In this essay we'll be looking at some of the homosexual myths that have pervaded our culture, and hopefully answering their arguments. Much of this material is taken from Joe Dallas' excellent book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement.(1) While the information in this essay may prove helpful, it is our prayer that you will be able to share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn't just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.

10% of the Population Is Homosexual.

Kinsey's figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.(5) But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it's valid. It's not.

 People Are Born Gay.

Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.

And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we're born with something doesn't mean it's normal. It's not true that "God makes some people gay." All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.

What's Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?

Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really "best friend" status, and that does not require legal protection.

Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine "family" any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children's lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.

The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won't make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.(10) Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very "other" beings--the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn't work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.

Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.

This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John's gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!(11) The gospels don't record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.

We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God's created intent for human sexuality: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:4-6). God's plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.

The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today. Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." Gay theologians argue that the term "abomination" is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.

Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh's people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians today doesn't mean none of it does.

The argument that the word "abomination" is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn't hold water.

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.(12)

Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.

When Jesus said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged," the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another's sin. There's no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin. Agreeing with God about something isn't necessarily judging.

Imagine I'm speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, "You broke the speed limit back there, ma'am." Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: "Hey, you're judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'" The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He's not judging my character, he's comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It's not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That's judging.

The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.

But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between "true" homosexuals and "false" ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn't the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.

Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men "inflamed with lust" for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.(13) You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.

Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.

San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.(15) The report's numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that's over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, "I struggled for a long time over Gibson's mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math."(15)

The report's conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.(17)

Gibson didn't use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson's report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: "The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc."(18)

That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it's not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it's wrong and harmful behavior.

Notes

1. Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1996.

2. Dr. Judith Reisman, "Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution," The Journal of Human Sexuality (Carrollton, Tex.: Lewis and Stanley, 1996), 21.

3. Ibid., 26.

4. Ibid., 21.

5. Richard G. Howe, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths (found on the American Family Association website at http://www.afa.net) gives this citation: "Knight lists the following sources in support of the 1%-3% figures: J. Gordon Muir, "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy," Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993; Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives (May/June 1991): 102; John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady, and Daniel H. Klepinger, "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, vol. 25, no. 2 (March/April 1993)."

6. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, "The Gay Gene?", The Journal of Human Sexuality, 4.

7. Dallas, 114.

8. Ibid., 112-114.

9. Ibid., 116.

10. Ephesians 5:25-32

11. John 20:30

12. Dallas, 193.

13. Ibid., 195.

14. Peter LaBarbera, "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth," The Journal of Human Sexuality, 65.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., 66.

© 1996 Probe Ministries International

About the Author

What is Probe?

Probe Ministries is a non-profit corporation whose mission is to reclaim the primacy of Christian thought and values in Western culture through media, education, and literature. In seeking to accomplish this mission, Probe provides perspective on the integration of the academic disciplines and historic Christianity.

In addition, Probe acts as a clearing house, communicating the results of its research to the church and society at large.

Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by writing to:

 GENETIC LINK TO GAYNESS?

(October 30, 2003) -- It's like déjà vu all over again. Another study claiming to support the idea that homosexuality is directly caused by genes comes to public attention. And then there are the journalists eager to trumpet the headline. Alas, as in the past, the reports and public statements of the authors misrepresent and hype the study beyond recognition.

For instance, there is the "blinking" study reported recently in the Behavioral Neuroscience journal. Lead author Qazi Rahman has become a leading opponent of the idea that environment may play a crucial role in the formation of same-sex attraction. Columnist Nicholas Kristof thought so much of this study that he quoted it in a recent New York Times article as being important evidence of a gay gene. Although Rahman's theories are more hormonal than genetic, the researcher does negate the role of environment in sexuality. Why? One reason is that when startled, 15 lesbians on average blinked in a similar manner to 15 straight men. There were no differences between straight and gay men.

Wait, no difference between gay and straight men? From reading Kristof's recent piece and the press accounts of the study, you would not know that. Because a small group of lesbians blinked like a small group of straight men, the leap is made to assume being a lesbian is obligatory? The inference is confounded by the fact that it is well known that smoking can impact startle response, and Rahman's study did not take smoking status into account in choosing study participants.

Hence, the headlines for the Rahman study could easily have read: "Sexual orientation not genetic for gay men; might be for lesbians." I must have blinked; I didn't read that anywhere.

In his Times article, Kristof then quotes another Rahman article from the journal, Personality and Individual Differences, that speculates that 50-60% of the differences in sexual orientation are due to genetic influences. Kristof and others in the media uncritically accept these numbers even though there is a considerable debate in scientific circles about the validity of the 50-60% figure, and the twin research on which it is based. Despite a couple of fairly sophisticated attempts, efforts by independent researchers to confirm these numbers have failed.

So what you wouldn't know if you only read the news services is that the data are highly questionable and there are findings in these studies that better support environmental hypotheses concerning sexual orientation.

Even if we did assume that differences in sexual orientation were 50-60% genetic, what would that mean? Well, first of all that leaves a pretty substantial portion of sexual preference open to environmental influence.

So the analogies to left-handedness and eye color fall absolutely flat.

Second, to gain perspective, lets look at other personality traits and the estimated percent of individual differences attributable to genetic factors according to existing research found on the American Psychological Association's website.

* Attitudes toward reading books - 55%
* Feelings about abortion on demand - 54%
* Feelings about roller coaster rides - 50%
* Attitudes towards the death penalty for murder - 50%
* Humility - 58%
* Likelihood to engage in casual sex - 49%
* Attitudes toward equality - 55%

With these genetic influences, think of the new advocacy groups that might spring up. Roller-coaster enthusiasts might lobby for free or reduced admission to theme parks, since many riders would be hindered from being "who they are" by restrictive pricing policies. If we thought about these traits the way the media and some researchers want us to think about homosexuality, the campaign for safe sex is futile--since nearly half the reason why certain people drop their pants on a whim is supposedly due to genetics. And, as we are getting accustomed to hearing..."can't change that," right?

At risk of belaboring the point, the faulty interpretation of all of these studies is that genetic influence is the same as destiny. Arising from studies of identical twins raised together, these studies frequently fail to take into account the confounding factor of shared environment. Despite the flaws in interpretation and design, the inference desired by many in the gay-activist camp is that the only scientifically acceptable approach to homoerotic feelings is to accept and identify with them.

Unless one is prepared to say that about attitudes toward equality, the death penalty, abortion and literacy...then why say it about sexual feelings?

Here's one more human trait that is highly heritable: weight and body type. This trait is estimated to be 60-80% related to genetic influence. If homosexuality is out of control at 50-60%, then what of one's physique?

I can hear the doors of gyms, fitness centers and infomercial studios slamming shut now. Why bother to try to change something so clearly due to genetics? Oh, to have inherited the six-pack "ab" gene!

There may be one trait that is determined. I guess we could call it journalistic determinism, because it appears that many journalists are determined to find that gay gene. I really shouldn't be so hard on them, they probably can't help it.