Exodus President Alan Chambers is experiencing some confusion on the existence of a gay gene.
In New Man eMagazine this week, Chambers says that his response to the gay gene question is an “unequivocal … I don’t know,” yet only weeks earlier he told a radio host that “the only thing that we do know at this point in time is that [homosexuality] is developmental.”
Why the softening? Chambers would not be the first evangelical to steel himself for the possibility of a gay gene (and in fact he has done it before, in his 2006 book God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door). In 2007 Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler acknowledged the mounting evidence for a gay gene, going on to suggest that babies could be genetically modified in the womb to prevent homosexuality. A few months later, Exodus colleague Randy Thomas declared that a genetic component to sexuality was “no big deal.”
If a gay gene were found, would Chambers go as far as Mohler in suggesting prenatal treatment to prevent homosexuality? Logically, why wouldn’t he? In preparing for the possibility of a gay gene, Chambers does not hesitate to compare homosexuality to all manner of disease and genetic aberration:
Many things have been proven to have genetic influences: cancer, obesity, alcoholism and rage to name a few. … Just because something is genetic doesn’t mean it’s healthy, optimal or moral. The answer to the question of whether homosexuality is morally right doesn’t hinge on genetics. Similarly, gay rights should not be advanced on the basis of the genetic outcome or theory either.
Which is true, of course. Proof of a gay gene would no more make homosexuality right than proof that homosexuality is developmental would make it wrong. But the logic remains that if being gay is genetic and wrong, why not support prenatal preventive treatment, as Dr Mohler suggested? In 2007, Alan decried the notion – but on what basis? If there were a prenatal treatment for propensity to cancer or heart disease, would he reject that? Why then one and not the other?
But our biggest beef with Alan’s words remains. If the genetics of homosexuality are still a big “don’t know” to him, why did he lead Chris Fabry and his audience to believe he was certain it was developmental?
We hope and pray that eventually sanity will prevail over years of ignorance and misinformation.
Alan is an intelligent man. But one must have a heart for more knowledge in order to learn and accept what science is discovering. Acknowledging genetic influences is a start. Its a shame he has only mentioned negative genetic links when the majority of our genetic makeup is not detrimental and makes us who we are.
It took the Catholic church several centuries to acknowledge that Galileo was right and the word revolved around the sun and not visa versa as the theologians maintained.
Lets hope the time span is much shorter for people to finally let go of the ex-gay myth and not see science as the enemy of faith.
Alan says something one week to one audience, and then something contradictory the next to another? And soooo certain on both occasions? My.
Anyway… Dave (& others): to avoid being misquoted elsewhere, and to avoid calls to defend a position I doubt few hold in any case… can we (XGW) please ensure we (XGW) use “gay gene/s” in the future? I know it’s short-hand and all to refer to The Gay Gene (seemingly the singular), but a position of clarity always seems a good place to start.
(Unless you’re Alan.)
While I personally think that being gay is biological (genetic, biological enviornment or a combination of the two), I don’t see why it should matter from the point of view of the inherent rights of the individual.
Alan Chambers and his religious allies oppose gay people on the basis of religion. I don’t share their religious values. In a free society, they should have no right to impose their religious values on me and foment discrimination against me, regardless of the root cause of homosexuality.
If there is a “homosexual” gene then one may need to toss out the entire Bible.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
So by Alan’s logic, the morality of cancer and obesity may not hinge on genetics too? Gee, so subjectively there is every chance that having cancer may be considered immoral?
And no wonder there are ex-obesity ministries in beauty churches all around the world. : )
This may sound awful to some, but I literally hope and pray that no ironclad biological connection is found until the world becomes a somewhat kinder place for LGBTs. I worry that the next generation might get snuffed out or “treated” before they even get to draw a first breath. I think all we have to do is look at racism or sexism to see that ironclad proof of biological cause can only do so much. The hatred won’t go away. It will mutate. And I don’t want to deal with that new monster just yet.
When Albert Mohler’s disgusting suggestions became known to the mainstream, I got roped into real-world discussions of them too often. In one, my brilliantly brilliant wife came up with the best rebuttal. She said that the people who would eliminate the gay gene should also be required to make their babies ugly and cripplingly shy, so there is no chance of them engaging in *any* sexual sin!
It is indeed a good rebuttal, but as I mentioned about ex-obesity ministries aka slimming centres, there is always an air of comformity, expecially in what constitutes things we should value on. It is like a diamond. It is only a stone. But social comformity tells us it is something so precious that lives are to be sacrificed and risks are to be taken to get it.
Now where do we get the idea from? That I do not know. Perhaps the media? The same way those advertisements keep on telling us being fair is beautiful and being dark is not. Being size 0 – 1 is beautiful and anything beyong size 3 is not acceptable to be slim.
Believe it or not, pro-anorexia groups are so huge everyone is calling for a clampdown on them. Now we come to the subject of homosexuality. It is amazing when sodomy (defined by almost all dictionaries as anal sex), is often represented as homosexual sex. And homosexual is always spoken as gay. And gays as men. So they always associate homosexuality with gay sex. That is why any gay gene found do not matter anymore.
Because gay sex is just not acceptable. Lesbian sex is still considered sexy. Gay sex is not. Now who educate us these things (I am sure it is not religion). Is it because of the other content that may be disturbed (forgive my directness)? That is when all discussions about homosexuality winds up in two primaries, gay men and sex. Heterosexuals who get so much pleasure gropping female breasts and heavy petting women would never understand.
But that goes straight to the point. Why has society condoned so much references to heterosexuality then? What happened to our children when at such a young age boys learnt how to kiss a girl and vice versa? Media? Sex curriculum? So whose’s fault is it? But it is being branded as so acceptable, no one asks whether a heterosexual gene exists, let alone research on it. Most people just perceive it to be “norm”, even without evidence.
I would not be surprised if one day this scenario happens:
Scientists have finally proven beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuals are born gay and their orientation are innate. However, they have also discovered that heterosexuality is actually just an inlearnt condition caused by the longing of a penis to attach to a vagina, which is a disease.
So what happens then?
Alan Chambers would then say, still as an ex-gay:
Just because something is not genetic doesn’t mean it’s not healthy, non-optimal or immoral. The answer to the question of whether heterosexuality is morally right doesn’t hinge on genetics. Similarly, straight rights should not be removed on the basis of no genetic outcome or new evidences of diseases either.
I think it is note worthy to remember that Alan talks straight talk (his religion) and thinks sexually gay thoughts (his humanity) subscribing to two diametrically opposed positions within his makeup. Hence the conflict within produces a credibility issue without, which he has had to grapple with extensively. So when I hear him speak, his subtext cancels out his clarity by speaking from two diametrically opposed positions mashed together.
People above his IQ level regarding integrity on this issue, pick up on it stat, and dismiss or retaliate. Those below listen and may conform.
This polarity problem is evident in most of the ones associated with his cause, and that is why, they are losing ground and will be defeated by credible legal merit. This group cannot produce outer clarity via inner confusion and in the end, win. Not in the computer age.
The fact he has confusion regarding just about everything sexual, (i.e. 9 months to consummate his marriage for starters) including the gene and developmental stories, is a direct result of this polarity neurosis. It is a psychological problem, a schism that causes most in this position considerable angst.
I know that many shake their heads with this activity afoot on such a large public level; but be that as it may one thing is for sure, drama will never escape this oh so complex and interesting topic.
Please dispense talk of a “gay gene” – no scientist is arguing for such. Science is demonstrating that sexual orientation is the result of both genetics (probably more than one gene) and the prenatal hormonal environment. References to a “gay gene” only mislead people as to the actual etiology and simply demonstrate a misunderstanding of basic biology. It would be best and most productive if we wiped that term from our vocabulary.
I tend to agree that any discussion of a singular “gay gene” as a proposition is just one of those Red Herrings used by Exodus and others to dumb down the discussion. When responding to such use of it we probably should make the distinction clear — no one is seriously proposing a single gene is responsible. But then again we know more now than we did 20 years ago when that idea was in the news. The facts take us where they take us.
The truth is, even if against all indications homosexuality were entirely developmental, that would not provide any evidence in and of itself that it could — or should — be prevented, and certainly none that it can be changed significantly. There is no consistent pathology to homosexuality, in spite of the dime-store theories of those making their money for it’s “treatment.”
I’m with Jayelle on this one. I hope the cause of homosexuality is NEVER found and I highly doubt in ever will be. I think there is enough legitimate understanding among the smarter of us, that homosexuality has the same inherency as heterosexuality and that should be the end of it.
However, some people just won’t listen. No matter how many gay people say they didn’t choose, and probably wouldn’t given the current mitigating factors: such experience falls on deaf ears.
It’s fair to be curious about difference, but there is no excuse for cruel measures, discrimination and patently taught hatred for gay people.
We know ENOUGH about gay people, and the only thing that has to be known is to what extent gay folks are equally as endowed as heterosexuals.
Biological or genetic factors hasn’t protected individuals from impossible standards of beauty, intellect and moral values that are artificially created, and hypocritically and unequally punished.
That’s why I bring up why do Asians spend money and take risks to have surgery on their eyes?
Blacks suffer scalp damage and self image problems as well?
What about the effect of anorexia in young women and some men?
To say nothing of the mental and emotional gyrations that gay children are forced to go through?
Our society and other’s care nothing for genetic and biological legitimacy.
They’ll make shit up to create artificial structures of conformity and inferior status, even around gender.
That is the main purpose of whatever can be made up about gay people, the way blacks were mytholized by segregationists and white supremacists.
And using ‘God’s plan” AND Darwin’s theory….and wrongfully….isn’t new either to rationalize that status and maintain serious distance from any opportunities for further proof.
I don’t see how Alan’s particular brand of Christianity would have a problem with a genetic connection, indeed, he should be arguing for it. After all, don’t these people believe that everyone inherited their “sin nature” from Eve and Adam? How is that “sin nature” passed along? Given that line of, er, logic… we can safely assume that the gay ‘sin nature’ didn’t come from Adam and Steve (bad parenting?) since from this belief gays are born, not made.
I suspect that if there is ever an easy and effective way to prevent homosexuality, a lot of parents (probably most) would do it. Does anyone disagree?
That’s a hypothetical akin to political arguments; discussion generally yields harsh feelings with little result. We have enough to deal with now with people who try that after the fact. By the time it might be possible, if ever, it may not even be legal, so perhaps we can deal with the present.
Grantdale, Nick R –
You are right, the media shorthand “gay gene” is misleading. I guess I fell into line because it was the terminology Alan used, but you are quite correct. We’re going to try to be clearer on that in future.
I also agree with Jayelle., though I do not think we will find only one gay gene, but a combination of genes (with perhaps some hormonal and environmental interaction). Homosexaulity could be the most unnatural thing in the world – but that still does not make it wrong. Morality should not be predicated on nature.
That’s why I tried to say “biological cause,” though I ended up slipping. It’s definitely worth the effort to be precise in how we express these concepts, because the ex-gay advocates (consciously or not) will persist in playing semantic games.
Talon, on July 8th, 2008 at 11:27 pm Said:
If there is a “homosexual” gene then one may need to toss out the entire Bible.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
…or we could just translate that passage correctly. Martin Luther translated it as “weaklings” and “child molesters” and the footnotes in the Oxford NRSV note that the passage is probably talking about the man-boy temple prostitution found in Corinth at the time.