The "Gay Gene" Controlling The Media

We have been waiting to see whether this was an April fool's joke. Or, perhaps, this was some contrived plan masterminded by actor and veteran media prankster, Ashton Kutcher, in yet another mocked-up, embarrassing ruse on the media. But, without some kind of retraction from The Advocate, which first reported the story, and amid fresh reports that Oprah, in conjunction with People magazine, has scored the first exclusive interview regarding the tumult, we now feel compelled to respond to the rather astounding, "News of the World” type, freakish claim that a man is now pregnant... with a baby. No, seriously. In their report, headlined Labor of Love, The Advocate reputedly gives the first-person account of Thomas Beatie (pictured above), a married man who used to be a woman that now says he is pregnant and will give birth to a baby girl in July. This is not the first time, it would appear, that a transgendered man would have given birth, nor is it the first time that a regular Joe has claimed to be pregnant. Several years ago, Lee Mingwei was touted on the website MalePregnancy.com as the first man to actually become pregnant. Curiously though, that website has been up since 1999, and Mingwei is still apparently pregnant! Therefore, either the poor unsuspecting man has been in seriously traumatic labor for nearly a decade, or the story is a fake. Closer scrutiny of that web site does, in fact, reveal that this story is a fake. It was reportedly created as "performance art" by artist Virgil Wong as "an exploration of a very likely scenario that may one day result from new advances in biotechnology and infertility treatments." All of which sounds rather ominous, indeed. And, although doubts have been cast regarding the validity of this latest "pregnant man" report, Oprah's claim of having her "cameras capture it all—the ultrasound, inside the nursery and more" would make it appear as if that day is now here.

Either way, the mere fact that we are even contemplating this as a possible scenario is a sure-fire indication that, if ever as a society, we were waiting for that defining moment in which we ought to reconsider the primrose path along which gay rights activists are leading us, it would be now. To be sure, The Advocate has its own agenda in reporting this particular story, and it is not just because it is newsworthy or because a story like this will elicit compassion in many quarters for their cause. Ultimately, their real aim is to further the LGBT agenda in desensitizing the public to these types of shocking, lurid developments that could only occur in their world, and to appeal to our sensibilities and sense of fairness towards the plight of poor LGBT "victims" who are surely as entitled as straight folk to the same marriage and parental rights and adoption privileges that the vast majority of Americans still frown upon for this demographic. And, indeed, The Advocate is entitled to spin this story however it wishes. However, our deep, disquieting gut reaction to their article and to the untenable arguments this imbroglio is already generating is that, in any true sense of the word, this is hardly a “labor of love.” For, when all is said and done, there would have been scant consideration for the child that is being brought into world through garish scientific machinations and this kind of study in gender confusion. And, quite rightly, several doctors — nine of them, to be precise — refused to get involved in furthering Beatie in this cause. For, indeed, this scenario raises serious ethical issues, and is more a sign of the mounting evidence of the emerging global clash between adult rights and children's needs and how technology and social progress are turning procreation into self-actualization. We live in an age when parental “rights” trump that of the offspring being conceived, and there is a very distorted perception that children added into an already compromised circumstance will somehow “complete” us. Thank you, Jerry McGuire.

And, please get it straight here. We are not talking solely about homosexual or transgender households like the Beatie’s wanting to conceive and raise children by whatever means they deem necessary to satisfy their own "pursuit of happiness". We’re also making reference to those adults who have determined that a father is nothing more than a sperm donor— a mere blip on their biological timeline and agenda, those that make up their own rules of cohabitation with their latest "partner," birthing children that will likely see a string of “uncles” and “aunts” flit into and out of their lives before they’re grown and unleashed on society, and even those married folk who think that having more babies will fix whatever ails their current marriage. The celebrities that perpetuate and glamorize this "whatever-floats-your-boat" culture shall go nameless here. We already know their names… well. And we also know neighbors, and friends, and even church members that subscribe to it.

In any event, despite the ethical considerations that this Advocate report raises, it is some of the posted comments on the various sites already reporting the Beatie case that reveal how vacant we have become in this new liberal age of moral relativism. On so many levels, this is what demonstrates so clearly that the strategic phase of the gay rights activist movement to desensitize the public to their lifestyle is now nearly complete, and that they are par for the course with respect to their anticipated "conversion" of straight America... and, indeed, the world. Consider also, in this same regard, what is clearly the persistent, self-serving quest of some in the mainstream media— Oprah included — to sell the generally unsuspecting public a cleverly disguised bill of goods with respect to homosexuality and the gay rights agenda. For why else would they continue to propagate widespread confusion on issues that science has repeatedly debunked regarding whether or not there is a "gay gene"?

Take this latest report by ABC’s 20/20 news magazine, which purports to answer the increasingly urgent question: Is There a 'Gay Gene'? Scientists Hope to Demonstrate Genetic Link to Sexuality. Make no mistake; this was a propaganda piece for the gay rights activist movement. And, fortunately, columnist Robert Knight pegged it correctly in his recent article, ABC Follows 'Born Gay' Script to a T:

“. . . [The] story follows the script proposed in the gay strategic manual After the Ball, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. The two Harvard-trained PR experts set out to “overhaul straight America,” which was the title of an article out of which After the Ball was born as a full-length book in 1989.

The authors tell activists to use the media to portray homosexuality as in-born, and homosexuals as victims. The heavies in the drama are proponents of traditional morality – especially Christians — who are to be depicted as ignorant at best, and haters and bigots at worst. The authors further advise that under no circumstances should the public be informed of actual homosexual behavior. Over the years, the media rarely have veered from the script, and Good Morning America is no exception.

Host Diane Sawyer begins the Good Morning America segment by proclaiming the advent of a “truly landmark study” (whose results won’t come out until later this year) about biology and being gay. And of course, what about the people who still believe that homosexuality is a choice? Wink, wink. These are the same folks who still believe in a flat earth.

The report is framed around a boy named Zack, who, along with his parents, believes he was “born gay.” The lone dissenter, Dr. Stanton Jones, is introduced as “a clinical psychologist and evangelical Christian.” No one else’s religious beliefs are mentioned. The message: Pay no attention to this man. His views are religious, not scientific. . ."

In our previous essay, Responding to homosexuality and gay marriage: Lover the Sinner. Hate the Sin, we argued that the gay rights movement has mastered obfuscation techniques, including the ad hominem argument, which subversively deflects attention from the real facts in any valid debate on homosexuality and redirects attention to the character or characteristics of the person making a legitimate claim that detracts from their agenda. To be sure, this strategy was used covertly against Dr. Stanton in the ABC 20/20 piece. Essentially, instead of addressing his factual claims appropriately, what ABC did was to call his testimony into disrepute because, of course, he's an "evangelical Christian," which in today's parlance effectively translates to being part of that "vast right wing conspiracy" to keep America in moral bondage. Where were the interviews with former homosexuals and former gay rights activists like Joe Dallas, Charlene E. Cothran, Michael Galtze and countless others who likely also believed at one time that they too were “born gay”? Surely, it is important for the public to hear their testimonies. And it is not as if these former homosexuals cannot be easily identified through such organizations as NARTH — the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality — or Exodus International, which is headed by Alan Chambers, himself a former gay man who has been interviewed by numerous television, radio and print outlets across North America including ABC’s 20/20. And so, why didn't they? Because ignoring the existence of former homosexuals — as well as sound scientific articles and books that address this substantiated fact — would effectively rebut their “gay gene” theory! And isn't the whole point of the ad hominem strategy to effectively to change the subject? You may well ask, why are they doing this? Well, because part of their well-documented goal is to reduce dissenting voices to the homosexual lifestyle and agenda to the level of "homophobic bigots" and "haters," which could then be silenced through "hate crime" legislation. All of which would mean that the real issues affecting us negatively as a society through the ascendancy of the homosexual lifestyle would ultimately be moot.

Did you notice that the first results of this study are not even available until the end of the year? Yet, to listen to the dialogue of ABC personalities Diane Sawyer and Lynn Sherr, one gets the impression that the results are already locked in and they are already in spin control mode! Surely, in the name of “tolerance,” dissenters should just get over themselves already. In the Oprah-fication of America to redefine "normal" for her brave new world, we should just accept that homosexuals are simply born that way, and embrace predicaments like the Beatie's as "cultural diversity," instead of recognizing them as a true reflection of our social nadir. Surely, in the name of "good conscience," this tolerance of which they speak is the next level in our no-holds-barred social and moral evolution that frees us from any absolute truths, which recognize the final authority of God… especially the One that “Jesus freaks” worship!

In her article, Don’t be manipulated by the master marketers, Rebecca Hagelin put it very succinctly:

". . . The plain truth is, within the space of our lifetimes, much of what Americans once almost universally abhorred has been packaged, perfumed, gift-wrapped and sold to us as though it had great value. By skillfully playing on our deeply felt national values of fairness, generosity and tolerance, these marketers have persuaded us to embrace as enlightened and noble that which all previous generations since America’s founding regarded as grossly self-destructive – in a word, evil. . . ”

When all is said and done in this LBGT debate, it would appear that there is none more fundamental a consideration than whether homosexuality is hardwired in our DNA. But the truth, as Robert Knight points out, is that, since 1991, the media has periodically reported scientific claims of a genetic component to homosexuality — often as front-page news of such luminaries as The New York Times — and none of them have held up under scrutiny. And none of them have been replicated, which, as he rightly indicates, is a necessary element for scientific validity. Yet, the media continues to perpetuate this "gay gene" myth.

We urge you to read Robert Knight's very compelling supporting article, Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic, which demonstrates clearly how the media continues to distort public understanding of a complex issue and why gay rights strategy architects Kirk and Madsen — wherever they are today — must, as Knight says, “be smiling.” For to be sure, their After the Ball "handbook of gay rights activism," which dictates that any efforts to explain homosexual behavior as anything but deviant must be stymied and silenced, is accomplishing the purpose for which it was written.

But, that aside, reason with us a little further. What if the many psychiatrists and mental health professionals like Dr. Stanton L. Jones, Dr. Mark A. Yarhouse, and Dr. Charles W. Socarides, who still that attest homosexuality is anything but hardwired in DNA, are actually correct? And what if the psychiatrists and mental health professional as well as the scientists are all looking in the wrong area? What if homosexuality is not a DNA or a mental health issue at all but is, indeed, a spiritual issue as so many religious factions claim with supported scripture references from the books of Romans and 1 Corinthians and Leviticus? As human beings, aren’t we generally understood to be holistic beings with mind, body and spirit components?

Indeed, if homosexuality has little or nothing to do with our DNA and our genes (a “body” issue), which is why the science is still not convincing, but is, indeed, a mind issue, would anyone really have been served by the politically motivated maneuverings on the part of activists within the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from their list of treatable mental disorders? To be sure, a great many kids manifest — and are fully aware from very early ages that they are affected by — a variety of mental disorders, including Bipolar and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders. Yet, many either find a cure or grow up learning how to successfully manage their treatment regimen. Which is why ABC's bringing of kids to the fore attesting that they knew they had homosexual tendencies from a very early age is hypocritical and, essentially, proof of nothing. Except, of course, that there are many in the media with their own "gay gene" bias who are losing their objectivity, and who are becoming the instruments of gay colleagues and peers, as well as family members and friends wanting to further the LGBT agenda. This is already the case in our legislature and judiciary. Furthermore, what if homosexuality really is a spiritual issue? Wouldn't this mean that the solution can only be found in that dimension... with God and, ultimately, what He has to say about this issue? To be sure, this latter option would create even more of a dilemma for many, many people since it would require a change of heart (a “spirit” issue) beginning, perhaps, with the recognition that it is pride — which manifests itself sometimes as the justification of illicit behavior as everything but sin — that is preventing them from a cure.

All of which to say, we may be barking entirely up the wrong tree looking for DNA evidence as the only rationale for homosexual pathos. Such an outcome would appease homosexuals, to be sure. But looking for other solutions when the science just isn't there to support that particular hypothesis is, truly, the only responsible thing to do. Moreover, in the final analysis, there is nothing to be gained by kow-towing to the gay rights agenda. There is too much at stake in this debate. Our progeny depend on us discovering and discerning the truths in this issue. Unlike what many liberals profess, kids don't know enough to make informed choices regarding what's best for them, or what might be at the root of their behaviors and peculiarities. And, to be sure, they are never born knowing the difference between right and wrong. That's why they have parents who are supposed to teach them. The unfortunate reality, however, is that, if we leave our job as parents to the media, it will no longer be the "hand that rocks the cradle" that rules the world. It will be "he" who controls the media.



EDITOR'S NOTE (04-03-08): Turns out the Beatie story is, in fact, true. The Oprah interview with the Beatie's aired today and not all of Oprah's fans are happy she's delving into "Jerry Springer" territory!


RELATED ARTICLE: Surgical Sex By Paul McHugh, FirstThings.com — The Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life, November 2004
Mental health professionals like Paul McHugh at Johns Hopkins University believe that all the social, medical and psychiatric resources employed in turning men into women are “a misdirection of psychiatry” and, partly at the his urging, Johns Hopkins no longer performs sex reassignment surgery. He is convinced that to provide a surgical alteration for people who think their bodies and sexual identities are at variance is to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.

RELATED ARTICLE: How America Went Gay By Charles W. Socarides, M.D., Leadership U,

RELATED ARTICLE: Review Of 'Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study Of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation' By George A. Rekers, Ph.D., N.A.R.T.H.

RELATED SITE: National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

RELATED SITE: Exodus International- The largest information and referral ministry in the world addressing homosexual issues