This blog post articulates a view of research (and message to Evangelicals) from a theologian that is not far from my own. This is a significant statement from a very prominent Evangelical.
Dr. Mohler ends with this observation:
Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
I understand that some regular readers will take exception to his theological view of homoeroticism. My point here is to note that a major Evangelical leader has acknowledged the potential role of prenatal factors for some homosexuality which seems to be at odds with the prevailing view the U.S..
At least one influential Evangelical blogger has taken note as well. As has Andrew Sullivan.
It’s no use – I’ve goofed again!
What there should not be is ‘eugenics’ (the wording I used could be interpreted as suggesting that there should not be ‘moral parameters’ … which, of course, there must be – for just about anything one might care to mention!).
(I’m reposting this because I made too many typos … I was trying to ‘multi-task’ – something I perhaps do not have a genetic predisposition to do!)
When I read statements like “[T]his does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin …”, a number of questions spring to mind, among them:-
1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)
2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)
3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)
One of the things that really bothers me about ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of any ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.
Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in their classification of sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’ – to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.
When I read statements like “[T]his does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin …”, a number of questions spring to mind, among them:-
1. How can someone apparently be so sure about God’s attitude to ‘homosexuality’ per se? (The Bible as a whole is far from clear on the issue, in the view of many, myself included.)
2. (following on from 1.) Is there such as thing as homosexual ‘non-sin’? If so, what might be the moral / ethical hallmarks of this? (Perhaps the move towards civil unions is in fact a good way to promote homosexual ‘non-sin’.)
3. If sexuality is somehow innate (and the science does appear to be pointing that way), then is God wanting us to engage in some kind of ‘eugenics’? Or does he want us to ‘leave well alone’ and make the best of the gift of life as it ‘given’ to us? (It surely has to be the latter!)
One of the things that really bothers me about bothers me ‘homosexuality’ possibly being genetic is the ‘designer baby’ syndrome. If a ‘gay gene’ (or whatever) is ever identified, will some prospective parents choose to have an abortion rather than a gay offspring? For this reason, I think it essential that we, as a society, sort out very clearly the moral parameters of ‘eugenics’ aspect (as in there shouldn’t be any!) as soon as possible.
Once one has sincerely concluded that sexuality is, at some fundamental level, innate, there is IMHO really ‘no going back’. (Legislators in many countries recognize this in classifying sexual orientation as a ‘protected characteristic’, to use the legal terminology here in Britain.) Perhaps this is why some are resisting the idea so vehemently: THEY understand that just as well as we do.
If anyone wonders if someone can believe that they are “be born gay”, ask a gay guy. I wonder if you know any gays at all, it seems the gays, the ssa’s comes from another planet. Just ask them, or are going to continue discussing gay persons without talking to THEM about it, I mean, they are not animals at the zoo.
O Tempore, o mores
Thanks for your honesty CK. As much as I’d like to delve into your 3 points deeper (because for me, they open more cans of worms than they close), I’ll save it for another time.
Marty
Warren, I think this article (or the summary at least) validates exactly what I have implied.
To wit: “Although it is typically presumed that heterosexual individuals only fall in love with other-gender partners and gay-lesbian individuals only fall in love with same-gender partners, this is not always so”
This seems consistent with my position a), that “there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender”.
Do you disagree? Sure, it’s all very “complicated”. Far too complicated for me to quietly accept claims that “It is impossible for me to love someone of a particular gender.”
It ia more complicated than that Marty. See this article by Diamond. Some folks can trigger sexual desire via the romantic route.
Thanks for your response CK. Yes, I did miss your earlier comment.
For the record, I’m not asking anything about orientation per se — I’m asking about the differences between men and women — differences that are more than “skin deep” (great commercial warren! perfect!).
Because when a straight man swears he could never be (attracted toemotionally bonded with) another male, I tend not to beleive him. Same goes for gay men who swear that no women exist who could sufficiently stimulate them physically and emotionally.
So either a) there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender, or b) there is still some large (and largely undefined) difference between men and women that proves a. to be false — a chasm that this great diversity is still unable to bridge.
Thanks for all of your replies.
RE: Marty’s question, I remembered this Brewster’s Ice Cream commercial…
The big reveal just changes things…
Marty,
You keep asking the same two part question.
Do gay men find handsome butch women attractive? And if not, why?
The answer to the first part is “No”.
I’ll let someone else answer “why” that is the case (the last time I tried answering you it resulted in mocking so – I’ll avoid going there again).
But I can state with certainty that gay men do not find butch women attractive. So you can stop asking that question.
Please.
I would agree as well. I think Marty’s trying to argue something from a purely logical standpoint that isn’t experienced logically.
And as for Brave Combo recording your lyric, Warren, they just might. On one of their albums, (“Polkas for a Gloomy World”, I think”) has this as a verse for “In Heaven There Is Not Beer”:
In Heaven there is no sex
so let’s do that next!
And when our muscles no longer flex,
someone else will be having sex.
well put, Warren
Warren, I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with anything I’ve said so far. But to use your example,
“So if I look at a picture of a a man [who for all intents and purposes looks much like an attractive female], my brain does one thing; if I look at a woman [whose appearance is that of a handsome man], it does another.”
I’m asking if (and why not, if not) a “handsomely butch female” is not attractive to a gay man. And whether or not she could “meet his deep emotional needs” is a different, bur related question.
So, best I can gather, there is some strong, powerful, yet not-quite defineable difference between men and women. 100% straight people “get itâ€, and 100% gay people “get itâ€, and some of us who lie somewhere in the middle might be somewhat ambivalent about it — whatever that “it†that none of us seem capable of explaining, actually is
Does that seem like a fair statement to you guys?
Not exactly. We don’t know everything we probably will know at some point in the future, but we do have pretty good evidence that brain activation involving at least the hypothalamus is involved in current differences. So if I look at a picture of an attractive female, my brain does one thing; if I look at a handsome man, it does another. Exclusively gay men have an opposite reaction. How these differences occur is still a puzzle.
Jim – Salsa Polka? Wow, I like the Hokey Pokey tune but I am still saying no to Polka 🙂
But one may dabble without really having polkaphilia. I even wrote a polka song once in response to a Bible study. You can sing it roughly to the tune of the chorus of Beer Barrel Polka:
No sex in heaven
No fooling around up there.
No sex in heaven
But we are not going to care.
No sex in heaven
But don’t fear it will be allright.
There will be no sex in heaven
So honey let’s have some tonight!
I wonder if the Brave Combo would want to record it?
Warren,
I’m not trying to “recruit” you or anything, but how do you know you don’t like polka? Maybe you just haven’t met the right band.
As far as I am concerned, there may be no intellectual reason why I could not love some man in a romantic way but I sure cannot imagine it with feeling or desire. An analogy – I am drawn to rock and blues but not to polka. I do not think there is a polka gene I am missing, and I do not think there is a rock gene; I do not remember choosing to dislike polka or like rock. These events are out of my awareness but I most assuredly have preferences. I suspect my brain is wired that way now.
Yes, assuredly so.
Of course, orientation differs significantly from the polka/rock dichotomy because unlike rock or polka, orientation forms absent any experience of it. Sexual/romantic attractions need not ever have been modeled to be present. But no one loves rock or polka absent their exposure to it.
So, best I can gather, there is some strong, powerful, yet not-quite defineable difference between men and women. 100% straight people “get it”, and 100% gay people “get it”, and some of us who lie somewhere in the middle might be somewhat ambivalent about it — whatever that “it” that none of us seem capable of explaining, actually is.
Does that seem like a fair statement to you guys?
Marty et al – I have allowed all comments thus far because the discussion has been reasonably civil. I think points have been made and I would ask that all concerned simply make their points or don’t respond.
As far as I am concerned, there may be no intellectual reason why I could not love some man in a romantic way but I sure cannot imagine it with feeling or desire. An analogy – I am drawn to rock and blues but not to polka. I do not think there is a polka gene I am missing, and I do not think there is a rock gene; I do not remember choosing to dislike polka or like rock. These events are out of my awareness but I most assuredly have preferences. I suspect my brain is wired that way now.
Research is very clear (although requires replication) that exclusively gays and straights react at an unconscious and neurological level in opposite ways to putative pheromones and other triggers. Brain activation stimulates desire – that’s just how it is. I personally believe that for some romantic attachments can stimulate desire but this is by no means applicable to all. I also believe some people are gratified best by a sense of affiliation with their faith.
Tom, thanks for the insults. But I was under the impression that you didn’t want to argue… care to take a stab at the question?
Gordo at least tried to say something helpful (after snidely suggesting that I had “boundary issues”). He said it’s because girls don’t (can’t?) give him butterflies. Again I ask, what is the nature of the difference between men and women that cause this different reaction? Smell perhaps (nod to Tom)?
Ken makes a circular reference to avoid answering the question at all…
So I repeat what I wrote two days ago, and will give you another chance, in good faith:
” is there really a huge difference between a butch female and a slighlty effeminate male? And if so, what is the nature of that difference?”
Marty said:
“Can you explain why? Not why a particular woman cannot meet your deep emotional needs — but why NO woman could.”
Based on Gordo’s previous post about his boyfriend, I’d guess the answer is because he’s gay.
Tim,
I considered whether Marty is a troll, but wrote a response last night anyway. Unfortunately, the crappy wireless at the hotel gave out as I hit Submit Comment and I lost everything. I’ve been chasing errant numbers since then and haven’t had time to re-write a response.
Marty – women don’t fascinate me like they do straight men. I’ve dated women and got serious once, but ended it because it didn’t feel right. Soon after a male friend kissed me and I saw stars for the first time. “Ah, so that’s what its supposed to feel like.” As I said, that’s how the gods made me.
g
This reminds me a bit of a child in a store:
Mama, can I have the Barbie Magic Castle with movable drawbridge and flags on the turrets?
No
Why?
Because I don’t have the money for it at the moment
Why?
Because I’m on a budget and we need to get food for dinner
Why?
Because Mommy doesn’t have a job and Daddy hasn’t had much overtime lately.
Why?
At somepoint you have to realize that the kid isn’t really looking for answers. She just wants to argue until she wears her mother down and she gets the castle.
And I think it may be time to recognize that Marty isn’t really looking for answers to his questions. He’s just trying to argue.
I hope I’m wrong, Marty. But so far that’s pretty much all I’ve seen…. and sorry, but no you aren’t going to get the castle.
Gordo: The reason that I don’t fall in love in a romantic way with a woman is because we would never be able to meet each other’s deep emotional needs.
Can you explain why? Not why a particular woman cannot meet your deep emotional needs — but why NO woman could.
Which is why I’m asking any here who care to reply, why some humans are deemed unworthy of your love (or why you may be incapable of expressing it to them fully), because of their gender, and nothing more.
Marty,
I’m not sure how to answer this. My boyfriend would say “there’s no accounting for taste.” Often, the chemistry of attraction is impossible to understand. However, just because I may not want to go to bed with someone doesn’t mean they are unworthy of my love. I don’t want to sleep with my mother, but she’s a wonderful human being and I love her. I have very close relations with women which are in no way devalued because I am gay.
The reason that I don’t fall in love in a romantic way with a woman is because we would never be able to meet each other’s deep emotional needs. I vacation every year with my closest female friend and we enjoy each other’s company, but we could never complete each other. We are as the gods made us and it isn’t to be.
You appear to have trouble with the concept of platonic versus erotic love, and I suspect that you may have problems in your own life with boundaries. Maybe this is something with which someone like Warren could help you.
g
With Dr. T’s permission, and with thanks for letting me open this line of inquiry by approving my previous comments, I’ll open my heart even further in hopes of understanding some of your own perspectives:
When I was 8 years old, my parents adopted a 5 year old Korean girl. Growing up with my sister, it seemed impossible to me to ever be attracted to an asian girl. Just as, being a slim young man, it seemed impossible for me to be attracted to an overweight girl. Or, as is the case with so many of my white friends, it seemed utterly incomprehensible that I could ever be attacted to a black woman. As if origin, weight, or race were a sufficient reason for me to judge another person unworthy of my love?
Somewhere along the way, my mind was opened. It’s not that I can fall in love with everyone I ever meet — that’s far from accurate. But some truly were lovely people, and not so difficult to imagine Loving, Fully, regardless of their weight, origin, race — or even their gender. Things that were once “repulsive” to me came to pale in comparison to their attractiveness as members of the human species. Beautiful people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders.
Which is why I’m asking any here who care to reply, why some humans are deemed unworthy of your love (or why you may be incapable of expressing it to them fully), because of their gender, and nothing more.
Am I missing something here? I’m not saying anything — I’m just asking.
if Marty is serious, then I’d ask him how likely it is that he could fall in love with another male.
If I told you it was extremely likely, would you call me a bisexual?
I’ve “fallen in love” with many men, and many women. I’ve only had sexual relations with a tiny fraction of the people I love.
I’m 100% heterosexual by choice. Why couldn’t I manage to love those men and women I find worthy of loving?
Why do you (or anyone) limit who you are able to love, because of their gender? This is what I’m trying to understand. Do you find them “repulsive”? Or is your “attraction” to the same-sex just so overpowering as to make any possible attraction for the other sex seem insignificant?
You can go ahead and call me “closet bisexual”,– others have mistakenly done that, so I won’t mind. But from my perspective it is simply open-mindedness. Why WOULDN’T I be able to love a beautiful and attractive man? I choose not to even consider it for a variety of reasons — but could I? Why the heck not! He’s an awesome person! I surely couldn’t reject him simply because he had a penis, could I?
Tim K., are saying you are incapable of loving a woman because of how she smells?? Surely you can do better… And I hope you will try.
Marty,
I think it is too simplistic to assume that gay people find the other sex “repulsive”. Absense of desire is quite different than repulsion. I doubt that you find men in general to be repulsive, but rather that you are not attracted to them emotionally, romantically, or sexually. The same is true with gay people.
I think it is also fair to say that the differences between the sexes is not limited to genital configuration. Recent studies have shown marked differences in biology – scent emitted, scent respondence, spatial orientation, auditory responses, and a whole bunch of other differences. Additionally, we are all aware that there are also differences in things like empathy and aggression – though, of course, some of that may be conditioned.
Ok, if Marty is serious, then I’d ask him how likely it is that he could fall in love with another male.
Marty – why do you assume that gays are repulsed by the female body. You are not attracted to men but I assume you’re not repulsed by your own body.
No, I don’t think it was intended as a joke. If this blog is about anything, it is about open exploration and asking what may seem like obvious questions.
is there some deeper difference between men and women?
You’re joking, right?
CK – Surely, you’ve heard of the Gayby boom? Guess that’s different though, huh?
Warren: Marty – I do think there are men and women who have no attractions to the opposite sex, never have and may be unable to.
And to these people I would like to ask specifically “what do you find so repulsive about the other sex?”
As far as physical attractiveness goes, is there really a huge difference between a butch female and a slighlty effeminate male? And if so, what is the nature of that difference? Is it purely a preference for a particular genital configuration, or is there some deeper difference between men and women?
There are many reasons to question the use of “preventive” means to address “gaybies.” I expect that hormones are more complicated in humans than in sheep and the alteration of hormone levels in humans may have unintended consequences – sure we got rid of the gay but dang it we got an axe murderer! We do not know what happens and would be likely to happen when messing with differentiation as it occurs. Also, I am not persuaded that brain differentiation in utero leads deterministically to sexual orientation in the same way it might in sheep. The brain is a self programming organ and environment might still take any given brain and yield same-sex loving folk.
So I like the idea that Mohler and my fellow evangelicals might be open to what science finds but I want to provide some caution that we know what to do about it. Slow down already…
If you don’t accept the pervasive impact of original sin, then the whole thing is probably nonsense.
Yep – you got that right.
Marty – I do think there are men and women who have no attractions to the opposite sex, never have and may be unable to. I take the New Testament’s “eunuchs from their mother’s womb” to include people who do not have opposite sex attraction as well as those who are physically unable to procreate.
Waxing theological however, does not change my committment to follow the science wherever it leads. This is a refreshing element of Mohler’s article — in contrast to much of evangelical thought on this matter.
Yes, I think that is entirely possible that something changed but one would not need to posit that to propose that the fall had some negative impact on development. I debated this point with Simon Rosser, University of MN, at a conference once. We agreed to disagree, knowing that one could not verify either position. He held that same sex attraction pre-dated the fall and I argued that it seemed biblically to be post-fall. He accepted his premise as a must for same-sex love to be blessed by God. Mine was an argument from absence (no SSA recorded pre-fall) – which isn’t the strongest argument, I realize. However, given the treatment of same-sex eroticism by the remainder of Scripture, I thought it a reasonable argument.
To the point you raise, CK, if SSA is based or influenced by pre-natal factors, then one would need to appeal to global effects of original sin. If you don’t accept the pervasive impact of original sin, then the whole thing is probably nonsense.
Michael, God gave you the capacity for romance and attachment and a strong sex drive for a reason.
He also gave you the direction you should point these awesome powers in, and the rules for how and when they should be used.
Perhaps you should be less concerned about your attraction to other men, and pay more attention to what you find so objectionable about women?
Warren, I am not surprised that a minister would teach that. If they believe that all homosexual behavior is sin, then they SHOULD tell people not to do it. I just don’t agree that that’s what the Bible teaches
What I was commenting on is that there seems to have been NO real progress within the “change” community over these many years. After all the talk, the message isn’t change of orientation, it’s “just don’t do it” — which makes me wonder why God gave me the capacity for romance and attachment and a strong sex drive. It’s like giving me legs and a lot of energy and then telling me not to walk.
Michael – If “don’t do it” is what the Bible teaches then you should not be surprised that a minister will preach that. The Bible seems to teach “don’t” about a lot of stuff. The question for evangelicals is not ‘what is useful?’but rather, “what is taught?” and this is where we all really disagree at root.
JAG said: “Dr. Mohler is taking a preventative stance, allowing for the continued condemnation of homosexuality – no matter if it is as hard-wired or biologically innate for some as heterosexuality”.
Exactly! This is what it all boils down to, isn’t it? Here is the sad message to gay people from the church: “We don’t know what causes It. It probably will never change. It’s still wrong. Don’t do it. Be celibate.”
Bisexuals get a “pass” because they already have some “proper”, non-sinful, Biblical attractions to the opposite sex. Or, you might find a woman with a low sex drive (who knows your’re gay and loves you anyway) and you settle down and start making babies. You can even call yourself “ex-gay” to attract the media.
That’s OK with God, too — as long as the person doesn’t admit they are still gay or bisexually oriented. If it looks straight, it’s alright.
I know my cynicism is oozing and I don’t mean to be mean. I’m just frustrated. You would think that after decades of trying and decades of failure, that the “change” side of this debate sould have come up with something more useful than “Just don’t do it”.
Healthy, happy – yes; in harmony with Scripture – doesn’t appear so from this statement. I am not sure what he would think of our therapy standards but I do not think from this paper that he would need therapy to be about change. Whatever one feels or is inclined to do, one may still pursue one’s valued beliefs.
Dr. Mohler takes the stance that is necessary to hold if Christians will continue to condemn same-sex relationships.
If you ever go back to old recordings to listen to those who have classically condemned same-sex relationships, you will find that a cornerstone is often the insistence that homosexuality is not biologically based. Basically, if then it was found to be so…their argument would crumble. Dr. Mohler is taking a preventative stance, allowing for the continued condemnation of homosexuality – no matter if it is as hard-wired or biologically innate for some as heterosexuality.
I wonder Warren, if you find yourself at odds with Dr. Mohler’s perspective…for I do not think he would agree with therapy for congruency – but rather only therapy for change. I don’t know that he believes that one can live a healthy, happy christian life as a gay/lesbian person in a relationship.
There seems like there may be an exacerbation of the split already happening in Christian circles, between those who are beginning to acknowledge the research (on gay/lesbian parenting, families, relationships, etc…) and those who continue to hide their head in the sad in protest because they do not want it to be true.
I agree Dr Throckmorton. Dr. Mohler is respected in evangelical circles and his position might be hard to reconcile with those who insist there is nothing hard wired about being gay.