Gay Gene Doesn’t Exist

Gay Gene Doesn’t Exist
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Not always but frequently, history refers to a nation or a people by its prevailing culture. And by culture, we mean the dominant behavior and beliefs present in that nation or those people.

America’s culture has always centered on the importance of the family, the moral codes of history, and the praiseworthy behavior of its people. The fundamentally important place given the family, along with a peoples’ willingness to work, and a moral code springing from the “shalls” and “shall nots” of Holy Scripture formed the culture of America.

Past history of other lands and other peoples shows far different kinds of culture. Human sacrifice, glorification of sexuality, rampant crime, and the giving over to pleasure for its own sake (Hedonism) have indeed been known to exist in the past. Sad to say, America’s cultural foundation is currently under attack. But there remain many who are repulsed by departures from the old norms and attitudes. Some prestigious individuals have even weighed in with a restating of fundamental truths and morals.

Over the past few decades, the practice of homosexuality has burst out of its closet when in the past only a very few could be found succumbing to its questionable lures. Homosexual activists have taken to claiming they are “born that way.” The result has seen many more in America than one would have imagined a generation ago proclaiming themselves to be homosexual.  And government has contributed to the rise of such a departure from the fundamental attitudes about sex and gender by sanctioning gay marriage.  Fifty years ago, few would have speculated that such relationships might be accorded any inkling of legitimacy in the United States.

Anyone anxious to maintain our nation’s culture, however, will be pleased to know that two distinguished scholars at Johns Hopkins University have concluded that the homosexual claim of being “born that way,” and the insistence of many that they possess a “gay gene” cannot be supported. The work of Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D. and Dr. Paul R. McHugh, M.D. entitled Sexuality and Gender has been published in the Fall 2016 edition of the journal The New Atlantis.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality has summarized the 143-page report issued by these two scholars: “Homosexual activists have been desperate to try to say they’re ‘born that way’ believing that this absolves them of the moral responsibility for their sexual behavior.” LaBarbera explains that if the public believes some people are “born gay,” there will be widespread “accepting of homosexual activism.” There could hardly be a more devastating attack on the culture of a nation and a people.

Our own point of view is very simple. It is that a person’s gender (or sex if that term is preferred) exists from the moment of conception in the mother’s womb. Each of us is either male or female from that moment. Trying to change what nature has established, or seeking to excuse deviations from nature’s decision via processes leading to transgender status is more than absurd. It’s destructive of a very important ingredient in our nation’s culture.

We’re happy to acknowledge the work of Drs. Mayer and McHugh. And we look forward to their study helping to expose the dishonesty of claims that some people are “born that way” and have a “gay gene.” Such nonsense has already negatively impacted our nation’s culture and it needs to be countered and labeled a gross absurdity.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Who Sets the Pope’s Agenda?

Who Sets the Pope’s Agenda?
by JBS President John F. McManus

During the visit of Pope Francis to America, wide publicity followed the back door papal meeting with Kim Davis, the county clerk from Kentucky who had spent several days in jail because of her refusal to issue same–sex marriage licenses. The term “back door” is appropriate in this instance because Mrs. Davis and her husband were required to sneak into the Vatican Embassy through a rear entrance, away from photographers and scribes who carefully scrutinized all who came and went via the main entrance. It had even been suggested to Mrs. Davis by a Vatican official that she alter her hairstyle so as not to be so easily recognized. According to Davis’s lawyer, the pope met with the couple for about 15 minutes.

Pope Francis visits America. Is there an agenda behind it? (Photo by Korea.net / Korean Culture and Information Service (Photographer name) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

Vatican officials travelling with Pope Francis were quick to insist that the pope was not endorsing the embattled county clerk’s stance regarding homosexual marriage. They also spread the notion that the pope likely didn’t even know the circumstances that had catapulted Mrs. Davis to national attention and why she received the invitation. Within hours, these Church spokesmen made light of the secretly arranged visit and even spread the possibility that the two had never met.

But there was another visitor welcomed by the pope during his stay in the nation’s capital who received completely different treatment – from the Vatican officials and the media. Yayo Grassi, a 67-year-old Argentinian now living in Washington, has known the pope since the 1960s when he studied under then Father Jorge Bergoglio, the future Pope Francis. For years, Grassi has kept in touch with his one-time mentor, meeting with him in Buenos Aires and even encountering him in Rome in 2003. Grassi happens to be a homosexual who brought his partner and several other friends to share his latest visit with his old acquaintance, now Pope Francis.

While there were no photos of the pope with Mrs. Davis, the media quickly displayed a photo taken from a video made during the Grassi visit. It showed the pope and his old friend in an embrace. And the accompanying write-ups reported that the pope had hugged the others.

Vatican officials have come close to labeling the Davis encounter with the pope a mistake. But Vatican and media attention given the meeting enjoyed by Yayo Grassi and his friends, both during and after their encounter, was enormously different. Vatican officials later insisted that the invitation given Mrs. Davis came merely from the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Carlo Vigano.

The treatment given Mrs. Davis both before and after her papal visit contrasted dramatically with that given Yayo Grassi and his entourage. Pope Francis has not changed Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality, but it is understandable if his actions have caused confusion among Catholics and non-Catholics alike as to whether that teaching has been modified.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Keep up with our latest news and sign up at JBS.org or on our Facebook page.


Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Score a Big Win For Homosexuality: What Has Happened to Morality?

Score a Big Win For Homosexuality: What Has Happened to Morality?
By JBS President John F. McManus

In days gone by, the incident would never have occurred. Nor would objecting to it have triggered a disciplinary response. But these aren’t ordinary days.

Michael Sam is a football player. While finishing up his college career, he won plaudits from the usual corners for announcing that he was a homosexual. Selected by a National Football League team in the annual draft of future players, he celebrated by promptly and publicly planting a kiss on his male friend while TV cameras were rolling. Already elevated to national prominence and lauded for “courage” and “forward thinking” by the customary gaggle of media leftists, Sam’s gesture rocketed him to fame.

Not everyone applauded the male-to-male display of affection. One who disagreed and said so is Miami Dolphin player Don Jones. He tweeted that he was disgusted, even offended, by what Sam had done in front of national television cameras. For registering that stance, Jones was fined by the Dolphins and banned from attending team activities until he undergoes “training for his recent comments made on social media.” He was disciplined for expressing distaste for Sam’s conduct but even more for indicating opposition to homosexuality.

Ultimately, it isn’t what Jones stated that had to be combated. It isn’t even that Sam is a homosexual willing to flaunt his choice of lifestyle before the public. In a land where free speech is supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment, is it no longer possible for someone to express disagreement over conduct that has heretofore been regarded as detestable. Does the comment made by Jones merit dragging him into a session with some sociologists who will work him over to improve his attitude or, at a minimum, keep him from expressing it? How is this Miami Dolphin response different from the reeducation camps that were routinely conducted by communist cadres in Vietnam, China, and elsewhere? Do “thought police” belong in the NFL? Or anywhere in America?

The Dolphin front office doesn’t have to keep Jones on their team. As an employer, they can simply tell him he’s no longer wanted. But that’s not what they did. They obviously want the homosexual lifestyle brought more into the mainstream and they took swift action to demonstrate their preference. By their action, the Dolphin leaders sent a message to all in the NFL and to its millions of fans that homosexuality must now be accepted and no protest, even a tiny negative comment about it in a tweet, will be tolerated. Jones, who objected, not to homosexuality itself but to its public display, got punished. As far as we know, Sam’s televised display of contempt for traditional mores didn’t draw any rebuke from the team that chose him. In some circles, it even drew applause.

Traditional morality took a hit in this instance. This places the incident far beyond the matter of free speech. Will a marriage for Sam and his partner be next? Why not in this “anything goes” descent into the swamps?