Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 2

Time to expand upon the fourth point I mentioned in my first post on this topic: the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the late 80s and 90s. The people behind this campaign saw that the best way to halt the growing public aversion to homosexual behaviour (that resulted from the rising prevalence of AIDS) was to convince us it’s normal, and that it’s not their fault, that they didn’t choose to be this way. The following outlines some of the tactics they used in order to achieve this goal. The bulk of this information comes from Ian Wishart’s book Eve’s Bite (great read, I highly recommend it) with other sources as cited. The primary source Wishart draws from in his chapters on this topic is the 432 page tome After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Kirk and Madsen (still available from Amazon.com, published in 1990, but born out of a conference of leaders in the gay community in ‘88), in which the authors outline their plan to convince the public by means of a PR blitz that homosexuality is a normal behaviour and that any opposition to it is not to be tolerated by the public. They say, “the campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a programme of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof...”.

With regards to the “born gay” idea, they say “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate pre-dispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence...to suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen, is to open a can of worms labelled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.” In other words, even though they knew it wasn’t true, they wanted others to think that gays were born, not made! Why? Because this legitimises the behaviour, and brands as ‘gay-haters’ or ‘homophobes’ anyone who disagrees with that lifestyle choice. This is the line that we have seen pushed again and again in movies and on TV (which many of watch too much of...) and in the media and many people have assumed it to be true. A whole generation of children has grown up with these ideas and very little to counter this, except what ‘whacko fundamentalist religious nuts’ say.

Yet we are starting to see a change in the literature, and it’s coming from inside the gay community. Increasingly, homosexual authors are admitting that the idea that gays are born not made is purely a political one. Lesbian academic Dr Lilian Faderman acknowledges this when she said in 1995, “And we [the gay and lesbian community] continue to demand Rights ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever...”. She also makes this telling statement: “What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?” This is a tacit admission that many gay activists know their lifestyle is a choice, yet they realise that the way to gain public support and recognition is by convincing people that they were born gay.

In her book Queer by Choice, lesbian Dr Vera Whisman says: “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist (born that way) foundation, do we [even] have a viable politics?” Jennie Ruby, a lesbian writer, says this in her book Off Our Backs: “I don’t think lesbians are born...I think they are made...the gay rights movement has (for many good practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.” Again, from lesbian author Jan Clausen, “the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensible tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.” Need I say more?

This brings me to a final question: why am I writing this? What’s my goal? Well, it’s twofold. Firstly, I want Christians and others who are concerned about our society to be able to justify their opposition to things like gay marriage and gay adoption in a way that is more than just “the Bible says so”. We need to be able to counter the propaganda put forward by those on the pro-gay side of politics. Secondly, and this is so important, I want to offer those of you out there that might be struggling with sexual orientation a lifeline. You have been told by the media, by the government, by our schools, by our friends perhaps, that you were born that way and you cannot change. That’s not true! It is not in any way conclusive that sexual orientation is a product of nature, and I’ve shown good reasons here to believe otherwise. So, if you are struggling with this, or if you have recently become a Christian and are trying to extricate yourself from your previous lifestyle, take heart! There are people who can help you. Exodus International is a Christian group set up to help people find freedom from homosexuality - see their website (http://www.exodus-international.org/). And always remember – it is the healing power of Christ that sets us free, not anything else. Come to Him, cast your burdens on Him and He will help you!

In this series First | Previous

Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 1

In keeping with our theme of going Science Mad, and as a follow up to James’ post on homosexuality, I thought it might be good to examine this idea that homosexuality is a product of nature, a genetically determined behaviour, rather than a choice. But first – why are we doing this? Why the posts on homosexuality? It’s not because we hate gays, nor is it because we fear them. We believe that the homosexual lifestyle is not the one God intended for His creations to live in, just as He didn’t intend for us to live in drunkenness or addicted to drugs, or in any type of sinful lifestyle. We want to see all people fulfil the potential God has for them, and for some people what stands in their way is their sexual orientation. With that said, let’s move on!

The idea that sexual orientation is determined by genes is put about by many homosexuals and gay rights activists, but does it really hold water? I don’t believe it does for four reasons: firstly, the search for the so-called ‘gay gene’ has, as yet, proved unfruitful; secondly, children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay, suggesting that nurture, not nature, is at work; thirdly, it is possible for a person to change their sexual orientation; and finally because of the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the 80s. Let’s examine the first three here, and the fourth in Part 2.

The search for the ‘gay gene’:
Despite much fanfare in the media in 1993 when Professor Dean Harmer published his initial findings in the journal Science suggesting a link between homosexual behaviour and genetics, little more has been discovered in the intervening 16 years to support his claims. Indeed, the following year the same journal published this by Yale’s Dr Joel Gelernter (speaking about the repeatability of studies like Harmer's), “All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.” In line with Dr Gelernter’s thoughts, a study done by the University of Western Ontario, again in Science, showed no support for “the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation”. In more recent times, the research is no closer to consensus. Dr Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist, said in an article published in 2008 on the ABC news website that “the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics”. Yet his colleagues at the American Psychological Association disagree. The APA publish this in their brochure “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”: “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....", which is a revision of their position in 1998 that there is considerable evidence that biology plays a significant role. So it seems we have scientists on both sides, with neither clearly in the lead. Indeed, one needs to look not just at the data, but also the interpretation. For example, commenting on a study that found “if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases”, which the authors claim is proof of genetic link, Billings and Beckwith claim it is “strong evidence for the influence of the environment”. This is a good point with which to move on from the undecided genetics to my second point.

Children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay:
In a 1999 comparative study of 39 children in 27 lesbian families versus a control group of heterosexual families published in the journal Developmental Psychology, 15% of children in the lesbian families went on to have same-sex relationships compared with none of the children in the heterosexual families. Compare that 15% to less than 1% of the general population who are gay. Additionally, other children from the lesbian families stated that they had either already considered, or thought it likely that they would at some point in the future, having a ‘same-gender sexual relationship’.

A person can change their sexual orientation:
The most recent edition (March 2009) of Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment states, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)” (p488). If it is possible that sexual orientation can be changed, not just ignored but changed, and that such a change does not produce harm in the subject, then that lends weight to the idea that it is not genetics at work. After all, how can one change a behaviour that is determined by genes? The genes cannot be changed, not by the methods at work here, in any case.

That brings us to the conclusion of Part 1. Stay tuned for Part 2, where I look at the way in which the gay rights activists have promoted homosexuality over the last few decades.

In this series Previous | Next

Homosexuality

"The fact that we are even in the same genus makes me ashamed to call myself "homo"" Prof. Farnsworth - Futurama

I hope no one took offense to that; I figured we needed a good joke to lighten everyone up as this will likely prove very unpopular. Popularity, though, does not decide truth, nor do I. Therefore my own views, whatever they may be, must be put away, and God’s Word come first. It has been asked (by numerous people in numerous ways) what is the “Christian view on homosexuality?” Well, aside from simply quoting scripture, which we should do, but would probably make us look like we-dislike-anyone-different-Bible-thumpers, we would like to give a few thoughts (we hope are worthy of your consideration).

Homosexual Lifestyle and Christianity

First, it needs be noted that we do not condemn anyone for homosexuality, so please do not read this as an angry rant against homosexual behavior. However we cannot condone it either. What we can do is love and accept everyone equally, despise and repent from every sin equally. We love you no less, no more than anyone else; we are all in the same boat. All fallen, all sinful.

That said, it is frightfully hard for us humans to work out this thing called sexuality in all its forms of subtle interest and raging libidos. Give an inch, it takes a mile; try to reign it in, it might pull you down like an anchor dropped through the center of a boat. In short, for many of us our sexuality is monstrously and disastrously confusing. For some it is not (however those people are confused as to why others are confused – so, at least in part, it seems we are all a little confused.) God is fair though, fear not; He knows what shackles may bind our conscience and what effects the Fall may have had on our particular make up. I speak not on what “nature” should tell us, for “nature” may mean, either of two things: that which our body parts show to be seemingly simple Tab-A-fits-n-Tab-B (sorry if that is crude, no way to say it euphemistically) as well as that to which our inner emotion, rational, instinctive and attractive desires point us. Our sexuality is never so easy, nor is the position that argues we are either homosexual or heterosexual. That is fallacious bifurcation (because some are (ahem) “bi.”) Humans are a mass of nerves and issues, desires and longings that are confounding for the best of us (but who is judging “best?”)

Therefore, speaking on purely “Christian” terms, there is no more wrong in the homosexual lifestyle than in, say, a fully heterosexual person who fulfills his/her every sexual desire for everyone of the opposite sex. That loose person doesn’t need a member of the opposite sex, simply the body parts the opposite sex is defined by. He doesn’t seek a woman, only the thing that makes her woman. It is to look on another human as mere meat and ignore the divine image in which they are made.

There are many arguments for homosexual partnerships and lifestyles, we are aware, but they all cannot stand for long. For example, one argument says that heterosexual promiscuity is denounced by Jesus because it denies “love” whereas a homosexual couple’s relationship is argued to be founded solely on love and God is love, therefore it cannot be wrong. However that argument denies many (if not all) other qualifications that go into a Judeo/Christian martial union as well as God’s other defining attributes. Love is important, indeed foremost, but to deny fidelity, mercy, justice, honor, purpose and diversification denies His purpose for making us two separate creatures. There are aspects of a relationship that can only be experienced when paired to our biological counterpart, for we are vastly different beings yet the same. Man is made in God’s image; woman is not made in Man’s image, but God’s as well, therefore there are facets of God’s wonder we will never begin to comprehend – important facets – should we create a homosexual joining. And, of course, denying any of God’s attributes is to make a god in our image, not His. We need the opposite sex, no matter what Bono says of women and men, fish and bicycles.

In this series Next | Last