THE GAY GENE AND THE EVANGELICAL RESPONSE

The homosexuality debate is one of the most important issues facing the church today, specifically whether homosexuals are biologically predisposed or if such a lifestyle is a matter of choice. Most evangelicals are committed to the view that homosexuality is a self-consciously chosen sexual preference (and an immoral one at that). On the other hand, many homosexuals would argue homosexuality is caused, not chosen. According to such a view, homosexuals are born predisposed to such tendencies, often emerging later in life, but have been possessed from birth. So how should a Christian respond?

Relevance to the Homosexual Community

The possibility of biological factors influencing or determining an individual’s drive towards homosexual behaviors has significant implications for most homosexuals. First of all, many in the homosexual community see biological predetermination as grounds for recognized rights. “A major goal of the homosexual-rights movement has been to stipulate a biological cause of homosexuality, in order to shift the discussion of homosexuality from morality to minority rights.”[i] If homosexuality is caused from birth, and is therefore not merely the choice of the individual, advocates believe rights should be given to homosexuals like any other minority. For many homosexuals, biological determination removes any notion of blame and should lead to accepted sexual orientation. “It could gain them the civil-rights protections accorded any ‘natural’ minority…”[ii] It is important to mention that not all in the homosexual community are concerned with whether or not there is a biological connection, for them homosexuality is legitimate either way.

Biological predisposition also raises the question of whether homosexuality should become an accepted moral lifestyle. “It then becomes necessary to accept human sexual diversity rather than to find ways to limit it. The question becomes less of a moral one and more a statement of biological fact.”[iii] One should understand, however, that there is a difference between giving rights to homosexuals and accepting the lifestyle completely.

If there is a biological connection, many homosexuals will want to go as far as to say that homosexuality is therefore moral and given as a gift from God. “A homosexual man could claim that because he inherited the gay gene and did not choose a gay orientation by his own free will, he is morally innocent.”[iv] According to their view, if homosexuality is biological then it must be natural, and if natural, it must be moral. Many homosexuals even want to claim that God has gifted some with homosexual desires. Notice this chilling article written by a gay woman:

Yes, God has called me. He did not just choose just my mind, just my body, just my speaking ability, just my caring. He chose me—the total and complete me. He not only chose me, but he made me. He has gifted me and a portion of that gift is my being gay. Yes, being gay is a gift from God and we are called by this same loving God to be the best, total, loving persons we can be. To do this, we must learn to love ourselves as God loves us—completely, unconditionally, totally—with all our gifts, including, and maybe especially, our gift of gayness.[v]

The progression of thought is clearly seen. Genetic homosexuality starts with rights, leads to acceptability, and concludes, at least in part, with morality and God-given approval. The homosexual community claims “homosexual behavior is naturally occurring, morally blameless behavior which should find expression.”[vi]

The importance of the issue is obvious. The next question that must be answered is whether or not there is any proof to makes any biological connection with homosexuality? Does the homosexual community have any grounds to make a case for predisposition upon birth? Is homosexuality volitional or is it a matter of genetics?

Overview of research

Research related to Twins

One of the most common studies conducted concerning homosexuality and biological influence is the genetic similarities found in twins. A popular study, done by Bailey and Pillard, compared fifty-six monozygotic twins, fifty-four dizygotic twins, and fifty-seven nongenetically related adopted brothers.[vii] These experiments tried to pin point particular genes with particular traits. The idea is that the more genes an individual shares with another, especially in situations like identical twins, the more common traits that should be found. In this particular study, Bailey and Pillard found that 52 percent of monozygotic twins were both gay, 22 percent of dizygotic twins were found to be gay, while only eleven percent of adoptive brothers were shown to be gay.[viii] Bailey and Pillard did a similar study on lesbian women, and the results were practically the same. These results show, at least on the surface, that there seems to be some connection between the genes and the commonality of traits found. Bailey and Pillard concluded that genetics explain a significant amount of the reason why people have a homosexual orientation.[ix] Their study alone has left many believing that homosexuality is genetically caused after all.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis

This hypothesis, most attributed to Ellis and Ames, focuses on the 5th month of gestation for fetuses. They tried to show that sexual orientation is based upon the sexual differentiation of the gonads and the brain determined by the neurohormonal interactions.[x] Amounts of testosterone can affect the gonads and the hypothalamus to develop according to the male pattern. For a male, if there is not enough testosterone, female development could occur. Therefore, male homosexuality would occur from a feminization of the brain, while female homosexuality would occur from an overexposure to testosterone.[xi] There was a study done in 1985 showing an increase in female homosexuality and bi-sexual preferences because of over exposure to male testosterone. Similar experiments were done on female rats, when after injected with a dose of estrogen, responded with a release of luteinizing hormone (LH). The researchers thought there was evidence that a “feminized brain” was a result of early brain patters before birth.[xii]

Neuroanatomical Evidence

Another hypothesis given by Simon LeVay, tried to show how sections of the brain determined the sexual orientation of the individual. For homosexual men, the third interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus is smaller than that of heterosexual males. LeVay scanned the brain of 41 cadavers, including 19 homosexual males.[xiii] His findings showed that a cluster of neurons known as INAH 3 was more than twice as large in heterosexual males as in the homosexual males. This has left many suggesting that the INAH 3 is dimorphic for sexual orientation and may constitute a biological substrate for homosexuality.[xiv]

The Gay Gene hypothesis

Finally, there have also been studies done trying to show whether or not an actual “gay gene” exists. Dean Hamer did the most popular study in 1993, were Hamer and his colleagues tested 76 men who had homosexual brothers as well as homosexual tendencies themselves. They examined the X chromosomes of these men and found that 33 of 40 brothers shared similar chromosomes. Because of these high numbers, many researchers believed that chromosomes played a large role in determining the sexual orientation of the individual.[xv]

Critique of the research

Research related to Twins critiqued

There are some serious problems surrounding the research of Bailey and Pillard. The first problem is with the research itself. At least in part, the research that Bailey and Pillard conducted dealt specifically with identical twins, yet only 52% had a probable connection. Chandler Burr has it exactly right when he writes:

Ironically, what the study actually demonstrates is that homosexuality is not purely genetic. Identical twins—clones—have the same genomes exactly. If sexual orientation were 100 percent genetic, then 100 percent of all identical twins would have the same sexual orientations. But they clearly don’t. Only about 50 percent of them do, so the other 50 percent must be nongenetic.[xvi]

Even the 50% findings have been called into question. As Jones and Yarhouse point out, even Bailey himself acknowledges that some of their findings were flawed.[xvii] Research concerning twins also points to different conclusions as well. A study done by McDonald in 1992 found a high degree of discordance for sexual orientation for men and woman who were twins.[xviii] The evidence found in the studies related to twins is inconclusive at best.

Prenatal Neurohormonal Hypothesis critiqued

As with the study on twins, other research has shown different results concerning the role of testosterone and its affects on the brain. A study done by Gooren (1986) “demonstrated that the LH response to estrogen could not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual men and suggested that the findings of the preceding study may have been due to a failure of investigating the entire hormonal picture involved in the LH response.”[xix] In recent years the research for this hypothesis has become less convincing, especially in its effect on female orientation towards homosexuality. It is doubted that it results in any females, and even the findings for men lack solid evidence.[xx]

Neuroanatomical Evidence critiqued

Regarding LeVay’s research, it is widely held that his findings do not give any certainty and at best do not go far enough. Schoenfeld has pointed out that the brain is a product not only of genetic directions but also of early experience and social environment.[xxi] Therefore, since the brain is affected by many different factors, it is impossible to make conclusions by focusing on one area only.

Another problem with LeVay’s research is related to the individuals he used for his experiments. Most of the individuals he used died of AIDS, and therefore no attention was given to the type of sexual involvement practiced prior to death. A virus such as AIDS could have a tremendous impact on the INAH 3. There has been little research to result in the same kind of statistics that LeVay’s has reported, not to mention research that has shown larger structural differences in the brain for homosexual males.[xxii]

The Gay Gene hypothesis critiqued

The first main problem with the “gay gene” theory is that of replication. Chandler Burr has rightly noted, “Replication in science is everything…Researchers can do a study, find the answer to the question of life itself, but if no one can repeat the work and arrive at the same results, the effort is, for all practical purposes, worthless.”[xxiii] So far, Hamer’s research has not been replicated enough to cause a significant impact yet. Even now there seems to be little relationship between the chromosomal markers and the actual sexual orientation of the individual.[xxiv] Many other inconsistencies remain, such as nonhomosexual brothers who share the same chromosomal markers but not the same sexual orientation.[xxv]

In conclusion, given the research concerning the biological connection of homosexuality the results are at best inconclusive. Even those from the homosexual community admit, “That genes do play some role in homosexuality seems to be almost certain, that environment plays some role in homosexuality seems just as certain, but we are still a long way from sorting out the respective components.”[xxvi] However, what if in the coming years more research points us towards biological predisposition for homosexuals? How should evangelicals respond to this issue in the midst of a wide range, and often confusing, scientific opinions?

An evangelical response

Many evangelicals are perplexed concerning the issue of biological causality for homosexual lifestyles. The simple, off-the-cuff answer “it is just a choice” will no longer suffice in the face of twenty-first century research. Many conservatives have viewed homosexuality more as a lifestyle or a disease than anything having to do with biological orientation.[xxvii] However, as Chandler Burr points out, if all conservatives can say about this issue is “it’s a choice” they may find themselves with the painful reality of being proven wrong.[xxviii] The research has already been seen to be mostly inconclusive and unconvincing at the present, but what if the research leans towards a biological connection in the future? Will evangelicals be ready with the proper response? The fact is, despite what science concludes, evangelicals do not have to compromise biblical truth.

Biological Orientation would not eliminate responsibility for actions.

Every individual is responsible for his or her actions despite their genetic make up. Genes do not make us guilty; our evil actions and desires make us guilty.[xxix] In a postmodern culture, individuals are willing to place blame on anything but themselves. However, a genetic link to homosexual tendencies does not elevate one from the responsibility to avoid such actions. Accepting the fact that there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality no more excuses such behavior than does an overdose of male sex hormones excuse a heterosexual rapist of his behavior.[xxx] Dr. R. Albert Mohler correctly notes,

A genetic basis—unlikely in the extreme—would, if objectively established, not carry great theological importance. A genetic link may be established for any number of behaviors and patterns, but this does not diminish the moral significance of those acts nor the responsibility of the individual. Genetic links have been claimed for everything from diabetes and alcoholism to patterns of watching television.[xxxi]

Biological Orientation would not change the biblical view that all are born sinful.

The person contending with inclinations to homosexual behavior, then, ought to view such a predisposition as “a kind of symptomatic participation in the fate of the fallen world,” on the same level as our other inclinations to act in defiance to God’s plan for his creation.[xxxii] The Bible teaches that all of us are born sinful with a predisposition to sin. We are born with natures that hate God and desire nothing more than to live in defiance to His created order.[xxxiii] Chandler Burr may be right when he claims, “The gay gene is a remarkable vindication of conservative ideas about human nature and may offer one of the most devastating refutations of liberalism we have yet seen.”[xxxiv] As evangelicals who hold to the teachings of Scripture that all have sinful predispositions, a biological connection to homosexuality, if proven, does not affect the sinful nature of homosexuality.

Biological Orientation would still make homosexuality a biblically sinful lifestyle.

Even if homosexuality had proven biological tendencies, it would not change what the Scriptures teach us concerning homosexual behavior. Leviticus 18:22 teaches that homosexual behavior is an abomination to the Lord, while 20:13 speaks of it as a detestable act. Paul explains it in Romans 1:26-27 as a degrading passion that is unnatural, while also listing it in 1 Cor 6:9 as describing someone that cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Last, but not least, Paul also lists homosexuals beside immoral men in 1 Timothy 1:10. Although the hermeneutics of biblical interpretation would be questioned from many in the homosexual community, most evangelicals can agree that a biological predisposition would not change the stance of the Bible, but would rather serve to all the more prove it.

Conclusion

In a cloud of inconclusive data and in a culture of inconceivable challenges, the evangelical position is poised to make a stand. The issue is important on both sides of the aisle. Homosexuals want their lifestyle to be accepted as natural and moral and the call for biological confirmation is louder than ever. However, the point is clear, no direct coloration can be established for biological predisposition to homosexuality, and if there was, it would not change the immorality of homosexuality. So whether homosexuality is caused or chosen, biological or psychological, the evangelical can stand up for truth no matter what the next season of science may bring.

[i] R. Albert Mohler, “When science is enslaved to social agendas: what should the church think of the ‘gay gene’ studies?” World Magazine 31 Jul (1993) 22.
[ii] David, Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[iii] Allan P Drew. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 47.
[iv] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 96.
[v] Unknown. “From Abomination to Blessing: The Gift of Being Gay.” Theological Pastoral Resources Aug (1981), 74.
[vi] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 482.
[vii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 35.
[viii] Ibid., 35.
[ix] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 72.
[x] Sherwood O Cole. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 92.
[xi] Ibid, 92.
[xii] Stanton and Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, 63.
[xiii] David Gelman. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek 24 F (1992) 48.
[xiv] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), 79-80.
[xvi] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 47.
[xvii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “The Incredibly Shrinking Gay Gene.” Christianity Today Oct 4 (1999), 53.
[xviii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 91.
[xix] Ibid., 93.
[xx] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 79-80.
[xxi] Drew, Allan P. “Genes and Human Behavior: The Emerging Paradigm.” Zygon 32 Mar (1997) 44.
[xxii] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 94.
[xxiii] Chandler, Burr A Separate Creation (New York: Hyperion, 1996), 42.
[xxiv] Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, Homosexuality: the use of scientific research in the church’s moral debate, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2000), pg 80-81.
[xxv] Ibid, 81.
[xxvi] Geoff Puterbaugh, Twins and Homosexuality (New York: Garland, 1990), 117.
[xxvii] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm
[xxviii] Ibid, 2.
[xxix] Ted Peters, Playing God? (New York and London: Routledge, 1997), 109.
[xxx] Cole, Sherwood O. “The Biological Basis of Homosexuality: A Christian Assessment.” Journal of Psychology and Theology Sum (1995), 96.
[xxxi] Mohler, R. Albert. “Homosexuality in theological perspective: toward an evangelical response.” Oct 29-31 (1993), 21.
[xxxii] Jones, Stanton L. and Yarhouse, Mark A. “A Critique of Materialist Assumptions in Interpretations of Research on Homosexuality.” Christian Scholar’s Review 4 Nov (1997), 494.
[xxxiii] Romans 3:10-11, 23. Eph 2:1-3.
[xxxiv] Burr, Chandler (Why conservatives should embrace the Gay Gene) Retrieved April 2004, http://members.aol.com/gaygene/index.htm