human counterpart, for example, some cats - females and males - kill kittens even If she were her children, which is an instinctive action in cats due to some psychological and organic changes (6).
In such behavior, it becomes absurd for a person to kill his fellow human being on the pretext that this behavior is natural in animals, as each species of living organism (species) has its structural and functional structure completely different from the other species.
As for the second aspect of refusing to measure the homosexual behavior of animals on the homosexual behavior of humans, it is that most animals that practice homosexual behavior do not practice it out of lust and sexual desire for homosexual sex, but rather practice it for a variety of reasons that are often unrelated to an original sexual orientation towards the same sex, and among the reasons Homosexuality in the animal kingdom: the male’s declaration of dominance over other males, the dominant male’s demonstration of his dominance over a certain land, and the male’s proof of his masculinity in front of females who are looking for the strongest, and sometimes: the disturbance of the sense of smell - which is responsible for capturing sexual messages in some animals - in males in the animal kingdom Determine the female from the male (7).
These are justifications that are completely different from the justifications offered by propaganda that supports homosexuality.
A study has shown that sexual behavior is acquired, at least in part, during upbringing and is strongly influenced by upbringing from infancy, rather than something innate and fixed in monkeys from birth.
However, some researchers have asked: Are natural instincts alone what determines 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 raised them without the presence of the mother. However, they failed (8).
This study thus demonstrated that sexual behavior is at least partially acquired during upbringing and is strongly influenced by upbringing from infancy, rather than something innate and fixed in monkeys from birth.
The media and the credibility of the homosexuality gene
Newspapers and websites often grab some headlines such as: The discovery of (the homosexuality gene) or (a study proving the genetic origin of sexual orientation).
However, it seems that most of these headlines have doubts about their reliability and authenticity.
For example, in one striking incident, the famous American geneticist and pro-homosexual "Dean Hammer" conducted a research claiming the link between genetics and homosexuality.
American newspapers received the news very quickly under an explicit headline: (A researcher discovers the gene of homosexuality). Despite the attractiveness of this title and its explicit significance for the average reader, Dean Hammer himself denied this matter, and stated, after the news spread, saying: “We have not discovered the gene responsible for sexual orientation. Rather, we believe that it does not exist at all” (9).
Hammer himself, a staunch proponent of homosexuality, believes that any attempt to prove the existence of a single gene that governs homosexuality is in vain.
In a similar incident in 2015, a team of researchers at the University of California announced the presence of some epigenetic signs(*) that directly affect male homosexuality.
The famous "Nature" magazine received the news with a standing ovation (10), and several scientific websites (11) quickly followed suit.
However, a number of investigators reviewed the study and found several errors that challenge the credibility of the study as a whole.
British scientific writer Ed Young spotted some of these errors and explained that they included the exclusion of the research team for a certain set of tests and the selection of another group to agree with the research algorithms previously established by the research team, in addition to the research reliance on 47 twins for study only, which is a very small number not enough to generalize the study Or even to re-experiment it because it does not guarantee sufficient statistical power. Then he said, denouncing: "
In the context 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 acknowledgment that the study is scientifically and statistically deficient (13), then added Greeley, "The problem with epigenetic studies is not specific to this poor study, but rather a problem Systemic.. Chemical factors cannot be linked to a specific behavior mechanically, as correlation does not imply causation” (14).
genetic studies of sexual behavior
Aside from the highly publicized studies, a team of Northwestern University researchers conducted a scientific study in 2014 that examined the DNA of 400 gay males.
The researchers were unable to find a single gene responsible for their sexual orientation, and said that "the genes were either insufficient or not necessary to make any of the men homosexual" (15).
American genetics professor Alan Sanders commented on this study, “Genes are not the whole story, they are not” (16).
But are studies related to homosexuality the same as studies related to organic diseases?!
This does not seem to be the case. The search for the homosexuality gene has a huge problem, which is that behavioral genetic studies are not definitively specific to human behavior as a specific gene determines a specific disease.
Douglas Abbott, professor of family studies at the University of Nebraska, explains this problem: “Many people think that genes cause complex psychological behavior, but this is not the case. In most cases, the behavior results from genetic influence interacting with environmental factors and human free will.. And when we read the headlines: (Gene X causes behavior Y), this is an exaggeration that simple people believe in.. Genes do not directly cause behavior, but genes create the code for proteins that, through a long chain of biochemical processes, have some influence on behavior in the end".
Then Douglas concludes by saying:
It seems, then, that the process of linking the gene with behavior is very difficult, as it is not similar to searching for a gene responsible for physiological diseases with specific organic features that can be clearly monitored inside the body of the organism. With the opinion of Douglas Abbott: “It is infinitely difficult to identify the genes responsible for behavioral disorders, for example, alcoholism cannot be unambiguously determined, as well as a behavior caused by several environmental factors and not just a single gene” (18).
Genes under the microscope of homosexuality
One n Ten, along with dozens of other organizations and platforms, popularizes the idea that 10% of the population is gay by nature (19).
But is this percentage real?
By 2010, more than thirty surveys had been conducted in Western countries to determine the proportion of homosexuals, not one of the studies approaching the 10%, but all ranged between 2-3% (20).
In a research paper published by Professor of Sociology Amiepatler, in which she reviewed all the surveys since 1988 that dealt with the percentages of people who had a homosexual partner in the United States, the researcher found that the percentages were doubling from 1991 AD onwards, which means that media, social and political factors have a major role in determining Sexual orientation, and if homosexuality were only genetic, the proportions would remain constant.
One of the interesting facts is that the rates of homosexuality rise significantly, and sometimes record rates among Western churches. The American Episcopal priest, “Malcolm Boyd” says that: “He met more homosexuals in church seminaries than he met in his life in Hollywood” (22).
In 2000, the British newspaper The Times reported that deaths from AIDS among American Christian clergy are 10 times higher than deaths from the same disease in the population as a whole (23).
There are some reports of a huge rise in homosexuality in American colleges of theology, sometimes as high as 30% of the university community there (24).
We need not point out that these proportions necessarily mean the tyranny of various social factors that have nothing to do with genes and human nature.
Social factors of homosexuality
What if genes alone are responsible for homosexual behavior?
Assuming this matter, genes alone, however, do not operate independently of environmental and social factors. The nature of the work of genes is that they constantly interfere with the social environment until their effectiveness is achieved in a certain way.
American science writer David Shenk explains this issue, saying: “Instead of genes as blueprints, genes are like buttons and volume controls in recording studios... We do not inherit traits directly from our genes. We develop traits through the dynamic process of gene interaction. and social environment".
Then he concludes: “In the world of interaction between genes and environment, genetic differences still matter centrally, but alone: genes do not define who we are” (25).
One study suggests that the absence of a father or mother makes the ratio of homosexuality more than 20%..and that homosexuals often had few friends of the same sex
By asking about the vitality of the genes for sexual orientation - if any - the Whitehead brothers argue that homosexual attraction: "It can be affected by 10% genetically, but even this effect is indirect and weak. For example: the genes that make a man tall do not produce a player Basketball necessarily” (26).
As for the social factors that influence the tendency towards homosexuality, they are many and varied. One study suggests that the absence of a father or mother makes the percentage of tendency toward homosexuality more than 20% (27), and in another study, 84% of male homosexuals admitted that their father was indifferent and indifferent. them when they were young compared to only 10% of heterosexuals (ie those who have sex with the heterosexual) (28).
As for companionship in childhood, studies have shown that homosexuals often had few same-sex friends and were rejected by large groups of the same sex (29).
As a result of the family’s dysfunction or the rejection of their social environment, a state of gender non-conformity appears in some children, which contributes by 15% to their tendency to homosexuality, especially if this disorder is accompanied by sexual abuse of children at a young age (30). .
___________________________________
(*): (Epigenetic markers are chemical changes that do not affect the structure of DNA)