In other words, because the "born gay" idea has proved so useful, the fact that there's virtually no scientific support for the theory hardly matters. It's an idea that has worked wonders for gay activists and their allies.

As noted years ago by gay scientist Simon LeVay, "There [was] a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly."

And so, the argument goes, "If I'm born this way, how can my attractions be wrong? And if I'm born this way, how can you expect me to change?"

Of course, even if no one is born gay, that doesn't mean that homosexual attractions are not deeply rooted. In most cases, those feelings are very deeply rooted to the point that many gay men and women truly believe they were born gay.

And even if no one is born gay, that doesn't that homosexual attractions are easily changed. In most cases, they are not.

But why base a so-called civil rights movement on lies? Why not tell the truth?

One of the most gay-friendly professional organizations in our country is the American Psychological Association, and yet even the APA states that, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation."

Similarly, in England, the pro-gay Royal College of Psychiatrists recently backtracked on an earlier statement that homosexuality was biologically determined, now saying that "sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors." And while they stated clearly their belief that homosexuality was not a mental disorder and that it should be accepted, they added, "It is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person's life."

That's why psychiatrist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former chairperson of the Task Force on Religion and Mental Health said in 2005, "Researchers now openly admit that after searching for more than 20 years, they are still unable to find the 'gay gene.'" (In the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.)

Why then do we constantly hear about people being born gay? First, it has worked wonders for gay activism; second, many gays and lesbians believe it to be true, since as far back as they can remember, they felt that they were different.

But political expediency and personal feelings do not change the facts, and those facts remain the same: There is no clear scientific evidence that anyone is born gay

According to lesbian researcher Lisa Diamond, "The queer community has been obsessed with cultivating the idea that we all have fixed sexual identities. We've crafted terrific narratives and political platforms based on the notions that all gays are 'born that way.' But what if sexuality is more complex? What if biology actually intersects with environment, time, culture and context? Could we possibly be more fluid than we've supposed?"

Camille Paglia, a social critic, academic, feminist, and lesbian, was even more blunt, famously stating in her book Vamps and Tramps, "Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction. . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous . . . homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

Paglia also asked, "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible."

Remarkably, when a school chaplain in Tasmania, Australia, posted Paglia's opinion on social media, there was an outcry against him, causing him to issue a public apology: "I've made a mistake and learnt from it. I'm deeply sorry for any offence I've caused. I was very careless in posting that image for discussion. I will work with my employers to ensure there is no repeat."

Despite this apology, he was still fired -- and the organization he worked for was Christian! That is how toxic today's climate has become, and yet this chaplain simply posted the accurate reflections of a lesbian academic. How could this be considered hateful or bigoted?

Again, this does not mean that same-sex attractions and desires are not deeply rooted in some people's lives, nor does it mean that they chose to be gay. (You can choose to act on your attractions but that doesn't mean you chose to have the attractions.)

It simply means that one of the major gay activist talking points, one that has even infiltrated parts of the church, is based on lies, not truth.

It's time we speak the truth in love. Lies never help anyone in the long run.

END