" also do not agree that homosexuality is a behavior; I believe it's an orientation. It's the way that someone is born," stated Deborah Pitney of the United Methodist Church. She was advocating civil rights protection and minority classification for homosexuals. In a New York Times editorial, Anthony Lewis asks, "Are they to be despised and rejected because of what they are -- because of a status that nature gave them?" A status nature gave them? How was this conclusion reached? If true, does it mean homosexuality is just an alternative -- and acceptable -- lifestyle?
Let us look at the last part of the question first, and then consider the scientific evidence for the former. The argument goes something like this: "[A] civilized society does not mistreat people because of what they are. It is unacceptable to assault someone because he is a Jew, or deny him a job because he is black. The question now is whether we are ready to apply that civilized standard to homosexuals."
Of course, for the Christian, the argument is more basic than who gets assaulted. We may assault no one. Nor are homosexuality and skin color moral equivalents. However, more important for our discussion is the false assumption that we bear no responsibility for actions that have biological roots.
This false assumption can be illustrated by asking ourselves if an 18-year-old heterosexual male with high levels of testosterone pumping through his arteries is excused from fornication. No one argues about the biology involved. The Bible is clear about our accountability for the sin of fornication. Considering the homosexual, even if a gene were discovered that directly induced homosexual behavior, such a gene would provide no excuse where sin is involved. Indeed, the fact that people are born with a propensity to sin should not be news (we are all born with it), and the way to deal with this propensity is through the good news of salvation by God's grace.
Of course, nothing like a gene determining homosexuality has been found. In general, attempts to establish a biological basis for homosexual orientation have failed. Probably the best and most cited evidence to connect biology with homosexuality consists of a few studies comparing sizes of certain anatomical features of the brain. Researchers comparing male and female brain anatomy have noticed tendencies for differences, and this has led a few to look for differences between heterosexual males (M in the following text) and homosexual males (HM). At least three papers alleging differences in certain brain anatomies between M and HM have been published. However, as the author of the third paper has noted, two of the papers dealt with regions of the brain that are not known to be involved in sexual behavior.
The third paper, published in Science by gay activist and neuroscientist Simon LeVay, deals with a region of the brain called the hypothalamus which provides a link between the brain and the
hormonal (endocrine) system. Although its function is not specifically known, a section called the anterior hypothalamus is involved in sexual behavior, possibly "male typical" behavior.
Male monkeys with experimental lesions in this part of the brain exhibit less reproductive behavior, although indicators of sexual drive and arousal remain. Male rats castrated immediately after birth engage in less mounting of female rats (which might be expected after castration), but also have a smaller region in the anterior hypothalamus. LeVay published data showing a statistically significant difference in average size between M and HM of a very small region (0.01-0.2 mm -- something less than the head of a pin) of the anterior hypothalmus called INAH-3.
There are several problems with drawing conclusions from this research, some of which have been discussed. Briefly, these include things like the difficulty of measuring such a small area that is not clearly delineated, and the almost complete overlap in range of sizes (largest to smallest) of INAH-3 between the M and HM group. Another interesting problem was the inclusion of six presumed M who died of AIDS and had abused intravenous drugs. Four were presumed to be M because it was unknown if they were HM, even though some members in the HM group had the same history of intravenous drug abuse (they were to serve as a control group in the case that AIDS might affect brain structure). This is interesting because five of the six weighted the average toward the larger end. Given the small sample sizes used in this study, would the results still be significant if one or more of the M were actually HM? Statistics cannot be better than the data they come from.
The current wisdom on all this is that homosexual behavior must be hardwired into the brain somehow. Let us ignore the potential problems with the research for now and assume that the difference in size of INAH-3 is real. Is there an alternative explanation?
LeVay also found no difference in size of INAH-3 between HM and heterosexual females. Since the females were heterosexual, this would indicate that size does not cause a switch in preference from opposite to same gender, which is supported by the overlapping range of sizes in all groups. Likewise, the animals cited earlier did not engage in gender switching behavior. This would suggest that HM tend to be more like females than M in some manner.
One could suggest that females and HM exhibit less sexual drive than M. However, HM are not known for diminished sexual activity compared to M (to the contrary ), so smaller size does not translate to less sexual drive.
One possible explanation is simply that some men have more and others have less male typical hardwiring in the brain. If sexual desire were less specifically directed, this, in combination with certain environmental factors, could make some people more susceptible to the sin of homosexuality, while not causing it. It seems biblically reasonable to suggest that some people are more susceptible to certain sinful behaviors than others.
The Bible is not silent about homosexuality, and we cannot be either. Facts supporting a biological basis for homosexuality are scarce, but it is the nature of man to grasp at any straw to excuse sin. We must use understanding, realizing we are not clothed in our own righteousness.
For of such were some of you.
