Ruth Speaks Out

This blog is maintained by the Ruth Institute. It provides a place for our Circle of Experts to express themselves. This is where the scholars, experts, students and followers of the Ruth Institute engage in constructive dialogue about the issues surrounding the Sexual Revolution. We discuss public policy, social practices, legal doctrines and much more.


Countering Half-truths on Human Sexuality: A Clear Response to Fr. Martin’s Fuzzy Thinking

On November 23, Hudson Byblow, a former same-sex attracted man with transgender inclinations, now a faithful Catholic living chastely, spoke at the Saint Pius X Church Center in Rochester, New York, to an enthusiastic audience.

This event, co-sponsored by The Ruth Institute and The Station of the Cross Catholic Radio Network, was in response to a recent interfaith Rochester event featuring Fr. James Martin, a priest known to advocate for homosexuality. The Ruth Institute worked with a group of local Catholics, at their request, to bring Byblow to Rochester.


Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., said, “Catholics must respond to people like Fr. James Martin. Evangelicals must respond to people like Pastor Josh Harris. The best response to fuzzy thinking is clear, unambiguous positive thinking,especially on the ancient Christian teachings about marriage, family and human sexuality.”

“It was a great blessing to welcome Hudson Byblow to our diocese to share his story and proclaim the fullness of truth on the virtue of chastity,” said Jim Havens, General Manager of The Station of the Cross Catholic Radio Network.

“In our time, when grave lies about human sexuality have largely captured the culture, and have even gained a strong foothold within the human element of the Church, faithful lay-led events such as this are no longer merely beneficial, they have become necessary," Havens said.

Local pro-life leader John White said, “In his talk, ‘Something more beautiful,’ not only did we hear about the mercy of Jesus Christ, we also felt it through the story of Hudson Byblow. Once feeling inadequate and not one of the boys, he is now a leader of men. He leads them to Christ.”

Byblow is a teacher and public speaker. He shares his journey from feeling like he didn’t belong and that he must be “gay” (and then transgender) to joyfully living a life of chastity in the freedom of Christ.

For more information on Hudson Byblow, visit

https://media.ascensionpress.com/video/lgbt-and-finding-catholicism-hudsons-story/ and

https://grandinmedia.ca/journey-sex-attractions-leads-joyful-embrace-gods-call-holiness/

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find out more about The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, contact media@ruthinstitute.org.


Opposition to Mutilation Isn’t Hate Speech

November 13, 2019

For Immediate Release

For more information, contact media@ruthinstitute.org.

You-tube: “Criticizing Transgender Surgery = Hate”
Ruth Institute: “Banning Speech = Cowardice”

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. condemned YouTube’s decision to ban a Daily Signal/Heritage Foundation video with Dr. Michelle Cretella, M.D. over her comment on transgenderism.

“The Sexual Revolutionaries running YouTube are cowards. They cannot refute Dr. Cretella and the Heritage Foundation. They ban their opponents instead of confronting them. Big Tech is making Big Brother seem benign,” Morse said.

YouTube claims an observation by the eminent pediatrician, and executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, violates its hate speech code. In the 2017 interview, Cretella said: “If you want to cut off a leg or an arm, you’re mentally ill, but if you want to cut off healthy breasts or a penis, you’re transgender.”

“Dr. Cretella’s remarks did not promote violence toward or hatred of anyone,” Morse declared. “Instead, it’s the type of mutilation which Cretella spoke out against that’s an act of violence.”

Morse continued: “YouTube has decided that a perfectly reasonable remark by a medical professional is hate speech. It uses this to justify banning inconvenient expression.”

Dr. Cretella also appeared in the October 4 edition of The Dr J Show, the Ruth Institute’s new video podcast. Drs. Morse and Cretella discussed a variety of concerns, including the medical consequences of so-called gender-transitioning. The Ruth Institute is urging its supporters to promote this interview as a way to counter the censorship against our friends at the Heritage Foundation.
youtube.com/watch?v=LQovehloA2k&t=660s

In another case the Ruth Institute has been involved with, divorced parents were in a bitter custody dispute. The wife wanted to transition her 7-year-old son to a transgendered “female.” The husband fought it. After a public outcry, the judge granted joint custody. But she also issued a gag order preventing the parties from discussing the case publicly. Said Morse “This is another outrageous example of censorship involving transgenderism.”
ruthinstitute.org/press/ruth-institute-decries-judge-s-gag-order-in-savejames-case

Despite YouTube’s attempts to silence dissent, the Heritage Foundation has made the public aware of the injustice through its direct email communications with supporters. The Ruth Institute urges the public to subscribe to its lists, so we can inform them if we’ve been de-platformed on social media.

“We intend to keep fighting to get the truth out, regardless of what Big Tech thinks or does,” Dr. Morse said.

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an appointment with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.


Ruth Institute Decries Judge’s Gag Order in #SaveJames Case

Last week, the judge in the case of James Younger, the seven-year-old-boy whose mother wants to turn him into a “transgendered” girl, issued a gag order preventing James’ father from discussing the case publicly. Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. said, “This is an egregious abridgement of the father’s First Amendment rights.”

James’ divorced parents each sought sole custody. His mother, who’s been making him wear dresses, painting his nails, and telling him he’s a girl named “Luna” since age three, has been taking him to a “gender clinic.” She wants to use drugs, and possibly surgery, to complete the process. His father is adamantly opposed.

Morse continued: “If the case hadn’t been publicized, due mostly to the interviews the father did, few of us would have known about what could have been a terrible miscarriage of justice. I believe the judge’s resolution of the case – including giving the parents joint medical decision-making – was due in part to an extraordinary public outcry.”

 


 

Matt Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, says, “It’s fairly straightforward that you can’t gag a father from talking about his son to the media.” Staver calls the order “an outrageous decision by the court that’s clearly unconstitutional.”

Morse added: “Family court judges have an astonishing amount of power. Judge Kim Cooks could have given the mother everything she wanted – sole custody and the unimpeded power to effectively castrate her son. That’s what the jury recommended.If the case was decided in the dark, the judge might have confirmed it.” A petition in support of the father on Life Petitions has more than 86,000 signers.

In another Texas custody case, where four-year-old Drake Pardo was taken from his family over what was alleged to be medical abuse, a Dallas-area judge issued a similar gag order against the family.

A week ago, Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins submitted a brief on behalf of the state of Texas calling the gag order “unconstitutional,” writing that the order “is plainly overboard and cannot be squared with the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees.”

Morse stated: “Injustice grows in the dark. The #SaveJames case deserves the widest possible exposure and unhampered discussion. The father’s freedom of speech must be restored.”

In a recent webcast of The Dr. J Show on the Ruth Institute Youtube page, Morse revealed the hidden dimensions of the case. “Transgenderism, third-party reproduction, and divorce all increase the power of the state over the lives of ordinary people. This is the Sexual Deep State at work.”

Morse explained, “Our #SaveJames campaign is part of the Ruth Institute’s overall mission to counter the Sexual Revolution and speak out for its victims.”

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.

 


Ruth Inst. grateful Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is Getting Involved to #SaveJames

Ruth Institute Founder and President, Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., expressed relief that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services is “reviewing allegations of child abuse” in the case of James Younger – a seven-year-old boy whose mother wants to “transition” him into a girl.

Last week in Dallas, Judge Kim Cooks awarded the parents (who are involved in a bitter battle over the upbringing of James and his twin brother, Jude) joint medical decision-making. However, her ruling could be changed at any time.

In a webcast of The Dr. J Show on the Ruth Institute Youtube page, Morse revealed the hidden dimensions of this case, commonly known by the hashtag #SaveJames.


“The case is not just about transgenderism. It’s also about divorce. The family courts have too much power. This judge had the authority to grant everything the mother requested. That she didn’t is probably due to extraordinary public pressure. Still, whether the father cuts the boy’s hair, dresses him as a boy, or is sufficiently ‘affirming’ can determine whether he gets to see his own sons.”

“The case is also about third party reproduction,” Morse said. “James was conceived with a donated egg. The mother carried him to birth but has no genetic connection.”

In the webcast, Morse noted: “People who are determined to have a child at all costs sometimes develop serious control issues. The child becomes a project of one parent or the other. That appears to be the case here, with the mother so controlling that she wants to force her son to live as her ‘daughter.’”

“And, of course, the case is about the transgender ideology, too. With virtually no clinical standards, adults are making irrevocable decisions that affect young children. This little boy is perfectly healthy. The sex of his body is not ‘wrong’ and does not need to be surgically or chemically altered.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a conservative, suggested the state’s Attorney General look into the matter. A letter from the Texas AG asked the Department to examine the case, urging it to “investigate possible child abuse against seven-year-old James Younger, whose mother has proposed chemically and surgically altering his biological sex based on her belief that he may identify as a girl.”

In her groundbreaking webcast, Morse shows that: “Transgenderism, third-party reproduction and divorce all increase the power of the state over the lives of ordinary people. This is the Sexual Deep State at work.”

Morse explained, “Our defense of James Younger is part of the Ruth Institute’s overall mission to counter the Sexual Revolution and speak out for its victims.”

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an appointment with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.


Ruth Institute Pres. Says Case of 7-year-old Boy is About More Than “Gender-Transitioning”

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., says the heartbreaking case of seven-year-old James Younger, whose mother wants to force him to live as a girl, is about more than ‘gender-transitioning.’ It’s also about divorce and third-party reproduction.

The child’s divorced parents are involved in a horrible custody battle. The mother has enrolled her son in school as a girl and insists that he be called “Luna,” and use the girls’ restroom. Worse, she wants to subject him to puberty-blockers and cross-sex hormones. The father is fighting to keep this horror from being inflicted on his son.

Yesterday, Dallas Judge Kim Cooks ruled that the father and mother will make medical decisions for Jeffrey jointly – a step in the right direction.


Morse observed: “The case is not just about transgenderism. It is also about divorce. The family court judge has the authority to grant everything the mother requests. Whether the father cuts the boy’s hair or is sufficiently ‘affirming’ can determine whether he gets to see his own sons – James and his brother, Jude.”

“The case is also about third party reproduction,” Morse said. “James was conceived with a donated egg. The mother carried him to birth but has no genetic connection to James or Jude.”

“People who are determined to have a child at all costs sometimes develop serious control issues. The child becomes a project of one parent or the other. That appears to be the case here, with the mother so controlling that she wants to force her son to live as her ‘daughter.’”

“And, obviously, the case is about the transgender ideology. With virtually no clinical standards, adults are making irrevocable decisions that affect young children. This little boy is perfectly healthy. The sex of his body is not ‘wrong’ and does not need to be surgically or chemically altered.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a conservative, has ordered the state’s Attorney General to launch an investigation into the case.

Unfortunately, Judge Cooks put a gag order on the father, preventing him from speaking publicly about the case. “Most divorce proceedings take place with little public scrutiny. But the fact is, people can attend. There is no doubt in my mind that the outcome of this case would have been very different without the efforts of a few intrepid news organizations, such as LifeSiteNews,” Morse said.

A petition on LifeSiteNews supporting the father collected more than 58,000 signatures in just a few days.

“I encourage everyone to keep following this important case. Keep the heat on! Transgenderism, third-party reproduction, and divorce all increase the power of the state over the lives of ordinary people. This is the Sexual Deep State at work,” Morse said.

The Ruth Institute is a global interfaith non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love.

Dr. Morse is the author of The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.

Find more information on The Ruth Institute here.

To schedule an appointment with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org.


Ruth Inst. Senior Research Associate Writes on Study Which Refutes Born-That-Way Theory of Homos*xuality

Writing in Public Discourse, the Journal of the Witherspoon Institute, Fr. Paul Sullins, a Senior Research Associate with the Ruth Institute, analyzed a new study which conclusively refutes the notion that some people are born homosexual. (“Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation, September 30, 2019.)

Ruth Institute Founder and President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. commented: “In this article, Fr. Sullins continues his important work debunking the myths of the Sexual Revolution. Previous highlights include the myth of ‘no difference” between children of same sex parents and mother-father couples and the myth that clergy sex abuse in the Catholic church has nothing to do with homosexuality in the Catholic priesthood. Now Fr. Sullins is among the few who are willing to draw out the conclusions from this latest study: homosexuality cannot be genetically innate. There is no gay gene.”


The study was released last month by a team of scientists at MIT and Harvard. Fr. Sullins writes that they found “that the effect of the genes we inherit from our parents (known as ‘heritability’) on same-sex orientation was very weak.” But “a person’s developmental environment which includes diet, family, friends, neighborhood, religion and a host of other life conditions – is twice as influential on the probability of developing same-sex behavior or orientation as a person’s genes are.”

As Fr. Sullins reports, the study notes, “'There is certainly no single genetic determinant (sometimes referred to as the gay gene in the media)' that causes same-sex sexual behavior.”

Morse adds: “The study, whose conclusions Fr. Sullins describes incisively and with clarity, will have a huge impact in a number of areas, including anti-discrimination cases, and bans on behavior modification therapy.”

More on “Born That Way” No More: The New Science of Sexual Orientation:
thepublicdiscourse.com/2019/09/57342/ and papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3464342

Fr. Sullins, who was an Episcopalian priest, is now a married Catholic priest; he earned a Ph.D. from Catholic University in 1997.

Besides his work for the Ruth Institute, the Rev. D. Paul Sullins, Ph.D., is a Research Professor of Sociology and Director of the Leo Initiative for Catholic Social Research at the Catholic University of America. He has written four books and over 150 journal articles, book chapters and research reports on issues of faith and culture, including “Is Catholic Clergy Sex Abuse related to Homosexual Priests,” in the National Catholic Bioethics quarterly, Winter 2019.


In NYC It’s Transgender Heroes vs. Godly Protector of Orphans: Who Wins?

Posted at Daily Surge August 27, 2019.

Surge Summary: In New York City, an initiative to honor women who built that community has rejected Mother Cabrini, who cared for orphans, and settled on two transgender “women” who played an important role in that movement.

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., Founder and President of the Ruth Institute, said replacing a noted humanitarian and America’s first canonized saint with a politically connected drag queen, “makes a mockery of the program’s stated purpose. The city claimed it wanted to erect monuments honoring the women who built New York City. Instead, NY’s First Lady is honoring men who say they are women.”


New York City is planning to erect statues of women to address a perceived gender imbalance among the city’s monuments. Political correctness has come to dominate the process.

The project is known as She Built NYC and is expected to cost $5 million. Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini (popularly known as Mother Cabrini) “fit the stated description of the project perfectly,” Morse observed.

Working in the 1880s, Mother Cabrini founded an upstate orphanage and a school for girls in the Washington Heights section of New York. Altogether, she started 67 institutions dedicated to helping the poor. When the city solicited nominations for the She Built NY project, Mother Cabrini was nominated more frequently than any other person.

The City’s First Lady, Chirlane McCray, ignored the public’s stated wishes and selected drag queens and LGBTQ activists, who adopted the names Sylvia Rivera and Marsha Johnson, in place of Mother Cabrini.

Dr. Morse explained: “Calling yourself ‘transgendered’ doesn’t make you a woman if you have the DNA of a man. Adopting a woman’s name and dressing like a woman won’t work either. Gender is a matter of biology, not belief.”

Morse continued: “Sexual Revolutionaries have found a new way to advance their agenda – publicly-funded monuments honoring individuals who represent gender confusion and whose chief achievement is political activism promoting their cause.”

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love. On April 26-27, the Institute held a Summit for Survivors of Sexual Revolution http://www.ruthinstitute.org/upcoming-events/survivors-summit

Dr. Morse is the author of, “The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.” https://thesexualstate.com/




Vatican Offers a Useful Tool for ‘Gender Theory’ Education

COMMENTARY: ‘Male and Female He Created Them’ has great potential for Catholic education. Faithful Catholics should pick up this ball and run with it.

by Jennifer Roback Morse on June 27, 2019, at NCRegister.com.

Catholic commentators from across the spectrum have criticized the Vatican’s new document on gender theory. Some on the so-called left say Pope Francis didn’t approve the document; others on the so-called right say it is too little too late in stopping the spread of gender ideology from influencing the Church. As I read the Congregation for Catholic Education’s document, I can see why both “sides” might react as they do. So I was surprised when the headmaster of an independent Catholic school told me, “This document is a Godsend to us.” This gentleman is not only a dear friend, but a man of deep loyalty to traditional Catholic sexual ethics. I decided to reread the document from his perspective. Does this document help Catholic educators fulfill their mission?

To be clear, what are the critics criticizing? Those who favor the “LGBT” agenda, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, are angry that the Vatican supports the fact that God created only two sexes. Such critics even consider the title of the document, “Male and Female He Created Them” to be inflammatory.


On the other hand, many of those who are loyal to the magisterium and the traditional teachings of the Church are alarmed by the subtitle: “Toward a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in Education.” These critics observe that “dialogue” with sexual radicals does not do well at preserving tradition. All too often, “dialogue” translates into the radicals talking until they wear us down. Or worse, they don’t even pretend to dialogue; they take the opportunity provided by “dialogue” to attack. In Gabriele Kuby’s critique of the new Vatican document, she recounts her personal experience with this sort of “dialogue.”

I fully understand. This amateur video posted to my Facebook page from a speaking engagement at the University of California-Santa Barbara captures one of my experiences with “dialogue” with protesters. Certainly, with activists, “compromise” or negotiation is out of the question. Experience has shown that what one side considers compromise, the other side considers a steppingstone. Permit me to say: I’m not a fan of “dialogue” for its own sake.

But the Congregation for Catholic Education is not writing for people like me and others in the commentariat. The primary audience of the Congregation for Catholic Education is Catholic educators. In the daily life of the principal of a Catholic school, he or she must deal with a wide range of people. The constituency of a Catholic school includes the faculty and staff, the parents of children in the school, prospective parents and, of course, the children themselves. And that is just for independent schools. Diocesan or parish or religious-order schools bring another layer of constituents to the headmaster’s or principal’s office: the bishop, the pastor, the abbot. On top of all that, the principal has accrediting agencies, other government entities, donors, the press and the general public. Among these people will be some who are well catechized and enthusiastic for the faith. Others, not so much.

In fact, in today’s climate, some Catholic school administrators must wonder whether the sophisticated lesbian pair in their office asking for their child’s admission to the school is setting a trap that will lead to a lawsuit.

“Dialogue” happens in the principal’s office every day, whether she likes it or not. Permit me to say: I would not be temperamentally suited to this job. Permit me also to say: I am grateful to those who shoulder this job.

The Congregation for Catholic Education’s new document provides clarity for the administration of the Catholic school. They can build that clear teaching into policies and procedures, student and faculty handbooks and similar documents. “No, there will be no open-access bathrooms or locker rooms.” “No, we cannot have a drag show on campus.” “Yes, we are going to participate in sporting leagues that require all participants to compete only against other students of their birth sex.” “Our new family-life curriculum is going to be based on theology of the body.”

As an added public-relations bonus, “Male and Female He Created Them” is a product of Pope Francis’ Vatican, which many consider “gay-friendly”; not Pope Benedict’s Vatican, which has been labeled homophobic.

My friend the headmaster pointed out that “Male and Female He Created Them” provides a backstop against the pressure he faces on all these questions. He can beef up the school’s governing charters with the authority of Rome. Things like the school’s written handbooks can provide protection in legal actions such as discrimination suits, harassment from accrediting agencies and the like. This is a good time to mention something else I noticed in the congregation’s work. Another office in Vatican City, the Pontifical Council for the Family, produced a widely (and justly) criticized sexual-education curriculum, “The Meeting Point: Project for Affective and Sexual Education,” in 2018. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons described it as “the most dangerous threat to Catholic youth that I have seen over the past 40 years.” Coming from a man who has counseled thousands of victims and survivors of the sexual revolution, that is quite a criticism.

“The Meeting Point” is completely absent from the references in “Male and Female He Created Them.” Instead, we find numerous references to Pope St. John Paul’s corpus, including Familiaris Consortio, Veritatis Splendor, his “Letter to Women” and his great work from his days as a philosophy professor, Love and Responsibility.

I do not pretend to know what is going on in the various quarters of the Vatican. (Being a Vaticanista is another job I am really not temperamentally suited for!) But it appears to me that “Male and Female He Created Them” is a different kettle of fish from many things that have come out of Rome recently. We were beginning to wonder whether the great teaching pontificate of John Paul II had ever even happened. Bringing his work front and center is a great gift to all the Church, especially to Catholic educators. Critics of “Male and Female He Created Them” might argue that the calls for “dialogue” leave an opening for less-than-entirely-faithful interpretations. People who want their Catholic schools to be nothing but private prep schools with crucifixes might find a way to drive a truck through the seemingly clear statements that there are only two sexes. And, indeed, so-called Catholic progressives just might.

I do know one thing: If those faithful to the magisterium ignore this document, or worse, shun it, very likely the “dialoguers” will interpret it the way they want. Unless the faithful contend for the proper interpretation of this document, the less-than-faithful cohort will win by default.

My advice to faithful Catholic administrators and parents is this: Pick up this ball and run with it. It’s your move.

 


The gay gene myth has been exploded

If the gay gene does not exist, how can LGBT supporters maintain that tolerance of homosexual behaviour requires intolerance of heterosexual behaviour?
 
By Fr. Paul Sullins on September 3, 2019, at Mercatornet.com.

The findings of a study of the genetic basis of homosexuality published last week in the journal Science explode the false narrative that being gay is an innate condition that is controlled or largely compelled by one's genetic makeup.

Rebutting decades of search by LGBT scientists for a "gay gene", the study's first author flatly concludes "it will be basically impossible to predict one’s sexual activity or orientation just from genetics”.


This is putting it gently.

The study found that a person's developmental environment--the influence of diet, family, friends, neighbourhood, religion, and a host of other life conditions--was twice as influential as genetics on the probability of adopting same-sex behaviour or orientation. The genetic influence did not come from one or two strong sources but from dozens of genetic variants that each added a small increased propensity for same-sex behaviour.

A genetic arrangement based on a large number of markers across the genome means that virtually all human beings have this arrangement, or large portions of it. In other words, not only did the study fail to find some controlling gene for gay identity, it also established that gay persons are not genetically distinct from all other human beings in any meaningful sense.

Gay persons, we might say, have a perfectly normal human genome.

Proponents of LGBT normalization, which includes the publishing journal and mainstream media reporters, have tried to put the best face on this result. As if the issue were tolerance of gay people's lifestyle choices, the New York Times quotes one of the authors saying, “I hope that the science can be used to educate people a little bit more about how natural and normal same-sex behaviour is”. LGBT activists declared that the study "provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life".

Indeed, the study found that genetic propensity for same-sex behaviour is not very different from that of 28 other complex traits or behaviours and is related to a propensity for other risk-taking behaviour such as smoking, drug use, number of sex partners or a general openness to new experience.

But the longstanding and emphatic claim of gay activists in law and public policy has not been that same-sex activity reflects upbringing or lifestyle factors, but is an inborn difference that is discovered, not developed; a distinct and fixed element of a person's nature that is unchangeable.

Emotionally and sexually, same-sex orientation is not a matter of who persons choose to become, they have claimed, but who they already are.

A linchpin of the evidential basis for the US Supreme Court decision sanctioning same-sex marriage, for example, was that same-sex orientation reflected an "immutable nature [which] dictate[d] that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment." (Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, p. 4).

And the point of conflict for tolerance today is not so much for people who want to identify themselves as gay or lesbian, but for people who want, for themselves personally, to avoid or resist such an identification.

On the grounds that they would be denying their immutable nature, numerous legislative and judicial efforts are currently underway to outlaw voluntary therapy for or deny the legitimacy of adults who experience some level of same-sex attraction but do not want to engage in same-sex relations or identify themselves as gay or lesbian.

In the very jurisdictions where persons with same-sex orientation are now free to identify as gay and to engage in same-sex marriage, LGBT ideologues are working to deny the same persons the freedom to decline to identify as gay and to engage in opposite-sex marriage, on the premise that they would thereby be doing violence to who they really are.

This study pulls the rug out from under such thinking.

If gay and lesbian persons are genetically normal, what basis is there for considering them a distinct, protected class subject to preferential treatment under the law or for prohibiting other genetically normal persons from refusing to engage in same-sex behaviour?

The study finds that most persons with the identical genotype as gay or lesbian persons (by an approximate ratio of 2 to 1) end up, for various reasons of social environment or development or personal principle, not engaging in same-sex relations. Shouldn't such persons have equal freedom and legitimacy to do so?

In a free society that values personal autonomy, it is not an appropriate function of law to penalize personal lifestyle choices, no matter how vehemently some may disagree with them or politically incorrect they may be. If it ever did make sense on the premise that gay persons were born that way, in the absence of such a compelling genetic difference, it is impossible to reasonably maintain that tolerance of homosexual behaviour requires intolerance of heterosexual behaviour.

In light of these implications, some of the scientists involved in the study, who are themselves gay, have publicly opposed its publication. Strikingly unaware of their own bias, they expressed concern that the study findings would be "misconstrued" to "advance agendas of hate".

In less heated language, they are concerned that it might be interpreted in ways with which they disagree. For them, the benefits of increased understanding of human behaviour in this area did not outweigh the perceived negative political implications of the findings for the expression of gay identity.

The lead authors of the study, some of whom are also gay, are to be commended for resisting the impulse to suppress scientific evidence for the sake of political expediency. Although sadly often violated today, the conviction that the dissemination of evidence and ideas should not be censored by political considerations is fundamental to modern science.

While we can dispute, hopefully with mutual respect, who may be being hateful to whom in their interpretation of the results, in the end we will all find our best modus vivendi on the basis of policy and law that reflects solid objective evidence, honestly presented, as this study exemplifies.

Or as a wise man once said, "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

Rev. D. Paul Sullins recently retired as Professor of Sociology at the Catholic University of America, Washington DC. He is a Senior Research Associate of the Ruth Institute. Dr. Sullins is a leader in the field of research on same-sex parenting and its implications for child development. He has written four books and over 100 journal articles, research reports, and essays on issues of family, faith, and culture.



Ruth Institute President Says Teaching LGBT History is Indoctrination, Not Education

Ruth Institute President Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D., called the growing trend in public schools of teaching LGBT history “the institutionalization of the Sexual Revolution.”

“For years, activists have sought to use schools to advance their sexualized worldview,” Morse explained. “They are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. California, New Jersey, Colorado and now Illinois require exposing children to this ‘instruction.’”

Morse noted an assault on parental rights. “Since most sex education instruction has an opt-out provision, activists have branched out, inserting LGBT instruction into history, foreign language and even art classes.”


Morse urged parents to be vigilant to stop this indoctrination from spreading. “The mandates for these classes are usually based on a vote of the state legislature. Often, legislators hear from only one side – the proponents of these radical measures.”

“You might say eternal vigilance is the price of morality,” Morse concluded.

The Ruth Institute is a global non-profit organization equipping Christians to defend the family and build a civilization of love. On April 26-27, the Institute held a Summit for Survivors of Sexual Revolution http://www.ruthinstitute.org/upcoming-events/survivors-summit

Dr. Morse is the author of, “The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives.” https://thesexualstate.com/

For more information on The Ruth Institute: http://www.ruthinstitute.org/

To schedule an interview with Dr. Morse, email media@ruthinstitute.org

Support the Ruth Institute