Born Gay? Homosexuality and Genetics
by Tyler Young
Abraham Lincoln once said, “In this country, pubic sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces judicial decisions.” Homosexual activists know this all too well, which is why they have worked fervently to shift public opinion in their favor. A key strategy of homosexuals in shaping public sentiment is to convince us that homosexuality is a matter of genetics, thus shifting the debate from behavior to identity. Activists demand that homosexuals be given the status of a legally protected minority on the grounds that their homosexuality is not something they choose; it is what they are. To ask them to be otherwise, they argue, would be the equivalent of demanding that someone cease to be Caucasian or choose not to have blue eyes. They liken their cause to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, and those who oppose their agenda to bigots who discriminate on the basis of race. The subtle but significant change in terminology, from speaking of sexual “preference”—which implies choice—to sexual “orientation”—which suggests that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are innate and fixed—was intended to reinforce the notion that sexual behavior should be equated with race or gender.
Homosexuals have been successful in gaining support for their cause by convincing much of the public that their contention that sexuality is genetically determined is supported by science. The media has suggested to the public again and again that such evidence has been found and that the debate over the morality of homosexuality has been settled by science. As a result, even some conservative bible believers may be confused on the issue. As some erroneously suppose scientists have proven an evolutionary view of the history of the earth and life that is different from that found in scripture, there may be those who believe science has given evidence for a view of human sexuality different from what the Bible teaches. This is exactly the impression gay activists want to create—that it is a matter of science verse the Bible. In Guide Magazine, a publication for homosexuals, Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill set forth specific strategies for turning the public against the church, including this one: “Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science and Public Opinion. Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion [and origins—TY]… that alliance can work again here.” Given the effectiveness of this tactic, it is crucial that we expose the propaganda based on bogus science and show scripture and true science are in perfect agreement on this matter as they are on all matters.
Does God condemn what he causes?
A 1999 episode of the normally family-friendly program, Touched by an Angel, featured a homosexual man dying of AIDS. In a scene where the young man is about to confess to God that his lifestyle was sinful, the “angel” Andrew tells him he has no reason to ask for forgiveness since God made him “that way.” If it is true that God “makes” some people heterosexual and some homosexual, that is, if a person’s sexual proclivity is purely genetically determined, then it would not be condemned in the Bible, and no one ought to feel guilty for being homosexual. There would be no need for repentance, confession or forgiveness. But we have already demonstrated that the scripture clearly teaches the judgment of God is upon those who engage in homosexual behavior. It follows, therefore, that people are responsible for freely choosing to commit homosexual acts. From a strictly theological standpoint the controversy over the genetics of homosexuality is settled if we accept the bible as the verbally, plenary inspired, authoritative word of God. If people were indeed “born gay,” they could no more be condemned by God for it than for being left-handed, or male, or having red hair or brown eyes.
The teaching of God’s word, then, is clear on the matter. What many people do not understand is that more than a decade of extensive scientific study has not produced the slightest evidence to the contrary.
The politics of “science”
In 1973 the homosexual movement won what may arguably be its single most significant victory to date in the battle for cultural acceptance. It was that year that the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric illnesses. Prior to that point the consensus of mental health professionals was that homosexuality is an undesirable but possibly “curable” abnormality of emotionally disturbed individuals. By changing its stance on the issue the APA effected a mass change in public opinion over homosexuality. What most people do not know, however, is that the landmark APA decision was not motivated by science, but politics. It was the intimidating tactics of radical homosexuals and pressure from their sympathizers within the organization—not any scientific data—which prompted it to make the change in its position. In a comprehensive and well documented treatment on the matter (Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth), Jeffrey Satinover observes that “in its decision that homosexuality was not an illness, the APA ignored nearly eighty years worth of psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic observation.” He goes on to point out that the available scientific evidence
suggest that a composite of mutually interacting factors influence almost all aspects of human behavior, and thoroughly confound the notion that someone could simply answer the question “Whence arises homosexuality?” and “What is it?” with the responses “nature” or “nurture,” “normal” or “abnormal.” And these studies neither explain nor even address the role of choice in human behavior.[1]
The question of choice brings us to our next point.
Behavior and biology: Is it all in our genes?
A considerable amount of research has been done in recent years in the field of behavioral genetics. As knowledge of the influence of biological factors on behavior has increased, the trend has been to attribute virtually all human behavior to biological causes. This movement toward radical determinism undermines moral responsibility by suggesting we act they way we do only because of our physical construction. Applied to homosexuality, this philosophy means gays cannot help but feel attraction to those of the same sex because it is built into their genes.
Haven’t scientists discovered a gene which is responsible for causing a person to be homosexual—the so called “gay gene”? Incomplete and misleading reporting from the media has left many with the distinct impression that they have. But the seriously flawed “scientific” research used by homosexual activists and touted by the media to prove this point has been roundly discredited. Oft cited studies, such as the brain study by former Salk Institute researcher Simon LeVay published in 1991 and the 1993 study by geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute claiming to have discovered a genetic component to some instances of male homosexuality, have failed to hold up under the rigors of careful, objective scientific scrutiny. The attempt by Hamer to find a “gay gene” was even critiqued by homosexual activist and author Eward Stein, Ph.D., who said,
Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and the expression of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or a behavior, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms “gay gene” and “homosexual gene” are, therefore, without meaning…No one has…presented evidence in support of such a simple and direct link between genes and sexual orientation.[2]
The question remains: Why are people gay?
The analysis of human behavior is a challenging undertaking because there are numerous factors which affect in varying degrees the way we act. What behavioral scientists have observed is that since human behavior is complex, and since there is a wide range of genetic, biological, psychological, familial, social and cultural influences which may combine in complex ways to influence different people in different ways, it is impossible to give a simplistic explanation for any behavior, much less a behavior as nuanced as homosexuality. But there are general patterns which occur in the lives of many homosexuals which give some insight into the question of why people engage in homosexual behavior.
Studies of homosexuality have consistently shown that early familial influences greatly affect later sexual behavior. There is some consensus that psychological trauma, such as that which results from verbal, physical or sexual abuse, contributes significantly to the development of homosexuality in many—though certainly not all—cases. Satinover points out that a common response to the distress caused by such abuse is the “habitual use of anxiety-reducing, self-soothing behaviors, including sexual deviations, promiscuity, homosexuality and many other activities. Quite often an individual will use more than one such outlet. Thus, for example, homosexuality is commonly associated with both promiscuity and alcoholism or drug use. These activities all have a transiently soothing effect and the tendency to become first habitual, then compulsive, and finally addictive.”[3]
We should understand as well that genes and biology may play a significant role in any behavior, homosexuality included. But in a day when it is popular to label everything as “genetic,” it is crucial to recognize that genetic and biological influences on behavior are generally indirect. It is true that a person’s genetic makeup may give him certain traits which predispose him to a particular behavior. For instance, someone whose genetic code causes him to be tall may find that his height facilitates the choice to play basketball. But his playing basketball is not genetically determined to the extent that he does not have a choice in the matter. In other words, a genetic correlation between tallness and basketball does not mean tall people are forced to play basketball. In a similar way, there may be genetic factors which, in combination with nongenetic factors, predispose some to homosexuality. But that does not imply that those who act on homosexual impulses have no choice in the matter. This same point is often made with alcoholism. The fact that some people may have biological features which make them especially susceptible to alcohol addiction does not mean they are incapable of being sober. As significant as genetic or nongenetic influences may be, our behavior cannot be justified on the grounds of biology or environment because there is another element which must be considered in the assessment of human behavior: the will.
In the area of morality, the exercise of our volition is not merely one factor; it is the deciding factor which outweighs all over influences. We are not slaves to our genes. Because we have the capacity to choose to do certain things or not to do them (Deut. 30:19; Jos. 24:15; Isa. 7:15; Mat. 23:37; John 5:40; 7:17; Rev. 22:17) any correlation which might exist between genes and behavior is ultimately irrelevant in the arena of ethics. Science may give insight into why we may be inclined to certain forms of behavior, but it cannot tell us whether or not we should give in to such inclinations. To put it another way, science may tell us what is, but it cannot tell us what should be. As difficult as biological or environmental influences may make it for us, we can choose to do what we should do. That means homosexuals do not have to be homosexuals.
Coming out of homosexuality
If homosexuals can cease being homosexual and actually become attracted to the opposite sex, then the contention that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable would be demonstrably false and the demand for rights based upon that contention would likewise be invalid. That is why the wrath of gay activists is upon any who offer treatment to change homosexuals. It matters not to them whether homosexuals voluntarily seek such treatment; helping homosexuals who want to abandon the homosexual lifestyle is still considered in excusable offense. When a controversial series of full-page ads featuring former homosexuals claiming to be evidence that gays can change was published in major newspapers in July of 1998, homosexual advocates fumed, making their usual accusations of homophobia. Charges are often made that reparative theory, as it is called, is actually damaging to the emotional health of homosexuals. In 1997 the APA issued guidelines strongly discouraging reparative therapy, officially declaring it to be scientifically ineffective and potentially harmful. The truth is, however, that many—if not most—homosexuals are unhappy; they feel entrapped in their addictive and self-destructive way of life and want desperately to be delivered from it.
Thousands have found that deliverance through both secular and spiritual approaches. In the past, efforts to change homosexuals through drugs, electroshock and even surgery were largely unsuccessful. But now, organizations like the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and support groups like Exodus International have helped many to break free from the bondage of homosexual addiction. The much publicized story of John and Anne Paulk, former homosexuals now happily married, is but one of many similar successes which thoroughly discredit the “gay for life” lie and expose the absurdity of likening homosexuals to minority groups. Of homosexuals who have freed themselves from a way living they abhorred, conservative writer Linda Bowles said, “They changed their behavior, not their biology and genes. So much for the homosexual claim that in their pursuit of civil ‘rights,’ they are just like blacks. Do you know any ex-blacks?”[4]
Because the homosexual lifestyle involves psychological and physical addiction, it can be extremely difficult to break free from its entanglements. The critical element to success in abandoning it is a strong desire to change. Turning from the allure of “the lifestyle” requires complete commitment and powerful motivation for one to make a radical change in his way of life and develop new habits and associations to reinforce a new pattern of wholesome behavior. The needed strength and motivation is provided by the gospel of Jesus Christ. After warning the Corinthians that “fornicators, nor adulterers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites…will inherit the kingdom of God,” he added, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11, NKJV). The word of God teaches that homosexuals do not have to be homosexual; they can repent of their sin and be set free through Christ. In Him there is power to overcome (Phil. 4:13); in Him there is hope and forgiveness.