A several year study at MIT and elsewhere of the possible genetic origins of same sex sexual orientation has produced various reactions in the last month or so. Here is one report of the study…
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/30/health/gay-gene-study-trnd/index.html
And here is another….
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html
The study basically concludes that a single gay gene cannot be isolated, but that there seem to be several genes involved in this disposition. But this is not all. The study also concludes that there are environmental and social factors involved in same sex sexual orientation. In other words…. we are not talking about some sort of genetic pre-determination. And as Francis Collins said in The Language of God some time ago— ‘predispositions are not predeterminations’. No one is genetically hard-wired to be gay, but there may be inclinations in that direction partly accounted for by genetics, and partly by issues of nurture, ethos, context etc. In other words, this study has not at all settled the issue of nature vs. nurture, as to where this sexual orientation comes from. The answer in the study is ‘some of both’ in all likelihood.
My concern in this post is not in any way to dispute the findings of the study, but rather with a couple of aside comments by one of the MIT researchers after the fact— in particular he was opining that he hoped this study would demonstrate that same sex sexual orientation is ‘normal’. Now this gentleman didn’t define what he meant by normal. Since only about 5%-7% of the population seems to consistently manifest a same-sex sexual orientation, and even then the determining factors are complex and not purely a matter of ‘I was born this way’ this study does not establish that such an orientation is ‘normal’. Sociologically speaking, normal is what the vast majority of the species manifest in terms of sexual orientation. On this showing, this orientation is not normal. It is out of the norm, if one prefers not to call it abnormal.
My even greater concern is the sloppy theological and ethical reasoning that passes for arguments based on certain assumptions about this very issue. For example the argumentative chain often goes like this— ‘I was born this way, therefore this is how God made me, therefore it must be good and acceptable’. There are numerous problems with this logic. People are born all the time with all sorts of flaws, problems, and genetic defects, and we should surely not use this logic in such cases. Do we really want to argue that someone born with a blood and cell disorder like sickle cell anemia was ‘made this way by God’? I don’t think so.
And what is missing in this whole argument is any sort of theological concept of the Fall. The Bible is rather clear that we are born fallen creatures, and one thing I know about fallen human beings— they are born self-centered. It’s a good thing babies are cute, because they are all about— ‘feed me, change me, hold me, love me’. In other words they are born with an inherent self-referencing. They are little narcissists. And later in life, this inherent focus on self leads to a long litany of self-justification and rationalization about one’s behavior. That one is ‘born this way’ does not necessarily mean ‘God made me this way’ and it most certainly doesn’t warrant the automatic conclusion— since I was born this way, it must be a good thing.
In short, I do not find in the most recent scientific study, or in proper theological reasoning any justification for the conclusion that same-sex sexual orientation and behavior is genetically determined or some sort of good gift from God.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In