How do you respond to the claim that
"Homosexuals Are Born That Way?"
Lady Gaga’s mega-hit song “Born this Way” sold millions of
copies affirming what many people believe: homosexuality is hardwired. In fact,
people think that’s as axiomatic as saying the earth revolves around the sun. No
rational person rejects the idea. The only hold-outs, it is said, are either
ignorant of science, homophobic, or bigots (read: Christians). But before I explain
why this view is beset with problems, let me make a tactical suggestion.
Many Christians get defensive when someone says homosexuality
is inborn. I understand the temptation to argue against this claim. But it’s a
mistake to try to show it’s false, at least initially. That’s because the claim
is not an argument. It’s just an opinion and, therefore, not necessarily true.
In order for their claim to become a bona fide argument, it must be supported
with evidence or reasons.
So, instead of defending your convictions,
make them defend their claim. Simply ask, “What evidence do
you have that homosexuals are born that way?” Then wait and listen. This is
totally appropriate and not just a rhetorical trick. It’s how the burden of
proof works. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden to show it’s true. Since they’ve
made the claim, it’s their job to
back it up, not your job to prove them wrong.
If they don’t have evidence for their claim, then it’s fair
to graciously explain that their view
is unreasonable – that they don’t hold their view for good reason. If
they do offer evidence for their view, only then is it appropriate to respond
with a counter-argument.
With that tactic in mind, let’s look at three problems with
the born-that-way theory. The first is the most egregious. A simple scientific
fact-check demonstrates that no study has proven that homosexuality is
biologically determined.
Decades of research to discover a “gay gene” have been
unsuccessful. It’s now uncommon for scientists to think that homosexuality is solely
genetic. Perhaps the most powerful line of evidence is found in twin studies.
Since identical twins have identical genetics, it would follow that if one twin
was homosexual, the other would also have to be homosexual 100% of the time.
But both twins are homosexual in less than 15% of the cases.[i]
It was also speculated that homosexuality had a biological
basis. But research that correlates brain anatomy/physiology with
homosexual behavior doesn’t prove causation. In other words, even
if the brains of homosexuals have structural differences from those of
heterosexuals, that might suggest their behavior changes their brain, not
necessarily the other way around. This is possible due to neuroplasticity– the
lifelong ability of the brain to change in response to the environment, behavior,
brain injury, or even acquiring knowledge. For example, blind people’s brains
have a different neurologic structure because reading braille using fingers is
a different behavior than using eyes to read.
What’s surprising is that pro-gay researchers and
organizations acknowledge the dearth of evidence for a biological cause to
homosexuality. The American Psychological Association (APA), for example, once
held the position in 1998 that, there is “evidence to suggest that biology,
including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a
person’s sexuality.” However, a decade of scientific research debunked this
idea and caused the APA to revise their view in 2009. Their new position reads:
“Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal,
developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no
findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual
orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors”[ii]
[emphasis mine]. A pro-gay group like the APA wouldn’t revise their statement unless
there was overwhelming evidence that necessitated a position change.
A second problem with the born-that-way theory is that even
if true, it wouldn’t prove that homosexual behavior is moral. Consider that scientific
research has discovered genes they believe contribute to alcoholism,
unfaithfulness, violence, and even many diseases. Are we to believe that
because there is a genetic contribution to these behaviors (or even if they were
genetically determined) that they should be regarded as morally
appropriate? Of course not. So, proving homosexual behavior is appropriate by
appealing to a genetic determinant is equally spurious.
This mistake in thinking is known as the naturalistic
fallacy. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.” Even if homosexuality is natural, it doesn’t prove it ought to be. And scientists who are
attempting to prove homosexuality is inborn agree. Harvard geneticist Dean
Hamer, himself a homosexual, says, “Biology is amoral; it offers no help in
distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people guided by their values and
beliefs can decide what is moral and what is not.” Simon LeVay, a Harvard
trained neuroscientist and also openly gay, concurs: “First, science itself
cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality
or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for
themselves, while taking scientific findings into account.”
A third problem stems from the mere existence of the “ex-gay”
community. If homosexuality is, as many pro-gay advocates state, as inescapable
as eye color, then how do they explain former homosexuals? Eye color is genetic,
something that one is born with and can’t change. But sexual orientation is
fluid, as evidenced by the changed lives of thousands of men and women.
There are women who have had long-term, lesbian relationships
with other women and then changed and became attracted to men. There are also
men who have had same-sex attractions since puberty, spent a decade in gay
relationships, and then developed attractions to the opposite sex. Many of
these people have gone through some form of counseling or therapy, but many
have not.
The fact that even one person has changed is evidence that
homosexuality is not hard-wired. But that there are thousands of individuals
who share this experience is significant counter-evidence against the
born-that-way theory. I know many of these people. They can’t all be lying
about their life.
Instead, what they offer is hope. Since many people are
dissatisfied with their same-sex attractions, these changed lives represent an opposing
voice to the cultural chorus that claims homosexuals are born that way.
[i] Bailey JM,
Dunne MP, Martin NG. 2000. Genetic and Environmental influences on sexual
orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
78:524-36.
[ii] http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
For other posts by Alan in this important series,
click here. You can also find out more about him at www.str.org. Please use the share buttons below to help others understand this emotionally charged topic.
Think Christianly with Jonathan Morrow
Labels: Alan Shlemon, Christianity, Faith and Culture, Homosexuality, Love, Tough Questions - Homosexuality, Truth
