Why is the pro-gay lobby eagerly waiting for the discovery of a gay gene? Is it to possess a so-called legitimate excuse to practice homosexuality? If a gay gene is discovered, would it offer true legitimacy to practice homosexuality?
First things first, homosexuality is a deviant or an abnormal behavior whether it’s viewed from a natural or from a Historic Christian perspective. Nature deems that the final cause of sexual intercourse is to procreate. This sexual intercourse ought to happen between a man and a woman. That homosexual couples cannot bear children naturally is basic knowledge.
Reproduction or procreation is inherent and mandatory to sexual activity, argues the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Freud wrote that “It is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.” 1 It is quite interesting to note that these words came from a man who was quite liberal on homosexuality, but who through his views on perversion deems homosexuality as a sexually perverse act.
The Bible explicitly forbids and condemns homosexual behavior (Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; Jude 1:7). However, it’s important to draw a distinction between homosexual orientation and behavior.
The Bible does not condemn those possessing homosexual orientation and not expressing their orientation in actions. Therefore it’s not important whether a man or a woman has homosexual orientation, but what’s of ultimate importance is whether people express their homosexual orientation as homosexual actions.
This entails that it’s not important how one gets their orientation, but what one does with their orientation.
Many gay men and women truly believe that they were born gay and hence they argue, “If I were born this way, how can I not be attracted to those from the same sex? And if am born this way, how can I change?”
On the face of it, the arguments of the gay people seem legitimate. But the question we need to ask is whether these arguments are seemingly legitimate or truly legitimate.
In line with procreation, which is only possible when opposite genders unite sexually (man and woman); we could reason out that homosexuals should act primarily according to their gender than their desires. In other words, why do homosexuals follow their desires more than they follow their gender?
Although a person could be born with certain desires, he / she can necessarily control those desires. By soliciting the most appropriate supportive measure, a person can control and suppress any desire, including their sexual behaviors. If homosexuals argue that sexual behaviors are uncontrollable, then by the same logic, they could be taken to endorse crimes of all sorts (murder, rape etc.). Since no sane person tolerates crimes, this contention could be deemed nonsense.
The existence of genetic basis for traits does not by itself prove anything about whether the trait is natural in its relevant sense. For instance, clubfeet is a defect. So proving genetic basis for clubfeet does not necessarily prove that clubfeet is ‘natural.’
Therefore, establishing a genetic trait for homosexuality does not necessarily prove that homosexuality is ‘natural.’ (Moreover, none with normal feet would want clubfeet through surgery. It’s always the other way around. Man always strives for normalcy and not abnormalcy.)
Let’s observe from another vantage point that genetic traits do not necessarily prove a behavior to be natural. Suppose science offers genetic predisposition to anger, would that justify thrashing gays and those who support them? In other words, if a homosexual seeks to legitimize his behavior by reasoning that he/she is born gay, then can his antagonist seek to legitimize bashing of homosexuals by arguing that he/she is born mean and angry? Therefore, genetic predisposition does not determine a behavior as ‘natural.’
Here’s another intriguing instance. Are you aware that pedophiles (an adult who is sexually attracted to young children) argue that their damaging trait is inborn? Retired FBI agent Bob Hamer who authored “The Last Undercover,” recounts his experience, “It actually brought back memories of the NAMBLA conferences I attended. I listened to men justify oral sex on 18 month olds. How often I listened to men claim their pedophilia was an inborn trait; it was natural, ‘this is the way God made me’”2 (NAMBLA is an acronym for ‘North American Man Boy Love Association’).
Whatever said and done, pedophilia cannot be a ‘natural’ practice even if it is proven to have genetic basis. It is unnatural for an adult to have sexual relations with a child. Similarly, it is unnatural for homosexuals to have sexual relations; hence homosexuality cannot be a ‘natural’ practice even if it’s proven to have a genetic basis.
On the other hand, if homosexuals demand freedom to pursue their illicit sexual relations, then would they endorse pedophiles to sexually molest a child? (Well with the kind of depravity that exists, I would not be surprised to hear them argue to justify the actions of a pedophile. Such is the deplorable depravity we encounter in today’s world.)
The cause for the deplorable moral depravity we find in today’s world is a logical extension of the Humean moral philosophy that “reason is a slave to passions.” 3 If reason is a slave to passion, then one should endorse all possible depravities, including homosexuality and pedophilia.
Where is the scientific world on the discovery of the gay gene? The largest scientific organization in America, the ‘American Psychological Association,’ a pro-gay organization, believes that “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…” 4 Although we do not conclude that the search for gay gene has ended, we contend that ‘gay gene’ is irrelevant.
Why then is the homosexual community harping on genetics? As Bryan Fischer, Director of Issue Analysis, American Family Association, articulates commendably, “If homosexuality is not in fact genetically caused, they have nothing….Without a genetic causation, sexual preference in behavior is clearly a choice, a choice which no one is compelled to make. And that choice can be evaluated in any number of ways, including whether or not it is good for human health and whether or not same-sex households are sub-optimal nurturing environments for vulnerable young children.” 5
To conclude, gay gene is not a matter of concern at all. Even if it were to be discovered in the near future, it would not affect our thoughts and conviction.
Gay gene or not, homosexuality is an inappropriate and a deviant sexual behavior, and hence should not be practiced. But we should love homosexuals, albeit reminding them lovingly that homosexuality is unnatural and sinful, which should be overcome by the grace and power of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and by seeking the right support and remedial measure. Amen.
Websites cited were last accessed on Monday, September 15, 2014
1 Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis, p277.
This article was first posted on Monday, September 15, 2014 at http://rajkumarrichard.blogspot.in/2014/09/so-what-if-theres-gay-gene-so-what-if.html