From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: TANGENT: Homosexuality is NOT PROVEN GENETIC, Christianity Today says.
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:23:19 GMT
Organization: AT&T

Thanks for posting the article.  I agree with a lot more than I disagree 
with.  I'm also fairly confused given the fact that the same magazine
has now posted widely divergent views on this issue.  Maybe this is
evidence that, as Jason pointed out, the jury's still out on the whole
nature/nurture debate.  I don't know.  

I'm going to respond, but before I do let me note for those of you with
unsophisticated news readers that the article I'm responding to is 
ridiculously long, and I tend to be a ridiculously long-winded guy even  
when I'm imitating Clint Eastwood.  Not a word of this has anything to do 
with music. Some of you may want to read this and some of you undoubtedly 
won't.  For those of you who won't, this is a good time to press "n".

I'm going to trim the article some just so that people don't have to
read this posting in shifts.  Let me encourage everyone to go back
and read the whole thing, though, and think about the issues that 
are raised.

In article <1992Oct16.134252.15354@newshost.unh.edu> ss1@kepler.unh.edu (The Rink) writes:
>>But the Bible clearly portrays homosexual behavior as sin.  Now,
>>here's the tricky part.  It's not a sin to be a homosexual; it's
>>a sin to engage in homosexual intercourse.  People don't choose
>>to be homosexuals.  They're born that way.  _Christianity_Today_,
>>that noted bastion of liberal humanism and cultural hedonism, ran 
>>a series of articles several years ago quoting extensive research that, 
>>in fact, confirms that homosexuality is genetic trait, not a moral 
>>choice.

>I never saw these articles.  But I did see an article in Christianity Today
>that refuted the supposed evidence of various scientists that said it was
>genetic.  I disagree with you here -- being homosexual IS a sin, because I
>believe becoming homosexual is the choice of the individual.  I think the
>*tendency* to want to become homoesexual is genetic, but not homosexuality
>itself.  See, it is more than sexual intercourse.  Homosexuality is a way of
>life that deviates from God's plan for us.

People are not mindless puppets, and certainly homosexuals have choices.
The biggest choice confronting homosexuals involves whether they will 
act on their sexual desires for members of the same sex.  I know a 
lot of people who, through the Lord's grace, have determined that 
they will *not* act on those desires.  Are they still homosexuals?
They think they are.  Do they live the homosexual "way of life"
(whatever that is)?  I don't know.  They're homosexuals, and
they live their lives. 

These folks would probably be pretty upset at anyone who suggested
that they "became" homosexuals.  My gay friends insist that they
have *never* experienced sexual desires for the opposite sex.  
They want to follow the Lord.  They read the Bible, and they see
that God's desire is for monogamous heterosexual relationships.  
And they want that too.  I know one guy who has prayed fervently,
every day, that the Lord would change him, and he's been praying
that prayer for over ten years.  He'd like to get married, settle
down, raise a family.  The problem is that he has absolutely no 
sexual desire for women.  

But none of these people are living the "homosexual way of life" (at
least, I think as you would define it).  So what are they?  I'll
tell you.  They are people who have been set free by Jesus.  They
are being set free, day by day, slowly, just like the rest of us,
from the power of sin in our lives.  These people have experienced
a glorious freedom, and it's touched their lives to such an extent
that they view it as more important than their sexual identity. 
But the one thing they're not free to be is heterosexual. 

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

(first four paragraphs munched.  Go back and read them.  They report
on Simon LeVay's findings that the hypothalamaus in homosexual
men is smaller than the hypothalamus in heterosexual men.)

>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."

Yep, that's the argument that's being bandied about in the media.
As the author rightly points out later, "normal" cannot be
equated with "moral."  This is the crux of the whole debate.  
And that's why I have a hard time understanding the fuss in
both the press and the church.  Linking homosexuality with 
genetic causation changes nothing.  I happen to believe, both
from scientific research and personal observation, that it's
probably true, but it doesn't really make any difference.  The
key issue is the moral one, and God has declared the practice of
homosexuality to be immoral.

I have natural tendencies to do lots of things - use others as tools
for my own gain, be an insensitive lout, ignore my spiritual nature,
and be a wanton hedonist, just for starters.  I come by these things
as naturally as a baby takes to its mothers milk.  The Bible tends
to refer to this "natural" man as something that should be 
unceremoniously put to death.  I can't help it if I have those
natural tendencies.  I can pray that God will change them, and 
sometimes he does.  What I *can* help is how I respond to those
tendencies.  I'm not a Pavlovian dog that has to slobber every time
a temptation for wanton hedonism comes my way.  I can swallow hard
and say, "No, with God's help I can withstand this."  It's not
natural at all.  But it's the right thing to do.

And that's what my homosexual friends are doing as well.  They're
doing that which is not natural (for them).  And they're trying
to do the right thing.  

(more deleted)

>_Agendas_and_Outcomes_
 
>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.

You bet.

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

Of course not.  See my comments above.  What is normal is broken
and warped, and desperately in need of the wholeness and healing
that comes through new life in Christ.

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

Doesn't matter.  It either is or it isn't.  I'm willing to believe
that it is.  But that's not the real issue.

(most of the criticism of the research deleted, except for:)

>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.  

I like the author's comments for the most part, but this is playing
fast and loose with the facts.  Roughly ten percent of the world's
population is homosexual.  To dismiss a study that indicates that
52 percent of identical twins share the same sexual orientation 
as a "scant majority" is to lie with numbers.  Technically, of
course, it's true - 52% is barely more than half.  But given the
relatively small percentage of homosexuals in the population at
large, I find it to be a pretty staggering statistic.  For somebody
who complains about media biases and skewed data, I find this to
be a pretty low blow.  

(more deleted)

>_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.

All wonderful stuff, and I wanted to leave this section intact 
because I truly appreciate what is being said here.  Let me note,
however, that the NT Biblical prohibitions refer to "practicing
homosexuality" (i.e, engaging in homosexual intercourse, or, 
if you prefer, living the homosexual life).  The Greek word
for "homosexuals" that appears in Paul's lists of "those who
shall not inherit the kingdom of God" is a verb in the aorist
tense - literally "those who do homosexuality."  Paul states
at the end of his list in 1 Corinthians 6 that "those who *do*
(emphasis mine) such things are not worthy of the kingdom of God."

Why bring it up?  Because God does not punish people for who they
are, but rather because of what they do.  Those who have a genetic 
disposition to alcoholism are not excluded from the kingdom because
their natural tendency is to get drunk.  But apparently drunkards
have no place in the kingdom.  Likewise, those who may have a
genetic disposition to homosexual behavior are not excluded from
the kingdom (if they are, then my Bible study group is nothing
more than a cruel hoax and a waste of time).  Rather, those 
who *practice* homosexuality are excluded.  It's a distinction
worth noting, I think.  

(more deleted)

>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.  

That's not what the Bible says (and he can quote Philippians 4 all
he wants, because that's not what *that* says either).  God's grace
is available to overcome sin.  Period.  The sinful tendencies may
or may not be taken away, and there are surely no guarantees in
Scripture that the temptations ever get easier. C.S. Lewis, in 
fact, argues that it gets *harder* the longer one continues in
the Christian life (see "The World's Last Night and Other Essays").

Here's a clue:  don't tell a homosexual that God wants to take away
his or her sinful tendencies.  You'll be contributing to an ongoing
depression and sense of helplessness if you do.  Out of several
dozen homosexuals I know, I know *one* person who can honestly say
that (s)he has been relieved of the sexual desire for the same sex.
The tendency is still there, and will probably always be there.  
It's the thorn in the flesh of the Christian homosexual population.
*Don't* feed this crap to the Christian homosexuals you may encounter.

("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.
>
>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.

Amen.  There's a whole segment of society out there that is largely
untouched by the church.  There's a fair amount of hostility and
anger.  A lot of it is directed at Christians, and some of it
is deserved.  Christians have often spoken the truth about
homosexuality, but they have rarely done it in love.  Try inviting
somebody with AIDS into your home.  Let him drink out of your
cup and eat off your silverware and wrestle with your kids, if you dare.  
Jesus wouldn't do that, would he?  Nah. 

Sorry if I sound disgusted. I like theological discussions as much
as anybody, but they don't really change a thing.  You know what
changes things?  Try inviting somebody with AIDS into your home. 
Care about somebody who is going to die soon.  And risk the 
horrible tragedy of maybe being theologically incorrect.  At least 
then you might have a chance of changing the world, one person at 
a time.

>"Ha--uh, uh, uh, uh, huuuhhhh?"                           -- Sam Stoddard
>"YYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...HA...HA...HA...HOOOOEEYY!!!"    -- Goofy
>"Ahweehrwyyhwhryrhwwehrwehrwrhwherr...."                  -- Dick Van Dyke
>"Yerhudurdhrrdrhudrtdhtudhrtduhtddhrtur...."              -- Sebastian
>"Yabba dabba doo!!"                                       -- Fred Flintstone
>"Habba, habba, ha-hhhhhaaaaa...."                         -- Jackie Gleason
>"HABBA HABBADA HABBADA HABBADA, what goes here?"          -- Professor Jacoby

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com