Speaking on Chris Fabry Live! last month, Exodus President Alan Chambers made this astonishing declaration:
The truth is, when we look at the issue of homosexuality, the only thing that we do know at this point in time is that it is developmental. There has never been a study that’s been done that replicated, or proven sufficiently, that there is any genetic component to the issue of homosexuality…
Chambers is the president of the largest ex-gay organization in the world, Exodus International. While one might imagine he carries his share of bias to the table, it seems incredible that he could so completely misrepresent the current state of research on his key issue. Even a cursory scan of the literature tells us that sexual orientation is a mixture of nature and nurture, with the nature becoming more prominent all the time.
A recent statement from the American Psychological Association (APA), praised by no less than the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) — a group to which Exodus refers — states the following about why some people are gay or lesbian:
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; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.
Francis Collins, respected geneticist and head of the Human Genome Project, wrote the following in response to our query on the subject (after having been misquoted by NARTH):
The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.
Two strong studies have just been added to the debate, giving even more convincing evidence to the biological component. One finds that the brains of gay males are structurally similar to those of straight women, while both are different from those of straight men. The other indicates that the external views of a society have virtually nothing to do with those to whom we find ourselves sexually attracted — gay or straight. These studies, added to the mounting evidence for physical traits common to gay men and women, indicate not only a genetic/biological factor but possibly a strong one. Certainly most of this information was available before Chambers made his statement last month.
At the moment there is only one honest reply to any question about what determines sexual orientation. It appears to be a combination of genetic, biological and environmental factors, possibly set very early in life. As a prudent addendum, the case for the involvement of genetic and biological factors is becoming stronger with each serious study. So with all this only a Google search or two away, it strains credulity that Chambers is unaware of these facts.
We are left with two scenarios; either Chambers is totally unaware of vital information pertaining to homosexuality, the focus of his entire organization, or he is aware and stated otherwise to the audience of the Chris Fabry show.
I was born. I am alive.
100% developmental.
Is “developmental” a euphemism for “choice,” or is he just nuancing?
I believe developmental here is just his way of saying it’s nurture, not nature. If you listen to the entire discussion, that becomes more obvious, though “developmental” is pretty clear from prior usage. The point is, he portrays the research as indicating zero genetic/biological components to sexual orientation. That’s grossly inaccurate no matter which side of the fence one hails from.
Keep in mind that EXODUS never has — and probably never will require that their leaders or counselors have any formal education in psychology, biology or human sexuality. In fact, when I was completing my master’s degree, I was urged to quit college and cautioned that “psychology will turn you away from God.” It didn’t. It just turned me away from thinking of gays as sick or broken and in need of “repair”.
I’ve quoted Mark Twain on this subject a number of times: “Tell me where a man gets his cornpone, and i’ll tell you what his ‘pinions are.”
There is a certain disconnect with chambers statements here and his other statement that he prays to G every day to help be ‘straight’ another day. and that disconnect isd the obvious one– being gay may not be encoded in one’s dna, as i understand left-handedness is not as well, but it is certainly inherent in a way that most character traits are not.
Many of these are the same folks who embrace young earth creationism despite all evidence to the contrary. The scientific method and peer review process doesn’t impress them.
IMHO, it’s the ego run amok. If scientific research doesn’t link up to doctrine or ideology, then that research must be denied, distorted to build a strawman to attack or part of a vast conspiracy to deny the Truth [tm].
His argument here is:
(1) It hasn’t actually been proved beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is genetic in origin, either wholly or even partly.
(2) Therefore, not only are we entitled to continue to hold the opinion that homosexuality isn’t either wholly or partly genetic in origin; we know that it isn’t.
I wonder whether he would accept the following argument as valid:
(1) It hasn’t actually been proved beyond reasonable doubt that God exists.
(2) Therefore not only are we entitled to continue to hold the opinion that God doesn”t exist; we know that God doesn’t exist.
The reasoning and the logical fallacy in each case are precisely the same.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, William.
That’s my point. The ambiguity of his approach in using the concept of “developmental,” is to promote (politically) the idea that
homosexual behaviorsame-sex attraction is a choice, without actually saying so outright.Ignorance on his part or not — it’s SINISTER.
Exodus, on their website’s FAQ page, used to say that homosexuality is exactly 0% genetic. I thought they took it down because they realized the idea is implausible. Either that’s not why or Chambers didn’t get the memo.
These kinds of Christians place beliefs entirely over science. To them, science is merely another belief. Beliefs work in a hierarchical system where the greatest belief, like God and the Bible, filter the second tier of beliefs, the second tier filters the third tier and so on. Science is somewhere in the middle but certainly below ideas about how God creates and sexuality. Ie, all the science in the world won’t do squat.
It doesn’t strike me as the least bit surprising that Mr. Chambers could state such nonsense with a straight face. He’s had plenty of practice.
I think it is applicable from Mr Chambers’ track record in the media, that confusion is as confusion does. Why would you be so stunned with his latest self talk, flailingly trying to convince himself he’s straight, being expressed in public forum?
What puzzles me in this statement by Mr. Chambers is the fact that as science is progressing every year, contributing to evidence of the genetical and biological causes for homosexuality, he has yet to give any proper evidence for the thousands (or tens of thousands as he sometimes claim) that had left the ‘homosexual life’.
And just as he is attempting to smokescreen the public from the hard-to-swallow-for-ex-gays truth about homosexuality, he also regularly sweeps under the carpet the amount of people that had left the ex-gay myth.
I wonder what scientific evidence he has that indicates it’s developmental? Oh, that’s right, none. I forgot how the double standard works: they must prove it isn’t developmental, we don’t have to prove it is – we can simply assume it, and because we assume it, we are therefore right.
There was yet another study released this week that tried to explain why some people are homosexual. Forgive me for not providing the link. Sometimes I think we are the most misunderstood and yet over-studied group of people worldwide that walk the face of this planet.
Swampfox– that’s because, as mark Twain put it so succinctly– there’s nothing that needs minding so much as other people’s business.
And yet – here at XGW – isn’t that what we’re all about? 8)
Uh, no actually.
There is something very affirming about reading an article, having a response, and before posting that response, finding that several others have had the same insights. So, I have to agree with Michael, Ben, toujuour and William.
Alan is playing a whole different game from us, he doesn’t base his beliefs on science. He may use science if it supports his beliefs, but he would never use the scientific method to examine his beliefs. “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” And really, if that could be substantiated, who could disagree? The problem comes from equating belief with knowledge.
Alan doesn’t play by universally accepted rules. I had exactly the same thought as toujoursdan. These are the same people who believe the earth is only 6500 years old. One can only hope that as scientific knowledge increases, Exodus will go the way of the flat earth society.
Meanwhile, I still feel sorry for Alan and his victims. I know first hand the torture of trying to be ex-gay and wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
Well, to be fair I don’t think we know for certain if Alan subscribes to the young earth belief, but I know a lot of otherwise intelligent people who certainly do. And those who agree with the old earth, maintain that man has only been here about that long, and base it on Biblical genealogies. It seems to me that if one believes that God created the universe, then He is ultimately responsible for anything one finds there. So why would an old earth, evolution, any of it be a problem?
No one will ever prove or disprove God with the scientific method — it’s outside the scope. But one can certainly learn a lot of truth about His creation with it. So why all the fuss with creating elaborate pseudo-theories to maintain an absurdity like a 6500 year old earth?
Off topic a bit, I know, but it was on my mind.
What’s interesting to me is how the arguments of Alan and his cohorts against the clear biological origin of human sexuality – in all its forms – actually serve to detract from the very God he claims to worship. After all, what they are saying is that God either will not or cannot create a gay or lesbian person, only a bad parent can do that. If God is really omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, couldn’t He do anything He wants? Including creating a gay person?
Not to mention, if I can get my hair color, my eye color, my talents, skills, abilities, etc. from my mother, why can’t I inherit her sexual orientation?
There is an interaction between male homosexuality and increased female fertility.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/111843.php
David,
I agree that proving God is outside the scope of the scientific method, until we build a rocket ship that can make it to heaven at least. I don’t know if Alan believes in the young earth theory either, it just strikes me that the same approach that concludes that gay is bad is the same approach that concludes that the earth is 6500 years old. Why all the fuss about creating elaborate pseudo-theories to maintain an absurdity like the “ex-gay” movement?
You’re right, Paul.
From a strictly logical point of view, creationism and the ex-gay mindset are in no way inter-dependent, and there is no logical inconsistency whatever between regarding the Genesis account(s) of creation as literal history and being fully accepting of homosexuality as part of God’s good, rich and varied creation.
In practice, however, creationism and the religious ex-gay/anti-gay phenomenon seem almost invariably to go together, presumably because they both spring from a similar mentality. From “orthodox” fundamentalists like Tim LaHaye to “fringe” fundamentalists such as the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God [sic], the alleged falsity and perniciousness of the theory of evolution and the supposed evil of homosexuality, which needs to be and can be “healed”, have long been dominant obsessions. Apparently the writings of the staff of the Institute for Creation Research, e.g. Henry Morris and Duane Gish, are published mainly by Creation-Life Publishers of San Diego, who also supply tracts such as “Unhappy Gays”. (See Douglas J. Futuyma, Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1995, p. 9.)
Hi Swampfox!
If this is my buddy from TownHall, great to see you!
I am aka, ‘du’
I have to give huzzahs to Michael Bussee and William’s comments.
I’m thinking too, that there has to be a comprehensive examination of how discrimination affects certain outcomes. For example, there is no real need physical, mental, physiological or emotional TO not be gay.
Or leave being gay ‘behind’.
For example, the same relationship failures, insecurities will plague heterosexuals, sometimes for the same reasons of parental influence.
Or for the exclusive reason OF being gay and being negatively impacted by the wrong influences.
A good deal of what the ex gay industry asserts are gender based assumptions from a template, without also including the individual’s characteristics or that of their parents, not just the gender.
But their most damaging assumptions is that there is a necessity or urgency to change. And continuing to say that this is for the comfort of the gay person, when that’s not the case either.
I would have more respect for less talking from two sides of the face and more depth of honesty with regard allowing for a safer, more open life without challenge to a gay person and their identity.
A lot of us don’t know how we got here, and can’t prove any genetic components at all.
The only thing that should concern society at large are the positive characteristics exclusive to no one.
MIchael makes a good point though, over at TH on any discussions regarding gay people the thread is flooded with sermons, Biblical quotes and very little plain critical thinking. It’s not like talking to real people but parrots.
They all sound and think the same, and those of us who don’t use theology to make a point are ridiculed.
There is no compassion, no desire to discuss civil justice or even the legacy of religious imposition that’s had an extreme negative impact before.
Or even pathologies that have been created in the normal because of unrealistic popular social standards.
Such as anorexia.
Context, outside of Biblical context is extremely important of course.
And I hit a brick wall a lot when religious belief is trying to argue against social and scientific progress and civil law and how that progress happened.
There is also a very self serving streak through it all, none of which is about serving God, compassion or even bias, but control and how some religious people feel outrage regarding areas they didn’t or can no longer control.
These arguments are all bogus!
Where is your conditioning if your not thinking about it?
If you don’t think about it, there is no conditioning.
Without a thought your neither Straight or Gay – these are relatively new concepts that are trying to make ‘actions’ into ‘things’ (a fruitless endevour – life is in a constant flux and can never be turned into ‘things’) – well, there are lots of things that you do, yet you don’t refer to yourself as any of those things. You don’t call yourself a eater or anyone of the many actions that permeate your lives.
So whats wrong with homosexual actions if you don’t think about it? Nothing offcourse!!
Everyone needs to full stop for just a second. Take a deep breath. Open your heart. Stop paying attention to your beliefs, which are merely uninvestigated ideas.
The childish argument that Gay men have brains like Straight women is beyond ignorant. Gay men have effeminate qualities because our masculinity is rejected by a religious based world. Gay men adopt female mannerism as a way of trying to fit in.
Because according to Religious dogma it is wrong for a man to be a man and be with a man (offcourse Religous based societies are mysoginistic – if he acts like a girl it’s ok, since women are considered weak, and since it’s impossible to be in touch with your masculinity and have sex with guys, right?— that bullshit line has been sold to us for many years now).
Offcourse if I am seen as being more like a woman then maybe I’ll fit in, I’ll be like those normal heterosexuals. I’ll be seen as having a man/women hetero dynamic relationship… this fear based approach happens at a young age and can’t be stopped within a religious based society.
I never felt that there was ever anything wrong with two dudes having sex. And I never felt the need to become more effeminate just so I could feel more “normal” about that.
Effeminate Gay men have brains like Straight women because Gay boys adapt effeminate qualities at an early age – usually a more exagerated form of effeminacy, almost an abstraction of effeminacy – that abstract effeminacy should tell you everything you need to know about whether identity is genetic of not.
In each of us is the capacity for all sorts of activity. Why put yourself in a Gay closet or Straight Bi or whatever closet? I know you feel more secure thinking of yourself as a ‘thing’ but the truth is that your not a ‘thing’ and your struggle to do so will only bring about more suffering.
You wanna have sex with men or women – go for it – it’s a blast!
Have fun kids… and stop torturing yourselves.