Mar2014，Theological Research Methods: "Homosexual Is Not Inborn"
I. INTRODUCTION
The movement
of homosexuality over recent decades has become more and more widespread, prevalent
and aggressive since the outbreak of ‘Stonewall Rebellion” in 1969. Gays and
lesbians all over the world are in alliances protesting, rising up to fight for
their civil rights, i.e. their practices and relationships are to be equally
recognized as common relationship practices in the society as a whole, and to strive
for thier human rights to be accepted by the common laws and the moral
standards of the Church and the public.
With an
uprising of this movement, more and more countries have legislated the marital
relationship existed between gay or lesbian couples to be lawful, either out of
their concerns towrads humanitarism or an overwhelming pressure of entreatments
received from the homosexual as well as pro-homosexual groups. Some churches have
even compromised their biblical stands when they openly ordain gay or lesbian ministers
and promote a biblical acknowledgment towards the practice of homosexuality.
Majority of the public are enticed to believe in a lie proclaimed by the
homosexual communities and some researchers that, ‘homosexuality is indeed an inborn
nature and thus an irreversible sexual orientation’. This belief is intensified
further in a postmodern world where people claim that there is absolutely no
right or wrong in regard to one’s action with a vacance of moral absolutism.
Yet the truth
is that, homosexuality is never an inborn nature, but an exact by-product of
human’s sin and fall. This paper serves to argue against the mystery of ‘inborn’
theory, by looking into those scientific proofs gained from clinical studies,
cultural phennomeno discovered throughout human history and Truth revealed by
the Bible, to undress those taglines homosexuals have placed on themselves as
disguises or coverages in order for them to enjoy ‘free exercises of God’s
gift’, i.e., a sexual relationship that God allows only within a marriage life
between a man and a woman.
II. HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT INBORN
Homosexuality
is a common term used to refer to certain type of sexual orientation (which is
inclusive of heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual) that individuals have
possessed towards their same gender, that individuals are attracted either
physically (i.e. sexually) or emotionally, or both, not to an opposite sex, but
to a same sex partner. Homosexuals are
usually classified by public as ‘gays’ for male homosexuals and ‘lesbians’ for
female homosexuals, and they have called themselves ‘queer’, and created and developed
for themselves a ‘homosexual theology’ which seeks to break the hegemonism of
heterosexuality, and to gain a wide social recognition or acceptance towards
‘homosexuality’.
Researchers
have been creating terms like uranianism, homogenic love, contrasexuality,
homo-erotism, similsexualism, tribadism, sexual inversion, intersexuality,
transexuality, third sex, and psychosexual hermaphroditism to describe
homosexuality. It is widely recognized that homosexuality does comprise of
either or both of these two components, ‘psychological’ and ‘behavioral’. The
overall conclusion of clinical studies indeed do not support an idea of
‘inborn’ theory for homosexual orientation, but throughout the years, efforts
which have been working on ‘psychological issues’ in order to rectify
‘behavioral deviations’ have shown tremendous positive results, helping many
ex-homosexuals to recover and to be restored to thier true gender and identity.
A. Clinical Studies
Do Not Support an ‘Inborn’ Theory
Throughout centuries, researches have been carried out by both the
pro-homosexual groups and the anti-homosexual groups trying to gain scientific
and clinical data to prove the validity of their theories. An analysis of these
arguments and evidences concludes that homosexual is indeed curable, and there
is no concrete evidence showing any sign of it being a nature inborn and
irreversible.
1. The Unsustainability
of ‘Inborn’ Theory in Clinical Studies
The advancement of
homosexual movement claiming their homosexual practices being ‘natural and
inborn’ is greatly enhanced after 1974 with the decision of the American Psychological Association (APA) in removing homosexual as a symptom of
mental disorder in the list of DSM, with a further recognition received by
World Health Organization in 1990.
APA’s decision was greatly supported as well
as challenged by many subsequent researches and clinical studies. The reasons
held by the oppositions towards this official view are varied, with some
perceive the decision to be more politic than scientific as scientific studies
on homosexuality only started many years after the decision was made and those subsequent
studies have indeed affirmed the possibility of homosexuals to be converted to
heterosexuals. Some argue that the voting was carried out under great pressure,
and out of the 25,000 members of APA in 1973, only one third was participative
in the voting with only 58% votes in favour of the said removal, of which the
number of the voters was unable to be representative of the overall view of APA.
Furthermore, those American doctors who refused to accept the stand of APA were
absent in the meeting and a subsequent research found out that majority of the
psychiatrists still believe that homosexual is truly a symptom of mentor
disorder. Reports received by APA promoting homosexuality to be a healthy
psychological act were mainly provided by the gays or lesbians, and their
research methods were highly questionable and thus challenged by the academic
world.
There are basically
three schools that promote the idea of ‘homosexuality as an inborn nature’,
with Bailey and Pillard’s research done on male twins, Hamer’s belief of
genetic effect and Simon LeVay’s emphasis on brain structure. Yet these three
schools are refuted because of their inabilities to provide sufficient
evidences as well as satisfying samples or results.
J. Michael Bailey and
Richard C. Pillard made their study on twin male homosexuals, and
their work was published in 1991, with a statement specifies that, ‘Of the relatives whose sexual orientation could be
rated, 52% (29/56) of monozygotic cotwins, 22% (12/54) of dizygotic cotwins,
and 11% (6/57) of adoptive brothers were homosexual.’
It seems to imply that the high tendency of twins being homosexual is evidence for
the inborn nature of sexual orientation. Yet a detailed study of the research
method discovers that both of them had publicized on those magazines and
newspapers which were pro-homosexuals, and in order to make this an persuasive
tool advantageous to their practices and beliefs, only those homosexual twins would
avail themselves to participate in this study and thus the study and research
samples are considered to be biased and inconclusive.
Another study conducted
by Dean
Hamer, a geneticist has published a paper suggesting an ‘existence of genes that influence
homosexuality in males’, and presented evidences that suggested one of these
genes may be associated with the Xq28 marker on the X chromosome. Stanton & Yarhouse（2000）claim that Hamer’s study has its limitations and problems, as many other
study teams are yielding different experiential results, and Xq28 maker will
only be found in certain group of male homosexuals and it does not constitute a
necessary requirement for causes to homosexuality.
Simon LeVay, a British-American neuroscientist, published his work "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men" on ‘Science’ journal, stating that his finding ‘…indicates that INAH is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate.’ Sandy Zetlan, a Ph.D. in Neurosciences, questions the validity of LeVay’s conclusion, giving reasons that LeVay was uncertain of the sexual and medical backgrounds of his studied subjects, and human brain itself is susceptible to changes through life experiences. Moreover, LeVay’s methodology applied was questionable as he only examined 35 corpses, and this sample size is considered to be too small to form a research theory.
An article ‘The Adjustment of the Male
Overt Homosexual’ written by Evelyn Hooker published in 1957 on ‘Journal of
Projective Technique’ becomes the basis of people’s general opinion towards the
homosexuality, where it is perceived as a healthy and normal human relationship.
Yet Wong has denied the reliability of the former’s research because Hooker
refused to take samples from those gays or lesbians who had gone through
psychological treatment.
2. Clinical Studies
Prove Against ‘Inborn’ Theory
Nigel
D. Pollock makes such a definite statement that, ‘‘While some biological factions may
predispose individuals to a sexual preference, all the psychological and
anthropological evidence suggests that sexuality is primarily culturally
conditioned, and is not rigidly compartmentalized.’
His saying has rendered the inborn theory the least possible.
Robert Spitzer, who was one of the main psychiatrists promoting APA’s
removal of homosexuality from its list of mental disorder in 1974, came out a
study report in 2001 stating that ‘it is possible that some highly motivated individuals could successfully change
their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual’. And Dr. Joseph Nicolosi,
an American clinical psychologist, founder and former president of ‘National Association
for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)’
points out a fact that the ‘unchangeable’ of sexual orientation which is
assumed by homosexuals is a political conclusion rather than a scientific
conclusion.
In their
book, ‘Love and Sex of Homosexuals’, the writers disagree with the claims that
hormone and genetics are the main causes for homosexuality, by giving the evidences through illustrations provided, that
neither removal of the testicles of a male nor removal of the ovariums of a
female shall make them a gay or a lesbian, and it is clear to all that testicle
and ovarium serve to be the sources of generating hormone for male and female
respectively. The book further makes clear that, any injection of female’s
hormone into a male’s body or male’s hormone into a female’s body do not in any
sense make them homosexuals but rather shall increase their sexual desires. The
endocrine tests or clinical examinations in recent medical studies do not
propose any signs to prove that homosexuals are inborn.
For Christians, homosexuality is believed not to be inborn, but
shaped by life experiences or even spirit attack, as many have experienced
breakthroughs through prayer and have victory over spiritual warfare. There are numerous
testimonies shared by Christians all over the world how they have overcome
their struggles as homosexuals and live up to the very design of God the
Creator has for them. Jeanette Howard, the author for ‘Out of
Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind’, has realized herself that in order for her
to be able to lead an obedient life that is in accordance to God’s intention
and purpose, she has to come to term with the correct biblical perspective that
homosexual is a sin committed against God.
Gays and lesbians have to acknowledge that it is sin that causes them to be
indulged in such detestable practices which go against God’s Word, before they
could possess full and true liberty in Christ.
Other than Christians, clinical studies
have shown that homosexuals are caused by one’s upbringing rather than inborn, and majority of the
homosexuals have parents with broken relationship.
Statistics report that non-believers
who have gone through proper counseling and psychological treatments have
indeed been cured of their homosexuality, and have returned to a normal life of
having their heterosexual relationship.
B. Cultural Studies
Deny an ‘Inborn’ Argument
The American Psychological Association(APA)
recognizes that one’s ‘sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of
identity based on those attractions, related behaviors and membership in a
community of others who share those attractions’.
Thus it brings an implication to us that homosexuality, together
with bisexuality, which were removed as stigma of mental illness in 1974 and
which have been widely accepted as a normal practice and an alternate lifestyle
for many young people nowadays, are not an inborn nature, but a psychological,
environmental and cultural breed preference which we could trace from its
development and trend in the history.
1. History Suggests
Homosexuality to be a Cultural Phenomenon
Homosexual is never a new issue which surfaces only in today’s
world but history has proven that certain cultures do breed public recognition
towards homosexuality, and homosexuality in return adds a layer of favor to
some ethnic or national cultures in the course of history, especially among
Greek and Roman where homosexual expressions were actively and widely engraved
in their arts and sculptures. Greek was once famous for its sports and they
valued the beauty of human body, and homosexuality was a practice openly and
aggressively promoted in that society.
CK Keener and Furnish, scholars who study the background of New
Testament consider homosexuality, especially among males, to be more than a
common accepted norm and practice in the social living of Greek and Roman
world, but a love model highly honored by the great philosophers of their days.
John Boswell, in his book ‘Christianity, Social Tolerance, and
Homosexuality’ reveals that ancient peoples tended to perceive that ‘men who
loved other men would be more masculine than their heterosexual
counterparts…men who loved men would emulate them and try to be like them,
while men who loved women would become like women…’ and he illustrates
Aristophane’s speech by saying that homosexuals were considered to be the
finest boys and young men, and they were naturally the most manly in the
percept of that society. Thus it is this deep
rooted belief and pursuit of strength and perfection that cause the permeation
of homosexual practices in the Hellenistic era. He also gives examples of
homosexual eroticism which were prevailed in Islamic Sufi literature, Persian
poetry and fiction and ancient Chinese etc.
Pederasty, a homosexual relationship between an adult male and a pubescent or
adolescent male is a common happening found in the Roman Catholic churches all
over the world. Joel Mowbray points out that the problem lies with the closed
environment that the priests are exposed to since they are trained during their
very young age relating only to males, and they are gravely influenced by the
homosexual culture permeated in the monastery, which caused them to be sexually
attracted and aroused to the male youngsters.
It is thus evidential that under such circumstances the
practice of homosexuality is accelerated and became a trend and popular
practice in those particular eras. It breaks the ground held by homosexuals
when they claim that their sexual orientation is inborn whilst history
demonstrates for us a different phenomenon, i.e. homosexuality is a preferred
lifestyle by some people when they exercise their own choices to live so.
2. LGBT Movement Speaks of a Perverted
Homosexual Agenda
Homosexuals used to be a group under suppressed and people dared
not disclose their homosexual identities in fear of being rejected by their
community. But nowadays more and more gays and lesbians have boldly declared
their sexual orientation and preferences, and exert their utmost efforts to
advance the homosexual movement. The LGBT civil right movement started in 28
June 1969 with an incident known as ‘Stonewall Rebellion’, and the movement has
ignited and sparked highly visible LGBT rights across America and Europe.
The agenda of homosexual or LGBT movement has deviated from its
primary purpose to protect the LGBT groups or homosexuals from unjust
discriminations, and to serve as a voice for the oppressed who are considered
to be marginalized by the general public. Nowadays, homosexual practice is a
popular trend, and they purposely distort the image of the anti-homosexuals in
order to gain more public support and empathy. They have portrayed themselves
to be persecuted and mistreated and their ultimate aim is to ‘overthrow the
hegemonism of heterosexuals’ and create for themselves a kingdom of
homosexuals. Many legal acts were established to protect their rights and in
some countries, anyone who is considered to be anti-homosexuals or in any way
demonstrating a sense of discrimination towards homosexuals will be liable to
grave penalty and judgment under the law. It is an organized cultural war
declared to the order of nature that God has set forth in the universe.
It
is obvious that homosexuals are loose in their sexual relations, and majority
of them are promiscuous. A sampling report done by Bell and
Weinberg shows that only 10% of the homosexuals have less tendency of promiscuity, while 28% of male homosexuals have more than
1000 sex partners throughout their entire lives. 83% of male homosexuals have
more than 50 sex partners in their lifetimes, and out of these, 79% admitted
that they have homosexual relations with strangers.
If homosexual is an inborn nature, there is a tendency that homosexuals will
stick to their partners and seek for stability as this is the very basis need
of human beings. Yet the fact does tell us that the practice of homosexuality
is definitely a lifestyle which is greatly influenced by the culture and belief
of our age.
C. Biblical Truth Rejects
an ‘Inborn’ Possibility
God is the Author of life, and His Word has rendered homosexuality
to be unlawful and unnatural. We can see these perspectives against
homosexuality both from the account of creation and some other scriptural
passages in the OT and NT. It is because homosexual act does not fit in the
design and ultimate purpose of God for mankind, and is never an inborn nature,
that God specifically speaks against it.
1. God’s Intention
for Human Sexuality in the Creation Account
Creation account for mankind reveals to us God’s intentions for a
proper and rightful sexual relation are to unite a husband and his wife as one
flesh, and to enable them to recreate and reproduce so that their descendants
shall subdue and fill the entire earth. Sexual union is how a man and a woman
relates in a marriage, when God divided the woman from man by taking the rib
out of him, and commands them again to join together as one flesh. Homosexuality fails to
fulfill both of these God’s mandates for mankind. Therefore it is impossible
for God to contradict His word by allowing homosexuality to be ‘inborn’ that
is, to be in line with His very nature.
Genesis 1:26-27 tells us that God creates man in His own image,
and male and female He has created them. Thus man and woman before their fall
reflect the full and perfect image of God. The creation of male and female
resounds to us God’s nature of masculinity and femininity within Himself. It is
an indication that God initiates His masculine power whereas all humans, be it
males or females, exercise their feminine obedience in responding to God’s
invitation.
Adam and Eve are designed to function and reflect man’s
relationship to God and a loving relationship exists within a Triune God. Yet a
homosexual
is a lover of his/her own sex, and he/she desires to take rather than to give
of himself/herself. Therefore his/her love which is characterized by taking
without any receiver to give himself/herself to,
is not in accordance to the original design and purpose of God’s creation.
Instead, marriage institution that
governs the sexual relationship between the husband and his wife, as stated in
Genesis account, is a process of mutual ‘knowing’ about the other whom the Lord
has blessed them to become one flesh through rightful and intimate sexual
intercourse (Gen 2:24 & 4:1).
Andrew Comiskey in his book, ‘Pursuing Sexual
Wholeness’ asserts that Genesis account ‘affirms the need to take seriously our
yearning not to be alone, to find another with whom we can recreate and
procreate… It calls us to be reconciled to the opposite sex and in so doing to
discover the uniqueness of our own sex.’ Since
heterosexual, rather than homosexual is given in the creation order of God, it
will be ridiculous to say homosexuality is by nature, God’s creation for
mankind.
2. Biblical
Scriptures Condemn Homosexuality
Traditionally, it is recognized that there are altogether seven
Bible passages that talk about homosexuality and God’s strict condemnation and
judgment pronounce against this practice. The Biblical writers are unanimous in
their voices speaking against homosexual acts as one of the practices which do
not go in line with the purpose God has for mankind.
It is recorded in the Genesis 19 that God’s anger burnt against
Sodom and Gomorrah because of the immorality that had prevailed over the cities,
and the immorality did inclusive of homosexual sins. Genesis 19 relates the
abominated acts of the people and the subsequent destruction of Sodom and
Gomorrah, with Genesis 18 God foretells Abraham of the great sin of the cities.
Though homosexual theologians have tried to explain the passage differently by
claiming that the cities were destroyed for its lack of hospitality which was
considered to be a major offence towards biblical culture by then, the demand
of the people did express their intention of ‘laying with the angels’, whom
have appeared as males, and that speaks of their intention of sexual harassment
towards the ‘same sex’.
Leviticus 18:22 forbids strictly the practice of ‘shakab’(to lie
down to have sexual relations), which is homosexual act by saying that, ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it
is an abomination.’ Leviticus 20:13 states God’s penalty for homosexual behaviors,
that, ‘If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both
of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their
blood is upon them.’ The word ‘toeyvah’ means detestable, abomination or enormous sin. It speaks more
than ceremonial uncleanliness (which is acceptable to pagan world while
intolerable by Hebrews) exclusively claimed by homosexual theologians but moral
sin of rebelling against God, as the whole Bible reveals an unsevered
connection between the nature of pagan worship and its practice of immorality
(inclusive of male homosexuals). When explaining the definition of ‘moral
holiness’, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Words says that ‘When Israel
was set apart to God by God’s sovereign choice, both the ritual and moral
aspects of obedience to God were essential in their life of holiness’. Thus any sexual
relationship which does not fall within a marital bond between a husband (male)
and his wife (female) is considered to be unnatural (not in accordance to the
nature and original design of God), and thus sinful and immoral.
Some have argued that since OT does not raise voice against the
issue of lesbianism, therefore it is permissible to do so. Yet Charles
W. Keysor has well explained in his book ‘What You Should Know About
Homosexuality’, reasons for the omission of such prohibition are mainly due to
the restricted opportunities that biblical women were exposed to contact and
encounters outside their homes and they were expected to be diligent in
child-bearing and raising up of their children at homes.
New Testament, especially in Paul’s epistles, makes a direct
condemnation against any practices of homosexuality. In Romans 1:26-27 Paul
makes clear to us that some who have denied God and suppressed His living Word
indulged themselves in shameless and unnatural homosexual acts and brought upon
themselves wrath and curse of God. Sexual deviation (from the nature to
unnatural) itself is a punishment from abandoning God and His Truth, and
homosexuals have experientially rebelled against God’s prescribed order both
historically and theologically.
And he further emphasizes in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that those men
who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. In 1 Timothy
1:9-10, Paul counts homosexual as an act that contradicts to biblical sound
doctrines. Jude 1:7 though claimed by homosexual theologians to be a bestiality
act because angel is of ‘strange flesh/other flesh’ (‘sarkos heteras’), is
nevertheless an illicit act which commits towards those of the ‘same sex’ (as
explained above related to Gen 19).
It is clear to us that what God have rejected do not go in line
with His nature, and it is futile for the homosexuals to try to justify that
their practices are indeed conforming to the teachings of the Bible.
III. CONCLUSION
Balch, David L.
ed. Homosexuality, Science, and the
“Plain Sense’ of Scripture. Eugene: Wipf
and Stock
Publishers, 2000.
Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality. Chicago: The University of
Comiskey, Andrew. Pursuing Sexual
Wholeness. Eastbourne: Monarch Publications Ltd., 1989.
Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul. Nashville:Abingdon
Press, 1979, 52-83 & C.S. Keener,
‘Adultery,
Divorce, section 3.6’ in Dictionary of
New Testament Background. Downers
Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 2000. Quoted in Dorcas Wong, An
Analysis and
Interpretation of Homosexuality. Johor Bahru: People’s Book House Sdn. Bhd., 2006.
Gaebelein, Frank
E. ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
Vol 10, Romans, by Everett F.
Harrison. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976.
Grenz, Stanley
J. Welcoming But Not Affirming: An
Evangelical Response to Homosexuality.
Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1998.
Guan Qi-wen, Dai Yao-ting, Kang Gui-hua and Wang Nai-fu, eds. Equal
Right?Hegemony?Issues of Homosexuality (平权？霸权？审视同性恋议题). Hong
Kong: Cosmos Book Limited, 2005.
Howard, Jeanette. Out
of Egypt: Leaving Lesbianism Behind. Tunbridge Wells: Monarch
Publications
Ltd., 1991.
Keysor, Charles
W. What You Should Know About
Homosexuality. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing
House, 1980.
MacNutt,
Francis. Can Homosexuality Be Healed.
Grand Rapids: Chosen Books: 2006.
Mazzalongo,
Michael. ed. Gay Rights or Wrongs: A
Christian’s Guide to Homosexual Issues and
Ministry. Joplin: College Press Publishing
Company, 1995.
Peng Huai-zhen,
ed. Love and Sex of Homosexuals. Taipei:
Dongcha Publisher, 1987.
Pollock, Nigel
D. The Relationships Revolution. Leicester:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1998.
Rogers, Eugene
F, Jr. Sexuality and The Christian Body.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1999.
Schmidt, Thomas
E. Straight and Narrow: Compassion and
Clarity in the Homosexual Debate.
Sears, Alan
& Craig Osten. The Homosexual Agenda:
Exposing the Principle Threat to Religious
Freedom Today. Translated by
Youngman Chan. Hong Kong: The Society for Truth and
Light, 2009.
ShuangFu Foundation. The Other End of
Rainbow (彩虹的另一端). Hong Kong: The Society
for
Truth and Light.
Siker, Jeffery
S. ed. Homosexuality in the Church: Both
Sides of the Debate. Louisville:
Westminster John
Knox Press, 1994.
Wong, Dorcas. An Analysis and
Interpretation of Homosexuality(同性恋之剖析与诠释). Johor
Bahru: People’s Book House Sdn. Bhd., 2006.
Bailey,
J. Michael, PhD and Richard C. Pillard, MD. “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual
Hooker, Evelyn.
“The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual.” Journal of Projective
Technique, Vol.21(1957), 18-31.
Nonas
E, LeVay S. “A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and
Sell, Randall L. “How Do You Define ‘Sexual
Orientation’”, Frontline.
SEXUAL ORIENTATION & HOMOSEXUALITY.
Spitzer, Robert. Can some Gay Men & Lesbians Change
Their Sexual Orientation? 200
Participants
Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation. Archives
STONEWALL, the
lesbian, gay and bisexual charity.
Feb
2014).
Zetlan, Sandy. “LEVAY CRITIQUE: Neuroscience or Nonsense”
* J. Michael Bailey, PhD and Richard C. Pillard, MD, “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation”, JAMA Psychiatry Vol 48, No.12(Dec 1991), http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=495588.
* Sandy Zetlan, “LEVAY CRITIQUE: Neuroscience or Nonsense”
http://mith.umd.edu/WomensStudies/ReadingRoom/AcademicPapers/levay-critique.
