IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

A Research Paper

Presented to

Professor Daniel R. Heimbach

In partial fulfillment of the requirement for

ETH6550B Moral Foundations of Marriage & Family

Leonard O Goenaga

Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary

December 10, 2009

IS SEXUAL IDENTITY FIXED? RESPONDING TO THE WILDFIRE MYTH OF ‘GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY’

As a youth pastor, I am in the front lines of the culture war. The number of questions we receive, from sex to salvation, are quite diverse. Having an open question policy, a student of mine recently approached me with the following. A friend from school had made the statement that homosexuality was genetic, and thus fixed and unchanging. The friend had quoted an article from the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay-friendly activist organization within the Republican Party, as proof.[1] Within this article were numerous studies by researchers and psychologists I had never heard of. However, understanding God’s revelation on sexual morality, and the serious threat immorality poses upon both society and faith, I sought to do some research and provide my student with an answer. What I discovered was simply shocking: “contrary to what many Americans believe, there are no replicated scientific studies demonstrating that homosexuality is determined by biological or genetic factors.”[2]

From here I began to pour through the research and dig through various journals and studies, finding this statement affirmed within the scientific record. I had written these findings in a short essay and provided them to my student to share with his friend. This essay was then posted on my Facebook, with the following remarks from friends: Female 1: “The fact that you are arguing that homosexuals CHOOSE this life style is hatred in itself,” Female 1: “But the Bible says nothing against homosexuality.” Male 1: “And to think if being gay were truly a matter of choice, why would I, or any one else bother to pick it?” Male 2: “And for the record, I think Homosexuality is genetic, and there are many geneticists who believe so.”[3] In short, I was again in shock.  Why would I have received such comments? Was the evidence not studied? What assumptions were being made? Where did this claim that homosexuality was genetic come from, and how has it been absorbed so fully by the public? To answer these various questions, as well as provide a detailed exploration, I had done the following research. The claims made by such individuals needed answers, and it is the purpose of this paper to do so.

One more concern must be clearly expressed before the evidence is presented is the spirit of this research. In all things, we must have love. Our presentation must always be one of grace. However, we must not mistake this for political correctness, or a fear of man. The very motivation of love should motivate us to share knowledge with one another, regardless of one’s subjective preference. To share in a civil and well-supported manner cannot be perceived as hate simply because it brings about an opposition to emotionally attached issues. Such is the method of suppressing exchange, which is true bigotry (to simply toss the hate sticker at anyone who disagrees). Rather, a deconstruction of presuppositions must occur, and the approach to the evidence must be done with honesty. In this paper, I will explore the initial groundbreaking studies that lead to the myth of genetic homosexuality, and critique them both on scientific and moral grounds, as well as on biblical exegesis. I will argue that the idea that homosexuality is genetic and thus fixed is simply unsupportive, and contradicts the works in which the myth stems, as well as the body of scientific research. I will summarize the essential studies in which this myth arose (LeVay, Swaab & Hofman, Bailey & Pillard, and Hamer), as well as the vehicles that propagated the myths. After analyzing the source of the myth and how it spread, I will critically analyze the above individual’s work, place focus on the scientific community’s reaction, and the earlier mentioned researchers own later conclusions. Following this critical analysis, I will proceed to develop an understanding of homosexuality and it’s source of origin. When this framework is established, I will explore God’s Word on the subject, and refute contaminated readings of key topical passages. When the presentation is complete, I will conclude the paper by asking whether change possibly exists.

Sparking the Myth: Root of ‘Genetic Homosexuality’

In his study of the male brain, Dr. LeVay takes three subject groups (presumed heterosexual men, homosexual men, and women), and studies four cell groups (INAH 1, 2, 3,and 4).[4] The specific area of study is the anterior hypothalamus, which regulates male sexual behavior. Dr. LeVay takes postmortem tissue measured from the three subject groups, and finds no grave difference in the measurement of INAH 1, 2, and 4. However in INAH 3, Dr. LeVay discovers twice a difference between the amount in heterosexual men versus homosexual men, and women.

In addition to the LeVay brain studies, a second source of research studied the cell groupings in the brain and their relation to homosexuality:

The Swaab and Hofman research studied the volume of the suprachiasmatic nucleus [SCN]…in homosexual men. The SCN is a cell group located in the basal part of the brains of mammalians. It has been thought to be the principal component of the biological clock that generates and coordinates hormonal, physiological and behavioral body rhythms…it has been thought to have involvement in sex because of the varying body rhythms in sexual desire as well as the sexual changes that come with aging.[5]

The study conducted by Swaab and Hofman studied the brains of 34 subjects, divided into several groups. The first group was one of reference, consisting of eighteen males who died of various causes. The second group consisted of ten homosexuals who died of AIDS. The third group consisted of six heterosexuals who had also died of AIDS. The final group consisted of four males and four females. The study concludes: “…the human hypothalamus revealed that the volume of the…SCN in homosexual men is 1.7 times as large as that of the reference group of male subjects and contains 2.1 times as many cells.”[6]

In addition to the brain studies, a major area that contributed to the ‘genetic homosexuality’ illusion is that of twin studies. In J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard’s “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation,” research was conducted upon identical twins with the intention to show a high concordance rate (the rate at which both twins are homosexual). Their findings concluded with a 50% concordance rate for identical twins.[7] The concordance rate for non-identical rates hovered around 22%.[8] Their claim was that “the pattern of rates of homosexuality by type of relative was generally consistent with substantial genetic influence…”[9]

Complimentary to the works on brain studies and those of twins, proponents have cited gene studies by Dean Hamer. Geneticist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute released a study by a team he led that studied genetic material on the x chromosomes of homosexual twins. Dr. Hamer states, “The goal of our work was to determine whether or not male sexual orientation is genetically influenced. We used the standard techniques of modern human genetics, namely pedigree analysis and family DNA linkage studies.”[10] Hamer’s study led him to conclude that “We have now produced evidence that one form of male homosexuality is preferentially transmitted through the material side and is genetically linked to chromosomal region Xq28…[and that it] contributes to homosexual orientation in males.”[11]

Fanning the Flames: The Media Response

Discussion: Old Testament Dietary Law and Why They No Longer Apply to Us

Here is a discussion with a good friend of mine, who, from my knowledge, used to be a 7-Day Adventist, and is currently a non-denominational Protestant. He still has some 7-Day Adventist influence in regards to Sabbath, OT Law, and Soul sleep. He is also a fantastic person and friend.

Leonard Goenaga

It’s always Jorge’s fault.

PS: Rodney I’m waiting for a discussion on Old Testament levitical law. A professor of mine tore the chains of such laws to shreds the other day, and I oh so affectionately thought of you and Jorge.

Rodney Castillo

lets start with something small. What thoughts do you have on God telling Noah to put in the ark X amount of “clean” animals and X amount of “unclean” animals if this is way before Levitical law.

Leonard Goenaga

1. Usage: Clean Animals have an extended use over ‘unclean’ animals, given the nature of sacrifices (Gen 8:20). More than one purpose for collecting the animals.

2. Context: The idea of a Sabbath and ‘Clean/Unclean’ animals, predates Moses in being observed. It was standardized in Lv 11 and Dt 14. The Sabbath was also normalized with Moses’ commands (Ex 16:23-29).

3. Holiness: Regarding Clean and Unclean animals, two things are straightforward: 1) These were instructions specific to the Israelites, 2) The commands of clean vs. unclean regarded Holiness, with a secondary byproduct of any health-related issues being simply beneficial. One once remember that, according to Exodus, the laws were given as a form of punishment against the Israelites for not going up the mountain with Moses, due to their fear (the opposite of fear being faith). God promised to make them a “nation of priests”, and as punishment for their unfaithfulness, made them a nation with priests (Exo 19).

So, as I mentioned above.

1. These were commands specific to the Israelites, not us. They no longer apply, for two reasons (the latter which we’ll get into later): A. You’re not a descendent/Israelite [that I know of], 2. Jesus came and fulfilled the law. As I said earlier, we read Levi 11 and find this specific language: “Tell the Israelites: You may eat...” The importance here is Israelite-specific commandments. He was not addressing the world as a whole; rather, just His chosen people. Again, this would nullify us.

2.  The main purpose of such laws was to separate them from the surrounding nations; give an identity to aid in the coming Messiah. Very importance to notice, as I see 7-Day Adv. speaking of the health benefits of such laws, was that cleanliness was based on the commands of God; in other words, His commands issue holiness, and holiness is what made it clean or unclean. Health benefits did not make it holy, rather God’s establishment of it as such. 

All four sources where this cleanliness is mentioned is based off of holiness:  

• “so must you consecrate yourselves and be holy because I am holy…you must be holy because I am holy,” (this following a direct mentioning of unclean animals, and showing the foundation of keeping such laws was holiness, not health. ‘you must be healthy because I am healthy’ obviously makes no sense in relation to God, Lev 11:44-45),

• “I have set these apart as unclean for you. You are to be holy to Me becase I, the Lord, am holy,” (Lev. 20:25-26).

• PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE: “You are not to eat any carcass; you may give it to a resident alien within your gates, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner,” (Deut. 14:21). Notice, these rules of clean and unclean do not apply to foreigners and non-israeltie neighbors. They ARE culture specific, as this verse makes evident, and they were given to the Israelites as a form of punishment and identity. If they applied to us as well, why not the foreigners?

They do not apply to you because they are culturally specific to the Israelites, and they are given on the basis of what God deems to be holiness for His chosen people (who needed to be holy as God commanded, as punishment for their sin of fear and lack of faith). In addition, they no longer even apply to the Israelites, as it only occurred until the coming of the Messiah, which has already happened (which we affirm in our faith). This is perhaps the greatest proof for you and I, as Christians, besides a study of the OT texts on what it says.

God chooses which animals to be worthy of sacrifice, so theologically we can assume His ‘holy people’ would be restricted to the same sacrificial ‘diet’ as God, since their job was to be Holy, even allowing Israelites to sell it to neighbors whom it didn’t apply (Dt. 14:21). Again, specific to Israelites.

In conclusion, and most authoritative:

4. Removal of Distinctions: The best evidence that health was not the primary factor, was that clean and unclean distinctions are removed in the NT. Jesus spoke in Mk 7:14-23 of something much more important. “Nothing that goes into a person from the outside can defile him, but the things that come out of a person,”. Following, “For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated. (As a result, He made all foods clean).” (Mark 7:19).

This is profoundly clear on how null such laws were, but we even have a further explanation in Acts, to clearly cast all doubts aside.

“In it were all the four-footed animals and reptiles of the earth…Then a voice said to him, ‘Get up, Peter; kill and eat!’…What God has made clean, you must not call common’.” (Acts 10:12-15).

 Taken within the previous teaching of Jesus, we have affirmation.

1. (A) They were specific to the nation of Israelites.

2. (B) They were for the purpose of Holiness amongst His Holy People, as punishment, until the coming of the Messiah, whom would come from amongst this chosen people (thus expressing the need to separate from other nations).

3. (C) They no longer applied after the coming of the Messiah, as affirmed in the teachings of Jesus, and the ‘Good News for Gentiles’ in Acts 10. Jesus Christ’ coming freed them and us from this punishment.