Imploding Gay Power

By Philip Irvin

Gay power has made stunning advances due to a well-orchestrated falsehood; the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality is fixed at birth. If this falsehood can be exposed and countered, gay power will crash.

Many believe that gays are “born that way” —that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this, would not deny homosexuals “equal rights”— including marital rights—simply because of an accident of birth. Such people support gay objectives out of compassion; compassion that too often overrides their own theological beliefs. The more we fight their compassionate response the more determined they are to support the “victimized” gay community.

For many who are reluctant to resist intimidating gay power, accepting the “born gay” belief can be inviting: If they can make themselves believe it, they are able to view their lack of opposition as compassion rather than cowardice. Even ambivalence over whether people are born gay can cripple a person’s resistance to gay political advances.

While dispelling the myth of “born gay” may seem a daunting task, it is instead surprisingly easy. You only have to do two things: (1) Discredit “born gay” studies. Various studies supposedly “prove” an organic basis for homosexuality. Rather than examining them individually, these studies can all be effectively and summarily disgraced. (2) Show that the “born gay” thesis is a ridiculous idea. Without the support of gay studies, the “born gay” thesis almost collapses by itself.

For the first point look at an increasingly common situation: After 22 years of marriage, Fred dumps his wife Sue to go off with Mike, his new lover. It is a cardinal rule of gay ideology that Fred did not convert to homosexuality. Rather he always was gay but just

now came out as gay.

With this emerging problem, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she really is marrying someone of the stated orientation. But it doesn’t work that way. A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof. Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show he was just “confused” and wasn’t gay at all. A person’s intrinsic sexual orientation, apparently, is determined by what the person eventually declares him/herself to be.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is homosexual, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is heterosexual and those who assert otherwise are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it - nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem trashes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his wife and sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons' orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

Any study of the cause of sexual orientation needs some criteria to say who is and who is not gay. If Fred were evaluated when he was connected with Sue, the criteria would have had to determine that he was straight. If the criteria were used when Fred was with Mike it would have said Fred was gay. So the same study that tried to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable condition would also have been forced to conclude that Fred converted from straight to gay.


With this internal inconsistency, you can declare all such studies, “mush.”

Without the protective covering of “convincing” gay studies we work on the second point. Remember that the laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction. So let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe ten generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate the outcome. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool.

Although there can be no genetic basis for homosexuality, other speculations about an organic basis persist. Perhaps a chemical imbalance causes it. Perhaps a different pre-natal environment causes it.

The problem with any of these speculations is that the gay community claims 10% of the population—some 30 million Americans—are gay. If this number of people had a biological condition that prevented reproduction, would we not be awash with studies trying to find a cause and cure? And why are gays not clamoring for such studies that, supposedly, would prove the cause of their homosexuality?

In conclusion, having disproved an organic basis for homosexuality, it follows that homosexuality is caused by personal choices although they may be very heavily influenced by a person’s environment and experiences. Homosexuality is not a human characteristic;


rather it is only a habit regardless of how hard it may be to break. When this is clear to all, we can have a discussion of whether homosexuality is so much superior to heterosexuality that society should promote is as vigorously as we are now doing. After having that discussion for about 30 seconds, sympathy for homosexuality, and the gay power dependent on it, will collapse.

Please note that this is a scientific rather than a moral question. It is therefore very appropriate to debate this scientific question in public schools and other places where moral statements about the behavior of others may be viewed as “bullying” or “hatespeech.”

Why should we fight a protracted moral war when you can win an easy, decisive scientific victory?

For further information and resources click here.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful