Check out "More 'Born That Way' Baloney" in which Muehlenberg is giving himself apoplexy because an advert dares to affirm the scientific consensus that sexuality is an immutable trait.
Players of "Muehlenberg Bingo" will hit the jackpot and yell "House!" from the very first paragraph, since we have:
- radical social engineers. Check.
- telling lies. Check.
- push their agenda. Check.
- militant homosexual lobby. Check.
- Hitler. Check
- Goebbels. Check.
Muehlenberg presses on:
One of the biggest lies coming out of their camp is the myth that homosexuality is genetic, that you are born that way, and that you can never change.I have no idea what he means by "their camp". Do gay people communicate to the rest of the world via spokespeople? Does he just mean what gay people say? And note that he's setting up a false dichotomy from the off. Homosexuality may be genetic, and possible to change. Or you may not be born that way and it's not possible to change. The three don't necessarily predict one another. As usual, lazy writing and an issue not understood by Muehlenberg.
It gets worse.
I of course deal extensively with these falsehoods in my bookHas Bill mentioned he's written a book? I think he's a bit shy about trying to flog it. It was published by a tiny publisher that deals exclusively with religious tomes and is probably run out of somebody's back bedroom. It sank without trace. I bet even swivel-eyed Margaret Court ("the greatest tennis player ever" as Muehlenberg gushes to remind us) hasn't read it.
But you really should buy Billy's book because:
There I cite plenty of medical and scientific journalsThis is all starting to look a bit suspect. All reputable scientific bodies who have researched homosexuality have found:
- it is naturally occurring in thousands of species
- it is partly genetic and partly environmental
- it may be linked to conditions in the womb
- it is harmless
- it is unchangeable
- the world is billions of years old
- species evolve
- humans evolved from non-human ancestors
- the universe as we know it started from a big bang
Yet when a "scientist" purports to support his view on homosexuality, he latches on to them and uses the argument from authority.
You can't have it both ways, you hypocrite!
Even more embarrassingly for Muehlenberg, he's entirely mistaken. He plays his trump card - that if sexuality were genetic, then identical twins should have the same sexuality - but (wait for it...) they don't! Therefore sexuality can't be genetic. Therefore it's a choice. Therefore any gays who tell you they didn't choose to be gay are big fat liars and I win. Ha!
That, in a nutshell, is (hard to believe) the depth (or should that be shallowness? Yes, yes it should) of Muehlenberg's argument.
The fact that 38% of identical twins are both gay is overwhelmingly high, and a clear indicator of a genetic foundation. However, Muehlenberg misunderstands genetics (of course he does. It's impossible to understand genetics if you don't understand the foundation of the biological sciences - evolution - and he is staggeringly ignorant on that subject).
Muehlenberg seems to think that all genes are as deterministic as ones that influence eye colour. He simply doesn't understand that genes interact in subtle ways, and that genes are "switched on" and "switched off" at different times during development and throughout an organism's life. Identical twins certainly have the same genome - the same DNA sequence - but they do not have the same phenotype.
Hormones also play a part in shaping personality and traits. Young men awash with testosterone can be prone to fits of rage. Hormones influence the phenotype. The hormone levels in identical twins will not be the same.
Bill also quotes from his favourite "scientist" (you know, the one not involved in spreading a Marxist conspiracy):
They [identical twins] are nurtured in equal prenatal conditionsThis clearly isn't true, since the twins may have shared the same womb, but one of them will have had more food through the placenta, and conditions on one side of a womb are not exactly the same as on the other. One would have been the "runt" of the litter.
A little research on Bill's favourite scientist reveals him to be Dr Neil Whitehead. No, I'd never heard of him either. A quick Google search reveals: virtually nothing. Except that he's a "Christian writer". So he clearly has an anti-gay agenda to pursue. But let's not let scientific objectivity get in the way when you have an agenda to push, eh, Bill?
The man Bill Muehlenberg entirely dishonestly presents as an "expert" who has written an "important book" is nothing of the sort. Whitehead hasn't published any scientific papers that I can see. He hasn't done any research or been published in scientific journals. He's simply a "Christian writer". A man with a point of view about homosexuality that he has written about in a non-scientific context.
In what way, please Bill, does that make him an "expert"? Or are you happy to just brazenly lie about this?
Dr Whitehead's PhD is in "biochemistry and statistics". So clearly he's at the cutting edge of genetic research then, isn't he? Lol. That's like me having a PhD in Fine Arts and claiming I'm an expert in building suspension bridges.
Dr Whitehead's book that Bill is gleefully quoting from is published by Harvest House. Again, you ask, who? They are (as they describe themselves) publishers of "high quality Christian books". They do not publish science papers or scientific research. So why did Whitehead go to them and not to, say, The Lancet? Maybe because he has no scientific evidence? You know, because he isn't a geneticist?
Again, Bill Muehlenberg, are you seriously going to claim you're not being selective as to your sources? After all, when you are pushing a radical agenda, you can’t let mere trifles like truth and biology get in your way, can you, Bill?
I look forward to Bill reading and then quoting on non-Christian geneticists on the subject of human sexuality. I am not holding my breath. I'm also looking forward to the day Muehlenberg reads Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and then stops spouting ignorance about genetics, genetic determinism and evolution. Again, I'm not holding my breath.
As usual, the comments are worth a look. The illiterate Damien Spillane actually comes dangerously close to disproving Bill's rant - but doesn't even realise it! Alex Sagin has the lovely:
we have good news for you, your child will be normal, it won’t be a gay or a lesbian or a transgender.What, normal like you, you Jesus freak?
And Chris Dark confesses that he "once knew" some actual gay people (unlike Bill, or anyone else who contributes to his site) but that,
I never felt at ease with these peopleNote the dehumanising use of "these people". He goes on:
I do wonder now whether The Lord purposefully created this situation for me, so that I would experience their existence and thus be able to relate it, some thirty years later, to help understand what is happening today.Yes, you arrogant prick. The creator of the universe made those gays and put them in your life just so you could comment on a fundamentalist blog. It's all about you.
If you think I've satisfactorily skewered Muehlenberg with this post, please feel free to share it around.