This blog post articulates a view of research (and message to Evangelicals) from a theologian that is not far from my own. This is a significant statement from a very prominent Evangelical.
Dr. Mohler ends with this observation:
Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God’s moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God.
I understand that some regular readers will take exception to his theological view of homoeroticism. My point here is to note that a major Evangelical leader has acknowledged the potential role of prenatal factors for some homosexuality which seems to be at odds with the prevailing view the U.S..
At least one influential Evangelical blogger has taken note as well. As has Andrew Sullivan.
I agree Dr Throckmorton. Dr. Mohler is respected in evangelical circles and his position might be hard to reconcile with those who insist there is nothing hard wired about being gay.
Dr. Mohler takes the stance that is necessary to hold if Christians will continue to condemn same-sex relationships.
If you ever go back to old recordings to listen to those who have classically condemned same-sex relationships, you will find that a cornerstone is often the insistence that homosexuality is not biologically based. Basically, if then it was found to be so…their argument would crumble. Dr. Mohler is taking a preventative stance, allowing for the continued condemnation of homosexuality – no matter if it is as hard-wired or biologically innate for some as heterosexuality.
I wonder Warren, if you find yourself at odds with Dr. Mohler’s perspective…for I do not think he would agree with therapy for congruency – but rather only therapy for change. I don’t know that he believes that one can live a healthy, happy christian life as a gay/lesbian person in a relationship.
There seems like there may be an exacerbation of the split already happening in Christian circles, between those who are beginning to acknowledge the research (on gay/lesbian parenting, families, relationships, etc…) and those who continue to hide their head in the sad in protest because they do not want it to be true.
Healthy, happy – yes; in harmony with Scripture – doesn’t appear so from this statement. I am not sure what he would think of our therapy standards but I do not think from this paper that he would need therapy to be about change. Whatever one feels or is inclined to do, one may still pursue one’s valued beliefs.
JAG said: “Dr. Mohler is taking a preventative stance, allowing for the continued condemnation of homosexuality – no matter if it is as hard-wired or biologically innate for some as heterosexuality”.
Exactly! This is what it all boils down to, isn’t it? Here is the sad message to gay people from the church: “We don’t know what causes It. It probably will never change. It’s still wrong. Don’t do it. Be celibate.”
Bisexuals get a “pass” because they already have some “proper”, non-sinful, Biblical attractions to the opposite sex. Or, you might find a woman with a low sex drive (who knows your’re gay and loves you anyway) and you settle down and start making babies. You can even call yourself “ex-gay” to attract the media.
That’s OK with God, too — as long as the person doesn’t admit they are still gay or bisexually oriented. If it looks straight, it’s alright.
I know my cynicism is oozing and I don’t mean to be mean. I’m just frustrated. You would think that after decades of trying and decades of failure, that the “change” side of this debate sould have come up with something more useful than “Just don’t do it”.
Michael – If “don’t do it” is what the Bible teaches then you should not be surprised that a minister will preach that. The Bible seems to teach “don’t” about a lot of stuff. The question for evangelicals is not ‘what is useful?’but rather, “what is taught?” and this is where we all really disagree at root.
Warren, I am not surprised that a minister would teach that. If they believe that all homosexual behavior is sin, then they SHOULD tell people not to do it. I just don’t agree that that’s what the Bible teaches
What I was commenting on is that there seems to have been NO real progress within the “change” community over these many years. After all the talk, the message isn’t change of orientation, it’s “just don’t do it” — which makes me wonder why God gave me the capacity for romance and attachment and a strong sex drive. It’s like giving me legs and a lot of energy and then telling me not to walk.
Michael, God gave you the capacity for romance and attachment and a strong sex drive for a reason.
He also gave you the direction you should point these awesome powers in, and the rules for how and when they should be used.
Perhaps you should be less concerned about your attraction to other men, and pay more attention to what you find so objectionable about women?
That’s odd. I thought I posted a comment a moment ago. Reposting–do you agree with Mohler’s suggestion that the genetic structure of humans changed after the Fall? That Adam & Eve had different DNA than we do now?
I had originally cited his whole sentence about it, but it is #3 in his argument and you can check it out.
Yes, I think that is entirely possible that something changed but one would not need to posit that to propose that the fall had some negative impact on development. I debated this point with Simon Rosser, University of MN, at a conference once. We agreed to disagree, knowing that one could not verify either position. He held that same sex attraction pre-dated the fall and I argued that it seemed biblically to be post-fall. He accepted his premise as a must for same-sex love to be blessed by God. Mine was an argument from absence (no SSA recorded pre-fall) – which isn’t the strongest argument, I realize. However, given the treatment of same-sex eroticism by the remainder of Scripture, I thought it a reasonable argument.
To the point you raise, CK, if SSA is based or influenced by pre-natal factors, then one would need to appeal to global effects of original sin. If you don’t accept the pervasive impact of original sin, then the whole thing is probably nonsense.
Marty – I do think there are men and women who have no attractions to the opposite sex, never have and may be unable to. I take the New Testament’s “eunuchs from their mother’s womb” to include people who do not have opposite sex attraction as well as those who are physically unable to procreate.
Waxing theological however, does not change my committment to follow the science wherever it leads. This is a refreshing element of Mohler’s article — in contrast to much of evangelical thought on this matter.
If you don’t accept the pervasive impact of original sin, then the whole thing is probably nonsense.
Yep – you got that right.
To go further, then, does it seem like Mohler is treading a slippery line as a Christian, appealing to eugenics and ontological change in the environment rather than the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice? Seems like he should go further and identify other genetic implications of the fall and, in Christ’s name, seek to change them as well.
We could engineer a whole society of Christians (especially if belief in God is, in part, biological, we could even strengthen faith!)
Yes, I’m being somewhat sarcastic, but do you see what I’m getting at, in terms of the absurdity of his solution? It either goes too far, or not far enough.
And, to be quite honest, the idea that the metaphysics of creation changed as a result of divine fiat in response to Adam and Eve’s error is one of the many, many reasons I had doubts about the biblical account of reality. There are just better explanations for the world around us than postulating some blissful garden thousands of years ago….
There are many reasons to question the use of “preventive” means to address “gaybies.” I expect that hormones are more complicated in humans than in sheep and the alteration of hormone levels in humans may have unintended consequences – sure we got rid of the gay but dang it we got an axe murderer! We do not know what happens and would be likely to happen when messing with differentiation as it occurs. Also, I am not persuaded that brain differentiation in utero leads deterministically to sexual orientation in the same way it might in sheep. The brain is a self programming organ and environment might still take any given brain and yield same-sex loving folk.
So I like the idea that Mohler and my fellow evangelicals might be open to what science finds but I want to provide some caution that we know what to do about it. Slow down already…
Gaybies!? I want a gayby; they sound snuggly and adorable. Are they like Furbies?
Warren: Marty – I do think there are men and women who have no attractions to the opposite sex, never have and may be unable to.
And to these people I would like to ask specifically “what do you find so repulsive about the other sex?”
As far as physical attractiveness goes, is there really a huge difference between a butch female and a slighlty effeminate male? And if so, what is the nature of that difference? Is it purely a preference for a particular genital configuration, or is there some deeper difference between men and women?
CK – Surely, you’ve heard of the Gayby boom? Guess that’s different though, huh?
is there some deeper difference between men and women?
You’re joking, right?
No, I don’t think it was intended as a joke. If this blog is about anything, it is about open exploration and asking what may seem like obvious questions.
Ok, if Marty is serious, then I’d ask him how likely it is that he could fall in love with another male.
Marty – why do you assume that gays are repulsed by the female body. You are not attracted to men but I assume you’re not repulsed by your own body.
“As far as physical attractiveness goes, is there really a huge difference between a butch female and a slighlty effeminate male?”
Marty, do you mean are the “butch” and the “effeminate” both un/attractive? Or what? And how do you understand “butch” and “effeminate”?
And Warren, yeah, I’ve heard of the boom. Just forgot about that particular term…though your context was slightly different. I would probably assume my child would turn out to be a “str8by”, given statistical probability.
Marty,
I think it is too simplistic to assume that gay people find the other sex “repulsive”. Absense of desire is quite different than repulsion. I doubt that you find men in general to be repulsive, but rather that you are not attracted to them emotionally, romantically, or sexually. The same is true with gay people.
I think it is also fair to say that the differences between the sexes is not limited to genital configuration. Recent studies have shown marked differences in biology – scent emitted, scent respondence, spatial orientation, auditory responses, and a whole bunch of other differences. Additionally, we are all aware that there are also differences in things like empathy and aggression – though, of course, some of that may be conditioned.
if Marty is serious, then I’d ask him how likely it is that he could fall in love with another male.
If I told you it was extremely likely, would you call me a bisexual?
I’ve “fallen in love” with many men, and many women. I’ve only had sexual relations with a tiny fraction of the people I love.
I’m 100% heterosexual by choice. Why couldn’t I manage to love those men and women I find worthy of loving?
Why do you (or anyone) limit who you are able to love, because of their gender? This is what I’m trying to understand. Do you find them “repulsive”? Or is your “attraction” to the same-sex just so overpowering as to make any possible attraction for the other sex seem insignificant?
You can go ahead and call me “closet bisexual”,– others have mistakenly done that, so I won’t mind. But from my perspective it is simply open-mindedness. Why WOULDN’T I be able to love a beautiful and attractive man? I choose not to even consider it for a variety of reasons — but could I? Why the heck not! He’s an awesome person! I surely couldn’t reject him simply because he had a penis, could I?
Tim K., are saying you are incapable of loving a woman because of how she smells?? Surely you can do better… And I hope you will try.
With Dr. T’s permission, and with thanks for letting me open this line of inquiry by approving my previous comments, I’ll open my heart even further in hopes of understanding some of your own perspectives:
When I was 8 years old, my parents adopted a 5 year old Korean girl. Growing up with my sister, it seemed impossible to me to ever be attracted to an asian girl. Just as, being a slim young man, it seemed impossible for me to be attracted to an overweight girl. Or, as is the case with so many of my white friends, it seemed utterly incomprehensible that I could ever be attacted to a black woman. As if origin, weight, or race were a sufficient reason for me to judge another person unworthy of my love?
Somewhere along the way, my mind was opened. It’s not that I can fall in love with everyone I ever meet — that’s far from accurate. But some truly were lovely people, and not so difficult to imagine Loving, Fully, regardless of their weight, origin, race — or even their gender. Things that were once “repulsive” to me came to pale in comparison to their attractiveness as members of the human species. Beautiful people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and genders.
Which is why I’m asking any here who care to reply, why some humans are deemed unworthy of your love (or why you may be incapable of expressing it to them fully), because of their gender, and nothing more.
Am I missing something here? I’m not saying anything — I’m just asking.
Which is why I’m asking any here who care to reply, why some humans are deemed unworthy of your love (or why you may be incapable of expressing it to them fully), because of their gender, and nothing more.
Marty,
I’m not sure how to answer this. My boyfriend would say “there’s no accounting for taste.” Often, the chemistry of attraction is impossible to understand. However, just because I may not want to go to bed with someone doesn’t mean they are unworthy of my love. I don’t want to sleep with my mother, but she’s a wonderful human being and I love her. I have very close relations with women which are in no way devalued because I am gay.
The reason that I don’t fall in love in a romantic way with a woman is because we would never be able to meet each other’s deep emotional needs. I vacation every year with my closest female friend and we enjoy each other’s company, but we could never complete each other. We are as the gods made us and it isn’t to be.
You appear to have trouble with the concept of platonic versus erotic love, and I suspect that you may have problems in your own life with boundaries. Maybe this is something with which someone like Warren could help you.
g
Gordo: The reason that I don’t fall in love in a romantic way with a woman is because we would never be able to meet each other’s deep emotional needs.
Can you explain why? Not why a particular woman cannot meet your deep emotional needs — but why NO woman could.
This reminds me a bit of a child in a store:
Mama, can I have the Barbie Magic Castle with movable drawbridge and flags on the turrets?
No
Why?
Because I don’t have the money for it at the moment
Why?
Because I’m on a budget and we need to get food for dinner
Why?
Because Mommy doesn’t have a job and Daddy hasn’t had much overtime lately.
Why?
At somepoint you have to realize that the kid isn’t really looking for answers. She just wants to argue until she wears her mother down and she gets the castle.
And I think it may be time to recognize that Marty isn’t really looking for answers to his questions. He’s just trying to argue.
I hope I’m wrong, Marty. But so far that’s pretty much all I’ve seen…. and sorry, but no you aren’t going to get the castle.
Tim,
I considered whether Marty is a troll, but wrote a response last night anyway. Unfortunately, the crappy wireless at the hotel gave out as I hit Submit Comment and I lost everything. I’ve been chasing errant numbers since then and haven’t had time to re-write a response.
Marty – women don’t fascinate me like they do straight men. I’ve dated women and got serious once, but ended it because it didn’t feel right. Soon after a male friend kissed me and I saw stars for the first time. “Ah, so that’s what its supposed to feel like.” As I said, that’s how the gods made me.
g
Marty said:
“Can you explain why? Not why a particular woman cannot meet your deep emotional needs — but why NO woman could.”
Based on Gordo’s previous post about his boyfriend, I’d guess the answer is because he’s gay.
Tom, thanks for the insults. But I was under the impression that you didn’t want to argue… care to take a stab at the question?
Gordo at least tried to say something helpful (after snidely suggesting that I had “boundary issues”). He said it’s because girls don’t (can’t?) give him butterflies. Again I ask, what is the nature of the difference between men and women that cause this different reaction? Smell perhaps (nod to Tom)?
Ken makes a circular reference to avoid answering the question at all…
So I repeat what I wrote two days ago, and will give you another chance, in good faith:
” is there really a huge difference between a butch female and a slighlty effeminate male? And if so, what is the nature of that difference?”
Marty et al – I have allowed all comments thus far because the discussion has been reasonably civil. I think points have been made and I would ask that all concerned simply make their points or don’t respond.
As far as I am concerned, there may be no intellectual reason why I could not love some man in a romantic way but I sure cannot imagine it with feeling or desire. An analogy – I am drawn to rock and blues but not to polka. I do not think there is a polka gene I am missing, and I do not think there is a rock gene; I do not remember choosing to dislike polka or like rock. These events are out of my awareness but I most assuredly have preferences. I suspect my brain is wired that way now.
Research is very clear (although requires replication) that exclusively gays and straights react at an unconscious and neurological level in opposite ways to putative pheromones and other triggers. Brain activation stimulates desire – that’s just how it is. I personally believe that for some romantic attachments can stimulate desire but this is by no means applicable to all. I also believe some people are gratified best by a sense of affiliation with their faith.
So, best I can gather, there is some strong, powerful, yet not-quite defineable difference between men and women. 100% straight people “get it”, and 100% gay people “get it”, and some of us who lie somewhere in the middle might be somewhat ambivalent about it — whatever that “it” that none of us seem capable of explaining, actually is.
Does that seem like a fair statement to you guys?
As far as I am concerned, there may be no intellectual reason why I could not love some man in a romantic way but I sure cannot imagine it with feeling or desire. An analogy – I am drawn to rock and blues but not to polka. I do not think there is a polka gene I am missing, and I do not think there is a rock gene; I do not remember choosing to dislike polka or like rock. These events are out of my awareness but I most assuredly have preferences. I suspect my brain is wired that way now.
Yes, assuredly so.
Of course, orientation differs significantly from the polka/rock dichotomy because unlike rock or polka, orientation forms absent any experience of it. Sexual/romantic attractions need not ever have been modeled to be present. But no one loves rock or polka absent their exposure to it.
Warren,
I’m not trying to “recruit” you or anything, but how do you know you don’t like polka? Maybe you just haven’t met the right band.
Jim – Salsa Polka? Wow, I like the Hokey Pokey tune but I am still saying no to Polka
But one may dabble without really having polkaphilia. I even wrote a polka song once in response to a Bible study. You can sing it roughly to the tune of the chorus of Beer Barrel Polka:
No sex in heaven
No fooling around up there.
No sex in heaven
But we are not going to care.
No sex in heaven
But don’t fear it will be allright.
There will be no sex in heaven
So honey let’s have some tonight!
I wonder if the Brave Combo would want to record it?
So, best I can gather, there is some strong, powerful, yet not-quite defineable difference between men and women. 100% straight people “get itâ€, and 100% gay people “get itâ€, and some of us who lie somewhere in the middle might be somewhat ambivalent about it — whatever that “it†that none of us seem capable of explaining, actually is
Does that seem like a fair statement to you guys?
Not exactly. We don’t know everything we probably will know at some point in the future, but we do have pretty good evidence that brain activation involving at least the hypothalamus is involved in current differences. So if I look at a picture of an attractive female, my brain does one thing; if I look at a handsome man, it does another. Exclusively gay men have an opposite reaction. How these differences occur is still a puzzle.
Warren, I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with anything I’ve said so far. But to use your example,
“So if I look at a picture of a a man [who for all intents and purposes looks much like an attractive female], my brain does one thing; if I look at a woman [whose appearance is that of a handsome man], it does another.”
I’m asking if (and why not, if not) a “handsomely butch female” is not attractive to a gay man. And whether or not she could “meet his deep emotional needs” is a different, bur related question.
well put, Warren
I would agree as well. I think Marty’s trying to argue something from a purely logical standpoint that isn’t experienced logically.
And as for Brave Combo recording your lyric, Warren, they just might. On one of their albums, (“Polkas for a Gloomy World”, I think”) has this as a verse for “In Heaven There Is Not Beer”:
In Heaven there is no sex
so let’s do that next!
And when our muscles no longer flex,
someone else will be having sex.
Marty,
You keep asking the same two part question.
Do gay men find handsome butch women attractive? And if not, why?
The answer to the first part is “No”.
I’ll let someone else answer “why” that is the case (the last time I tried answering you it resulted in mocking so – I’ll avoid going there again).
But I can state with certainty that gay men do not find butch women attractive. So you can stop asking that question.
Please.
The implication seems to be, Marty, that a “butch woman” is in some way equivalent to a “gay man”–that the lesbian is more “man” and the gay man is more “female”, and so maybe they meet in the middle somewhere, and can be attracted to one another.
As a reasonably butch woman (who frequently finds herself passing as a man, though I am not trying to), I will just state that this is far too binary of a way to understand gender self-identity. Butch women are not merely “manly women” nor are gay men merely “effeminate men.” Rather than waste time laying out why, I’d simply refer to you to some basic gay studies books which discuss those issues. You could also read the stories of individuals like Leslie Feinberg (drag king dreams and stone butch blues) and I presume there are gay men who would have another side to tell you.
Hope that helps… I tried to clarify your question much earlier in the thread, but it seems to have been overlooked. I’ll just assume that’s because I’m a lesbian in a man’s world… whether gay or straight
[And for the record, there is nothing in the opposite sex I find "repulsive"--I have quite a few guy friends--and it's quite possible, that given enough time and energy, I could find a man that I'd live reasonably happily with, though I doubt to the extent that I am happy with my female partner of four years.]
RE: Marty’s question, I remembered this Brewster’s Ice Cream commercial…
The big reveal just changes things…
Thanks for your response CK. Yes, I did miss your earlier comment.
For the record, I’m not asking anything about orientation per se — I’m asking about the differences between men and women — differences that are more than “skin deep” (great commercial warren! perfect!).
Because when a straight man swears he could never be (attracted to\emotionally bonded with) another male, I tend not to beleive him. Same goes for gay men who swear that no women exist who could sufficiently stimulate them physically and emotionally.
So either a) there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender, or b) there is still some large (and largely undefined) difference between men and women that proves a. to be false — a chasm that this great diversity is still unable to bridge.
Thanks for all of your replies.
It ia more complicated than that Marty. See this article by Diamond. Some folks can trigger sexual desire via the romantic route.
Warren, I think this article (or the summary at least) validates exactly what I have implied.
To wit: “Although it is typically presumed that heterosexual individuals only fall in love with other-gender partners and gay-lesbian individuals only fall in love with same-gender partners, this is not always so”
This seems consistent with my position a), that “there is so much diversity among men and women, that any of us are really capable of bonding with either gender”.
Do you disagree? Sure, it’s all very “complicated”. Far too complicated for me to quietly accept claims that “It is impossible for me to love someone of a particular gender.”
Marty, I think what is interesting is that you’re looking for the possibility that a gay or lesbian person could, potentially, someday, maybe, find a person of the opposite sex they could love as deeply and romantically as they do someone of the same sex. Lots of “ifs.”
Those of us who have struggled in living out these questions are probably coming to a few similar conclusions (but I’m really speaking for myself here, not all gay people!):
1) It is not impossible that what you say could happen. Most LGB people have had relationships of the opposite sex and we wouldn’t say it’s a farce, just different from the fit we have with our same sex partners. I nearly married one man several years ago, but called things off, recognizing that I would be heading for disaster (for several reasons, my sexual orientation being one of them).
2) There being no ethical reason for us to *not* settle down with an available, similarly-inclined individual of the same sex, with whom we have fulfilling, loving relationships, most of us have stopped looking for that needle in the haystack. If I felt that my relationship was bringing negative side-effects into my life, then perhaps I might continue on–but I see no reason that a same-sex partnership cannot be as healthy (or healthier) than the nebulous “potential what-if” relationship I’d aim for with a man.
3) Life is lived in terms of what you’ve experienced. If, after decades (for me, just one decade) of trying to change, or to find that person, it seems unlikely that it will happen. So why continue?
I think there are just some very different presuppositions going on here, in terms of what life is about, and how it’s lived–that’s why the conversation is starting to stall. Instead of asking, whys and what-ifs, maybe you could start with where we are. Then you could fill in the blanks in terms of your own hypotheticals. But we’re not dealing with abstractions here–as one of your earlier posts indicated (when you started to see people as they were, rather than just categories). So abstractions are not really useful for understanding what’s at stake.
Thanks for your honesty CK. As much as I’d like to delve into your 3 points deeper (because for me, they open more cans of worms than they close), I’ll save it for another time.
Marty