From: marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Homosexuality Is Not Genetic
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:25:06 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Here is the article I refer to in Christianity Today:  (...and just to clarify
things, it is not a violation of copyright laws to post this -- however, if
anybody snatches this from the net and uses it for ANYTHING BUT (1) personal
study or (2) make it available for others for FREE for personal study; then
YOU are violating copyright laws.)

===========================================================================

"Born Gay?"  by Joe Dallas   _Christianity_Today_   June 22, 1992

How politics have skewed the debate over the biological causes of
homosexuality.

Recent findings by scientists suggest that homosexuality is an
inborn trait.  Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist with the Salk
Institute of La Jolla, California, found the area of the
hypothalamus that allegedly governs sexual activity to be smaller
in homosexual men than in heterosexual ones.  (The brains of 41
cadavers were studied by LeVay, 19 of which had belonged to
homosexuals.)

On the heels of LeVay's work came the findings of psychologist
Michael Bailey, a gay-rights advocate, and psychiatrist Richard
Pillard, who, like LeVay, identifies himself as a homosexual.
Published in December 1991, Bailey and Pillard's research with
identical twins (who have identical genetic codes) and fraternal
twins (whose genetic codes differ) showed that if one identical
twin is homosexual, the other's chances of being homosexual are
three times higher than among fraternal twins.  This, they say,
suggests a link between homosexuality and genetics.

Predictably, this has been grist for the media mill.  Although the
researchers themselves show some restraint in their claims (LeVay
admits his findings do not establish "cause and effect"), the press
has not always been as careful.  Major talk shows and news articles
have used the research to take the argument a step further, not
only telling us homosexuality is probably inborn, but also that our
views on the subject should be modified.  The argument goes
something like this:  "Homosexuals are born that way, which means
homosexuality is a normal condition.  What is normal cannot be
immoral.  Therefore, prohibitions against homosexuality make no
sense."

Many Christians, especially those of us involved in ministry to
homosexuals, react strongly to such a message.  Scientific inquiry
should, of course, be welcomed instead of shunned; but when such
inquiry is used to challenge biblical teaching, then a clear,
balanced response from the church is called for.  To give it, we
need to ask and answer four essential questions:  (1)  Were the
studies conducted in an unbiased and fair way?  (2)  What are the
true implications of the results?  (3)  Are they accepted almost
universally by the scientific and medical communities?  (4)  Are
they compatible with biblical truth?

_Agendas_and_Outcomes_

Having an agenda is no crime.  So when prohomosexual doctors are
motivated to promote gay rights through research, that is no reason
to ignore the research itself.  At the same time, it goes give us
sufficient reason to explore how their bias may have shaped their
conclusions.

To their credit, these men have been open about their agendas.
LeVay, for example, told _Newsweek_ that his lover's death from
AIDS prompted him to find an inborn cause for homosexuality, a
quest so important that he would give up his scientific career
altogether if he did not find it.  He hopes to "educate" society,
affecting legal and religious attitudes about homosexuality.
Pillard is just as direct about his goals:  "A genetic component
in sexual orientation says, 'This is not a fault, and this is not
your fault.'"  Both he and Bailey consider their findings to be
good news because they will "disprove homophobic claims"; or as gay
journalist Randy Shilts puts it, they will "reduce being gay to
something like being left-handed, which is all it is."

To simplify homosexuality by equating it with left-handedness is
tempting if you are homosexual or a gay-rights activist or a parent
feeling guilt over your child's homosexual orientation.  But to
those who cannot view homosexuality as a normal condition, even if
it is inborn, the researchers' assumptions sound questionable.

Are we to think that because something might be genetic in origin,
it is therefore "natural"?  What, then, do we say about genetic
deformities or birth defects?  Are they, too, "normal" because a
significant number of people were born with them?

This raises a larger and more vital question:  Should the standard
for normality be determined by what is inborn?

Before addressing that question, though, let's consider whether
these studies have indeed proven homosexuality to be inborn.

_Facts_and_Implications_

As we examine LeVay's and Pillard and Bailey's findings, we have
to distinguish between what the facts really are, and what they
imply.

The facts are simple enough.  One bundle of neurons in the
hypothalamus (which regulates heart rate, sleep, hunger, and sex
drive) was found to be nearly three times as large in the brains
of the 16 heterosexual men studied by LeVay as it was in the
brains of the 19 homosexual men.  At first glance, that looks
conclusive:  an open-and-shut case for the genetic argument.

But it is not that simple.  It is questionable whether the portion
of the hypothalamus LeVay studied (the INAH 3) can be accurately
measured.  It is smaller than a snowflake, and scientists are not
in agreement as to how its size should be determined.  According
to _Newsweek_, "Measuring brain structures is notoriously difficult
and controversial -- neuroscientists cannot agree on whether the
most meaningful gauge is the volume of the region [LeVay's method]
or its number of neurons."

Further complicating matters is the sensitive nature of the
hypothalamus itself.  Does its size determine homosexuality, or
does homosexuality determine its size?  No one is sure.  "You could
postulate," says neurophysiologist Kenneth Klivington of the Salk
Institute, "that brain change occurs throughout life, as a
consequence of experience."  Klivington refers to a "feedback loop"
in which the brain influences behavior, behavior shapes experience,
experience "affects the organization of the brain."  Which raises
the question:  Are homosexuals born with a smaller portion of the
hypothalamus or does the size decrease later in life?

We do not know.  Nor do we know for certain what the sexual
histories of LeVay's subjects really were, as LeVay himself admits.
Those he identified as homosexual are assumed to have been so by
information gleaned from their files, but can we be sure the other
subjects were heterosexual?  By what criteria was their sexuality
determined?

These are other questions have no doubt led LeVay to be
conservative in his conclusions:  "What I reported was a difference
in the brain structure of the hypothalamus.  We can't say on the
basis of that what makes people gay or straight."  So what appears
to be "proof positive" turns out to be, by LeVay's admission,
"perhaps and maybe."

Pillard and Bailey's twin studies are similarly vague.  Like
LeVay's work, they look conclusive to the casual observer:  52
percent of the identical twins of homosexual men were also found
to be homosexual.  If a homosexual man has an identical twin,
these statistics suggest his twin brother will more likely than
not be homosexual as well.  Therefore, something in the genes
causes homosexuality.

Not so, says Anne Fausto Sterling, a biologist at Brown University
in Rhode Island.  Declaring Pillard and Bailey's conclusions to be
"badly interpreted genetics," Sterling insists that "in order for
such a study to be meaningful, you'd have to look at twins raised
apart."  Common sense would lead us to agree -- identical twins
raised in the same family environment will have any number of
similarities, many of which are linked to their shared upbringing
rather than genetics.

Like LeVay, Pillard shows restraint in his conclusions:  "There
must be something in the environment," he concedes when confronted
with the fact that many identical twins have different sexual
preferences.  In fact, environmental influences seem to be a
predominant factor in the development of homosexuality according
to another twin study, similar to Pillard and Bailey's but
different in its conclusions.

In March of 1992, the British Journal of Psychiatry published a
report on homosexuals who are twins, interviewing 46 homosexual men
and woman who were twins.  (Both fraternal and identical twins were
included in the study.)  Only 20 percent of the homosexual twins
had a homosexual co-twin, leading the researchers to conclude that
"genetic factors are insufficient explanation of the development
of sexual orientation."

All of which brings us back to the issues of facts, suggestions,
and implications:  The _fact_ is, differences may exist in the
brains of some homosexual men.  Likewise, some sets of identical
twins have been studied, and a scant majority of them (52 percent)
share the same sexual orientation.  The _suggestion_ that
homosexuality is therefore inborn, though, is interpretive and
arguable.  The _implication_ put forth by some that society should
therefore accept homosexuality as common, normal, and morally
neutral cannot be supported from the facts alone.  "Different" does
not mean "inborn," and "inborn" does not mean "normal."  The leap
from facts to implications is too large.

_Professional_Critics_

There might be more force to the "inborn" argument if it were
almost universally accepted by the professional community.  But
far from universal acceptance, the studies in question have raised
more than a few scientific hackles.  "This is not a debate about
biology, but about the body politic," scoffs Anne Fausto Sterling.
Her initial response to LeVay's findings was even more pointed:
"My freshman biology students know enough to sink this study."
William Byrne, resident of psychiatry at Columbia University's
College of Physicians and Surgeons, is no less subtle in his
criticism of LeVay, Bailey, and Pillard:  "If you look at any one
piece of that [born gay] evidence, it is inconclusive.  It's like
trying to add up a hundred zeroes so you can get one."

Others agree that the results are far from final:  "I'm not willing
to say there isn't a biological component, but there's too much
else we haven't explored," says John D'Emilio, an associate
professor of history at the University of North Carolina at
Greensboro.  Richard Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental
Health takes a similar view.  Allowing that LeVay's research shows
"a very interesting initial result," he concludes, "it will take
a much larger effort to be convinced that there is a link between
this structure and homosexuality."  Adding to these criticisms are
the implied disagreements of the many professionals who consider
homosexuality to be a changeable condition and could therefore
hardly endorse a genetic theory.

So if the studies in question have not really proven homosexuality
is genetic, and if the scientific community is not in agreement as
to whether or not they are even valid, why have we been inundated
with news stories touting the latest "evidence" that gays are born
gay?

Welcome to the politically charged world of the popular media.
Initial findings by homosexual researchers with a clearly stated
agenda were fed to a sympathetic press, which generously splashed
these findings (and the alleged implications) across America's
front pages.  It should be remembered that a recent polling of
media representatives showed 80 percent do not think homosexuality
is wrong, 90 percent favor abortion rights, and only 20 percent
attend church or synagogue.  So it comes as no surprise that the
studies in question have been given more than generous coverage.

In fact, a comparison to the news media's handling of a similar
genetic study will show how disproportionate the current hoopla
really is.  In the fall of 1991 (around the same time as LeVay's
results were published), researchers at the City of Hope Medical
Center found a certain gene to be present in 77 percent of
alcoholics who were studied, yet absent in 72 percent of the
nonalcoholics also studied.  This presented significant evidence
for a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, which has long
been a subject of interest and concern to Americans.  Yet no major
magazine featured these studies on their covers, and they received
only passing mention in the press, though they were written up in
the _Journal_of_the_American_Medical_Association_.  Why?  Was one
study "better" or more important to the population than the other?
Hardly, but one study (LeVay's) was clearly more important to the
press, despite the opinions of the scientific community.

_Compassion_and_Conviction_

What, then, do Christians have to say in response?  Criticizing the
latest research is not enough.  We, too, have something to say
about human sexuality.  We have a frame of reference--the Bible--

which is an intelligent, explicit document with specific guidelines
for sexual behavior and vital insights into human needs.  From that
reference point, we too have something to contribute to the
national debate on homosexuality.

We probably don't need to convince each other that homosexuality
is not God's design.  A 1991 survey of American churchgoers found
that 75 percent disapprove of homosexuality, and 81 percent of
those who frequently attended church believe homosexual acts are
always immoral.  Still, as Peter said, we should be ready to give
an answer for our beliefs (1 Peter 3:15).  The way we answer may
be as important as the answer itself.

Our response should show interest and concern, two qualities the
church has rarely shown when dealing with homosexuality.  We must
admit we have mishandled the issue in many ways:  we have veered
between ignoring the problem to becoming obsessed with it; we have
made hasty and false generalizations at times about homosexuals
themselves; and we have shown a tremendous zeal for defeating the
political goals of gays while showing less concern for their
eternal well being.  [See _Christianity_Today_, Feb. 6, 1981,
"Homosexuals Can Change".]  So when we respond to progay research,
let's keep in mind the sad truth that our own record on this issue
is less than ideal.

Let us also be open-minded toward new evidence.  Simply saying,
"The Bible says homosexuality is a sin--so I don't care what your
studies show!" sounds suspiciously like intellectual insecurity.
Of course we must hold to biblical values, but let's at least hear
the evidence before we judge it.

However, we cannot afford a naive, gullible response, either.  We
can and should look critically at new claims, weighing them not
only against Scripture but against established and current
objective data.

A biblical response to the "born gay" question begins with
Scripture's view of the human condition.  Humanity is fallen,
incomplete, and beset with physical, psychological, and spiritual
problems.  Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden brought
consequences onto every aspect of our being (Genesis 3:16-19), our
genetic and biological structures included.  Physically we are not
what we were meant to be; death and corruption entered the world
as a result of sin, not divine intent.  As the psalmist laments,
"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me" (Psalm 51:5); the apostle Paul describes how we "groan
inwardly as we wait for...the redemption of our bodies" (Romans
8:23).

Thus we can easily allow that there are, in some cases, physical
imperfections that predispose people toward certain behaviors.
That is not to say anyone is predestined to engage in these
behaviors; rather, some inborn tendencies could make it easier
for a person to fall into them.

Even if it can be proven that genetic or biological influences
predispose people toward homosexuality, that will never prove
homosexuality is in and of itself normal.  It will only prove what
we already know--that genetic variances can and do affect future
behavior, sometimes in undesirable ways.  If some people have a
genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, as the City of Hope
research suggests, should we conclude the disease is a "normal"
condition and refuse to treat it?  Should the biblical prohibitions
against drunkenness be nullified?

The principle is the same regarding homosexuality.  Let research
conclude what it may about the causes; genetic origins do not
justify sinful behavior.

And that is the crux of the issue.  While the Bible praises
sexuality and commends sexual enjoyment, it also gives specific
guidelines for sexual expression.  Homosexual behavior is
consistently condemned throughout the Old and New Testaments
(see Genesis 19 and Romans 1:24-27 in particular), and there is
no contingency in this condemnation.  Nowhere does Scripture
suggest that if one is born with homosexual inclinations, this
negates the prohibitions.

Rather than continue the "nature versus nurture" debate on origins,
we ought instead to be asking whether homosexuality is desirable,
healthy, and moral no matter what factors led to its existence.
The greatest error being promoted by LeVay, Pillard, Bailey, and
others is the assumption that they can normalize homosexuality by
proving its biological sources (a questionable goal, since
discrimination against blacks and women has been defended on
genetic grounds).  One wonders how many other aberrations will be
normalized in the future if they, too, can be shown to have been
inborn.

God's standards are absolute and not subject to our latest
discoveries.  (The Bible says wisdom to man is foolishness to God.)
For those wishing to maintain those standards, God's grace is
available to overcome any number of sinful tendencies,
homosexuality included.  ("I can do all things through Christ which
strengtheneth me."  Philippians 4:13.)  As for those who have no
desire to do so, we cannot force them, nor should we try.

But there are those outside the church who would coerce us into
changing.  The Christian view of sexuality is being increasingly
denigrated and dismissed as archaic, irrelevant, and at times
dangerous.  Christian spokespersons are increasingly vilified
and ridiculed when they stand in public for biblical morality.
James Dobson frequently refers to a "civil war" in America
between conservative and liberal forces.  This war seems to be
escalating.

In this context, some are tempted to react with aggression and
contempt toward anyone suggesting homosexuality is determined
before birth.  Others are tempted to bow to the wishes of the
progay lobby and apologize for our beliefs.  But striking the
proper balance of compassion and conviction is our only legitimate
option.  Unintimidated, but unsparing in our love, we still have
something to say.  And say it we must.