Paul Cameron
It's learning: No gay or heterosexual genes
By Paul Cameron
No Gay Gene
Since the early 1990s, LGBTs have flooded the news with sketchy studies supposedly proving a 'gay gene.' The media, filled with homosexuals and their supporters, rushed to trumpet this new 'reality.' So, when the largest genetic study to date found no gay gene in 493,001 individuals, it threatened the LGBT propaganda machine. Indeed, its authors said the few genetic differences found (<1%) "could not be used to accurately predict sexual behavior in an individual."
While the authors of the study did not dwell on it, a tremendous increase in homosexual behavior over the past 70 years has occurred. Genetic changes, which move mighty slowly – generation after generation in small steps – cannot account for this growth. Even more, as homosexual experience in the study was associated with much lower rates of parenthood, how could 'homosexual genes' manage to expand, much less maintain, the fraction of LGBTs in the general population? Of course, there are other ways to inherit traits (e.g., mitochondria), so this study, as extensive as it was, does not prove there is no genetic basis for sexual preference. Nevertheless, the fact that homosexuality has expanded in parallel to getting more social protection certainly makes the theory of learned sexual preferences much more plausible.
Evidence of Learning
When life is at near-subsistence level, homosexuality generally cannot be found. Instead, traditional 'men are stronger than women' sex roles dominate. Witness the small tribes which inhabit the longhouses across the Amazon. While they have different languages, they are so similar in their sexual scripts and experiences that when told about homosexuality they all laugh in derision – 'impossible, crazy' they say.
Parents live in one area of the longhouse. As children get older, they choose to share a hammock with someone of the opposite sex and mate. Women must closely tend the children due to the many natural hazards, and to also guard against their theft. Women farm and work together. They too are valuable, and might be kidnapped – mortality is very high, and it is often easier to 'replace' than 'make' women or children. The men go out, usually alone, to hunt food (and sometimes for women or children from other tribes). Since they all live together, there is a 'correct,' fairly transparent, and highly structured way to do sex. The way to behave is fixed by your genitalia. In the longhouses, as with many subsistence societies, those ways assure homosexuality remains nearly or completely absent – indeed, 'unthinkable.'
Things are quite different in post-subsistence societies such as ours. A young person's sexual desires often depend on who raised him (LGBT parents more often have LGBT kids), or events that occurred in youth (a homosexual first sexual experience often leads to adult homosexuality). Which variety of sexual stimulation provides the first sexual pleasure is often highly influential in creating sexual desires and setting the social and sexual scripts to which a person is exposed.
In the longhouses, only one script and one model are evident. Modern society by contrast is comparatively safe and more atomized, with much less supervision and many possible sexual scripts. The events described below were from personal counseling by FRI's Chairman.
Joey, a 7 year-old boy [not his real name], gives much to ponder if human sexuality is regarded as 'natural' or 'genetic.' The young couple coming for advice was absolutely 'nice:' church-goers, both working and making good money. Pillars of their small five-family community living at the end of a lovely cul-de-sac cut into Midwestern corn fields. During the 1980s, there was no porn on TV or computer, no dirty magazines in the home. What could go wrong? As it turns out, quite a bit.
Joey had recently asked one of their neighbor mothers if he could feel her breasts! While she declined, she then decided to 'dig into' what he might have been up to. She interviewed her children first. What she heard led her to check with other neighbors and their kids. She was stunned.
It turned out that little Joey – about the cutest, most articulate little guy you would ever meet, had, for the past months, perhaps as much as a year – been having sex with ALL the 8 other kids in the neighborhood. All were his age or younger and, over time, he had figured out that he could insert himself into either vaginas or rectums, while the other kids participated in his 'game.' NONE had told their parents.
In homes, in drainage ditches, in corners of yards, behind buildings – it did not matter, the game was played. Joey had even pulled down the diapers of smaller kids to have his way. Yet, the first any parents suspected something was when Joey decided the 'other parts' of an older female might be worth exploring and asked the wrong woman about them.
What was 'natural' about this, other than he sought pleasure for his penis? Why did Joey have sex with both sexes? What was 'natural' about the other kids cooperating? Joey, 'naturally' enjoyed himself. He also sensed that 'this was just between the kids, and adults should not be informed' of their 'play' or they might put a stop to it. So did the other kids.
What the other kids did to each other never came to light, but it is unlikely this just 'happened' and was forgotten. All participated in one way or another. And none 'squealed.' Fairly quickly the neighbors forbade their children from playing with Joey and would have nothing to do with his parents. How did Joey decide to do all these sexual things they wondered? The neighbors considered apologies or promises inadequate to assure that the kids involved would be protected.
Their children had been 'corrupted' and might want to sneak a time with Joey or each other. They could not be 'trusted' to play on their own together for some time (ever?).
Joey's imagination and curiosity exploited what appeared from the outside to be 'just play.' Joey, having been caught, was repentant, and promised he would be good. But he learned all the pleasures of messing with both girls and boys. And Joey (and his playmates) learned a lot. What they learned could not be unlearned, though, without further reinforcement, it might in time be forgotten.
None of this struck FRI's chairman as 'natural,' nor did it strike Joey's parents that way. So the parents either had to live with almost no contact with their neighbors (knowing they were suspected of involvement in corrupting Joey) or take the financial hit and move away and try again (with Joey 'primed' for more adventures if he did not live up to his promises).
As near as could be determined, Joey did this 'on his own.' No animal would have tried such activities – animals are generally 'locked in' by their instincts. It would not have happened in the Amazon, as mothers pay too close attention. Freedom, at times, has unforeseen consequences.
Humans, even little ones, are often creative. And once they experience a 'sexually fun thing,' are reticent to abandon it. Both Kinsey and FRI found that if a boy's first sexual experience was homosexual (even if forced), he was much more apt to pursue homosexuality in adulthood. An example of this pattern was a 16-year-old boy caught shoplifting, who was referred to counseling because of a suicide attempt.
At age 2, he said, he and his five year-old brother were in the bathtub. His brother got out and had an erection. Because the young boy stared at it, his brother invited him to 'suck it.' Soon he was doing it regularly, and his brother 'rented him out' to others. By the time the 16-year-old was counseled, the older brother was already married. However, the brother had fixed it so that hired hands and others came to 'meet' the little boy. By 12 or so, he said he was 'locked in' and believed almost all men wanted his services. The parents never knew any of it. Not a thing.
How? As we did 70 years ago, by making homosexuality illegal and scouring it from public view. Even if that proves impossible, we might slow the deterioration of our society by inoculating as many kids as we can against trying homosexuality with a highly-negative, educational program at home, church, and beyond. Kids must learn to consider homosexuality disgusting, dangerous, and anti-social. That approach hardly 'always worked,' but it worked fairly well.
Doing nothing has led to homosexuality crawling all over our kids' minds, via entertainment, school, and the news. Parents and conservative opinion makers are going to have to demonize homosexuality. In doing so, we will have to accept the risk that some kids will see the dangers as a challenge, rebelling just for the sake of being a rebel. The alternative is far worse: we will not only lose ever more of our children to homosexuality, but given the accelerating fall in birthrates – including from an increase in homosexuals – we will lose our civilization at a faster and faster pace.
References:
October 8, 2019
If sexual desire, like the preference for a favorite flavor of ice cream, is primarily learned, then a large new study of the genetics of sexual behavior [1] may put homosexuals in trouble. The LGBT movement has based a great deal of its success upon persuading people to believe LGBTs do weird things because they are 'born that way.' If they are 'born so,' then it's 'not their fault' and they 'have to' do the things that LGBTs do, including disproportionate drug abuse, promiscuity, etc. Most of those who believe the 'born that way' argument also support gay rights; doubters do not.
Scotland officially holds that homosexuality is 'baked in,' and demands all children learn how to (safely) engage in homosexuality and heterosexuality. If sexual desire is hereditary, then only those genetically 'destined' to be LGBT will be affected. But if sexual desire is learned – especially if children more easily acquire homosexuality than heterosexuality – then Scotland is poised to create a wave of homosexual kids. Which is more probable? Despite some misleading headlines, the new 2019 study found no evidence of a gay gene, thus throwing more support to a learning model of sexual behavior.No Gay Gene
Since the early 1990s, LGBTs have flooded the news with sketchy studies supposedly proving a 'gay gene.' The media, filled with homosexuals and their supporters, rushed to trumpet this new 'reality.' So, when the largest genetic study to date found no gay gene in 493,001 individuals, it threatened the LGBT propaganda machine. Indeed, its authors said the few genetic differences found (<1%) "could not be used to accurately predict sexual behavior in an individual."
While the authors of the study did not dwell on it, a tremendous increase in homosexual behavior over the past 70 years has occurred. Genetic changes, which move mighty slowly – generation after generation in small steps – cannot account for this growth. Even more, as homosexual experience in the study was associated with much lower rates of parenthood, how could 'homosexual genes' manage to expand, much less maintain, the fraction of LGBTs in the general population? Of course, there are other ways to inherit traits (e.g., mitochondria), so this study, as extensive as it was, does not prove there is no genetic basis for sexual preference. Nevertheless, the fact that homosexuality has expanded in parallel to getting more social protection certainly makes the theory of learned sexual preferences much more plausible.
Evidence of Learning
When life is at near-subsistence level, homosexuality generally cannot be found. Instead, traditional 'men are stronger than women' sex roles dominate. Witness the small tribes which inhabit the longhouses across the Amazon. While they have different languages, they are so similar in their sexual scripts and experiences that when told about homosexuality they all laugh in derision – 'impossible, crazy' they say.
Parents live in one area of the longhouse. As children get older, they choose to share a hammock with someone of the opposite sex and mate. Women must closely tend the children due to the many natural hazards, and to also guard against their theft. Women farm and work together. They too are valuable, and might be kidnapped – mortality is very high, and it is often easier to 'replace' than 'make' women or children. The men go out, usually alone, to hunt food (and sometimes for women or children from other tribes). Since they all live together, there is a 'correct,' fairly transparent, and highly structured way to do sex. The way to behave is fixed by your genitalia. In the longhouses, as with many subsistence societies, those ways assure homosexuality remains nearly or completely absent – indeed, 'unthinkable.'
Things are quite different in post-subsistence societies such as ours. A young person's sexual desires often depend on who raised him (LGBT parents more often have LGBT kids), or events that occurred in youth (a homosexual first sexual experience often leads to adult homosexuality). Which variety of sexual stimulation provides the first sexual pleasure is often highly influential in creating sexual desires and setting the social and sexual scripts to which a person is exposed.
In the longhouses, only one script and one model are evident. Modern society by contrast is comparatively safe and more atomized, with much less supervision and many possible sexual scripts. The events described below were from personal counseling by FRI's Chairman.
Joey, a 7 year-old boy [not his real name], gives much to ponder if human sexuality is regarded as 'natural' or 'genetic.' The young couple coming for advice was absolutely 'nice:' church-goers, both working and making good money. Pillars of their small five-family community living at the end of a lovely cul-de-sac cut into Midwestern corn fields. During the 1980s, there was no porn on TV or computer, no dirty magazines in the home. What could go wrong? As it turns out, quite a bit.
Joey had recently asked one of their neighbor mothers if he could feel her breasts! While she declined, she then decided to 'dig into' what he might have been up to. She interviewed her children first. What she heard led her to check with other neighbors and their kids. She was stunned.
It turned out that little Joey – about the cutest, most articulate little guy you would ever meet, had, for the past months, perhaps as much as a year – been having sex with ALL the 8 other kids in the neighborhood. All were his age or younger and, over time, he had figured out that he could insert himself into either vaginas or rectums, while the other kids participated in his 'game.' NONE had told their parents.
In homes, in drainage ditches, in corners of yards, behind buildings – it did not matter, the game was played. Joey had even pulled down the diapers of smaller kids to have his way. Yet, the first any parents suspected something was when Joey decided the 'other parts' of an older female might be worth exploring and asked the wrong woman about them.
What was 'natural' about this, other than he sought pleasure for his penis? Why did Joey have sex with both sexes? What was 'natural' about the other kids cooperating? Joey, 'naturally' enjoyed himself. He also sensed that 'this was just between the kids, and adults should not be informed' of their 'play' or they might put a stop to it. So did the other kids.
What the other kids did to each other never came to light, but it is unlikely this just 'happened' and was forgotten. All participated in one way or another. And none 'squealed.' Fairly quickly the neighbors forbade their children from playing with Joey and would have nothing to do with his parents. How did Joey decide to do all these sexual things they wondered? The neighbors considered apologies or promises inadequate to assure that the kids involved would be protected.
Their children had been 'corrupted' and might want to sneak a time with Joey or each other. They could not be 'trusted' to play on their own together for some time (ever?).
Joey's imagination and curiosity exploited what appeared from the outside to be 'just play.' Joey, having been caught, was repentant, and promised he would be good. But he learned all the pleasures of messing with both girls and boys. And Joey (and his playmates) learned a lot. What they learned could not be unlearned, though, without further reinforcement, it might in time be forgotten.
None of this struck FRI's chairman as 'natural,' nor did it strike Joey's parents that way. So the parents either had to live with almost no contact with their neighbors (knowing they were suspected of involvement in corrupting Joey) or take the financial hit and move away and try again (with Joey 'primed' for more adventures if he did not live up to his promises).
As near as could be determined, Joey did this 'on his own.' No animal would have tried such activities – animals are generally 'locked in' by their instincts. It would not have happened in the Amazon, as mothers pay too close attention. Freedom, at times, has unforeseen consequences.
Humans, even little ones, are often creative. And once they experience a 'sexually fun thing,' are reticent to abandon it. Both Kinsey and FRI found that if a boy's first sexual experience was homosexual (even if forced), he was much more apt to pursue homosexuality in adulthood. An example of this pattern was a 16-year-old boy caught shoplifting, who was referred to counseling because of a suicide attempt.
At age 2, he said, he and his five year-old brother were in the bathtub. His brother got out and had an erection. Because the young boy stared at it, his brother invited him to 'suck it.' Soon he was doing it regularly, and his brother 'rented him out' to others. By the time the 16-year-old was counseled, the older brother was already married. However, the brother had fixed it so that hired hands and others came to 'meet' the little boy. By 12 or so, he said he was 'locked in' and believed almost all men wanted his services. The parents never knew any of it. Not a thing.
Both of the above incidents happened in the 1980s. Both indicate that events, not heredity or genetics, influence and shape sexual desires. FRI's Chairman has theorized [2] that a 'level playing field' (i.e., equal acceptance of both homosexuality and heterosexuality) will result in homosexuality growing at the expense of heterosexuality, while a social and legal tilt toward LGBTism will grow it faster. In light of recent evidence that appears to validate this theory [3], our culture has perhaps four choices:
-
1. Continue as we are. Adoption of homosexuality and trannyism accelerates, enticing a growing proportion of kids; the birthrate declines even more precipitously; and the West collapses over time.
2. Continue as we are, but with families and churches actively working to inoculate as many children as they can against LGBTism, somewhat slowing the collapse;
3. Work/lobby to get a Western country to outlaw homosexuality, ban public celebrations of 'gay pride,' end pro-homosexual indoctrination of school children and college students, and declare transgenderism a mental illusion (including refusal of public or insurance funding for sex-change operations and the like). A start toward breaking LGBT dominance might catch on, allowing homosexuality to be proscribed and contained.
4. Superimpose a foreign culture on the West, attempting to follow the sexual script of Pakistan and Afghanistan (i.e., 'women are for children, boys are for pleasure'). It allows homosexuality to flourish and destroys around five percent of boys, but creates a healthy birth rate. The West, steeped in homosexuality (and who knows how many trannies), sort of survives, but is unrecognizable.
How? As we did 70 years ago, by making homosexuality illegal and scouring it from public view. Even if that proves impossible, we might slow the deterioration of our society by inoculating as many kids as we can against trying homosexuality with a highly-negative, educational program at home, church, and beyond. Kids must learn to consider homosexuality disgusting, dangerous, and anti-social. That approach hardly 'always worked,' but it worked fairly well.
Doing nothing has led to homosexuality crawling all over our kids' minds, via entertainment, school, and the news. Parents and conservative opinion makers are going to have to demonize homosexuality. In doing so, we will have to accept the risk that some kids will see the dangers as a challenge, rebelling just for the sake of being a rebel. The alternative is far worse: we will not only lose ever more of our children to homosexuality, but given the accelerating fall in birthrates – including from an increase in homosexuals – we will lose our civilization at a faster and faster pace.
References:
[1] Ganna A, et al (2019) Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365, eaat7693.
[2] Cameron P (1978) A case against homosexuality. The Human Life Review, 4(3), 17-49.
[3] Cameron P (2019) Why is homosexuality growing among U.S. youth? Renew America, http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cameron/190530.
© Paul CameronThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
