Born Gay? by Bruce L. Gerig, Page 2

Born Gay? continued

Stein notes that one of the most detailed, frequently cited, and solidly confirmed studies relating to sexual orientation was done in 1970 in San Francisco by the researchers Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith (1981) from the Kinsey Sex Institute, using 686 gay men, 293 lesbians, 337 heterosexual men, and 140 heterosexual women. Subjects were interviewed in their homes for 3-5 hours and were asked about 200 questions, some of them open-ended,44 in the typical rigorous Kinsey fashion. The researchers concluded that sexual orientation "is likely to be established quite early in life and that childhood and adolescent sexual expression by and large reflect rather than determine a person's underlying sexual [orientation]. … Sexual experiences with members of the same sex were common among both heterosexual and homosexual respondents; so were experiences with members of the opposite sex." They note further that what divided the gays and heterosexuals was not what they did, but how they felt sexually.45 Their data showed that "a boy's mother seems to have only a limited influence on his sexual orientation in adulthood" and that "[u]nfavorable relationships with fathers do not seem to be connected with gender nonconformity and early homosexual experience" – and that a connection here to adult sexual orientation, although found, is "not a strong one."46 Although some later studies suggested that gay men on the average may have more siblings than heterosexual men, the San Francisco study found no such evidence, with either the men or the women.47 However, with regards to childhood gender conformity, the San Francisco study showed that "prehomosexual boys … [are] less stereotypically 'masculine' than preheterosexual boys, at least in their self-images." The former commonly recalled dislike for typical boy's activities and enjoyment of those they thought were for girls; and "these kinds of gender nonconformity are directly related to experiencing both homosexual activities and homosexual arousal before age 19…"48 A recent review of 48 such studies (Bailey & Zucker 1995) confirmed that homosexuals recall "substantially more" gender-atypical behavior in childhood than heterosexuals. Stein criticizes the San Francisco study, suggesting that gay people probably recall being gender atypical children only because they "have internalized the stereotype that all gay men are feminine and lesbians are masculine," although he admits there is no sure evidence for this claim. Or, he thinks that being gender atypical, a child will become more nonconformist in general and so will be more willing to embrace same-gender sexual desire.49 Such philosophical fishing for counterarguments reveals the author's deep discontent when his presuppositions are faced with contradictory but strong, solidly-confirmed scientific evidence. Stein says that even though none of the currently articulated psychological theories seem true, still psychology is "the right place to look for a theory to explain sexual orientation."50

The Balswicks agree that solid support for the traditional psychoanalytic claims for childhood causes of homosexuality (a distant same-sex parent, an overprotective opposite-sex parent, and parents who fail to install a same-sex identification in the child) is lacking. Nor do the San Francisco or other similar studies support popular psychosocial theories (gays during childhood lacked adequate heterosexual experiences, suffered negative experiences with members of the opposite sex, or had early experiences and contact with homosexuals). They also note a study with lesbians in 5 countries that failed to show correspondence with 12 often-heralded family causation factors.51 Another problem with the distant/dominant parent theory is that many gay men do not fit into this category, while significant numbers of heterosexual men do. Also, “girlish behavior" in a boy could result from biological developmental variations, just as well as from social interaction factors.52

Stein believes that the truth lies somewhere in the direction of Daryl Bem's "exotic-erotic" theory, which claims that gender-atypicality is the key to producing a child who will find members of the same gender exotic (different and so attractive generally) and then erotic (attractive sexually) and finally turn out gay or lesbian. Yet, Stein acknowledges that no data supports this theory.53 In the end, Stein's overall analysis fails in four ways: (1) While he raises many interesting questions relating to current biological research (and to research in general), he overloads and dismisses the biological findings with too many hypothetical questions, which remain unproven relating to the specific applications at hand. (2) While he rightly emphasizes that sexual orientation can follow many, diverse paths, he fails to give biological factors their due (at least an equal) importance and potential in the overall picture. (3) While the biological data may be limited and tentative ("weak" he says54), yet a good bit of it is backed by more solid scientific evidence than any of the psychosocial theories that he or others would promote. (4) While the term "homosexual" may be used in a narrow sense to label a modern social construct, such a definition often fails to realize that those who see themselves as "homosexuals" are in reality every bit as diverse socially and overall as "heterosexuals" and that labels sometimes applied (e.g. "effeminate," "promiscuous," or "obsessive") may be applied to many in both groups, as well the opposite labels. Moreover, John Boswell has argued persuasively (1980, 1989, 1990) that the categories "homosexual," "heterosexual" and "bisexual" have been recognized throughout the recorded history of Western civilization, despite the social constructionist dissent.55 Other comparable terms such as "transgender," "transsexual," and "intersex" are also suitable for larger use in historical description. Perhaps Roughgarden makes an interesting distinction between "homosexual practice" which has always existed, and "homosexual identity" (e.g., I'm a gay person living here and now, and how has my culture influenced me in that regards?).56

Ex-gay leaders have used Stein's book in their cultural war against gays and lesbians. An example is Timothy Dailey's Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle (2003). Dailey is a fellow for cultural studies with the Family Research Council in Washington, DC, which was founded in 1987 by Paul Cameron, a member of the Religious Right and a Nebraska psychologist who so manipulated and misused data (in his attacks on homosexuals) that he was finally condemned by and thrown out of the Nebraska Psychological Association (1984) and the American Sociological Association (1985), as well as being called a "fraud" in a Dallas U.S. District Court (1985).57 Dailey writes in a more scholarly tone, quoting from numerous sources, but in the end his aim is the same and his views are distorted and fitted to prove that homosexuality is the worse "sin" of all. He uses Stein to disqualify all biological research,58 then holds up Robert Spitzer, the Columbia University psychiatrist whose (much-criticized) study of ex-gays (2001) concluded that gays can "change."59 Who would not try under the threat of hell and brimstone? This study says nothing about the damage that is done to numerous gays and lesbians by this terrifying approach; and Spitzer's distorted sample was drawn entirely from leaders, members and supporters of the ex-gay movement.60 It must noted, relating to Stein, that although he attributes homosexuality to primary social factors and indirect personal choices, he does not conclude that people choose their sexual orientation or that they can be easily changed or change at all.61

So, are people born gay, lesbian, bi or trans? As Kristof points out, although the data are not perfect nor complete, the research keeps piling up – "suggesting that sexual preferences may be not simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology."62 Bailey says, "Indeed sexual orientation may be an especially strong candidate for 'biological' causation. This is because the most familiar social influences cannot plausibly be operating. Homosexuals are attracted to members of their own sex despite their (usually) heterosexual parents' example and despite the punishment that they endure from peers and many other enforcers of social norms. Futhermore, prehomosexual boys are often gender nonconforming despite being socialized to the contrary and despite the punishment that often follows such behavior in males." In fact, "distant" fathers may be reacting to the (inherently-generated) atypical childhood behaviors of their prehomosexual boys.63 Yet, still, a theory is called for which balances the interplay of both biological and social factors, that in complex, varied and interactive ways mutually affect each other through an individual's sexual development and indeed life. This is the view of Jack Balswick (a sociologist) and Judith Balswick (a marriage specialist), who suggest the following general scenario: At conception, genetic factors contribute to sexual development. During the prenatal period, both endocrinological factors (e.g. male hormones) and environmental favors (e.g. severe stress on the mother) can play a role. During the early years, emotional bonding with the parents may influence sexual development – although genetic and hormonal factors may have direct effects, e.g. influencing a young boy to show signs of gentleness and sensitivity opposed to more aggressive "masculine" behavior; and parents' or peers' resulting criticism or teasing may affect the child even more. A young girl who acts like a tomboy may experience similar treatment. By the end of puberty (average age 15 in girls and 16 in boys,64 the bulk of contributing factors have played their roles and a person's sexual orientation, whether straight or gay, is set, not chosen.65

So how does all of this relate to Christian ethics? Because biological factors play important roles, in varying degrees and in various ways, along with social influences, the door must be left open for a range of natural end-points and moral options. It should not be demanded that gays change themselves into something that they are not or be coerced into unwanted celibacy, without realizing the great distress, damage and destruction that this will bring to some. (Would anyone even think of standing up in a church conference to demand that all heterosexuals there change themselves into gays or give up sex forever? Such a person would immediately be expelled from the hall for proposing such a ridiculous and impossible suggestion.) As the Balswicks conclude, "We all struggle, in our own ways, for sexual authenticity. … We acknowledge that some gay Christians may choose to commit themselves to a lifelong, monogamous homosexual union, believing this is God's best for them. … [O]ur compassion brings us to support all persons as they move in the direction of God's ideal for their lives."66 While some love to pound the law and point the finger (Matt 7:3-5), we glory in the grace, love and freedom that our Lord Jesus offers his children (Gal 3:11-13), whose death mercifully fulfills all of the law’s perfect and unattainable requirements (Matt 5:48).

FOOTNOTES:
1. Kristof, p. A19. 2. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1338. 3. Olson, p. 113. 4. Cf. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1376; Roughgarden, p. 248. 5. Roughgarden & Solomon, p. 17. 6. Bagemihl, ch. 3. 7. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1341-43. 8. Gudorf, p. 127. 9. Stein, p. 152. 10. Kristof, p. A19; Roughgarden, p. 247. 11. Stein, p. 153. 12. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1341-42. 13. Bailey, p. 72. 14. Roughgarden, p. 197-202, 208, 215. 15. Friedman & Downey, p. 43. 16. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1342. 17. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1350-57. 18. Olson, p. 115. 19. Kristof, p. A19. 20. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1350-53, 1365-66; Roughgarden, p. 246. 21. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1354-56, 1366. 22. Roughgarden, p. 222. 23. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1356-57, 1366. 24. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1353. 25 Friedman & Downey, p. 63; Bailey, p. 66. 26. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1353-54, 1365-66. 27. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1354. 28. Roughgarden, p. 227, 238-39. 29. Stein, p. 246-47. 30. Roughgarden, p. 238-41; cf. also Rahman & Wilson, p. 1354. 31. Roughgarden, p. 242, 244. 32. Roughgarden, p. 259. 33. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1357, 1359; Friedman & Downey, p. 65. 34. Spong, p. 72-74. 35. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1359-60. 36. Friedman & Downey, p. 73-74, 77. 37. Rahman & Wilson, p. 1363. 38. Stein, p. 174-178. 39. Cf. Bagemihl, ch. 2. 40. Bailey, p. 58-59. 41. Roughgarden, p. 215-16. 42. Friedman & Downey, p. 83. 43. Stein, p. 229, 231-34. 44. Stein, p. 235. 45. Bell et al., p. 113. 46. Bell et al., p. 50, 62. 47. Bell et al., p 72, 143. 48. Bell et al., p. 81. 49. Stein, p. 235-42. 50. Stein, p. 231. 51. Balswick & Balswick, p. 73-80. 52. Gudorf, p. 125-26. 53. Stein, p. 245. 54. Stein, p. 258. 55. Bailey, p. 54. 56. Roughgarden, p. 259. 57. Besen, p. 111-12. 58. Dailey, p. 133. 59. Dailey, p. 135-37. 60. Cf. Besen, p. 232-41. 61. Stein, p. 274. 62. Kristof, p. A19. 63. Bailey, p. 56-57. 64. Malta, website. 65. Balswick & Balswick, p. 84-86,78. 66. Balswick & Balswick, p. 102.

REFERENCES:
Balswick, Judith, and Jack Balswick, Authentic Human Sexuality: An Integrated Christian Approach, 1999.
Bagemihl, Bruce, Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, 1999.
Bailey, J. Michael, "Biological Perspectives on Sexual Orientation," in Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, ed. by Linda Garnets and Douglas Kimmel, 2003, p. 50-85.
Bell, Alan, Martin Weinberg, and Susan Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981.
Besen, Wayne, Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies behind the Ex-Gay Myth, 2003.
Dailey, Timothy, Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle, 2003.
Friedman, Richard, and Jennifer Downey, Sexual Orientation and Psychanalysis, 2002.
Garnets, Linda, and Douglas Kimmel, eds., Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Experiences, 2nd ed., 2003.
Gudorf, Christine, "The Bible and Science on Sexuality," in Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture, ed. by David Balch, 2000, pp. 121-141.
Kristof, Nicholas, "Gay at Birth?" New York Times, 10/25/03, A19.
Malta, J. Geoff, "Five Stages of Puberty [on Guys and Gals]," Puberty 101 Archives, www.puberty101.com
Olson, Daniel, "Talking about Sexual Orientation: Experience, Science, and the Mission of the Church," in Faithful Conversation: Christian Perspectives on Homosexuality, ed. by James Childs, Jr., 2003, p. 97-119.
Rahman, Qazi, and Glenn Wilson, "Born Gay? The Psychobiology of Human Sexual Orientation," in Personality and Individual Differences, 2003, 34:1337-82.
Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution's Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People, 2004.
Roughgarden, Joan, and Deborah Solomon, "Same Sex Selection" (interview), New York Times Magazine, 5/9/04, p. 17.
Spong, John Shelby, Living in Sin?, 1988.
Stein, Edward, The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory, and Ethics of Sexual Orientation, 1999.
White, Mel, Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America, 1994.

Back to Homosexuality & the Bible