What Is Homosexuality?
Part of a 7 week course called "Sense and Sensuality" by Rev. Gary Blobaum
The Bill Henson Story In April, 2004, Amy and I attended a conference in Mansfield, Ohio, where we listened as Bill Henson, Jr. told of his journey out of same-sex sensuality. The following are excerpts of his story: “My name is Bill Henson. I am 37 years old and live in Boston, MA… I am not here to place myself above others or to judge. The Bible is clear that we are ALL sinners who fall short of God’s glory. I am simply here to share what Jesus has done for me… “By 7th grade, I was clearly aware that I had sexual feelings for other boys. My mind raced with desire when I saw other boys naked. Fantasizing about other boys became an intoxicating pleasure to me and completely irresistible. “Preparing to go to college, I had grand expectations that I would finally find that one young man to fall in love with. By the time I headed off to school at Tulsa University, I had spent 6 years of my life in homosexual fantasy – not just 6 years, but 80-90% of every waking moment for 6 years! I was ready to fall in love! “At the age of 24, I FINALLY fell in love! …I met Jeff in a gay bar and he was the most handsome man… Within a year, we moved into an apartment together. For the first time in my life I was in love and someone was in love with me! |
|
…“So there I found myself every night for weeks from late-September to mid-October 1995 meeting the Lord nightly in prayer. And each night, I was more and more convinced that I had to surrender my WHOLE LIFE to Him. I offered to surrender everything to Him except for Jeff. And each night, I felt more and more pressure from God that I was not giving Him my whole heart and soul. ‘Lord take it all…but not Jeff. Father, please don’t take away the man I love more than anyone in the world.’
“Finally, one night, God – through my spiritual eyes – showed me Jesus Christ dying on the Cross. He was nailed to the Cross and his bleeding head was down against His chest. Jesus lifted His head and the most loving, compassionate, understanding gaze peered from his eyes into mine. And God asked, ‘Do you want my Son?’ After what seemed like hours of resistance and sobbing, I finally let go of the pillow I was clutching with all my strength, fell to the floor and raised my hands to Heaven tearfully saying with peace, ‘Lord, I am Yours. You have me. You have everything. Everything in my life. But Lord, You take Jeff away. I can’t do it. I give You permission to take him away but I can’t do it.’
“…I purchased an airline ticket to Texas to go break up with Jeff the next weekend. That evening, I arrived at my apartment to find a letter from Jeff. Before I even opened it, I wept as I considered the pain of losing him. Sure enough, Jeff was breaking up with me… I was devastated, but I wept tears of joy seeing that the Lord honored my request that He do the work!
“…Finally it was me…and Jesus. And having the peaceful presence of Jesus was ENOUGH. I thought I would forever be single – and that was ok with me. Today… there are three people who are with me that I would like you to meet in person. They are the most important people in my life and the greatest blessings God has given to me: My wife of almost 5 years, Kang…our first child…Anna…Andrew…our new son…They are the love of my life.
“…I want to be honest. In dealing with the deep roots of homosexuality, there is no EASY way. I could have stayed in homosexuality and continued to resist the convictions God was placing on my heart – in appearance, I would be fulfilling the inner-desires to be with a man. But in secret, I would be battling anxiety and it would NOT be easy! I chose to follow the Lord – the road out of homosexuality was NOT easy! And the path of following Jesus daily is NOT easy. There is no EASY WAY….
“I am not perfect but rather a work in progress. I am not free from same sex attractions – but I am at peace because I have a Savior that I know personally and can surrender those feelings to.”
The Robert Spitzer Story
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The Association no longer considered it a disorder. The chief architect of that decision was Dr. Robert Spitzer. Dr. Spitzer convinced the Association that homosexuality was a normal sexual expression, that it represented a rather fixed and unchangeable orientation, and that it was unethical for psychiatrists to therapeutically support a client’s desire to change his or her sexual orientation. However, at the 1999 American Psychiatric Association convention, a group of men picketed outside the hall. They claimed to have changed in their sexual orientation from gay to straight. Dr. Spitzer was curious and began to question one of them, Anthony Falzarano. As a result of this conversation, Spitzer did a study of people who claimed to have changed their sexual orientations. The following are excerpts from a 2004 interview of Dr. Spitzer by Dr. William Throckmorton:
Dr. Throckmorton: …what were you trying to find out in this study?
Dr. Spitzer: Well, within the mental health profession, there’s almost a unanimous consensus that homosexual orientation is pretty fixed, and that when you hear of a person who says that they were gay and have become ex-gay, they will acknowledge that the change is really in the way that they view themselves but their feelings and fantasies have not really changed. And that’s the accepted view, and I kind of accepted that view.
I had an interesting experience. I was at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting several years ago, and it was picketed by a group of people who were ex-gay. They were very unhappy with the American Psychiatric Association and I started talking to one of them and he started to tell me of how he changed. He was a very religious person and religion had been an important part of his change, and it occurred to me, gee, could it really be that it’s not as fixed as everybody thought? So I tried to organize a symposium to have both sides [represented], and that symposium was accepted, but the other side, the gay activist side, withdrew from the symposium. But in the meantime I decided I could do a study of it…
And I contacted…Dr. Nicolosi and I asked him if I could interview a bunch of people that he felt had changed…But as soon as I spoke to a few of the people, it seemed pretty obvious to me that these were people who gave a very credible story of how they had changed. So the real purpose was to see whether it was true that essentially no one could change…What we found was that there were some significant changes…
Dr. Throckmorton: How has the study been received?
Dr. Spitzer: I do have to say that…this study has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, many feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change. Which…may be right politically…but it may not be scientifically correct…
Dr. Throckmorton: Were there any mental health consequences of attempting to change?
Dr. Spitzer: The majority of subjects reported moderate to severe depression before they went into therapy. And a marked change [was that], very few were depressed after therapy. So that was an important finding, I think, that depression was, you know, there was a tremendous conflict over homosexuality, and many were very depressed and had made previous efforts, that was another interesting thing, was many of the subjects reported that they had gone to mental health professionals and were told, just, you know, accept it, that there’s no way to change. And they were not satisfied with that, and were very depressed thinking that they could not, you know, change…
Dr. Throckmorton: Now, has the American Psychiatric Association’s position changed… do you think that those position statements should be, maybe, looked at again?
Dr. Spitzer: I think they should... [I]t’s not going to happen in the near future. There’s no way it’s going to happen. I think the only issue is whether…it’s an ethical violation to do this kind of therapy. But those position statements are not going to change. There’s… a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and are recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”
( HYPERLINK "http://www.drthrockmorton.com/interviewdrspitzer.pdf" www.drthrockmorton.com/interviewdrspitzer.pdf)
The Robert Perloff Story
In Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles, (2003) p.91, research psychologist Merton Strommen tells of another changed mind in the therapeutic community:
“A further example is found in the words of psychologist Robert Perloff, the 1985 president of the American Psychological Association, who expressed open anger and frustration in his speech at the APA Annual Convention in 2001. He condemned the APA’s one-sided political activism with respect to it policy against reorientation therapy of homosexuals. He said, ‘You consider such therapy unethical…That’s all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you’re barring research. How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical? (APA Monitor, 2001)”
Some gays, apparently, can change. The real question is: can mental health organizations change? In the case of Robert Perloff and the APA, the answer may be a qualified “yes.” At the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a 2008 article by Dr. A. Dean Byrd states:
“In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled ‘Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.’
“…The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an updated version of the older one, is titled, ‘Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.’
“Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with ‘editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns’), the new document is more reflective of science...
“Consider the following statement from the first document:
There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. 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. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…
The Gary Greenberg Story
The following is excerpted from the March 2008 issue of First Things, pp. 67f:
“Make no mistake about it: Psychotherapist Gary Greenberg wants society to be more approving of homosexuals and homosexuality. But he thinks the gay movement has taken a wrong turn by attempting to make its case on the basis of science. ‘This is the way I was born.’ Or ‘This is the way God made me.’…We have all heard those claims…Greenberg’s article ‘Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity’ appears in the very leftist Mother Jones. In it, he takes a very different tack: ‘Sexuality, profoundly mysterious and irrational, will not be contained by our categories… It is time to find reasons other than medical science to insist that people ought to be able to love whom they love.’… From his own practice and from the pertinent research, Greenberg says that ‘Sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think.’ People, women more frequently than men, ‘do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries.’ There are, he says, ex-gays, just as there are ex-straights and gays by choice. ‘Much of this research has stayed below the radar of the culture warriors, but reparative therapists are hoping to use it to enter the mainstream and advocate for what they call the right of determination in matters of sexual orientation. If they are successful, gay activists may soon find themselves scrambling to make sense of a new scientific and political landscape.’”
Identical Twin Studies
Identical twins share the same genetic makeup. Therefore studies of identical twins in which one member of the pair is homosexual provide information about the role of genetics in homosexual orientation. If homosexuality were genetically determined (in other words if people were “born homosexual”) the identical twin of a homosexual would always be homosexual.
But this turns out not to be the case. According to a 1991 study by Bailey and Pillard, in 52% percent of the identical twin pairs, both members were homosexual. In a 1993 study, 48% were “concordant,” namely, both members were homosexual. In another 1993 study, 65% were concordant. In a 1992 British study, 25% were concordant.
However, a methodological concern was raised about these studies. The samples of identical twins in which at least one member was homosexual were not randomly obtained. Volunteers had been recruited through ads in gay publications. Presumably readers of gay publications would have had a stake in providing twin pairs in which both members were gay. Correcting for the methodology, Bailey conducted another study utilizing the Australian Twin Register. As reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000), only 11% of the identical twin pairs were concordant for homosexuality.
In 1993, scientist Dean Hamer found what the media seized upon as the discovery of the “gay gene.” He later said: “We have not found the gene – which we don’t think exists – for sexual orientation.” The genetic contribution to the development of homosexual orientation now appears less significant than promoters of gay rights had originally hoped. Initial certainties have given way to unresolved questions. (This information is from Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001, pp. 399-406).
Change Over Time
The assumption that homosexuality is a fixed genetic orientation ignores the fact that, for many, homosexual behavior is fluid across time. People who at one time considered themselves to be homosexual may experience change in their self-perception and behavior. According to Robert Gagnon, “Many exclusive homosexuals come to a ‘realization’ about their ‘true’ sexual identity relatively late in life. Many who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual early in life subsequently become predominantly or exclusively heterosexual later in life.” A 1983 survey of 4,340 adults in the United States showed that more than three quarters of all homosexuals (73% of men and 88% of women) had been sexually aroused at one time or another by the opposite sex, while one in ten heterosexuals had been homosexually aroused. Sixty-six percent of all homosexual men and 82% of homosexual women said they had been in love with someone of the opposite sex. (information from Gagnon pp. 418f)
What Is Homosexuality?
Nobody knows. Homosexuality is often discussed in the media as well as in the study documents of the ELCA as if same-sex orientations and behaviors have been definitively analyzed and understood in our enlightened and scientific age. The ELCA’s second study document (2003) confidently announced: “The ELCA recognizes that for some people homosexual orientation is a given…” (p.19) and “…the Bible speaks to our present understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation…” (p.22). When the study document refers to homosexual orientation as “a given,” it presumably means that some people are homosexual from birth, or that nothing could have prevented the emergence of homosexuality in those persons. But the current understanding is that no one is “born homosexual” and that effective interventions may (at least in some cases) prevent the emergence of homosexuality. The study document was correct in noting that the fixity of homosexual orientation was the “present understanding” in 2003. But in 2009, that understanding faces significant challenges from within the therapeutic and research communities themselves where sexual orientation is increasingly viewed as more “fluid” than previously assumed.
Tentatively reflecting this shift, the Social Statement passed last summer is marked by a new uncertainty: “In ways that are still not fully understood, we develop strong gender identities at a very early age. While there is still much to be learned about the biological complexity of human beings, we have come to understand that this complexity suggests a variety of sexual orientations and gender identities” (lines 1159-1164). Suggests? We passed a social statement overturning the clear witness of scripture and two thousand years of church teaching on the strength of a suggestion? If there is “much to be learned,” one wonders why we pressed forward for a definitive vote instead of awaiting the results of that learning. If, as the new brochure of the American Psychological Association states, “[t]here is no consensus among scientists,” why press for a consensus among ELCA Lutherans? Since the Study Document itself appears to be aware of the new uncertainty in the scientific community, the reason for this premature drive to consensus must be that influential groups in the ELCA wanted the churchbody to reach a conclusion regardless of that conclusion’s scientific validity. Why did we make unprecedented decisions about the blessedness of homosexual sex at a time when the scientific and therapeutic communities were beginning to recognize the limitations to their understanding of these sexual phenomena? Perhaps we rushed to judgment because the new information was already pressing in on us, because the historical window on our breezy self-confidence about the blessedness of same-gender sex was closing. We did not want to confuse ourselves with the facts of the case.
If this is true, it demonstrates the accuracy of Robert Benne’s observation that justice issues in the new ELCA are “non-negotiable.” Though it is enamored of scientific data, and though its study documents defer to scientific opinion, finally even the results of scientific research did not deter the ELCA from speaking definitively about the blessedness of same-sex sexuality. The ELCA seems to have spoken a purely human word, a word not supported by the Word of God and, at this point, not supported by the human words of the scientific community either. The ELCA’s “non-negotiable” stance could not be clearer. It was determined to bless same-sex relationships no matter the theological or scientific evidence to the contrary.
When the Church speaks, it cannot afford to speak only a human word. For then no one will know the difference when it is called upon to speak the divine word. Always, whenever it speaks publicly, the Church must be in study, conversation, and prayer until it can boldly say: “This we believe in the Lord.” But it is evident to all that the ELCA barely made the effort to enunciate to the world the counsel of God. It was confident in its own word. Like all human words, its decisions about human sexuality are now adrift in the uncertain swells and troughs of the waves of time.
Speaking from God’s Word
How different if, instead of investigating sexuality from the standpoint of human experience and social justice, we had listened with all our might to the Word himself, Jesus Christ! America’s premier Lutheran theologian – known across the world but shunned by the ELCA of which he is a member – Robert Jenson, dares to tell, from the certainty of God’s Word, what homosexuality is: “…in present circumstances it is probably necessary to say something about homoerotic practice. For a first point, it is indeed practice – and not orientation – that is the proper subject of ethical inquiry. If indeed there are various sexual orientations, and whatever their cause, they are not what is to be ethically or morally judged – unless, to be sure, they are acquired, as ‘habits’ in the medieval sense, in which case they must be either virtues or vices.
“Homoerotic practice, described simply as what is overtly done, is an attempt to treat a member of the same sex as if he or she were of the other sex, or to provide the partner with the simulacrum of the other sex without presenting the actually other. That is, homoerotic practice is substitution for the created other, of access to whom one has in some way been deprived, whether by one’s own choice, or by circumstance or societal influence, or indeed by genetic inheritance if that is sometimes or always involved.
“Homoerotic practice thus attempts to contravene God’s imposition of embodied directedness to the other. A homoerotic act is a rebellion against the Creator, however otherwise benign.”
Go to What Does the Bible Say?
“Finally, one night, God – through my spiritual eyes – showed me Jesus Christ dying on the Cross. He was nailed to the Cross and his bleeding head was down against His chest. Jesus lifted His head and the most loving, compassionate, understanding gaze peered from his eyes into mine. And God asked, ‘Do you want my Son?’ After what seemed like hours of resistance and sobbing, I finally let go of the pillow I was clutching with all my strength, fell to the floor and raised my hands to Heaven tearfully saying with peace, ‘Lord, I am Yours. You have me. You have everything. Everything in my life. But Lord, You take Jeff away. I can’t do it. I give You permission to take him away but I can’t do it.’
“…I purchased an airline ticket to Texas to go break up with Jeff the next weekend. That evening, I arrived at my apartment to find a letter from Jeff. Before I even opened it, I wept as I considered the pain of losing him. Sure enough, Jeff was breaking up with me… I was devastated, but I wept tears of joy seeing that the Lord honored my request that He do the work!
“…Finally it was me…and Jesus. And having the peaceful presence of Jesus was ENOUGH. I thought I would forever be single – and that was ok with me. Today… there are three people who are with me that I would like you to meet in person. They are the most important people in my life and the greatest blessings God has given to me: My wife of almost 5 years, Kang…our first child…Anna…Andrew…our new son…They are the love of my life.
“…I want to be honest. In dealing with the deep roots of homosexuality, there is no EASY way. I could have stayed in homosexuality and continued to resist the convictions God was placing on my heart – in appearance, I would be fulfilling the inner-desires to be with a man. But in secret, I would be battling anxiety and it would NOT be easy! I chose to follow the Lord – the road out of homosexuality was NOT easy! And the path of following Jesus daily is NOT easy. There is no EASY WAY….
“I am not perfect but rather a work in progress. I am not free from same sex attractions – but I am at peace because I have a Savior that I know personally and can surrender those feelings to.”
The Robert Spitzer Story
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The Association no longer considered it a disorder. The chief architect of that decision was Dr. Robert Spitzer. Dr. Spitzer convinced the Association that homosexuality was a normal sexual expression, that it represented a rather fixed and unchangeable orientation, and that it was unethical for psychiatrists to therapeutically support a client’s desire to change his or her sexual orientation. However, at the 1999 American Psychiatric Association convention, a group of men picketed outside the hall. They claimed to have changed in their sexual orientation from gay to straight. Dr. Spitzer was curious and began to question one of them, Anthony Falzarano. As a result of this conversation, Spitzer did a study of people who claimed to have changed their sexual orientations. The following are excerpts from a 2004 interview of Dr. Spitzer by Dr. William Throckmorton:
Dr. Throckmorton: …what were you trying to find out in this study?
Dr. Spitzer: Well, within the mental health profession, there’s almost a unanimous consensus that homosexual orientation is pretty fixed, and that when you hear of a person who says that they were gay and have become ex-gay, they will acknowledge that the change is really in the way that they view themselves but their feelings and fantasies have not really changed. And that’s the accepted view, and I kind of accepted that view.
I had an interesting experience. I was at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting several years ago, and it was picketed by a group of people who were ex-gay. They were very unhappy with the American Psychiatric Association and I started talking to one of them and he started to tell me of how he changed. He was a very religious person and religion had been an important part of his change, and it occurred to me, gee, could it really be that it’s not as fixed as everybody thought? So I tried to organize a symposium to have both sides [represented], and that symposium was accepted, but the other side, the gay activist side, withdrew from the symposium. But in the meantime I decided I could do a study of it…
And I contacted…Dr. Nicolosi and I asked him if I could interview a bunch of people that he felt had changed…But as soon as I spoke to a few of the people, it seemed pretty obvious to me that these were people who gave a very credible story of how they had changed. So the real purpose was to see whether it was true that essentially no one could change…What we found was that there were some significant changes…
Dr. Throckmorton: How has the study been received?
Dr. Spitzer: I do have to say that…this study has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, many feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it’s helpful to them if they can present the view that once you’re a homosexual you can never change. Which…may be right politically…but it may not be scientifically correct…
Dr. Throckmorton: Were there any mental health consequences of attempting to change?
Dr. Spitzer: The majority of subjects reported moderate to severe depression before they went into therapy. And a marked change [was that], very few were depressed after therapy. So that was an important finding, I think, that depression was, you know, there was a tremendous conflict over homosexuality, and many were very depressed and had made previous efforts, that was another interesting thing, was many of the subjects reported that they had gone to mental health professionals and were told, just, you know, accept it, that there’s no way to change. And they were not satisfied with that, and were very depressed thinking that they could not, you know, change…
Dr. Throckmorton: Now, has the American Psychiatric Association’s position changed… do you think that those position statements should be, maybe, looked at again?
Dr. Spitzer: I think they should... [I]t’s not going to happen in the near future. There’s no way it’s going to happen. I think the only issue is whether…it’s an ethical violation to do this kind of therapy. But those position statements are not going to change. There’s… a gay activist group that’s very strong and very vocal and are recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There’s nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won’t talk.”
( HYPERLINK "http://www.drthrockmorton.com/interviewdrspitzer.pdf" www.drthrockmorton.com/interviewdrspitzer.pdf)
The Robert Perloff Story
In Christian Sexuality: Normative and Pastoral Principles, (2003) p.91, research psychologist Merton Strommen tells of another changed mind in the therapeutic community:
“A further example is found in the words of psychologist Robert Perloff, the 1985 president of the American Psychological Association, who expressed open anger and frustration in his speech at the APA Annual Convention in 2001. He condemned the APA’s one-sided political activism with respect to it policy against reorientation therapy of homosexuals. He said, ‘You consider such therapy unethical…That’s all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you’re barring research. How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical? (APA Monitor, 2001)”
Some gays, apparently, can change. The real question is: can mental health organizations change? In the case of Robert Perloff and the APA, the answer may be a qualified “yes.” At the website of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a 2008 article by Dr. A. Dean Byrd states:
“In 1998, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a brochure titled ‘Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.’
“…The newest APA brochure, which appears to be an updated version of the older one, is titled, ‘Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.’
“Though both brochures have strong activist overtones (both were created with ‘editorial assistance from the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns’), the new document is more reflective of science...
“Consider the following statement from the first document:
There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.
That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:
There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. 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. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…
The Gary Greenberg Story
The following is excerpted from the March 2008 issue of First Things, pp. 67f:
“Make no mistake about it: Psychotherapist Gary Greenberg wants society to be more approving of homosexuals and homosexuality. But he thinks the gay movement has taken a wrong turn by attempting to make its case on the basis of science. ‘This is the way I was born.’ Or ‘This is the way God made me.’…We have all heard those claims…Greenberg’s article ‘Gay by Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity’ appears in the very leftist Mother Jones. In it, he takes a very different tack: ‘Sexuality, profoundly mysterious and irrational, will not be contained by our categories… It is time to find reasons other than medical science to insist that people ought to be able to love whom they love.’… From his own practice and from the pertinent research, Greenberg says that ‘Sexual orientation is more fluid than we have come to think.’ People, women more frequently than men, ‘do move across customary sexual orientation boundaries.’ There are, he says, ex-gays, just as there are ex-straights and gays by choice. ‘Much of this research has stayed below the radar of the culture warriors, but reparative therapists are hoping to use it to enter the mainstream and advocate for what they call the right of determination in matters of sexual orientation. If they are successful, gay activists may soon find themselves scrambling to make sense of a new scientific and political landscape.’”
Identical Twin Studies
Identical twins share the same genetic makeup. Therefore studies of identical twins in which one member of the pair is homosexual provide information about the role of genetics in homosexual orientation. If homosexuality were genetically determined (in other words if people were “born homosexual”) the identical twin of a homosexual would always be homosexual.
But this turns out not to be the case. According to a 1991 study by Bailey and Pillard, in 52% percent of the identical twin pairs, both members were homosexual. In a 1993 study, 48% were “concordant,” namely, both members were homosexual. In another 1993 study, 65% were concordant. In a 1992 British study, 25% were concordant.
However, a methodological concern was raised about these studies. The samples of identical twins in which at least one member was homosexual were not randomly obtained. Volunteers had been recruited through ads in gay publications. Presumably readers of gay publications would have had a stake in providing twin pairs in which both members were gay. Correcting for the methodology, Bailey conducted another study utilizing the Australian Twin Register. As reported in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000), only 11% of the identical twin pairs were concordant for homosexuality.
In 1993, scientist Dean Hamer found what the media seized upon as the discovery of the “gay gene.” He later said: “We have not found the gene – which we don’t think exists – for sexual orientation.” The genetic contribution to the development of homosexual orientation now appears less significant than promoters of gay rights had originally hoped. Initial certainties have given way to unresolved questions. (This information is from Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 2001, pp. 399-406).
Change Over Time
The assumption that homosexuality is a fixed genetic orientation ignores the fact that, for many, homosexual behavior is fluid across time. People who at one time considered themselves to be homosexual may experience change in their self-perception and behavior. According to Robert Gagnon, “Many exclusive homosexuals come to a ‘realization’ about their ‘true’ sexual identity relatively late in life. Many who identify themselves as exclusively homosexual early in life subsequently become predominantly or exclusively heterosexual later in life.” A 1983 survey of 4,340 adults in the United States showed that more than three quarters of all homosexuals (73% of men and 88% of women) had been sexually aroused at one time or another by the opposite sex, while one in ten heterosexuals had been homosexually aroused. Sixty-six percent of all homosexual men and 82% of homosexual women said they had been in love with someone of the opposite sex. (information from Gagnon pp. 418f)
What Is Homosexuality?
Nobody knows. Homosexuality is often discussed in the media as well as in the study documents of the ELCA as if same-sex orientations and behaviors have been definitively analyzed and understood in our enlightened and scientific age. The ELCA’s second study document (2003) confidently announced: “The ELCA recognizes that for some people homosexual orientation is a given…” (p.19) and “…the Bible speaks to our present understanding of homosexuality as a fixed orientation…” (p.22). When the study document refers to homosexual orientation as “a given,” it presumably means that some people are homosexual from birth, or that nothing could have prevented the emergence of homosexuality in those persons. But the current understanding is that no one is “born homosexual” and that effective interventions may (at least in some cases) prevent the emergence of homosexuality. The study document was correct in noting that the fixity of homosexual orientation was the “present understanding” in 2003. But in 2009, that understanding faces significant challenges from within the therapeutic and research communities themselves where sexual orientation is increasingly viewed as more “fluid” than previously assumed.
Tentatively reflecting this shift, the Social Statement passed last summer is marked by a new uncertainty: “In ways that are still not fully understood, we develop strong gender identities at a very early age. While there is still much to be learned about the biological complexity of human beings, we have come to understand that this complexity suggests a variety of sexual orientations and gender identities” (lines 1159-1164). Suggests? We passed a social statement overturning the clear witness of scripture and two thousand years of church teaching on the strength of a suggestion? If there is “much to be learned,” one wonders why we pressed forward for a definitive vote instead of awaiting the results of that learning. If, as the new brochure of the American Psychological Association states, “[t]here is no consensus among scientists,” why press for a consensus among ELCA Lutherans? Since the Study Document itself appears to be aware of the new uncertainty in the scientific community, the reason for this premature drive to consensus must be that influential groups in the ELCA wanted the churchbody to reach a conclusion regardless of that conclusion’s scientific validity. Why did we make unprecedented decisions about the blessedness of homosexual sex at a time when the scientific and therapeutic communities were beginning to recognize the limitations to their understanding of these sexual phenomena? Perhaps we rushed to judgment because the new information was already pressing in on us, because the historical window on our breezy self-confidence about the blessedness of same-gender sex was closing. We did not want to confuse ourselves with the facts of the case.
If this is true, it demonstrates the accuracy of Robert Benne’s observation that justice issues in the new ELCA are “non-negotiable.” Though it is enamored of scientific data, and though its study documents defer to scientific opinion, finally even the results of scientific research did not deter the ELCA from speaking definitively about the blessedness of same-sex sexuality. The ELCA seems to have spoken a purely human word, a word not supported by the Word of God and, at this point, not supported by the human words of the scientific community either. The ELCA’s “non-negotiable” stance could not be clearer. It was determined to bless same-sex relationships no matter the theological or scientific evidence to the contrary.
When the Church speaks, it cannot afford to speak only a human word. For then no one will know the difference when it is called upon to speak the divine word. Always, whenever it speaks publicly, the Church must be in study, conversation, and prayer until it can boldly say: “This we believe in the Lord.” But it is evident to all that the ELCA barely made the effort to enunciate to the world the counsel of God. It was confident in its own word. Like all human words, its decisions about human sexuality are now adrift in the uncertain swells and troughs of the waves of time.
Speaking from God’s Word
How different if, instead of investigating sexuality from the standpoint of human experience and social justice, we had listened with all our might to the Word himself, Jesus Christ! America’s premier Lutheran theologian – known across the world but shunned by the ELCA of which he is a member – Robert Jenson, dares to tell, from the certainty of God’s Word, what homosexuality is: “…in present circumstances it is probably necessary to say something about homoerotic practice. For a first point, it is indeed practice – and not orientation – that is the proper subject of ethical inquiry. If indeed there are various sexual orientations, and whatever their cause, they are not what is to be ethically or morally judged – unless, to be sure, they are acquired, as ‘habits’ in the medieval sense, in which case they must be either virtues or vices.
“Homoerotic practice, described simply as what is overtly done, is an attempt to treat a member of the same sex as if he or she were of the other sex, or to provide the partner with the simulacrum of the other sex without presenting the actually other. That is, homoerotic practice is substitution for the created other, of access to whom one has in some way been deprived, whether by one’s own choice, or by circumstance or societal influence, or indeed by genetic inheritance if that is sometimes or always involved.
“Homoerotic practice thus attempts to contravene God’s imposition of embodied directedness to the other. A homoerotic act is a rebellion against the Creator, however otherwise benign.”
Go to What Does the Bible Say?