Science and Homosexuality
Peace be upon you
As explained in the last episode
atheists attributed innate
phenomena to material
genetic causes;
without any evidence
But they didn't stop there
they even attributed actions, which
are not from innate nature to genes
and used this as a pretext
for justifying such actions
as natural phenomena!
A striking example is
their handling of sexual disorientation
which they do not call 'sexual
disorientation' but rather 'homosexuality'
as the word 'disorientation' implies
reprehensible behavior that's
inconsistent with human nature;
which they do not admit
There is a link between
homosexuality and irreligion
A 2013 survey of the U.S. LGBT
(sexually-disoriented) community
showed that about 50% had no
religious affiliation; much higher than
much higher than the 20%
of the U.S. general public
with no religious affiliation
The Western scientific community where
atheism and Darwinism are common
published studies on the link
between sexual disorientation and genes
and on the social phenomena
related to sexual disorientation
One example is a study on how
a child adopted by two homosexuals
is impacted by the adoption
We have the right to ask:
Were these studies conducted
in a scientific and unbiased manner?
This leads us to the more important
question: Is scientific research
which has ideological
and ethical implications
and which is produced under
the dominance of Western liberalism;
is it really unbiased? Or is it
—sometimes— a politicized tool?
If such studies present results
which contradict some Islamic values;
is the rational position
to doubt the Islamic values
or the validity of these studies?
When an atheist says,
"I believe in science," is this true?
Or does he believe in
the false interpretations
of pseudoscience
which lead to compounded ignorance?
This is the prime and most
important goal of our episode
Sexual disorientation
is just an example
through which we will examine the
credibility of this Western 'science'
Our roadmap for this
episode will be as follows:
—Please focus, dear viewers
so that we don't get distracted
The episode is full of benefits,
evidence and important facts
so, we need to focus to understand
the sequence of its elements—
We'll start by analyzing the
meaning of the hypothetical phrase:
"Homosexuality has a genetic cause"
then we will cite what is currently
reported by leading Western sources
on the link between
homosexuality and genetics
After that we will return to the
most important question:
Are the reports by Western
references and studies
on such ethical matters
necessarily credible?
We will answer this question
by examining three things:
1. The research environment:
Does it encourage free research?
Or does it practice licensed terrorism?
2. Are the researchers credible?
Or are there some indications
of their lies and bias?
3. Who funds this research?
And how does that impact the results?
Then we will see how the media
deals with the research findings:
truthfully or otherwise
First, this vague sentence:
"Homosexuality has a genetic cause"
what does it exactly mean?
Does it mean
that a homosexual has genes
that involuntarily push him/her
towards homosexual acts?
Just as someone blinks in reflex
when a foreign body enters his eye?
Or when he involuntarily
withdraws his hand from
a hot object?
Of course not!
Does it mean, then
that a homosexual has genes
that make him psychologically
attracted to people of the same sex?
Upon investigation, this is
the meaning of their phrase
So, let's first assume
that these genes do exist;
what's the justification for using them
as an excuse for disoriented behavior
and an exemption from
condemnation and punishment?
This is a very important key point
Let us assume that a person
does have a distorted feeling
does this justify his behavior
according to this feeling?
For example: what if a man has
an excessive lust for women;
does this lust justify rape?
Or is he required to restrain
himself, control his
lust and channel it to permissible
outlets (i.e. lawful marriage)?
So why do you use headlines like:
"Homosexuality is subject to genetics"
in a way that implies that the homosexual
is forced —by his genes—
into abnormal behavior?
Are you ready to commit
to the same logic
in dealing with political
and intellectual opponents
who might have 'genetic reasons'
for doing what they do?
If we say:
A polygamous man may have
genetic reasons for taking multiple wives
and the woman who agrees
to be the wife of a married man
might be 'genetically' compelled
to do so!
So, why is gay marriage legalized
in all fifty U.S. states
through the June 26, 2015
Supreme Court decision
while polygamy remains
illegal in all fifty states;
to date?
Why is the claim of a genetic link
used to elicit sympathy
for homosexuals specifically?
Regardless
are there really genes that can cause
psychological disorientation in desire?
This brings us, dear viewers
to the second focal point:
What leading Western
references currently report
on the relationship between
homosexuality and genetics
A prominent American scientific
and professional organization:
"American Psychological Association"
concluded that there is no proof
of a genetic basis for homosexuality;
to date!
Despite the fact that this association
strongly defends
what it considers 'LGBT rights'
Moreover, several specialized books
on the study of sexual behavior
describe the research as inconclusive
i.e. it hasn't reached any conclusion
and that no specific gene has been
linked to homosexuality
One of the best books in this domain
is Dr. Neil Whitehead’s book titled:
"My Genes Made Me Do it!
Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence"
which disproves the link between
homosexuality and genetics
from a theoretical, fundamental
and logical perspective
Moreover, he reviewed the studies
on identical twins in the area
of homosexuality
—many of which show no genetic link—
and identified the major
scientific errors in the twin studies
which claim that a link exists
We'll list some details
in the comments section
The book is an interesting
scientific read
for those familiar with
the basics of scientific research
Here, dear viewers, please note
an important fundamental issue:
Atheists say:
"We came through mutations
and natural selection
of the traits that serve survival
and the extinction of those who carry
traits that do not serve survival."
Does homosexuality help survival?
Of course not!
Because couples of two males
or two females cannot produce children
Consequently, they don't transfer
genetic traits to future generations
and so the law of natural selection
should have ended homosexuality
as it is a trait
that does not serve survival!
Yet, homosexuality exists!
Note how, in the materialistic
Darwinian explanation
the beginning contradicts the end!
Back to the conclusions
of the American Psychological Association
and the specialized books
Please note that we're not following
the unscientific methodology used by many
of using any study
that suits their whims
and ignoring other studies that
do not serve their perspective
Instead, we are citing the conclusions
of major health organizations
and specialized books
as they provide a summary
of a large number of related studies
Despite all of this
someone will say:
"In contrast to what you say,
there are studies that indicate
a relationship between
homosexuality and genetics."
Yet another will say, "If, one day, the
main references change their standpoint,
will you admit that
this relationship exists?"
This brings us to the third
and most important
focal point of this episode
which is to address the question:
Are scientific studies
which produce results geared towards
serving liberal Western values;
are they really unbiased?
Or are they a politicized tool?
We will answer this question
by studying three things:
First: the environment in which
this research is conducted
Does it encourage free research
or apply licensed intellectual terrorism?
The Western civilization raises slogans
for their 'sacred' concepts
and criminalizes and fights
those who dare to challenge them
The influential LGBT lobby was able to
include —as one of these sacred concepts—
so-called 'LGBT rights'!
And just as anyone who opposes Western
dominance is accused of terrorism
and anyone who criticizes Jews
is described as anti-Semitic;
similarly, opposition to homosexuality
is labelled 'homophobia'!
That is, homosexuality is a natural
phenomenon, a human right
and whoever opposes it
suffers from a sick phobia towards it!
But this 'sick person' has no excuse
Instead he's criminalized!
And just as there are slogans for
'Anti-terrorism' and
'Fighting Anti-Semitism'
Western civilization raises
the slogan of
"Anti-homophobia"
for which the United Nations adopted,
launched campaigns,
issued agreements
signed by many countries,
and appointed a special UN investigator;
all to protect homosexuals
In such an environment
of militancy and censorship
is it realistic to expect science
to produce unbiased results?
One of the scientific scandals
that answers this question
is Professor Spitzer's story
Professor Robert Spitzer
who is considered to be
the father of modern psychiatry
published a study on psychotherapy
to help homosexuals
overcome their homosexuality
He called it 'reparative therapy':
i.e. a treatment to repair
sexual disorientation
In the study he reported success
in his treatment to correct
the sexual disorientation
of 200 homosexual men and women
This infuriated health organizations
and they attacked his study
Although Spitzer was a supporter
of 'homosexual rights' and had worked
to remove homosexuality from
the APA's list of psychiatric disorders;
this did not help his case
before the scientific community
Thus, in 2012
Spitzer apologized for his study
and the media reported the news
as follows:
"Psychiatry Giant Sorry
for Backing Gay ‘Cure’"
At the end of his apology
he said, with abject humiliation:
"I believe I owe the gay
community an apology."
You can imagine the pressure
that Spitzer was subjected to
when you know that the two largest
international health organizations
attacked his treatment:
The World Health Organization (WHO)
and the Pan American
Health Organization (PAHO)
and issued (on 17/5/2012)
a report titled:
"'Therapies' to change sexual orientation
lack medical justification
and threaten health."
How does psychotherapy
based on verbal counseling
with the homosexual person
threaten health?!
According to their report:
"Repression of sexual orientation
—from such treatments—
has been associated with
feelings of guilt and shame,
depression, anxiety, and even suicide."
The report concluded with recommendations
on how to fight homophobia
I ask you, dear viewer, to listen to
these recommendations and tell me
what they remind you of
The five recommendations state:
1. 'Conversion' or 'reparative' therapies
and the clinics offering them
should be denounced and
subject to adequate sanctions.
2. Public institutions responsible for
training health professionals
should focus on training them
to accept homosexuals,
and to eliminate
any attitudes of pathologization,
rejection, and hate toward
non-heterosexual persons
3. Prevention of interventions aimed at
changing sexual orientation.
4. In the media,
homophobia should be exposed,
in any of its manifestations,
and expressed by any person;
should be exposed as
a public health problem
and a threat to human
dignity and human rights.
5. Civil society organizations
can develop mechanisms of civil vigilance
to detect violations of the human
rights of non-heterosexual persons
and report them to the
relevant authorities.
What do these recommendations
remind you of?
They seem identical to
anti-terrorism recommendations
don't they?
Yet another dogma imposed
on the scientific community
that reminds us of the show: "Expelled"
which reveals how they
oppress and exclude
any scientist who rejects
Darwinian evolution;
a terrorism reminiscent of the
Spanish Inquisition and the tyranny
against science practiced by
the church in the Middle Ages
After all this
I think it is very comical
for anyone to believe
that the environment
of scientific research on homosexuality
is free and unbiased!
The second question when considering
the credibility of Western research
on homosexuality is:
Are the researchers credible?
Or are there indications
of their lies and bias?
We will present some evidence
in response to this question
First, the research that atheists
and homosexuals continue to hail:
Dean Hamer's 1993
study which claimed
a possible linkage between the
DNA marker (Xq28) and homosexuality
as published in "Science" Magazine
—Remember, dear viewers
that Dean Hamer is the same person
who claimed the existence of a God Gene
and wrote a book about it without
any evidence or published research
and whose claim was rejected by
geneticists as in the previous episode—
Let's examine the validity
of this other claim from
the father of unproven claims: Hamer!
One condition for the credibility
of scientific research is
the reproducibility of its results
In other words, if other researchers
repeat the same experiment
they must obtain similar results
Otherwise, a researcher can claim
anything he wants
and become a great discoverer
based on false claims!
This experiment of Hamer and his team
was repeated by many other researchers
on larger numbers of homosexuals
yet none of them got similar results!
So, they dropped hints to discredit
Hamer and his alleged gene
One example is the study
by Dr. George Rice and his team;
published in "Science" as well
It states:
"It is unclear why our results are so
discrepant from Hamer’s original study.
Because our study was larger
than that of Hamer et al.,
we certainly had adequate power
to detect a genetic effect
as large as was reported in that study.
Nonetheless, our data do not support
the presence of a gene
of large effect influencing sexual
orientation at position Xq28."
Simply, this discredits Hamer on this
just as he was discredited
on his claim of a God gene!
Decades have passed, during which many
attempted to reproduce Hamer's results
without any success!
This is added to the important issue
discussed in the previous episode;
which is that modern genetics
refutes the claim
that there is a specific gene
for a specific behavioral trait
as in this 2008 study
published in "Nature"
which concluded that
—after sequencing the human genome—
most of the simple physical traits
were too complex to be linked
to a single gene
or even a specific set of genes
So, how about behavioral traits
which are much more complex
than physical ones?
So Hamer's gene is ridiculous
from a theoretical standpoint
as in the "Nature" study
and discredited from an
empirical view as in "Science"
—the two most famous
naturalistic journals—
Additionally, it is discredited
by more than a quarter century's
worth of scientific research which
failed to reproduce Hamer's results
We present another issue
on the researchers' credibility
by reviewing the characteristics
of those who research
gay parenting
More and more U.S. States
have legalized adoption
for same-sex couples:
male or female
allowing them to adopt and raise a child
and expose him/her to their
relationship on a daily basis
The presentation of the case
for adoption includes references
to scientific studies on the effect
of such adoptions on children
The writer David Benkof surveyed
tens of studies on gay parenting
and published his well-documented
research under the title:
"All the gay parenting studies are flawed"
Benkof stated that, through
his survey of these studies
he found that at least 60% of researchers
who produce results
that support gay parenting
are gay themselves!
He also stated that he couldn't
find data on the sexual orientation
of 25% of the remaining researchers;
i.e. they might be gay as well
The writer mentions a list of names
and incidents that support his claim
He notes that it is enough
to prove their bias
that they don't disclose this fact
in the 'Conflict of Interest' section:
the section in scientific papers
where the researcher
lists any factors that may
impact the objectivity
of his/her research
Of course, a scholar
has no right to publish a study
casting doubts
on the validity of research
conducted by gays
—on the basis that they are
biased by their homosexuality—
as he/she will be accused of homophobia
and become a target
of anti-homophobia campaigns!
No wonder then that
many published studies
will conclude that gay adoption
has no negative impact on children
Furthermore, this study
conducted by Dr. Gartrell
—a lesbian married to a woman—
concludes that children raised by lesbians
were rated significantly better 'socially'
than their age-matched counterparts
(who have heterosexual parents)
'Scientific' research
published in 'scientific' journals
and welcomed by 'scientists'
in 'scientific' communities!
What would you expect
from such 'communities'
when they publish studies on
polygamy, for example?
Would their results be
unbiased and credible?
Especially when you know that
polygamy is illegal in their countries?
Moreover, some studies
—like this one
published in a journal affiliated
with Cambridge University—
show that children raised by gays are
much more likely to be gay themselves
How can they be homosexual
and have children?
The homosexual may be bisexual
and beget children by marriage
or through a heterosexual affair
—alongside their homosexuality—
or this child was born out of wedlock,
abandoned as a foundling,
then adopted by the gay couple
This is the Liberal civilization!
Again: Research shows
that children raised by homosexuals
are more likely to acquire
homosexual behavior themselves
Homosexual researchers do not consider
this to be a problem at all!
For atheists, if parents tell their child
that God created the world
it would be an ugly abuse
of childhood innocence
as Dawkins says in his book:
"The God Delusion"
but atheism has no problem with
raising children on homosexuality
and does not consider that an
ugly abuse of their childhood!
Here, we may ask
whether the Western culture truly
leads to personal freedom
Imagine a child
up for adoption
raised by two gay men
The child grows up to be gay
as a result of observing
his gay 'parents'
Then he feels that
his homosexuality is incompatible
with his human nature
and wants
to adjust his psychological inclinations
so that his sexual disorientation
no longer causes him
psychological distress
However, the health organizations
step in to say,
"Any intervention aimed
to change individuals'
sexual orientation shall be prevented"
as in the aforementioned 2012 report
Meaning: It is forbidden
to provide any treatment
for this homosexual
Instead, he should stay as he is
Is this freedom or
indoctrination of immorality?
Another story concerning
the researchers' credibility is that
of Professor J. Michael Bailey who
received U.S. government funding
to conduct studies examining arousal
in homosexual men and women
by exposing them to gay porn videos
using measurement methods
too indecent for words;
to the extent that his research was
blasted in The Washington Times
as a waste of American
taxpayer dollars!
In Islam
knowledge and Hadith
are received only
from a credible ethical person
whereas in this
Western pseudoscience
there is no check for the
scientist's ethics and credibility
It doesn't matter if he is
the most immoral person
or even an atheist who rejects
absolute moral values
—as we discussed before—
for whom, fraud and forgery
are relative matters
that cannot be considered
absolutely wrong!
Bailey's story takes us
to the third point to consider
when questioning the credibility
of Western research
in the field of homosexuality:
Research funding and
its effect on the results
In Benkof's aforementioned article;
where he surveyed tens of studies
he provided evidence
that the funding
for some research that supports
gay parenting
came originally
from well-known homosexuals
like David Bohnett and LGBT-advocacy
organizations like the Rainbow Endowment
A known phenomenon
in the scientific community
is the tendency
of a scientific study to support
the interests of its financial sponsor;
known as 'sponsorship bias'
In other words
imagine a homosexual
giving money to a researcher
and telling him:
"Conduct a study to determine
if what I do is good or bad
and here's your paycheck
from my money."
How can scientific integrity survive this?
The article also noted
that as of 25/3/2014
there were 150 studies
on gay parenting!
Of course, dear viewers
every study costs
hundreds of thousands
or millions of dollars
and many are funded
by US federal government funds
as well as the LGBT community
We have a right to ask:
Would the U.S. government
or its institutions, support
research on topics like
"The effect of raising girls on
values of decency and modesty
on their mental health?"
Another point related to funding
concerns the publication of the results
This is where the problem
of 'publication bias' comes in
In other words
if a homosexual researcher
came up with results contrary
to his own inclinations
and to the inclinations of his financial
sponsors who promote homosexuality;
would the researcher publish
his results or hide them?
Likewise, if a truly unbiased researcher
came up with results against homosexuality
there is no guarantee that his research
will be published in scientific journals
Instead, they may refuse
to publish his research
especially since the LGBT
lobby and its supporters
launch campaigns against every research
which produces results
that they don't like
It's easier for journals
to avoid the headache
of being labeled as homophobic and
replicating the tragedy of Robert Spitzer
who was forced to apologize in the end
Our last focal point: How does the media
deal with the results of such research?
Well-known U.S. media organizations and
their affiliates who promote their
agendas in the Muslim world
jump at studies that appeal to gays
—despite their falsehood and fabrications—
as discussed before
and add their own fabrications
in the titling and headlines; as shown!
An example is how the media
seized on Hamer's claim
of a gene linked to homosexuality
and promoted it widely;
This was meekly criticized
in a scientific publication
stating that the results of Hamer's
study were never reproduced
Regardless, the media treated
Hamer's claim as an indisputable fact
International media outlets
such as The Telegraph
—decades after the study's invalidation—
still blatantly accuse those who oppose
homosexuality, of ignoring 'science':
the 'science' of Hamer's study!
It's not only the media
Even the 'scientific' community
behaved unscientifically
when it added the discredited gay gene
—theoretically and practically—
to the biomedical
databases of the 21 Century!
In conclusion,
we have a right to ask
After all this
Is everything that atheists praise
'science'?
Or pseudoscience?
Liberal sanctities
driving specific results,
biased funding,
a drive to produce results
that appeal to the sponsors,
homosexual and non-credible researchers,
errors in designing studies,
publication bias,
terrorizing anyone who dares
to oppose the whims of homosexuals,
campaigns against homophobia,
and media which selectively accepts
what studies to publish and
exaggerates: by claiming that the alleged
link between genes and sexual orientation
means that a person
is forced to be homosexual!
Then the atheist parrots say:
I believe in science!
"...darknesses, some of them upon others.
When one puts out his hand [therein],
he can hardly see it.
And for whomever Allah makes no light,
then in no way (can) he have light."
(Quran Translated Meaning 24:40)
Before we end, dear viewers
every live heart will feel the darkness
after hearing this evidence
of the collapse of innate nature!
Hence, we would like to enlighten
our hearts with the call of revelation
by reciting verses from Surat Al-Shuara
that describe the state of Prophet Lot
Peace be upon him
as the sin of sodomy
first appeared in his people
He called them, saying
what can be translated as:
"Must you, unlike [other] people,
lust after males
and abandon the wives that
Allah has created for you?
you are exceeding all bounds."
(Quran 26: 165-166)
Lot, peace be upon him
didn't need to prove
—at length—
the blatant sinfulness of their action
Most of Lot's call to his people
was not faith-oriented
Rather, he was primarily concerned
with correcting their humanity!
However,
"but they replied, 'Lot! if you do not
stop this, you will be driven away.'
So he said, 'I loathe what you do:
Lord, save me and my family
from what they are doing.'
We saved him and all his family,
except for an old woman
who stayed behind,
then We destroyed the others,
and poured a rain of destruction
down upon them;
how dreadful that rain was for
those who had been forewarned!
There truly is a sign in this,
though most of them will not believe,
Your Lord alone is the
Almighty, the Merciful."
(Quran Translated Meaning 26:167-175)
Throughout this episode
I wanted to say:
"Would atheism and Darwinism justify
crimes such as murder or rape based
on the existence of genes driving this
behavior; as they justify homosexuality?
Yet, I did not raise this question
because the modern answer
to it —in atheism and Darwinism— is:
"Yes, we do!"
If we hadn't taken up your time already
I would have told you
the story of the Warrior Gene
which some criminals
can now add to their defense case
to reduce their punishment;
based on 'scientific' research
as happened with "Bradley Waldroup"!
I would have also told you about
Dr. Thornhill and Palmer's book
which justifies rape
as normal genetic behavior!
"...And for whomever Allah makes no light,
then in no way (can) he have light."
(Quran Translated Meaning 24:40)
This was an example of the transformation
of science into an instrument
to serve governing values
and an example
of the decline of materialists
when they denied innate nature
and explained human behavior
from a purely materialistic perspective!
Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon you