How politics have skewed the debate over the biological causes of homosexuality.
Recent findings by scientists suggest that homosexuality is an inborn trait. Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist with the Salk Institute of La Jolla, California, found the area of the hypothalamus that allegedly governs sexual activity tobe smaller in homosexual men than in heterosexual ones. (The brains of 41 cadavers were studied by LeVay, 19 of which had belonged to homosexuals.)
On the heels of LeVay’s work came the findings of psychologist Michael Bailey, a gay-rights advocate, and psychiatrist Richard Pillard, who, like LeVay, identifies himself as homosexual. Published in December 1991, Bailey and Pillard’s research with identical twins (who have identical genetic codes) and fraternal twins (whose genetic codes differ) showed that if one identical twin is homosexual, the other’s chances of being homosexual are three times higher than among fraternal twins. This, they say, suggests a link between homosexuality and genetics.
Predictably, this has been grist for the media mill. Although the researchers themselves show some restraint in their claims (LeVay admits his findings do not establish “cause and effect”), the press has not always been as careful. Major talk shows and news articles have used the research to take the argument a step further, not only telling us homosexuality is probably inborn, but also that our views on the subject should be modified. The argument goes something like this: Homosexuals are born that way, which means homosexuality is a normal condition. What is normal cannot be immoral. Therefore, prohibitions against homosexuality make no sense.
Many Christians, especially those of us involved in ministry to homosexuals, react strongly to such a message. Scientific inquiry should, of course, be welcomed instead of shunned; but when such inquiry is used to challenge traditional biblical teaching, then a clear, balanced response from the church is called for. To give it, we need to ask and answer four essential questions: (1) Were the studies conducted in an unbiased and fair way? (2) What are the true implications of the results? (3) Are they accepted almost universally by the scientific and medical communities? (4) Are they compatible with biblical truth?
Agendas And Outcomes
Having an agenda is no crime. So when prohomosexual doctors are motivated to promote gay rights through research, that is no reason to ignore the research itself. At the same time, it does give us sufficient reason to explore how their bias may have shaped their conclusions.
To their credit, these men have been open about their agendas. LeVay, for example, told Newsweek that his lover’s death from AIDS prompted him to find an inborn cause for homosexuality, a quest so important that he would give up his scientific career altogether if he did not find it. He hopes to “educate” society, affecting legal and religious attitudes about homosexuality. Pillard is just as direct about his goals: “A genetic component in sexual orientation says, ‘This is not a fault, and this is not your fault.’ ” Both he and Bailey consider their findings to be good news because they will “disprove homophobic claims”; or as gay journalist Randy Shilts puts it, they will “reduce being gay to something like being left-handed, which is all it is.”
To simplify homosexuality by equating it with left-handedness is tempting if you are homosexual or a gay-rights activist or a parent feeling guilt over your child’s homosexual orientation. But to those who cannot view homosexuality as a normal condition, even if it is inborn, the researchers’ assumptions sound questionable.
Are we to think that because something might be genetic in origin, it is therefore “natural”? What, then, do we say about genetic deformities or birth defects? Are they, too, “normal” because a significant number of people were born with them?
This raises a larger and more vital question: Should the standard for normality be determined by what is inborn?
Before addressing that question, though, let’s consider whether these studies have indeed proven homosexuality to be inborn.
Facts And Implications
As we examine LeVay’s and Pillard and Bailey’s findings, we have to distinguish between what the facts really are, and what they imply.
The facts are simple enough. One bundle of neurons in the hypothalamus (which regulates heart rate, sleep, hunger, and sex drive) was found to be nearly three times as large in the brains of the 16 heterosexual men studied by LeVay as it was in the brains of the 19 homosexual men. At first glance, that looks conclusive: an open-and-shut case for the genetic argument.
But it is not that simple. It is questionable whether the portion of the hypothalamus LeVay studied (the INAH 3) can be accurately measured. It is smaller than a snowflake, and scientists are not in agreement as to how its size should be determined. According to Newsweek, “Measuring brain structures is notoriously difficult and controversial—neuroscientists cannot agree on whether the most meaningful gauge is the volume of the region [LeVay’s method] or its number of neurons.”
Further complicating matters is the sensitive nature of the hypothalamus itself. Does its size determine homosexuality, or does homosexuality determine its size? No one is sure. “You could postulate,” says neurophysiologist Kenneth Klivington of the Salk Institute, “that brain change occurs throughout life, as a consequence of experience.” Klivington refers to a “feedback loop” in which the brain influences behavior, behavior shapes experience, experience “affects the organization of the brain.” Which raises the question: Are homosexuals born with a smaller portion of the hypothalamus or does the size decrease later in life?
We do not know. Nor do we know for certain what the sexual histories of LeVay’s subjects really were, as LeVay himself admits. Those he identified as homosexual are assumed to have been so by information gleaned from their files, but can we be sure the other subjects were heterosexual? By what criteria was their sexuality determined?
These and other questions have no doubt led LeVay to be conservative in his conclusions: “What I reported was a difference in the brain structure of the hypothalamus. We can’t say on the basis of that what makes people gay or straight.” So what appears to be “proof positive” turns out to be, by LeVay’s admission, “perhaps and maybe.”
Pillard and Bailey’s twin studies are similarly vague. Like LeVay’s work, they look conclusive to the casual observer: 52 percent of the identical twins of homosexual men were also found to be homosexual. If a homosexual man has an identical twin, these statistics suggest his twin brother will more likely than not be homosexual as well. Therefore, something in the genes causes homosexuality.
Not so, says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. Declaring Pillard and Bailey’s conclusions to be “badly interpreted genetics,” Sterling insists that “in order for such a study to be meaningful, you’d have to look at twins raised apart.” Common sense would lead us to agree—identical twins raised in the same family environment will have any number of similarities, many of which are linked to their shared upbringing rather than genetics.
Like LeVay, Pillard shows restraint in his conclusions: “There must be something in the environment,” he concedes when confronted with the fact that many identical twins have different sexual preferences. In fact, environmental influences seem to be a predominant factor in the development of homosexuality according to another twin study, similar to Pillard and Bailey’s but different in its conclusions.
In March of 1992, the British Journal of Psychiatry published a report on homosexuals who are twins, interviewing 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 [born 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 convinced that there is a link between this structure and homosexuality.” Adding to these 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 born 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 nonalcoholics 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 naïve, 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 “born 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 disobedience in the Garden brought consequences 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 born 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.
