|
|
Born Gay
- Continued
In March of 1992, the British Journal of Psychiatry
published a report on ho-
46 homosexual men and women who were twins. (Both fraternal
and identical twins were included in the study.) Only
20 percent of the homosexual twins had a homosexual
co-twin, leading the researchers to conclude that "genetic
factors are insufficient explanation of the development
of sexual orientation."
All of which brings us back to the issues of facts,
suggestions, and implications: The fact is, differences
may exist in the brains of some homosexual men.
Likewise, some sets of identical twins have been studied,
and a scant majority of them (52 percent) share the
same sexual orientation. The suggestion that homosexuality
is therefore inborn, though, is interpretive and arguable.
The implication put forth by some that society should
therefore accept homosexuality as common, normal, and
morally neutral cannot be supported from the facts alone.
"Different" does not mean "inborn,"
and "inborn" does not mean "normal."
The leap from facts to implications is too large.
Professional critics
There might be more force to the "inborn"
argument if it were almost universally accepted by the
professional community. But far from universal acceptance,
the studies in question have raised more than a few
scientific hackles. "This is not a debate about
biology, but about the body politic," scoffs Anne
Fausto Sterling. Her initial response to LeVay's findings
was even more pointed: "My freshmen biology students
know enough to sink this study." William Byrne,
resident of psychiatry at Columbia University's College
of Physicians and Surgeons, is no less subtle in his
criticism of LeVay, Bailey, and Pillard: "If you
look at any one piece of that [bom gay] evidence, it
is inconclusive. It's like trying to add up a hundred
zeroes so you can get one."
Others agree that the results are far from final: "I'm
not willing to say there isn't a biological component,
but there's too much else we haven't explored,"
says John D'Emilio, an associate professor of history
at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Richard
Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental Health
takes a similar view. Allowing that LeVay's research
shows "a very interesting initial result,"
he concludes, "it will take a much larger effort
to be and homosexuality." Adding to thc-'se criticisms
are the implied disagreements of the many professionals
who consider homosexuality to be a changeable condition
and could therefore hardly endorse a genetic theory.
So if the studies in question have not really proven
homosexuality is genetic, and if the scientific community
is not in agreement as to whether or not they are even
valid, why have we been inundated with news stories
touting the latest "evidence" that gays are
bom gay?
Welcome to the politically charged world of the popular
media. Initial findings by homosexual researchers with
a clearly stated agenda were fed to a sympathetic press,
which generously' splashed these findings (and the alleged
implications) across America's front pages. It should
be remembered that a recent polling of media representatives
showed 80 percent do not think homosexuality is wrong,
90 percent favor abortion rights, and only 20 percent
attend church or synagogue. So it comes as no surprise
that the studies in question have been given more than
generous coverage.
In fact, a comparison to the news media's handling of
a similar genetic study will show how disproportionate
the current hoopla really is. In the fall of 1991 (around
the same time as LeVay's results were published), researchers
at the City of Hope Medical Center found a certain gene
to be present in 77 percent of alcoholics who were studied,
yet absent in 72 percent of the nonalcoholic also
studied. This presented significant evidence for a genetic
predisposition toward alcoholism, which has long been
a subject of interest and concern to Americans. Yet
no major magazine featured these studies on their covers,
and they received only passing mention in the press,
though they were written up in the Journal of the American
Medical Association. Why? Was one study "better"
or more important to the population than the other?
Hardly, but one study (LeVay's) was clearly more important
to the press, despite the opinions of the scientific
community.
Compassion and conviction
What, then, do Christians have to say in response? Criticizing
the latest research is not enough. We, too, have something
to say about human
sexuality. We have a frame of reference - the Bible
- which is an intelligent, explicit document with specific
guidelines for sexual behavior and vital insights into
human needs. From that reference point, we too have
something to contribute to the national debate on homosexuality.
We probably don't need to convince each other that homosexuality
is not God's design. A 1991 survey of American churchgoers
found that 75 percent disapprove of homosexuality, and
81 percent of those who frequently attended church believe
homosexual acts are always immoral. Still, as Peter
said, we should be ready to give an answer for our beliefs
(1 Peter 3:15). The way we answer may be as important
as the answer itself.
Our response should show interest and concern, two qualities
the church has rarely shown when dealing with homosexuality.
We must admit we have mishandled the issue in many ways:
we have veered between ignoring the problem to becoming
obsessed with it; we have made hasty and false generalizations
at times about homosexuals themselves; and we have shown
a tremendous zeal for defeating the political goals
of gays while showing less concern for their eternal
well being. [See CHRISTIANITY
TODAY, Feb. 6, 1981, "Homosexuals Can Change,"
for a detailed critique of the church's lack of compassion
toward homosexuals.] So when we respond to
progay research, let's keep in mind the sad truth that
our own record on this issue is less than ideal.
Let us also be open-minded toward new evidence. Simply
saying, "The Bible says homosexuality is a sin-so
I don't care what your studies show!" sounds suspiciously
like intellectual insecurity. Of course we must hold
to biblical values, but let's at least hear the evidence
before we judge it.
However, we cannot afford a naive, gullible response,
either. We can and should look critically at new claims,
weighing them not only against Scripture but against
established and current objective data.
A biblical response to the "bom gay" question
begins with Scripture's view of the human condition.
Humanity is fallen, incomplete, and beset with physical,
psychological, and spiritual problems. Adam and Eve's
disobediences onto every aspect of our being (Gen.
3:16-19), our genetic and biological structures included.
Physically we are not what we were meant to be; death
and corruption entered the world as a result of sin,
not divine intent. As the psalmist laments, "Behold,
I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me" (Ps. 51:5); the apostle Paul describes
how we "groan inwardly as we wait for... the redemption
of our bodies" (Rom. 8:23)
.
Thus we can easily allow that there are, in some cases,
physical imperfections that predispose people toward
certain behaviors. That is not to say anyone is predestined
to engage in these behaviors; rather, some inborn tendencies
could make it easier for a person to fall into them.
Even if it can be proven that genetic or biological
influences predispose people toward homosexuality, that
will never prove homosexuality is in and of itself normal.
It will only prove what we already know-that genetic
variances can and do affect future behavior, sometimes
in undesirable ways. If some people have a genetic predisposition
toward alcoholism, as the City of Hope research suggests,
should we conclude the disease is a "normal"
condition and refuse to treat it? Should the biblical
prohibitions against drunkenness be nullified?
The principle is the same regarding homosexuality. Let
research conclude what it may about the causes; genetic
origins do not justify sinful behavior.
And that is the crux of the issue. While the Bible praises
sexuality and commends sexual enjoyment, it also gives
specific guidelines for sexual expression. Homosexual
behavior is consistently condemned throughout the Old
and New Testaments, and there is no contingency in this
condemnation.
Nowhere does Scripture suggest that if one is bom with
homosexual inclinations, this negates the prohibitions.
Rather than continue the "nature versus nurture"
debate on origins, we ought instead to be asking whether
homosexuality is desirable, healthy, and moral no matter
what factors led to its existence. The greatest error
being promoted by LeVay, Pillard, Bailey, and others
is the assumption that they can normalize homosexuality
by proving its biological sources (a questionable goal,
since discrimination against blacks and women has been
defended on genetic grounds). One wonders how many other
aberrations will be normalized in the future if they,
too, can be shown to have been inborn.
God's standards are absolute and not subject to our
latest discoveries. For those wishing to maintain those
standards. God's grace is available to overcome any
number of sinful tendencies, homosexuality included.
As for those who have no desire to do so, we cannot
force them, nor should we try. Paul's words are relevant:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside
the church?"
(1 Cor. 5:12, Niv).
But there are those outside the church who would coerce
us into changing. The Christian view of sexuality is
being increasingly denigrated and dismissed as archaic,
irrelevant, and at times dangerous. Christian spokespersons
are increasingly vilified and ridiculed when they stand
in public for, biblical morality. James Dobson frequently
refers to a "civil war" in America between
conservative and liberal forces. This war seems to be
escalating.
In this context, some are tempted to react with aggression
and contempt toward anyone suggesting homosexuality
is determined before birth. Others are tempted to bow
to the wishes of the progay lobby and apologize for
our beliefs. But striking the proper balance of compassion
and conviction is our only legitimate option. Unintimidated,
but unsparing in our love, we still have something to
say. And say it we must.
Joe Dallas is the president of Exodus International,
a network of ex-gay ministries, and the author of Desires
in Conflict: Answering the Struggle For Sexual Identity
|
