Part II: Homosexuality

As this story has been developing, I’ve found some encouraging reactions from other authors, such as this one from Joe Dallas and this one from Jen Hatmaker.

Although Chick-fil-A has raised a lot of emotions and questions, I’m not here to talk about government or politics or social movements for the time being.  I would like to push those aside and take a look at the facts about the heart of the issue: homosexuality.

Let’s use our brains, not just our mouths

We can’t discover the facts about homosexuality world by eating a sandwich or kissing someone.  Whatever you believe about same-sex marriage, at the heart of your stance is a belief about reality — more particularly, that a part of reality is not a choice:

  • Most people who support homosexuality believe that being attracted to the same sex is, in part or in whole, not a choice.  They believe some higher power(s) — usually a combination of biology, psychology, and environmental influence — decided beforehand who would be attracted to whom.  They conclude that homosexuality, since it is not a choice, must be considered acceptable.
  • Most who oppose homosexuality believe that morality is not a choice.  They believe some higher power(s) — usually a higher being who created relationships and has authority over what relationships were meant to look like — decided beforehand what human relationships are intended to look like.  They conclude that, since behind human relationships there exists an intended purpose beyond our own utility, that higher purpose must be considered.

The reason I see many people take sides on this issue is this.  The first camp thinks, “Well, I [or my friend] have felt gay my entire life, so I must not have a choice.”  The second camp thinks, “Well, I’ve known my whole life that God says homosexuality is wrong, so it must be a choice.”

I’m here to suggest that it’s more complicated than that.  And that reconciliation is only possible when we examine the complexities of this oversimplified issue, search for the truth, and walk in it.

At first glance, you can see why there’s so much tension.  And so much blame.  And why it becomes so personal.  Our answer to the question of free will in our sexual identity determines our sense of fate versus freedom, of social responsibility, of personal identity — and ultimately, the way we relate to God.

So is it a choice, or not?  A homosexual lifestyle can’t be both completely a choice and completely not a choice.   Which is it?  Or is there another answer that could bring some kind of reconciliation?  Who’s right?  Or are we both wrong?

In this post, we’ll take a look at secular research.  In the next post, we’ll take a look at the Word of God.  Both are worth examining if we’re gonna get to the bottom of this.

Evidence from Secular Research

I believe that God gave us science so we could not only discover truth, but also eventually to come to experience it.  If God made science, He isn’t afraid of it.  If God is the artist who painted this world, He won’t be found a fraud.  Since I am confident that science cannot prove the Bible wrong, or God a counterfeit, to me, science is well worth investigating, and will even strengthen my faith.

“All that is human, including sexuality, involves a mysterious weaving of our biological blueprint with our experiences, perceptions, cognitions, emotions, reactions, and choices.” ~Janelle Hallman, M.A., L.P.C.

Homosexuality has caught the interest of countless psychologists, scientists, and researchers for decades.  I’ve peeked around academia to write this post, and I have realized that there are oceans of research reports and books written on the topic.  I don’t claim to be an expert, but I’ll try to summarize some of the evidence I’ve found about whether homosexuality is a choice or a fate (or something in between).  As you read the following evidences, please keep in mind that nobody fits into a box.  No one trait can describe every person in any demographic.  These are only a few studies that represent some correlations associated with homosexuality.  Nobody fits into a box.

Biology

“Our genetically or biologically based qualities and traits cast a certain hue on our environments, uniquely shading all of our experiences.” ~Janelle Hallman, M.A., L.P.C.

Researchers often use twin studies because twins have the same genes and very similar social environments.  Using a twin study can help us determine to what extent a certain trait is genetic, because if twins have traits that are different, it means that something more than genetics is affecting the phenotype (or manifestation) of that trait.  Bailey, Dunne, and Martin (2000), in their most representative and recent study, found that biology does affect sexual orientation, to an extent.  In their study of identical (monozygotic) twins, a gay-identified man was 20% likely to have a gay-identified twin, and a gay-identified woman was 24% likely to have a gay-identified twin.  This rate was higher than for adopted siblings (people with the same environment but different genes), which was about 11% in an earlier study.  But often times, one twin identified as gay while the other did not.

Their conclusion is that biology is a factor, but not the only factor, in determining one’s sexual orientation.

Psychology

Simon LeVay was one of the earliest, and most famous, researchers to study sexual orientation.  He is most well-known for a study in which he cut up people’s brains after they died.  LeVay  (1991) found that the nerve cluster in the brain that influences sexual motivation (the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus, to be exact), a gay-identified man’s nerve cluster is more comparable in size to a woman’s than it is to a heterosexual man (straight men have a larger nucleus than both).  According to David Myers, Ph.D. (the guy who wrote my psychology textbook), they found something similar in the brains of rams (apparently 8% of male sheep try to mate with rams instead of ewes).

The physiology of the brain, therefore, can affect which sex you’re attracted to.

Environmental Influence

Prenatal Hormone Exposure

Researchers have proposed that the chemicals to which one is exposed in the womb affect one’s sexual orientation, since the prenatal time of one’s life such a fragile time of formation of one’s body, mind, biological sex, and genetic expression of traits.  Zucker and Bradley (1995) found in their studies that a parent’s negative reaction to the gender of the baby can influence the child’s sense of value and gender.  Emerson (1996) also found that prenatal hormone exposure can have an effect on sexual identity, but that it is more likely to have an effect if further interactional traumas or negative experiences ensue (such as abuse or death in the family).   If a child experiences a negative reaction to his or her gender, that child may feel like something is wrong with him or her from the very beginning, and can feel alienated from parents and peers because of this deep-seated belief.

The evidence here points to the fact that early influences beyond a person’s control can, in fact, affect one’s sense of sexual identity.

Intergenerational Attachment

Moberly (1983) found that gay-identified men and women, for one reason or another, were often inclined to disconnect emotionally with their same-sex parent in childhood.  Isay (2009) writes that gay men in his research have often expressed feeling emotionally distant from their father growing up, and longing for closeness with him.  A man may therefore see his mother (and other women) as people to compete against for this affection, although he may identify more with women than with men and have many female friends.

According to Moberly (1983), gay-identified women may be either emotionally distant from their mothers, or else “enmeshed” in their emotions with their mother, not being able to distinguish between her own feelings and her mother’s.  Such a woman may attempt to disidentify from what she sees as her mothers’ weaknesses, vowing to be the caretaker or the strong one in the family.

Again, parental attachment patterns alone do not cause homosexuality.  Many self-proclaimed heterosexuals may exhibit these patterns, and many self-proclaimed homosexuals do not.  But these social patterns have been recorded as correlating (not necessarily causing, but being commonly found together) with homosexual orientation.  Parental attachment is only one among many social and environmental factors related to homosexuality.  Regardless, the findings of Moberly and other researchers on similar topics (see Bell, Weinberg, & Hammersmith, 1981) seem to hint at a well-supported conclusion.  And that is this.

We were not meant to be alone.  All men and women have legitimate emotional and relational needs for acceptance, closeness, and love.  If these needs are not found initially in one’s parents, it seems logical for men and women to thirst after fulfillment of these needs in alternative individuals of the same sex.  The complex relational dynamics of men and women and key people in their lives can predispose them to seek acceptance, closeness, and even intimacy with people of the same sex.

As I hope you can see, even for those with unwanted same-sex attractions, the issue is much more complicated than “Stop being gay.”  And yet the mere presence of same-sex attraction does not necessarily entail that embracing homosexuality as an identity will satisfy the deepest longings of one’s soul.  That’s where I feel a lot of us are jumping the gun.

The evidence above compels me to believe that people who are attracted to the same sex did not simply choose to have these feelings, but were influenced by both nature and nurture.  I’m compelled to believe that this is a fact, whether I want to believe it or not.

Science vs. the Bible?

That being said, I also know for a fact that science is nothing more than process.  First, it cannot prove anything.  My high school science teachers were adamant about this: Science cannot prove anything; it can only disprove things.  It has no authority in itself, but must cling to data (and political funding, in its less pure form) to find its approval.  Second, it is fallible.  Research is approached with skepticism because it is so prone to mistakes in aspects such as data collection, measurement, sampling, analysis, and especially misrepresentation in the media (don’t even get me started on that one).  Third, it does not give me much social responsibility.  If I don’t like a conclusion from research, I can usually whip up evidence to the contrary and go on living as I please.  (I’m sure my health and exercise science friends know how this goes.)

In contrast, the Bible is complete.  It doesn’t just eliminate falsehoods, but reveals truth.  It hasn’t changed, but as more data arises in archaeology, history, and science, it has only gained support.  Unlike science, which needs the approval of rocks and bones and numbers, my God gives the universe approval to function because He decides how it works.  Many scientific theories and conclusions have been refuted by better evidence, but the content of the Bible has no shameful history in which its statements have been changed or taken back apologetically.  The Bible is not only THE most well-preserved historical document in human history, but its content has stood the test of time and circumstance.  I have found within it no contradictions with itself, with science, or even my own personal life.

When I follow its words, things make sense.  And even when I think I’m right and I don’t like what the Bible says, I discover that, in the end, I’m the one who’s unreliable.  And that not only is it true, but choosing to follow it will yield the best outcome for my life.

Stay tuned for Part III.  We’ll take a look at my favorite book, if you’re still up for it.

 

 

References
  • Bailey, J., Dunne, M., & Martin, N. (2000).  Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 78(3), Mar 2000, 524-536. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.3.524
  • Bell, A., Weinberg, M., & Hammersmith, S. (1981).  Sexual preference: Its development among men and women.  Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  • Emerson, W. (1996).  The vulnerable prenate.  Pre- & Perinatal Psychology Journal, Vol 10(3), Spring 1996, 125-142.
  • Hallman, .J. (2008).  The heart of female same-sex attraction: A comprehensive resource. Madison, WI: InterVarsity Press.
  • Isay, R. (2009).  Being homosexual: Gay men and their development. New York: Vintage Books.
  • LeVay, S. (1991). A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Science, 253, 1034-1037.
  • McDougall, J. (1992).  A plea for a measure of abnormality.  New York: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
  • Moberly, E. (1983). Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic.  Greenwood, SC: Attic Press.
  • Myers, D. (2010).  Transcript of address to the Presbyterian covenant network conference (with selected slides).  Covenant network of Presbyterians: The Christian case for gay marriage.  Accessed 28 Feb 2011 at www.davidmyers.org/…/assets/CovNet%20Myers%20transcript2.doc.  
  • Zucker, K., & Bradley, S. (1995). Gender identity disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press.